Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • The Peaceful Majority are Irrelevent

    Posted by Michael Hiteshew on March 22nd, 2016 (All posts by )

    Video Published on Jul 18, 2014

    I just picked up a link to this today and thought it was impressive. A muslim girl showed up at a Heritage Foundation discussion on the Benghazi attack to put on a ‘Poor me! What about us moderate muslims?’ act.  Not to condemn what jihadis had done, not to pledge her support to fight against them, not to say how she is organizing peaceful muslims to combat terrorism in the United States. No, of course not. She owes the West and the United States nothing, least of all defense. She showed up to play the victim card, or was possibly sent there as part of a strategy to use political correctness as a weapon to encourage Western weakness in the face of violent islam. Either way, Brigitte Gabriel was having none of it. She gave her a piece of her mind and made some excellent points along the way. If more people were this clear headed we’d have a lot fewer problems in the world.

     

    26 Responses to “The Peaceful Majority are Irrelevent”

    1. pst314 Says:

      Something I still recall from around 2002, about the “moderate” Muslim who blogged at “City of Brass” (now at Patheos?): When somebody commented on how few Muslims in the West publicly protest Islamic intolerance and violence, his only response was that he had his blog and was under no obligation to go outside and join any protests. Absolutely nothing to say about the how virtually no other Muslims show up either.
      Conclusions:
      1. He only pretends to be moderate and tolerant, and in reality he looks forward to the day when we “infidels” are subjugated.
      2. Truly moderate Muslims are very rare.

    2. TangoMan Says:

      Truly moderate Muslims are very rare.

      Truly moderate Nazis are rare.

      The point is that it’s impossible to be “moderate” where moderate is defined as coexisting peacefully with others and not being either a danger to others or disruptive to others when what you believe is immoderate in the extreme.

      Islam divides the world into the House of Peace (Muslim ruled) and the House of War (where Muslims do not rule.) There are special rules in place for Muslims who live in the House of War to help them cope and to aid them with the task of transitioning their host society over to the House of Peace.

      You cannot be a Muslim and be moderate, not when Islam calls for the penalty of death for male apostates.

    3. pst314 Says:

      “Truly moderate Nazis are rare.”

      I like “truly moderate fascists are rare”:
      There are and have been plenty of fascists who never themselves committed violence.
      Even in fascist Italy most fascists did not participate in mob violence.
      But those “moderate” fascists supported the violent ones.

    4. TangoMan Says:

      Fascism says nothing about killing disbelievers. Nazism instructs that Jews be killed. Islam instructs that those who renounce the faith be killed. What I want to focus on is how to reconcile moderation with a belief which requires murder of opponents.

    5. pst314 Says:

      “Fascism says nothing about killing disbelievers”

      What I like about “moderate fascists…” is that it usefully provides an historical analogy divorced from current controversies: Liberals are already agreed that a large fraction of the citizens of fascist Italy were culpable for fascism’s crimes even though they did not themselves commit violence. By reminding liberals of this historical fact and then pointing out the similarities to what we face today, one can push liberals to recognize the lie that is “moderate muslim majority”.

    6. TangoMan Says:

      Thanks for the clarification. I see your argument now.

    7. Bill Brandt Says:

      Hear hear

    8. Mrs. Davis Says:

      So?

      What are the implications of the fact that 75% of muslims are peaceful? This Spengler article makes clear what it will take to rid the world of the radical muslim virus. Now what will it take for the US to implement the 30% solution? I fear nothing short of the nuking of an American city. And thanks to 0bama we are one step closer to that day when we shall again sing:

      I have read a fiery Gospel
      writ in burnished rows of steel,
      “As ye deal with My contemners
      so with you My grace shall deal,”
      Let the Hero born of woman
      crush the serpent with His heel,
      Since God is marching on.

      Dar-es-Salaam needs to be Shermanized.

    9. Tyouth Says:

      The term “radical muslim” is a misnomer. I’m not sure what one should call the Muslim that “acts out” the violent and duplicitous parts of the creed specified in the Koran. (“practicing muslim”, perhaps?)

      In time there is no end to “terrorism” as long as the religious-creed of the Koran is enabled by it’s followers…the indoctrination seems to be very effective. As long as the indoctrination is effective (which not only binds the young to the belief system but prejudices them to outside influences and ensures personal failure, generally, WRT to western peers) young idealists will act out the creed.

      Churchill’s quote (which can land one in jail for expressing it in Great Britain) expresses it well: from the online “The Federalist Papers Project”:

      “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

      The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

    10. Anonymous Says:

      Maybe the Muslim enclaves here first? Not a pretty thought, but depending on the sequence and timeline of our progression as a House of War it could start here after a major domestic attack.

      Death6

    11. Will Says:

      Brigitte brings it again, she can really rake. Notice Frank’s expression at she takes the comment. “uh, oh, here we go…” Years ago, we had an elderly Lebanese neighbor who grew up in Beirut. A nice man, he would get teary-eyed when he spoke about how beautiful his city was. He always said it rivaled the French Riviera, and then shaking his head and a wave of the hand, “ah, what’s the point”.

    12. george Says:

      The status of victim is especially prized today because then one’s bad behavior is excuse, justified and enabled by the larger society. What a deal.

    13. Jonathan Says:

      Something I still recall from around 2002, about the “moderate” Muslim who blogged at “City of Brass”…

      If we’re going to go by anecdotes, Chicago Boyz briefly had a contributor who was not merely a moderate Muslim but a vociferous atheist. Notably he lived in the West. There are all kinds of people out there, and there are so many Muslims who aren’t engaged in anti-western, anti-Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist or Muslim-internecine hostilities that it’s shortsighted to lump all Muslims together. It seems likely to me that if we in the West, and especially at the top of the US govt, expressed more confidence in our own culture and made clear that we will protect Muslims who are on our side, more Muslims would publicly side with us against the jihadis. What we’ve got now is closer to the opposite situation, in which our president implicitly sides with the jihadis (by treating them as legitimate and ignoring or siding against their opponents, e.g., in Iran, Turkey and Egypt) and the public behavior of our bureaucracies is tied up in obtuse political correctness that refuses to draw distinctions between different Muslim factions, so of course most Muslims are going to avoid siding with us. We should be emphasizing differences among Muslims rather than asserting uniformity. Conservatives are just as bad on this point, though from the opposite direction, as are wooly-headed liberals who think all men are brothers.

    14. Tyouth Says:

      “…rather than assuming uniformity”. But Jon, doesn’t a Muslim, by definition, stand by the Koran?

    15. TangoMan Says:

      It seems likely to me that if we in the West, and especially at the top of the US govt, expressed more confidence in our own culture and made clear that we will protect Muslims who are on our side, more Muslims would publicly side with us against the jihadis.

      Should the same be extended to David Duke? How about out and proud Nazis? I don’t know Duke’s history, but I’m under the impression that he never actually committed any atrocity, so what’s the problem with embracing him and Nazis (who don’t kill Jews)?

      Just like you can’t be a good person while simultaneously believing that all Jews should be gased and butchered, you can’t be a good Muslim while believing that it is proper to murder men who renounce Islam and that it is proper to overthrow the government of your host country so that Islam can rule over the land.

    16. Anonymous Says:

      Tango, didn’t you mean, “…without believing….” rather than, “…while believing….”?

      Jonathan, how can a Muslim be an atheist? It’s a religion/ideology not an ethnic group.

      Death6

    17. Jonathan Says:

      doesn’t a Muslim, by definition, stand by the Koran?

      I’ll leave identity tests to members of the group. If someone calls himself Muslim that’s good enough for me.

      —-

      Should the same be extended to David Duke? How about out and proud Nazis?

      What do such freaks have to do with American culture? What is characteristic of American culture are belief in freedom of expression and of religion, and in protecting the rights of minorities.

      —-

      Jonathan, how can a Muslim be an atheist? It’s a religion/ideology not an ethnic group.

      Why not? As with any large group there are probably many members who are nonbelievers or no longer believers but who go along with the group identity because they don’t have a better alternative or simply because it’s convenient.

    18. Jonathan Says:

      I would add that there is a logical flaw in what I take to be Gabriel’s argument. It’s bad that a majority of Muslims does not openly oppose the anti-western minority. However, this fact does not obviously imply that the West should focus on the wavering loyalties of the peaceful Muslim majority. The wavering loyalties IMO are often effect rather than cause. We would do best to focus on defeating the hostile minority, while making clear that we will protect Muslims who side with the West and punish those who side with the hostiles.

    19. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      >> while making clear that we will protect Muslims who side with the West and punish those who side with the hostiles.

      Except we do neither.

    20. Mike K Says:

      Mrs Davis, thank for the Spengler link. I consider him and Richard Fernandez my go-to guys but I missed that one.

      He has previously commented on low fertility in Iran but this was new to me.

      one out of eight Iranian women was infected by chlamydia, a common venereal disease that frequently causes infertility

      Everyone should read that essay. I post on other blogs for entertainment but this one is a source of education for me.

      Jonathan, an “Atheist Muslim” would be an oxymoron but there are a few, usually who have seen the beast from inside the belly.

      There was also a great professor, Fouad Ajami, who wrote Dream Palace of the Arabs, a very good book. He said he was an atheist but understands the culture. It is sad we have lost him.

      Hirsi Ali is another. Not a Muslim but a refugee (literally) from Islam.

    21. Trent Telenko Says:

      I have a new column up on Brussels and Europe’s emerging Muslim insurgency.

      Check it out.

    22. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Thank you, Mike. This has been a discouraging week.

    23. Tyouth Says:

      “Why not? As with any large group there are probably many members who are nonbelievers or no longer believers but who go along with the group identity because they don’t have a better alternative or simply because it’s convenient.”

      Aye, exactly similar to 1930s and 40s Nazis.

    24. Jonathan Says:

      Aye, exactly similar to 1930s and 40s Nazis.

      I don’t think it’s similar, because I don’t think Nazism has any redeeming qualities – it’s essentially disappeared from the world since the Nazis lost the war; it was unable to coexist with non-Nazi ideologies. Islam, by contrast, has been around for almost two millennia, and contra western conservatives not always by conquest. It has been beneficial to many people, and there are many Muslims who are willing to coexist with the West and modernity. Lumping them with the hostiles does not seem likely to help us to defeat the hostiles.

    25. TangoMan Says:

      it’s essentially disappeared from the world since the Nazis lost the war; it was unable to coexist with non-Nazi ideologies.

      But Islam is different? Check out the Bloody Borders of Islam. It’s at war everywhere.

      It has been beneficial to many people, and there are many Muslims who are willing to coexist with the West and modernity.

      So is Nazism. There are people who willingly join and believe. There are also Nazis who live day to day without killing Jews, just like there are Muslims who live day by day without subjugating their neighbors. Problems seem to arise only when you give the Nazi or the Muslim the upper hand and the opportunity to put their beliefs into practice.

      Lumping them with the hostiles does not seem likely to help us to defeat the hostiles.

      They are the hostiles, they’re hostiles because of their belief system, not by their individual criminal acts. Look at what a few Bolsheviks managed to do. Absent their belief system, there would have been no USSR.

    26. Mike K Says:

      I think there are some benign Muslims but they are unable or unwilling to express their opposition to the jhadis.

      And for very good reasons.

      A newsagent was murdered by a fellow Muslim after he wished his Christian friends a peaceful Easter.
      Asad Shah, who was stabbed up to 30 times at his shop, had praised both the life of Jesus and ‘his beloved Christian nation’. Left lying in a pool of blood, the 40-year-old died in hospital.

      Police, who were questioning a 32-year-old suspect last night, said the killing was religiously motivated.
      Mohammad Faisal, a family friend, said a bearded Muslim wearing a long religious robe entered Mr Shah’s shop and spoke to him in his native language before stabbing him in the head with a kitchen knife.