Clowns & Jokers

Stuck in the middle.... Left, right, centre. It's a mess out there.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Reasons to Not be Cheerful 1-10

Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? ten reasons why not

1) Western Incoherence: The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”.

2) Underestimating the Threat: The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”.

2.5) Underestimating the ‘Religion’: Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule.

3) Crap Western Leadership: Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States. During the half-century of the Islamic revival, it has shown itself at sixes and sevens both diplomatically and militarily.

4) ‘Islamophobes’ & ‘Apologists’: Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam. They include hyperventilating Islamophobes as well as academic apologists for the worst that is being done in Islam’s name.

5) Leftist Guilt: The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand.. Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, …. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.

6) Trojan Horses: The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Those who feel such satisfaction could be regarded as Trojan horses, a cavalry whose number is legion and which is growing..

7) Moral Poverty: The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not…

8) Propaganda: The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen.

9) Dependency: The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries. In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, recommending to the US Congress an American declaration of war against Germany, could say that “we have no selfish ends to serve”. American levels of consumption make no such statement possible now. The US is, so to speak, over a barrel.

10) Powerful Retrograde Force: Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion. In 1899, Winston Churchill asserted that there was “no stronger retrograde force in the world” than Islam.

Shortened version - Full article in The TimesDavid Selbourne is the author of The Losing Battle with Islam, which was published in the United States in November last year

What do you think?


At Sunday, 03 December, 2006, Blogger The Pedant-General in Ordinary said...

This is all good stuff, with the exception of 7, which is utter balls:

"7) Moral Poverty: The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not…"

Freedom and Liberty are many things but they do not represent moral poverty. The subjugation of women, the crushing of dissent and the actual real economic poverty that that engenders might be a better target for that phrase.

At Sunday, 03 December, 2006, Blogger Eric said...

Selbourne's a hand-wringing bed-wetter, but unfortunately, he's also right on many of these points. I particularly agree with his point that Islam is less a religion than it is a political-military movement (my preferred classification).

Where he's dead wrong is his apparent belief that these are irreversible conditions.

At Monday, 04 December, 2006, Blogger MonicaR said...

Hmmm. Pretty gloomy. I have to admit I am worried. There are a few factors that he doesn't take into account. A couple that I can think of:

1. Us 'Rednecks'
2. Much of civilian America is armed

I have no idea how this is going to turn out. I do not believe that most Americans are truly aware of the problem. They are getting their news from the local paper and we know how badly that has been working out these days what with the newswires reporting completely false information.

There really is no way of predicting how this will end at this juncture. It has the potential to get very ugly.

At Monday, 04 December, 2006, Anonymous alison said...

I think 7 is silly also. Its more a moral vaccum than poverty and her refers to the wromg example.

Im worried also that not everyone is aware enough Monica..

Eric - totally agree with you about his position ( hand wringing bed wetter) but that i agree with most of what is said.

He was not viewed too kindly by Jihadwatch and LGF but i think they largely missed the point of what he was saying.

At Tuesday, 05 December, 2006, Blogger Sperestillan said...

"He was not viewed too kindly by Jihadwatch and LGF but i think they largely missed the point of what he was saying."

Why am I not suprised? lol

At Tuesday, 05 December, 2006, Anonymous alison said...

lol. they've moved onto the C4 debacle now. i think they are hyperventilating over that one. i think its time to do a post about the british media & all its eccentricities that have infuriated and amused the GBP for a good century now...just generally to explain it a bit. i dont think they get it. thoughts welcome! from the madness of the gossip columns, to the scandals...the Sun winning elections for the Tories,the Guardian becoming the Grauniad, my dad throwing things at the screen during Question Time. Give a better understanding of it! Its very different in America, you are a bit cocooned.

At Wednesday, 06 December, 2006, Blogger Sperestillan said...

And Channel 4's aim has always been to shock people hasn't it, but after twenty years or so it's getting a bit worn now. Channel 5 appears to trying for the tried and trusted sex theme with for example 'A Girls Guide to 21st Century Sex' which, although interesting gave me an 'eewie' moment when showing cosmetic surgery and I stopped watching it in case they did something like that again. I don't think there was any need for them to go the whole hog though and show people having sex like they've been doing. I seem to remember the BBC of the 1970s giving off this calm authoritative air, seemingly devoid of any bias and yet now appears to come across as a reincarnation of the late 1980s Channel 4.
I was watching 'This Week' on BBC1 last week and someone was arguing that the Sun didn't win the election for the Tories, that The Sun merely reflected public opinion, but I don't agree with that. I think that The Sun has a huge impact on how its readers vote and perceive things.
Anyway, I hope you do a post such as you describe, I'm sure a lot of us would enjoy reading it.

At Wednesday, 06 December, 2006, Anonymous alison said...

cheers. actually i AM annoyed at C4 because they got all they wanted out of this. yes it should have been buried as a story ignominiously. But it hasnt been. The BBC highlighted it and the msm have gone nuts so it has to be tackled. Two courses of action there: ignore it and dismiss it make it look stupid or ask them some tricky questions. I think Jonz at IBA asked the right ones. it IS infuriating its now being shoved in our faces. Through no small part via the blogosphere. Tackled this at ATW but i will cover off the msm aswell. they need a boot up their arses not to put too fine a point on it - and bloggers need to be a bit clever in how they do it. totally possible when you think how well this is done at biased bbc and how well blogs exposed the dirty goings on at reuters.

At Wednesday, 06 December, 2006, Blogger Sperestillan said...

It would be understandable, of sorts, if they were like this with everyone but they aren't. Their attitude stinks.
But here's an idea that somebody on 'Up Pompeii' suggested. It was that as many people as possible organise a boycott of all products advertised on Channel 4. Not sure how workable that would be as I rarely watch that channel and have no idea what they advertise these days.
Also, in relation to making it look stupid, others have been suggesting that as she would be wearing the full cover on her head and therefore unrecognisable, it means that people can make a copy but dub it and then distribute it round the internet. Alternatively it would also be possible to create some fake 'rehearsals' and distribute those prior to the event too.

At Wednesday, 06 December, 2006, Anonymous alison said...

thanks for that heads up - i know there are ideas circulating...:)


Post a Comment

<< Home