Ferdinand Bardamu versus his critics

Note: I was going to publish this post this morning, but my Internet connection blew out last night before I could finish it.

I wasn’t planning to return to the Islam thing anytime soon, but because I published a guest post on the subject yesterday, I’ve decided to revisit the issue. This post is comprised of replies to commenters on my Draw Muhammad Day post and Cecilia’s post “You Talk Like a Girl“, where I am apparently a hot topic of discussion. Rather then throw up a bunch of scattershot replies all over the place (especially considering Cecilia’s blog uses nested comments, which makes exceptionally long discussions hard to follow), I’ve responding in one big post.

To summarize, Null thinks I’m naive for accepting the textbook definition of neoconservatism, accuses me of being a hypocrite for not “tak[ing] a stand against policies of [my] own supposedly democratic government supported with [my] own tax dollars”, and “would like to see evidence of this strong correlation between being Muslim-majority and state failure that [I] point to.” She also tries to claim that the Muslim gangs that plague countries like France and Sweden aren’t really Muslim. Both Null and Cecilia think that I hate Muslims, and Cecilia in particular takes issue with my description of Muslim fanatics as cunts. Höllenhund thinks I’m spreading “neoconservative agitprop.” Whiskey and Matt Parrott don’t like my description of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures as “pointless”, and Matt also thinks I’m trying to avoid “dealing with the POINT” (which presumably begins with “t” and ends with “he Jews”). Here’s what I’ve got to say on these matters:

1) Null is wrong about the gestalt of the neocons. Every definition of neoconservatism makes specific mention of how it revolves around how it “supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.” Prominent neocon thinkers such as Charles Krauthammer and Victor Davis Hanson specifically argued that the Bush administration should invade Arab countries to transform their governments, and even non-neocons acknowledge that their championing of democratic reform in the form of post-war nation building is one of their chief concerns.

If Null wants to argue about the motivations of the people in charge of the government, that’s one thing, but no one can seriously argue that spreading Western values and systems of governance to non-Western nations is not a fundamental plank of neoconservative ideology. You could go the War Nerd route and accuse them of being clandestine traitors, but that violates the old maxim of never attributing to malice what is easily explained by stupidity. Yes, what the neocons advocate is basically rapacious imperialism, but not since the Mongols drowned half of Eurasia in a tsunami of blood have conquerors been able to talk openly about their desire to rape and pillage. You have to claim to be killing for a higher cause, be it God, the fatherland, or the liberation of the proletariat if you want to get anywhere. Neoconservatism is basically a version of the White Man’s Burden for the new century, mixed with Trotskyism and served with a side of tikkun olam.

2) Draw Muhammad Day was BOTH “a free speech issue” and a “retribution issue.” If Muslims didn’t take to the streets worldwide, burning cars and screaming bloody murder the last time someone dared to draw a picture of Muhammad, the holiday would never have occurred. If liberal governments and media conglomerates didn’t bend over backwards for Muslims out of fear that a bunch of maniacs would put fatwas on their heads, the holiday would never have occurred. By reacting in such a ridiculous fashion, Muslims basically brought this on themselves.

3) I don’t “expect good, ‘moderate’ Muslims to participate in “Draw Muhammed Day””. Nor do I give a damn about “curbs on free speech on the part of governments that are actively supported by the US”. Since not all tribes operate by the same rules, it’s not nearly as big a deal when rights that are taken for granted in Western countries aren’t implemented outside the West. Not all peoples are equal. Get over it.

4) I never claimed that Muslims have a monopoly on failed states, or that religion is the sole factor that determines state success, but that Muslim-majority states are disproportionately failed ones. There is not a single Muslim-majority nation with a standard of living equivalent to that of any Western nation. The richest Muslim states, oil exporters like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, would be quiet, undeveloped backwaters if it wasn’t for the civilized world’s petroleum addiction. The most successful Muslim-majority states such as Turkey are only on the developmental level of Brazil. Blaming whitey will only get you so far, considering that:

a) Many Muslim-majority states, such as Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan were either never colonized by Western powers or were only colonized for extremely short periods of time.

b) Using states as “pawns in foreign wars” and installing “sock puppet despots relying on Western aid to stay in power” are only possible if the underlying state was weak to begin with.

5) Trying to claim that the roving minority gangs in France or Sweden aren’t truly Muslims is a lame copout, akin to leftists claiming that the Soviet Union wasn’t “truly” communist. Also see: no true Scotsman fallacy. Religion forms an integral part of many ethnic identities - Catholicism is intertwined with Italian identity, Anglicanism with the English, and Orthodox Christianity with the Russians. Islam is likewise an integral part of many tribal identities, namely the identities of many of the minorities who are causing problems in the West. If we only count devout practitioners of religions as true members of that faith, the membership of every non-cult religion worldwide would tumble to a negligible number. The thugs roaming Malmo may not go to mosque every Friday, but they’re still Muslims. You can’t wash your hands of them that easily.

6) a) You don’t need a “clash of civilizations” theory to know that proximity + diversity = war. Different tribes simply do not get along, and when they’re forced to mingle, violence, racism, and bigotry result. The only way to control a highly diverse population in a small space is massive government intervention in every sphere of life. This is why nations comprised of different tribes, such as Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, vacillate between dictatorial totalitarianism and sectarian anarchy. The only reason why New York City isn’t a hotbed of violence, despite its diversity (as Sparks123 recently asked) is because New York City is the closest thing America has to a fascist police state. The Crown Heights riot was the popping of the Big Apple’s whitehead of inter-tribal conflict, and New Yorkers responded by electing a mayor who cleaned up the streets by violently enforcing every non-crime in the books, from drug possession to graffiti. His successor has been jamming the government’s meaty proboscis everywhere it shouldn’t be, and he was re-elected twice, the second time after specifically suspending a law limiting mayors to two terms in office. New Yorkers aren’t stupid. They know that Big Brother is the only thing between them and all-out civil war. In short, multiculturalism is the enemy of freedom.

b) When someone relocates to a new country or region, they are expected to at least tolerate the values and customs of their new home, if not accept them outright. When you’re a guest in someone else’s house, you respect their rules or you don’t go there. For example, Americans who insist on imposing their culture and practices on others when traveling or living abroad are rightly mocked as “ugly Americans”. But if I were to refer to belligerent third-world immigrants in Western countries as “ugly Muslims” or “ugly Mexicans”, everyone would shout me down as a racist bigoted xenophobe.

c) I don’t hate Muslims. My problem is with those both in the West and without who are trying to impose their retrograde way of life on me and my brethren. I also despite the imbeciles on the left and the right who thought allowing millions of low-IQ peons from alien cultures to settle in Western countries was a good idea. I have no beef with Muslims who respect Western values (of which there are plenty), but those who don’t like how Western nations operate should go back to their shithole countries where they can wallow in their wonderful culture like pigs in mud all day long and no one will care. This is less of a problem in America, as our Muslims tend to be more educated, wealthier, and it’s easier for our degenerate liberal institutions to reprogram their children (see: Rima Fakih) then the ones in Europe, but I still would rather not live in Baghdad West. I also oppose liberals and neocons who want to impose Western ways on Muslims. We leave you alone, you leave us alone. Capisce? (Also see here for more on my views on radical Islam.)

7) Outside of Judaism, Islam is the religion that most people try to NOT crap on. Whether it’s out of fear or “cultural senstivity”, liberal Western governments and media outlets treat Muslims like a protected class.  For them to react in such a whiny, bratty fashion in response to the tiniest cuts is fucking galling. If Christians started riots every time some jackass slighted them, every city in every country in North America, Europe, and Australasia would be on fire 24/7/365, and the streets would be stained red with the blood of heathens. Welcome to the club, you pansies.

8) The willingness to get violent doesn’t preclude cowardice. Muslim youths who run rampant in Sweden and other countries aren’t doing so because they’re brave – they’re doing so because they know the natives won’t fight back. It’s the behavior of a bully. Bullies are inherently cowardly, because the only people they pick on are those who won’t resist them or can’t. When they get into a fight with someone who can take their shots and dish out their own twice as hard, they either flee or surrender. The minute that the governments apply the slightest pressure to the Muslim thugs is the minute they’ll get on their hands and knees and start groveling for their lives.

9) Reacting to every perceived insult in an over-the-top manner is not manly. Part of being a man is understanding the concept of proportionality. When some asshole cuts me off on the highway, I get angry and slam my horn – I don’t follow the guy to his destination, pull him out of his car and beat him to death. It’s generally women and children who are incapable of recognizing when to let things go. For Muslims to react to the Muhammad cartoons with violent protests is proof positive of how unmanly they are. They’re like spoiled brats who throw temper tantrums whenever their parents don’t give them exactly what they want.

10) I don’t have a religion, per se. I’m officially a Catholic and was educated at a Catholic high school, but I don’t believe in God or go to mass. And even if I did, that would have nothing to do with the point of my post. The point is that when free speech is the law of the land, you can’t pick and choose which groups are acceptable to attack. Either nothing is off limits, or everything is. If Christianity can be ridiculed, so can Islam and any other religion for that matter.

11) It’s not my duty to correct every commenter on my site who says something stupid. If I were running a serious political outfit like Occidental Dissent or the Bay Area National Anarchists, I’d moderate comments with a heavy hand and take pains to keep morons from stinking up the comment threads. But since this blog is nothing more than an outlet for my thoughts, what the peanut gallery says is more or less irrelevant. This blog is an open forum – aside from the one rule I have, anyone can say anything and I will not censor it.

12) If someone’s got a sensible justification as to why we need to be in Iraq and Afghanistan in the year 2010, I’d like to hear it. The goal of the Afghan invasion was completed when we forced the Taliban out of power a month after attacking. Getting Osama bin Laden is utterly pointless – without the support of a government, all he can do is wander the mountains and make the occasional spooky video. And Afghanistan’s only export of value is opium, which we can’t take advantage of due to that whole “War on Drugs” thing. Afghanistan should have been like the Gulf War – get in, smash the enemy quickly, and get out. As for Iraq, we invaded them to get weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. Watching people still try to defend the U.S. government’s biggest fuckup since Vietnam is hilarious, I tell ya. And even if there was a point to that invasion, why are we still there?

13) The biggest pro-Muslim anti-Semite out there is Richard Hoste. See here and here. Half of Steve Sailer’s commentariat also seems like they’d welcome the Caliphate if it would wash away all that Jew-created debauchery and decadence. You could also toss in every paleocon from Pat Buchanan to Taki Theodoracopulos to Paul Craig Roberts who claim to be anti-imperialist and anti-interventionist, but love to either gush like schoolgirls over the Palestinians or co-opt the language and theories of leftists to condemn Israel. They’re not really a big problem – which is why I only devoted part of one paragraph of the post to them – but they still annoy me for reasons I’ve already mentioned.

14) As for the one taboo I haven’t “torn through”, all I can say is check in tomorrow or Thursday.

Tagged as: Alte, Draw Muhammad Day, Höllenhund, Matt Parrott, New York City, Null, Sparks123, Whiskey