How different is Islamic culture?

Posted by Al Ross on January 22, 2006, 07:41 PM | #

There is, I believe, more than a touch of sadism in the requirement that women in some very hot Middle East countries wear black chadors while men’s traditional attire is a cool (in the word’s uncorrupted sense) white. Perhaps this colour dichotomy is meant to discourage women from venturing oudoors. Too many Muslim males harbour a culturally innate aversion to women and this unnatural behaviour stems from the precepts of the Muslim religion.

Posted by Calvin on January 22, 2006, 08:27 PM | #

It’s not a “mixed” message. The Koran is unequivocal about the status of women. The Koran teaches that women exist for the sexual pleasure of men. Men are regarded as so driven by sexual lust that women are required to don ugly garments in order not to incite their passions. This is based on an assesement, which is true in my opinion, that Islamic men are incapable of fully relating to women in a normal way and are incapable of self restraint when confronted by a confident attractive woman. That even their own wome have to go to such lengths to protect themselves from the animalistic lust and lack of self control of Muslim men is conclusive evidence that Muslims can never play a part in a civilized society. I don’t see this as solely a religious phenomenon, race is an obvious factor. The Latin races, who have had significantly more intercourse (NPI) with the Moors, have a well established reputation for sexual incontinence.

Posted by A Casual Observer on January 22, 2006, 09:38 PM | #

Maybe if Western societies required their female Islamic citizens and non-citizens to wear thong bikinis to the beach the Muslim men would quit raping Western women.

I’m sure Wicked Weasel would be more than happy to make a donation of thongs to them!

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 22, 2006, 10:31 PM | #

It’s not about mixed messages or raping white women per se. It’s about the battle to save their culture. Losing control of the morality of your women, means losing control of your way of life.

James R. Woodhill of The Woodhill Foundation…urged the use of America’s ultimate weapon against our Islamist foes ... our degenerate culture.

Larry, You are Just Not Getting It. This is the most important point of all, and one Bernard Lewis makes constantly. The Jihadists are right to hate the U.S. because they are right to fear the U.S.

They fear our decadent (I rather think “degenerate” has a better “ring” to it, actually) popular culture and lifestyle’s seductive power over their youth, for the same reason you and Bill Bennett fear the same thing. The Jihadists know that if The Great Satan is not destroyed, their culture and way of life will succumb to Western Secularism even faster than Christianity succumbed. Their most important property—their women—will be lost to them through Women’s Liberation. They probably don’t know (but should) that this will ultimately result in participating in the curious process that has already started in the West that I have termed “Auto-Genocide”—demographic “evaporation” due to a birth dearth (at least a birth dearth among the people who transmit the culture of the West to their children).

If America is not destroyed, their granddaughters (or their granddaughters’ granddaughters) will be wearing thong bikinis and scr—ing their high school boyfriends in hot tubs. Just like ours are.

Possibly the advent of Islam will be a good thing for the West. If victorious it will destroy liberalism, feminism and the prevalence of the Frankfurt School doctrine. It would reverse demographic evaporation and in the battle between tribes, as Darwin points out, fertility is critical for deciding who will survive. If not then the western ethos will prevail with all its suicidal tendencies.

Posted by Steve Edwards on January 23, 2006, 12:35 AM | #

“Possibly the advent of Islam will be a good thing for the West. If victorious it will destroy liberalism, feminism and the prevalence of the Frankfurt School doctrine.”

No it won’t, because there will cease to be anything called the “West” if it became Islamic. Agreed, it won’t be good for liberalism, but the “West” and “liberalism” are not one and the same.

Posted by Andrew on January 23, 2006, 12:51 AM | #

What about a simpler solution,
Just remove the root cause of Muhammadism.
And that would be Saudi Arabia

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 23, 2006, 03:07 AM | #

What is the West today, Steve, except for the culmination of a full scale destruction of Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism. The West survives only as a stinking, rotting, decaying mess.

It’s quite the connundrum. If secularism triumphs the West dies. If Islam triumphs the West may regain some moral standing however it is no longer the West.

Posted by Phil Peterson on January 23, 2006, 03:48 AM | #

Desmond,

That’s like saying, “getting eaten by Hyenas is better than getting eaten by Lions!”.

Both represent death. Make no mistake about it.

Posted by Mark Richardson on January 23, 2006, 03:57 AM | #

Desmond, you might be interested in the following. I’m reading a biography of the American radical, John Reed. He was at Harvard in 1909, and he fell in love with a student, Amy Stone. The biographer adds,

“The romance with Amy was all in the mind and the heart. At early-century Harvard, love was one thing, sex distinctly another. Girls were not chaperoned, but there was little question of overt physical relations with the females from Radcliffe or Boston whom students dated. While upperclassmen were expected to drink and smoke - and Jack did both - sexual relations with women were a blot on any reputation. One acquaintance of Reed explained that “men who boasted of their immoral relations with women were not highly regarded at Harvard, and seldom reached prominence.”

Very different to the conditions I experienced at university, in which a loveless, casual sex was the norm, accompanied by bad blood between men and women.

Posted by john on January 23, 2006, 05:58 AM | #

Lighten up guys, look on the positive side:
http://www.jimgoad.net/musgirls.html

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 23, 2006, 06:06 AM | #

Desmond, the West might be corrupted now, but it was once great. Western civilization is worth preserving not only because its our civilization, but also because its the finest this world has ever produced. How many Asians read Shakespeare? And how many Westerners read Asian literature?

The advent of Islam would spell an end to this civilization. Our descendants might remain technically speaking white, but they sure as hell won’t be white in any historical sense of the word.

But then, as I noted on another thread, you seem to despise the very notion of culture.

Posted by Calvin on January 23, 2006, 09:05 AM | #

Resorting to Islam to cure Western decadence is rather like amputating a leg to cure an ingrown toenail. Just because right minded Westerners want to stop the cultural decay that is turning our young women into sluts and young men into passive degenerates doesn’t mean we should celebrate the prospect of them being made into the slaves of Islam.

Posted by Steve Edwards on January 23, 2006, 01:17 PM | #

Desmond’s position is indeed crazy. I understand that Islam is resurgent and stands against everything we are supposed to hate. But it does not follow that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. And Desmond himself said it would “possibly” be a “good thing” for the West to be taken over by Islam.

Perhaps it would be good for Muslims to avoid the ailments of Westerners, but I think we should look for our own cure, rather than trying to import one from a historically often hostile civilisation.

Posted by FaceRight on January 23, 2006, 01:46 PM | #

Having seen pictures of my great grandmother at the beach in her Victorian “bathing suit”, this only proves that the Muslims are about 100 years behind us.

As for the rest of the discussion, it’s pretty obvious that there is an enemy within AND an enemy without - neither is preferable, but one could argue that the enemy without would not be a threat if the internal rot was not so advanced.

Posted by ben tillman on January 23, 2006, 02:19 PM | #

The advent of Islam would spell an end to this civilization. Our descendants might remain technically speaking white, but they sure as hell won’t be white in any historical sense of the word.

Why do you assume that Islam would not be remade by its European adherents as occurred with Christianity?

Posted by Phil Peterson on January 23, 2006, 06:03 PM | #

Why do you assume that Islam would not be remade by its European adherents as occurred with Christianity?

Because for Islam to triumph, the existing Muslim ethnic groups will need to become a numerical majority. That means North African, Sub-saharan African, Arab, South Asian and Turkic Muslims become a majority in Europe. If that happens, the white race would be doomed anyway.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 23, 2006, 08:41 PM | #

Christianity’s appeal in the Roman Empire was not derived from a majority semitic population. It was a mystery religion.

The “Edict of Milan” (AD 313) declared that the Roman Empire would be neutral with regard to religious worship… Enforcement of the Edict returned the meeting places and other properties which had been confiscated from the Christians and sold out of the government treasury: ” ... the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception ... “. It gave to Christianity (and any other religion) a status of legitimacy alongside of paganism, and in effect disestablished paganism as the official religion of the Roman Empire and its armies.

Posted by Steve Edwards on January 24, 2006, 01:26 AM | #

You will have to overthrow the ethnic majority of each European country for Islam to triumph. It won’t happen by conversion, but by replacement.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on January 25, 2006, 01:26 AM | #

Why does almost everyone have to go into long-winded dissertations of attributes,history,cultures,etc.,when the bottom line is—MUSLIMS DO NOT THINK AS WE WHITE PEOPLE DO !Nor do Blacks for that matter.They have their own agendas and goals,which which should be anethma to Whites,but we allow them to espose their mantras IN OUR COUNTRIES-Honor-killings,burkas,genital mutilation,rap music,drive-bys,gansta groups,etc.,etc.We Whites built this world,every advance in the last 1200 years was of WHITE origin.Ignorant Muslims still Cohabitate with their goats [or goatherds],stop all endevours 5 times a day to pray to a big rock in Mecca,indiscriminately kill their own people[wanting those70 virgins].Blacks—they still live in mud/straw huts,have no written language of their own,have not technically progressed beyound the late stone age,and have an IQ somewhat above a chimpanze.AND WE KISS THEIR BUTTS EVERY DAY !! WTF?

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 27, 2006, 01:07 PM | #

Desmond wonders why some of us have a desire to preserve Christianity and Western culture. Obviously, no reason at all for those of us who prefer Viking sagas and pagan rock worship. But most of us aren’t like that, me Nord-fetishist chum.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 27, 2006, 02:06 PM | #

Pagan rock worship, is that like Limpbizkit?

Posted by Andrew on January 27, 2006, 02:56 PM | #

Wooo, Is that web link an example of James Bowreys Post on Lab experi –mental Liberalism? It is a bit Heavy and some what   an extreme revolutionary radical Psychological texture. I think they could expect a visit from the SAS.
I think Intelligence would win that battle anyway, we just have to gather it together once more-Or else.

Posted by victoria on February 12, 2006, 12:02 AM | #

you whites are to blame for the downfall of your own civilizations - and you can thank the white leftists, homosexuals and feminists for spearheading your destruction. You let your own white women abort your children, your own leftwing sons and daughters force lesbianism and faggotry down the throats of children in the public schools and you let your own people mock western values and even Christianity and tear it down. Your morally loose women would rather fuck every man they can get their hands on instead of getting married and raising children. Don’t blame the muslim, the latino or the black man for your own failure to defend your culture.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 12, 2006, 04:55 AM | #

Vicky,

Aside from the ad hominem evident in your remarks, none of “us whites” would argue with your assessment of what has come to pass in the liberal West.  You reveal, however, a certain weakness in your understanding of the culture war that has been waged against the white male heterosexual, where it has come from and how and why it has been advanced.

“Us whites” didn’t just “let” this happen.  Our political, legal, adademic and media elites forced it upon us by morally and legally delegitimising protest and using every means and every image available to promote the egalitarian, anti-nation outcome the overwhelming majority of them desire.

Our anger, therefore, is against them, not against against other races - who are merely taking advantage of the opportunities available to them.  Of course, we are bound to oppose such opportunism, but that does not imply animus against those races per se.  Plain racial hate adds not a whit of understanding to us, and its proponents are not welcome here.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 12, 2006, 11:05 AM | #

I generally agree with Desmond, except for this: If secularism triumphs the West dies. Secularism has triumphed and the West is dead.

An wholesale adoption of Islam would be preferable to the current, abject filth that surrounds us everywhere. Further, there’s no doubt that had Europeans converted to Islam, our own genes and environment would’ve shaped it to suit our racial character.

The argument that Islam arose in the Middle East and therefore is foreign to us, is easily refuted…since Christianity also arose in the Middle East and even for the first two centuries was part of normative Judaism.

Francis wrote a good review a few years ago on the Germanization of Christianity:

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no1/sf-russell.html

Posted by friedrich braun on February 12, 2006, 11:17 AM | #

Ignorant Muslims still Cohabitate with their goats [or goatherds],stop all endevours 5 times a day to pray to a big rock in Mecca,indiscriminately kill their own people[wanting those70 virgins].

Sure, and it’s easy to ridicule any religion.

What if I told you that most Christians eat a biscuit in their holy temples that has been changed thorough magical actions and words into their God. Further, they must believe in the Real Presence of their God in the said biscuit, lest they should incur excommunication?

You see what I’m getting at? Islam makes large claims for itself, but they’re not any more ludicrous than Christian dogma.

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 12, 2006, 12:11 PM | #

“Further, there’s no doubt that had Europeans converted to Islam, our own genes and environment would’ve shaped it to suit our racial character.”

Islam is a lot of things, but one of those things is that it is clearly an ideological expression of Arabian imperialism (providing a constitution for an eternal form of government). Europe was not destined to become a cultural appendage of Arabia, no matter what rationalisations Friedrich will throw out.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 12, 2006, 12:28 PM | #

In favouring Islam over Christianiy I seem to be in good company…let’s listen to what Nietzsche had to say:

Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (—I do not say by what sort of feet—) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin—because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! . . . The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust—a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very “senile.”—What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich. . . . Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church—but well paid. . . Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious. . . Christianity, alcohol—the two great means of corruption. . . . Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not. . . . “War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!”: this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can’t make out how a German could ever feel Christian. . . .

http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm

Posted by friedrich braun on February 12, 2006, 12:36 PM | #

and a little jewel:

“If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men. . . .

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 12, 2006, 12:38 PM | #

What a load of garbage. From defending Arabian colonialism of European peoples in Iberia, he then goes on to dismiss the entire Crusading movement as a “higher form of piracy”. That’s funny - I didn’t know pirates would normally give up their possessions to go fight a Turkish (and Arabian) menace, which had already expropriated well over half the Byzantine lands, only to largely (bar a prominent minority of Levant colonialists) eschew the fruits of battle and return home. That’s piracy?

I’ll await the next installment of apologias for the colonisation of Europeans by non-Europeans, not with trepidation, but amazement that Friedrich is actually endorsing this claptrap.

Really, Friedrich. Who are you working for?

Posted by friedrich braun on February 12, 2006, 02:09 PM | #

That’s funny - I didn’t know pirates would normally give up their possessions to go fight a Turkish (and Arabian) menace,

The Crusaders didn’t “give up their possessions go fight a Turkish (and Arabian) menace…” the Crusades were started at the behest of Popes who didn’t want to see Christian holy places in the Near East under the domination of infidels.

which had already expropriated well over half the Byzantine lands, only to largely (bar a prominent minority of Levant colonialists) eschew the fruits of battle and return home. That’s piracy?

The Crusades can be explained as offering an outlet for the ambitions of land-hungry knights and noblemen. The expeditions can also be seen as offering rich commercial opportunities to the merchants of the growing cities of Europe. Here, I particularly have in mind the Italian merchant cities, such as Venice et al. In some ways the Crusades were as much a commercial enterprise as a religious undertaking. Furthermore, the Crusaders often acted worse then pirates, indeed. For e.g., the Sack of Constantinople can hardly find a parallel in world-history in terms of blood-lust and sheer terror; and let’s not forget that this outrage was mostly perpetrated on other Christians! The Greek Orthodox continue to hold the Church of Rome in contempt because of this event.

I’ll await the next installment of apologias for the colonisation of Europeans by non-Europeans, not with trepidation, but amazement that Friedrich is actually endorsing this claptrap.

I favour the expulsion of all non-Europeans from Europe - except the diplomatic corps, business men and women temporarily residing in European nations to conduct commercial ventures….and perhaps a few foreign restaurant owners.

Really, Friedrich. Who are you working for?

The fact that I don’t see the Crusades as a noble endeavour or refuse demonize Islam doesn’t mean that I must be “working” for somebody.

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 12, 2006, 02:20 PM | #

“...the Crusades were started at the behest of Popes who didn’t want to see Christian holy places in the Near East under the domination of infidels.”

Yet if you read the famous four accounts of the Council of Clermont, cited by Jonathon Riley-Smith, the plight of the Byzantine Empire was mentioned more frequently than Jerusalem (and in more accounts). The Crusaders themselves had to fund their own way across, or gain sponsorship from a household.

“In some ways the Crusades were as much a commercial enterprise as a religious undertaking. Furthermore, the Crusaders often acted worse then pirates, indeed. For e.g., the Sack of Constantinople can hardly find a parallel in world-history in terms of blood-lust and sheer terror; and let’s not forget that this outrage was mostly perpetrated on other Christians! The Greek Orthodox continue to hold the Church of Rome in contempt because of this event.”

You are referring to the Fourth Crusade of 1204, which bears no relevance to the motivations surrounding the First Crusade of 1096 - and strangely enough, the Greek Orthodox Church doesn’t mention the fact that those who Catholics who conquered Constantinople in that year had already been EXCOMMUNICATED.

And of course, as thoroughly documented by Riley-Smith, the vast majority of Crusaders immediately left the Holy Land following their victory in 1099.

I support the First Crusade as a largely privately funded endeavour against an expansionist Islamic Empire, conducted primarily for defensive motivations. Indeed, I think the First Crusade was more justifiable than the British Empire’s declaration of war against Hitler.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 12, 2006, 02:52 PM | #

You are referring to the Fourth Crusade of 1204, which bears no relevance to the motivations surrounding the First Crusade of 1096 - and strangely enough, the Greek Orthodox Church doesn’t mention the fact that those who Catholics who conquered Constantinople in that year had already been EXCOMMUNICATED.

While Pope Innocent III excommunicated the Crusaders after their sack of the catholic city of Zara (Zadar in Croatia), he later lifted the bull of excommunication and justified the capture of Constantinople in the letter below.[16]

To all the clergy and people in the Christian army at Constantinople.

If the Lord had granted the desires of His humble servants sooner, and had transferred, as He has now done, the empire of Constantinople from the Greeks to the Latins before the fall of the Holy Land, perhaps Christianity would not be weeping today over the desolation of the land of Jerusalem. Since, therefore, through the wonderful transference of this empire God has deigned to open to you a way to recover that land, and the detention of this may lead to the restoration of that, we advise and exhort you all, and we enjoin upon you for the remission of your sins, to remain for a year in Romania, in order to strengthen the empire in its devotion to the Apostolic See and to us, and in order to retain it in the power of the Latins; and to give wise advice and efficient aid to Baldwin, our most beloved son in Christ, the illustrious
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html

Posted by Salahuddin Al Ayyuby on April 17, 2006, 10:54 AM | #

Christians are historically defeated in the crusaders war.After that,christians became communists,maxist,atheists,agnostic and so on.The only last solution for no longer exist christianity is to preach whites survival at the western world.Why?Cause majority of whites had no faith of any religions and the last thing in their minds is playing the whites race survival.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 17, 2006, 12:01 PM | #

Christians are historically defeated in the crusaders war.

I see we have another one of Allah’s devotees among us.

First of all, if you pulled your pea brain out of the Koran and read some history, you will read about Charles Martel and the Battle of Vienna. You will also read how European powers emboldened after Vienna went ahead and pretty much humiliated every Islamic power there was. The Ottomans were little more than a bunch of decadent Nabobs going nowhere by the time the 20th century rolled around.

Now those things are discoverable with reason. Not if you spend all your time pouring over Suras and Ayats that command you to maim and kill.

Lastly, if the Arab world’s contributions were removed from civilization, nothing would change. What has the Arab world contributed anyway (aside from a senile religion)? What has it ever invented?

Take away Europe’s contributions to civilization and mankind would be stuck with bullock carts and camels. Those are the facts that you enlightened residents of Arabia need to learn.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 17, 2006, 12:22 PM | #

Fredirich Braun’s quoting of Nietzsche (which I hadn’t seen until today) needs to be dealt with in some detail:

It is no secret that Nietszche hated Christianity. That much is not in doubt. But Nietzsche was not an Islamophile like Friedrich.

For example:

Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew.

Friedirch’s Judeophobic mind takes this to mean that the Arab is obviously preferable (and therefore Islam is preferable). But Nietzsche was not a Jew-hater in any serious sense (although he blamed the Jews for bringing Christianity to Europe). So when Nietzsche says the choice between Islam and Christianity is like the choice between Arab and Jew, what he really means is that it isn’t really a choice (sort of like a choice between dying of smallpox or dying of the plague isn’t a choice). And this is the fundamental point that needs to be grasped.

Nietzsche held the ancient Greeks and the Romans in high regard and he would have liked a return to pagan, militaristic, harsh ways of ancient world. That is the Nietzschean formula (which is why the Nazis inspired by Nietzsche wanted a return to pre-Christian Germanic paganism). His concern was for nobility. Nietzsche, therefore, also celebrated the extreme inequalities of the ancient world.

All those things are undermined by Christianity (and also to by Islam - a Muslim cannot enslave a fellow Muslim for example just as a Christian cannot enslave a fellow Christian and a Jew cannot enslave a fellow Jew). Nietzsche detests all that.

Therefore, his brutal criticism of Christianity should not be mistaken for a fealty towards Islam. It is nothing of the kind.