Islamophobes, You Definitely Need To Read This Essay

Ed.'s note: How is that in Russia with Islam as the nation's second most widely professed religion can the Russians get along so well? According to a nationwide survey conducted in 2012, Muslims in Russia numbered 9,400,000 or 6.5% of the total population. The Russian Orthodox Church in Russia with an Islamic population of that number are all living in relative peace with each other. In order for the US to be used as a proxy there had to be brought into existence a hatred of Islam. We give you 9/11 complete with Islamic patsy pilots while Russia is solidifying its grip over 1.8 billion Muslims. Tell us America hasn't been used as canon fodder.
________

Source: The Saker

Legitimate questions which need answers

November 27, 2019 | 116 Comments

[this analysis was written for the Unz Review]

When I wrote my recent article "Deconstructing Islamophobia" I expected a rather outraged reaction from the usual circles, but I have to admit that the actual level of outrage and even pure rage really surprised me. In fact, I never realized that hatred for, and fear of, Islam had reached such a level, especially in the USA. From time to time I write something which really rattles the cages of those who like their reality simple, black and white, and who have a profound aversion for analysis, nuance or any form of complexity. But I have to admit that the article on Islamophobia is probably the one which resulted in the most hysterical outbursts of a weird kind of impotent rage. I therefore want to revisit this topic and give the other side a chance to respond to some of the absolutely unavoidable questions which western Islamophobia at least should elicit in the thinking person. Here are a few questions to which I would love to hear some fact based or logically developed answers.

But first, let's make a few key assumption purely for argument's sake.

1. Islam is a religion of violence, it was spread with violence and it condones violence, including for religious reasons. In fact, Islam encourages violence in its followers.
2. Islam is a medieval and barbaric religion. It is completely incompatible with western values.
3. Immigrants from Muslim countries represent a clear and present danger for western societies and if their number exceeds a certain percentage they can take over a western society and impose their religious values including Sharia law.

Now, I think that even the most rabid Alt-Righter is at least vaguely aware that Islam has several schools of jurisprudence and theological interpretation, even if, by our definition, these schools are all equally "bad". Which brings me to my first question for my detractors:

The question of discrimination

From their own words, it appears that Islamophobes have come to the conclusion that all this talk of different "strains" of Islam is totally useless and potentially self-deceiving. The truth is, at least according to the Islamophobes, that all of Islam is evil and dangerous, maybe with some minimal variations here and there, but only on the margins. Okay, if I take the point of view of the Latin Papacy towards what they called the "Photian Schismatics" (aka Orthodox Christians), there are three "solutions" the Latins came up with to "solve" the Photian Schism:

1. Convert 1/3rd of the Orthodox Christians
2. Expel another 1/3rd of the Orthodox Christians
3. Murder the remaining 1/3rd of the Orthodox Christians

Since the Latin Papists are probably the most advanced and experienced "genociders" (not sure if that is English or not) in history, let's apply their wisdom to the "Islamic problem" and offer the same "solutions":

1. Convert 1/3rd of 1.8 billion Muslims
2. Expel 1/3rd of 1.8 billion Muslims
3. Murder 1/3rd of 1.8 billion Muslims and, just to cover our bases any combination and ratio of the three solutions above

Yes, genocide, as a concept, was invented by the Papacy which was also the first to engage in it.

True, the leaders of the West never hated Islam as much as they hated Orthodoxy – hence their recurrent "ecumenical war coalitions" à la "Crimean War" or à la "NATO War Against the Serbian Nation"

So much for the so-called "Christian West"…

Now if that is our plan, then I suggest that discrimination between the various Muslim groups would be absolutely crucial. If you really and sincerely believe that you can convert, expel and/or murder 1.8 billion Muslims then I would like to also sell you a few bridges in prime locations on our beautiful planet, really. In fact, I would also offer to sell you the Moon, Mars and Venus for one cheap price since, truly, you apparently have no ability to think critically. Because, let's be honest here, anybody with a minimal knowledge of history would immediately see that this plan is simply not doable, regardless of how much hatred one has for Islam and Muslims.

I submit that whether you hate Islam or not, the ability to discriminate between various "strands" of Islam (which is one of the things I have always advocated) is crucial irrespective of whether you think that Islam is a religion of peace or a religion of war.

So here is my first question: are you seriously advocating taking on and declaring your intention of aggressively dealing with a religion which has a total potential of 1.8 billion people closing ranks and resisting your aggression?

Next, comes the question of positive values

This is another basic and simple one. If you condemn Islam or even oppose it vs some western values, you should at least have a rough list of such western values which you want to defend and in the name of which you will oppose Islam in general and the potential actions of Muslim immigrants in the West. I mean, you cannot at the same time declare that Islam is "homophobic" AND declare that you are defending the values of the "Christian West". Likewise, you cannot ban Sharia law for corporal punishment AND support torture in your own jails. Finally, you most definitely cannot accuse Islam of advocating the crushing of pluralism and free speech when you yourself use all the power of the state and the power of the corporations (which, in reality, own that state) to crush free speech and pluralism in your own country. If you prefer, you cannot oppose Islam BOTH in the name of Pope Pius XII AND Conchita Wurst.

So here is my next question: in the name of what, and with which values, do you propose to deal with Islam? what alternative model can you offer the Muslims which they might find as an attractive alternative? What are your (so-called) "Western values"?

If, say, "family" is a western value, who do you think did more to destroy it, the French themselves with the rabidly anti-religion and anti-family 1789 Revolution or the Arab Muslim immigrants (which the French capitalists deliberately imported into France, even with their entire families!). For all the (partially true) accusations of homosexuality being present in some (true, but not all!!) Muslim countries, who do you really think does more to show "understanding" and "an open mind" about homosexuality (even going as far as allowing homosexuals to adopt children!) – western Christians or Muslims?

Think carefully!

Next, the question of the dangers of what I call "ignoring Bismark".

Bismark once famously wrote that "politics is the art of the possible". I fully agree and I submit that this also applies to how non-Muslims ought to shape their relationship with the Muslim world. Next is the issue of intention vs capability. I call that:

The question of the commensurability of goals and means

Again, that is a very simple one. Whatever you propose to do with Muslims and Islam – first you need to make sure that you have the tools needed to implement your plans. Let's take a simple example: France. According to a research paper from the Pew Foundation as of mid-2016, there were 5.7 million Muslims in France (8.8% of the country's population) and Islam is the 2nd religion in France after Latin Christianity. Also check out this graphic from the same article, as it gives you estimates of the number of Muslims living in Europe.

In reality, however, the real number of Christians in France is artificially bloated because, just as in Russia, these figures simply include those who identify themselves as "Christians", including in the cultural sense, and who, in reality, are not practicing Christians at all. I believe that since the proportion of Muslims who take their religion seriously is much higher than in Christianity (including Orthodox Christianity) and so if we really could compare the figures of God-fearing and pious Muslims versus God-fearing and pious Christians then the first religion of France (and probably Russia) already is Islam and not Christianity.

Still, since I cannot substantiate this in any way, let's stick to the official figures and allow me to ask a few basic question about France (but they are valid for most western countries).

When you propose to expel Muslims from France, are you seriously contemplating the deportation of almost 6 million people?

Did I hear you say "oh no, we will only deport two categories: illegal immigrants and religious extremists". That is all fine and well, but let me ask you how many people currently living in France qualify under these criteria? And, no less importantly, how many Muslims are there in France who do NOT qualify under your criteria, but who WOULD vehemently oppose the deportation of their family members, friends, members of their cultural or religious communities? How many of these “good Muslims” will demand due process in each case? How many of these "good Muslims' will also collect funds to oppose Islamophobic policies and propaganda?

Because one thing is clear: if you want to deport only illegal immigrants and all religious extremists, then maybe you have a chance. But if you declare "Islam per se" as the threat, then all you are doing is uniting all Muslims to resist you and your hatred of their religion. Not very smart, to put it very gently.

Alternatively, when you propose to curtail the religious rights of French Muslims, what tools of the state do you plan to use to enforce their compliance? The special services (intelligence? counter-intelligence? counter-espionage? counter-terrorist?). The police forces? The armed forces?

As somebody who has personally dealt with exactly that question (how to deal with mass social explosions of the future based on past experiences) from the inside I can tell you that this was one of the tasks which was often discussed in (strictly confidential) meetings between military, internal security and police experts in all western countries, even those who would never admit it. Furthermore, western powers also engaged in numerous (very interesting) command-staff exercises in which the issue of how to deal with explosions of social unrest were also modeled, tested and evaluated. I cannot discuss the details of our findings, but I can tell you this: neither the intelligence community, nor the police, nor the military are the correct "tool" to deal with such issues. Why? Because typically the intel community is already busy with other issues and has neither the manpower nor the finance to start seriously monitoring millions of people, especially when many of those millions speak a different language and have a very tightly knit community.

Neither are police forces a solution. They are much better trained in law than security or military personnel, but they lack both the expertise and, literally, the firepower needed to deal with severe social unrest or, even less so, a full-scale insurrection.

As for the military, it has plenty of firepower, but it is trained to destroy enemy forces. If the 92% majority chooses to unleash its armed forces against an 8% minority that is called a civil war and, by the way, that is EXACTLY what happened in the Ukraine and the Donbass. Do you really want that for your country?

In theory it is really simple: ban halal killing of animals (but don't touch kosher animal killing), ban halal butcher shops (but not kosher shops), ban Quranic schools (but don't touch Ulpanim or Yeshivas), ban mosques (but not synagogues), ban hijabs (but not sheitels, shpitzels or yarmulke), etc. If asked about this, the simple reply is that Islam is a medieval religion which is a religion of violence and wars whereas Rabbinical Judaism (aka Pharisaic Talmudism) is a progressive religion of love and peace, that's all. Heck, the so-called "Christian West" has now even officially adopted the so-called Noahide Laws which declare Christianity a form of idolatry! Last, but certainly not least, wage war on as many Muslim countries as possible and allow Israel to turn you into a voiceless colony, proud of its host status, at least for the Judaic parasite.

Reality is very different however.

First, being the Judaic's/Zionists' "bitch" usually makes you hated and despised everywhere, including in Israel, by the way. That also inevitably alienates a big chunk of your patriotically-inclined population. But let's ignore all that. In fact, let's forget about the Middle-East and let's assume that 92% of the French people are totally united behind a plan to "de-Islamize France". Now think it through and you will immediately see the problem.

Even if only 1M of the 5M Muslims in France actually resist, your combined security/police/military forces could not deal with that kind of resistance without a huge bloodbath which will ruin your country (again, this is exactly what the Nazi-occupied Ukraine tried after the Euromaidan coup!). Furthermore, civil wars tend to radicalize people. Thus a mass deportation of Muslim immigrants will inevitably generate a sense of outrage combined with a much revived sense of what the French call "communautarisme": a type of identity politics centered on the clan, the tribe, the ethnicity. In other words, those kinds of policies will only serve to create more, not less, crazed jihadis! Is that really a good idea? Civil war with a simultaneous rise of extremism? How smart is it to advocate for this?

Besides, are you really sure that you got the right target?

Please go to The Saker to read the entire essay.
________


Related:

Sam Francis and the Triple Melting Pot: Race vs. Religion


Only because this essay by the Saker mentioned the Talmud:

Talmudic Tyranny: Philly's Top Lawyer Is Soros-Puppet Bent on Letting Blacks Murder Whites


Stick this article on Israel into the context of the above essay:

Israel controls US through money and media: Writer