PostHeaderIcon Islam – Straight, Fearless, & Frank

Troy has suggested we engage in a discussion of Islam. To set the tone, I suggest we take the lead from our old friend Pat Condell:



It doesn’t get much straighter, fearless, & frank than that…  â—„Daveâ–º

19 Responses to “Islam – Straight, Fearless, & Frank”

  • Chris says:

    It’s difficult to add anything to Mr. Codells comments. Granted he’s speaking about Europe but the same thing is happening in the US just at a slower pace. That could be due to geography as well as although our immigration policies in my opinion are way too lenient they are still tougher than most of Europe. What’s both surprising yet not surprising is that politicians are pushing to relax those policies in a time they should be tightening them.

    In the past our immigration policies have been fashioned to first insure security and second insure prosperity. Neither is the case now. I can only believe that there is in fact a push for global governance as well as a global economy. It’s not just a conspiracy theory although many attach shadowy secret organizations and groups to describe it it’s really much simpler. Global corporations want to operate the same across the globe. They want a situation where they can manufacture as cheaply in the US as they can in China. They want the same legal protections for their property in China as in the US. Parity can be accomplished in a few ways. China can be brought to the US level, The US can be brought to China’s level. Both a great leap for one or the other. The path of least resistance is to meet them in the middle. This is evident in both the relatively recent opening of China to a more market economy as well as the binding of the US economy. The US is no longer the most economically free nation in the world. We are somewhere around number ten. Also of note is the actual decline in the middle class wage over the past seven years. That’s not by accident. It’s leveling the playing field.

    What does this have to do with immigration? Plenty. To accomplish this goal of a level playing field the majority population has to accept it and sooner or later they will. Notice most immigration now comes from places under totalitarian rule. Whether it be South American dictatorships, or Sharia controlled middle east countries. These people once here see a lack of freedom and totalitarian rule as business as usual and actually embrace it for the benefit of government largess. They have no concept of a bill of rights unless they can use it to further their own benefit. Basically using their freedom of speech to tear down rights of property and due process among others.

    Why the Jew hating? Low hanging fruit. Every movement needs a demon to agitate the masses. On an individual basis Jews are less likely than any other to strike preemptively. Stop and think about the Israel situation and compare it to the US. If the French population in Quebec Canada were lobbing rockets over the border trying to hit NYC what would we do? I think Israel uses a great deal of restraint. The thing is if it weren’t the Jews it would move to the next easiest path of resistance. The next ideology least likely to mount a push back. Face it. A Jew is the only thing the Islamist hates more than a Christian. They are persecuting Christians as heavily as Jews wherever they can get away with it. Wherever they are in a great minority. The only reason is to cement their complete control. Anyone with one eye open can see that Islam is much more than a religion.

    On immigration overall. We have a right to allow or deny anyone entrance we want for any or no reason. It’s time to start punishing the countries that allow and foster Islamists. No visas to a Saudi prince to visit NYC strip clubs or brothels until he gets control over the population of their country. I only use that as an example. Any Islamic country will get only diplomatic visas to visit heads of state. From the airport to the whitehouse and back back to the airport. No fine dining or hotels or trips to visit infidel women. State your business and go home. No educational visas until they can prove their population holds no ill will to the US. Why the heck do we educate these people? So they can turn around and use their education and knowledge of our culture against us? When a terrorist attack happens in a western country and there isn’t dancing in the streets of the middle east we’ll think about letting those people come here. Islamists say American citizens are responsible for what government does. That is how they justify killing any American. Well it’s time we held them accountable too. Call me racist if you want but I’m not the one dancing over death and destruction.

    Well I’ve rambled on long enough. Probably somewhat off topic. I hate no one but I’ll be darned if I would let others crap in my yard without them paying for it.

    • Troy says:

      I agree with what you say — however, in the case of the UK and France, there is an additional dimension. When their Mid-Eastern and African colonies were demanding freedom, both entities stupidly (IMHO) granted the departing colonists automatic citizenship in the ex mother countries with free right of emigration. What dividends it is paying now!

      Can you imagine “no-go” zones where the domestic authorities make no attempt to enforce the law? It does not get much more stupid that that.

      The obviously correct emigration policy for all nations should be “assimilate or don’t enter”.


      • Chris says:

        That is something I didn’t know Troy. That’s worse than the American “anchor baby” situation.

        • Troy says:

          I fail to understand your comparison of people coming here intentionally to destroy our culture and subjugate us with so called “anchor babies” who are mostly innocent subjects of parents seeking work and a Republic that will not enforce its own laws.

          Indeed, the whole “anchor baby” issue is based on an absurd interpretation of the 14th Amendment which should be repealed (its purpose was to ensure citizenship for newly freed slaves — since there are no more such slaves to free, the Amendment has no function other than a basis for mischief on the part of progressives).


        • Troy, I interpreted Chris’ comment to mean that Europe’s immigration policies regarding ex-colonists was even worse than our ‘absurd’ misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to allow birthright citizenship to anyone born on our soil, whether their parents were legally here or not. â—„Daveâ–º

    • When comparing the immigration policies of Europe to the US, there are some important distinctions to keep in mind. Monarchs have ‘subjects,’ republics have ‘citizens.’ As the ultimate source of his wealth, power (conscripted military), and income (taxes), it was always in the monarch’s best interest to increase the number of subjects owing fealty to the crown. Thus, the residents of conquered or colonized places were happily ‘subjugated.’ Once deemed subjects of the crown, by law their children were automatically born subjects also. This is why the Obamessiah was born a British subject (wherever the blessed event took place), because his (legally recognized) father was.

      It is also why our Founders were guilty of treason, as most were legally ‘subjects’ of King George. In the early stages of our Revolution, most of his American colonists remained steadfastly loyal subjects. Even after he lost the war and his colonies, that did not change the legal status of those choosing to remain subjects of the crown. Any who wished to do so, could have repatriated to England with full rights and privileges of an Englishman, even if born in a colony.

      If one thinks about it, Troy, when England chose to divest itself of the responsibility and expense of maintaining its (no longer lucrative) colonies, they really had little choice but to continue to honor the rights of their subjects living there. Just because the political arrangement of the governments involved changes, really shouldn’t affect the personal status of innocent individuals. They may be ‘subjects’; but they aren’t exactly chattel. If Puerto Rico were to be granted independence, and turned over to a local government, would that somehow disenfranchise all of the American citizens of Puerto Rican decent? If the Marxists then came to power and people started fleeing to America, would they be considered alien refugees, or welcome American citizens?

      Another thing one must grasp is the nature of the ‘new’ European Union (EU) immigration policies, which now permit freedom of movement and residence between themselves. This is not like opening our border with Mexico; but more like our freedom to travel to and/or move our residence between our 50 States. The EU is a federation of sovereign states, who had to relinquish a portion of their sovereignty for the supposed benefits of free trade, common currency, etc., just as our own States had to do when forming our own federation or ‘Union.’ Californians can visit or move to Texas, and vice versa, without the legal permission of either State, whether the natives like it or not. Now, England and France et al are in the same boat.

      Unfortunately, when these two issues are combined, dire consequences (intended or not) can and do occur. A Pakistani with the birthright to move to England, for example, can then choose to move on to France, whether Frenchmen like it or not. It matters not that France was not responsible for England’s adventures in India, which eventually bestowed ‘European’ citizenship status on Pakistanis. Then, just as happened in our own large cities and suburbs (when it became illegal to discriminate in real estate back in the ’60s), ‘white flight’ created ghettos.

      How different are our gang controlled, crime ridden, ethnic ghettos to the Muslim ‘no-go’ zones in France? When the street thugs are restless, it is too dangerous for a cop alone in a squad car to patrol either, much less walk a beat. Witness Ferguson, MO for the show of force necessary for the authorities to deal with a riled up ghetto of malcontents, who are just looking for an excuse to riot, burn, and loot. Before we get too insistent that immigrants assimilate to our culture, perhaps we should work on convincing our native ghetto-dwellers to consider doing it. Like the Frenchmen, it is easier to just keep moving further away from the alien culture that is infesting our ghettos, and pretending the uncivilized vermin don’t exist, or at least don’t affect our daily lives.

      Assimilation is not as easy as it might seem. I have lived in 8 countries and 16 States (sometimes adapting to the culture of a new State is more daunting than some foreign countries – e.g. Hawaii). Eschewing the model of the ‘Ugly American’ overseas, or the ‘Yankee’ label in the South or ‘Red Neck’ in the North, promptly ‘going native’ was a talent I perfected; but it frequently was met with hostility by other expats, who were too proud of their heritage to stoop to adopting local dress, customs, cuisine, or language. I can imagine that immigrants here face similar sanctions from their peers, especially among religious fundamentalists who find many of our mores rather offensive. How is the wearing of a head scarf or even a hijab by a Muslim woman for religious modesty purposes, any different than a fundamentalist Christian woman habitually wearing long dresses with high necklines and long sleeves for the same reason? Yet, we get our knickers in a twist over the first, while tolerating the latter as only an old-fashioned oddity of the pious.

      While the Europeans may not have had much choice in allowing the Muslims to invade their culture, we certainly did. We are deliberately committing cultural suicide for very shortsighted political reasons. As I have often said, demographic trends dictate that eventually our decedents will be down on their prayer rugs five times a day praising Allah… in Spanish. ◄Dave►

      • Troy says:

        Your observations comparing our inner-city ghettos with the “no-go” zones in France are interesting and true. This raises a sidebar question that has nothing to do with Islam… why should any civilized country not only tolerate non-contributing, highly dangerous people but, in fact, to go so far as to pay them to breed? (Don’t get me started on also letting them vote!)

        As for your comparison of Islamists with fundamentalist Christians, you should know full well that I hold them in equal contempt. In both cases, they promote ignorance, intolerance, violence and poverty.

        I have been reading about Islam in Wikipedia and find it a hard read but, nevertheless, informing.

        Now, as to former colonists being granted automatic citizenship in the “mother” country, I still maintain it is a mistake. Of course, colonization itself is equally wrong. The right approach then would be to leave other countries and other cultures alone to figure it out for themselves — by themselves. Too bad there is no way to retroactively educate our ancestors. Instead, we are stuck with the fallout from their blunders.

        Probably the sheeple are right — take what is available at the moment and don’t worry about anything else. If only I could learn how to do that.


      • Troy says:

        Assimilation is not as easy as it might seem.

        Sorry Dave but the millions from all over the globe who came here and did assimilate dispute this. OK, maybe not the easiest thing one ever did but it all depends on intent does it not? You come here to be American and pursue the American Dream and you most likely assimilate. You come here to undermine our culture and you don’t assimilate.

        A while back, the then PM of Australia said, in effect, if you want to come live here, understand that YOU will have to change. WE will not change our culture to accommodate you. I thought this one of the most sane thing a politician had said in years.


        • I cheered the PM’s remarks too. Unfortunately, our politicians seem to have the opposite view. The last thing the Progressives want is for immigrant peasants to assimilate, adopt traditional American values, and become self-reliant individuals. If they can keep them bottled up in a class of victimized minorities, they stay natural constituents of their party.

          I was only pointing out some of the difficulties in assimilating in a new culture, because I have had to do it so often in a long life. My own experiences prove that it can be fairly quickly accomplished, if one’s intent is to do so. However, I do not believe that one necessarily has to intend to subvert our culture, to not diligently work at assimilating. When there is no social pressure to do so, and indeed peer pressure not to, accomplishing the feat is problematic. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Troy says:

    Mr. Codells comments are correct and apply to the USA as much (perhaps more? see my response to Chris about automatic citizenship).

    That said, while I have nothing against discussing the current state of things Islamic, I am more interested in understanding when and by what means the current hatred, intolerance and rejection of reason became dominant. Several hundred years ago, Islam was among the (for the time) most modern of the several major religions. It fully embraced art, the sciences and education.

    What manner of mental or spiritual virus took hold? Further, did the West, and Christianity, have anything to do with it? For instance, were the crusades a major catalyst?


    • OK. Look up Islam in the Wikipedia,and notice all the different sects and their history. It would appear that there was a period when the strict dogma of the Koran may have been less influential in some sects, which permitted science, etc. to emerge among them. The fundamentalists are on the ascendancy at the moment, and they take the Koran and other Islamic writings very literally. For them, they must eschew modernity and return society to the 8th century to be ‘godly’ as they interpret same. â—„Daveâ–º

      • Troy says:

        The Wikipedia article on Islam suggests that the plague had something to do with it but I fail to understand how. I do understand that the plague made parts of Europe ripe for invasion and that such invasion did happen. However, I can’t see how that contributed to the trend toward fundamentalism.

        My own suspicion is that the decline in wealth, ergo education, in the Islamic world was a major catalyst but I have not learned enough (yet) to explain when and how.

        Perhaps the spread of Islam into Arabic lands also made a significant contribution. While many of these are wealthy (today), that wealth is invariably concentrated in the coffers of the few, usually the rulers. One need only look at the demographics of our own Nation to see how the evil twins, ignorance and poverty, create an environment for sustaining fundamentalism.


        • Islam has never had a reformation, and desperately needs one. The problem is that their holy writs are pretty specific about how to deal with infidels, and those moderate Muslims who accept modernity probably do so with a niggling measure of guilt. This makes them rather susceptible to charismatic and/or ruthless religious leaders telling them they must get right with their god… or else. Modern history is replete with examples of fundamentalism overcoming enlightened secularism in the Muslim world. The Shah’s Iran, Ataturk’s Turkey, etc. have fallen to fundamentalism during our lifetimes. Even Pakistan embraced modernity before the Taliban took over.

          What would Christian fundamentalists, who believe that every word in the Bible is infallible, be like if they didn’t interpret that the horrific teachings of violence in the Old Testament were superseded by Jesus’ gospel? Unfortunately, Islam teaches that Mohammed was the final true prophet, so it is not open to the notion of a “new covenant” or reformation. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Chris says:

      The Crusades were for the most part a small blip on the radar screen of world conquests. At the time nothing more than trying to take back what was taken. By the time they started Muslims had already conquered all of North Africa as well as Spain and were heading into France. It’s all pretty much irrelevant though. To compare what was then nothing but geo politics to today makes as much sense as taking gospel as well…gospel. Yet it’s out there. More an excuse than a justifiable reason. A fabrication not unlike the “Palestinian refugees”.

  • Here is an interesting timeline of the Muslim/Christian wars through history I just stumbled across:


    • Troy says:

      Good article. So, it would seem that, from a war perspective, we and they are simply re-heating a cauldron that has boiled over for centuries.

      While that is good to understand, I still does not answer my core question — why the rise of radical fundamentalism, in both Islam and Christianity, which seems to have happened within my own lifetime?

      I cannot help but guess that this tracks directly with the rise of ignorance and the corresponding failure of the educational system.

      To be more precise, I think it is the failure of the education system to expand and develop properly as increased general prosperity gave the unwashed masses political power that they had not really enjoyed before WWII.

      In a word, expanding prosperity post WWII has spread political (and war mongering) power to a mass of people, on both sides, that can’t locate their posteriors with both hands.

      Whether it be American slaves, farm boys who have seen “Paree”, Russian serfs or Middle Eastern goat herders, any system that grants people political power without the education required to properly exercise it, has sown the seeds of its own demise.


      • Troy says:

        I should have also noted that the aforementioned unwashed mass also tend to be the most religiously oriented, even though most have no idea what their worship is really all about, ergo, they also spur the growth of fundamentalism in all religions.

        In a word, since they are incapable of understanding the nuances of their various religions, all they can do is take the associated texts literally, however self-defeating that may be


  • Troy says:

    By coincidence, I listened to part of the Rush Limbaugh program this morning. The segment I heard concerned Islam with focus on the crusades — evidently sparked by some more stupid remarks made by POTUS at a National Prayer Breakfast. Many people called in to comment and I was amazed to hear all the supposed reasons given for the crusades (retribution for Muslim terrorism, for the Muslim invasion of Southern Europe, etc.

    I was of the (perhaps misinformed) understanding that the crusades were launched specifically to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims who had taken it to make it into a Muslim holy site. Per the Muslim fairy tale collection, the prophet left there on a magic horse to travel to heaven even though the historical Mohammed never got near the place.

    In the final windup, nothing really good came of the crusades other than the Knights Templar having invented an ancient version of the travelers cheque.


Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links