SomaliNet Forums

Surrender in the face of Islamofascism, says Herb Denenberg, is no option. In a time when Europe has abdicated its fight to preserve its culture against an increasingly vocal (and often violent) immigrant community, America is the only hope for western liberal democracy, and will presently unless we change our tune fast and face it head on, be the last outpost of civilization.

by Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin

There are three books that are must reading for anyone who wants to understand the war we are in whether we like it or not. This trilogy may be the most important reading of recent decades. It will convince any reasonable mind that our lives are at stake and so is our civilization. Of course, those who believe that war is an elective even if you are under attack, and believe that you can say "I'm not participating" and the war will go away, will not be convinced. Furthermore, those who believe in the approach of current French government, "negotiate, appease, retreat, and surrender," will also not be convinced. Finally, those who think we should conduct wars by opinion polling and then micromanage wars in an attempt to run, cut and capitulate will also not be convinced.

The rest of us will, and should read:
Mark Steyn, America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It (2006), Melanie Phillips, Londonistan (2005), and Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within (2006). The books pretty much demonstrate Europe is already gone, and has committed cultural suicide while surrendering to radical Islam. The United States may not be far behind unless we change our approach. The three books describe the problem and offer solutions.

All three should have received nothing but readers and prizes, but a funny thing happened to Bawer. It was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award from a prestigious book group, but some involved in the process accused Bawer of being a racist, apparently because he offered criticism of radical Islam. One board member of the Circle, Eliot Weinberg, said the book was "racism as criticism." The President of the Circle said, "It's hyperventilated rhetoric slips from actual critique into Islamophobia." As far as I can tell such critics themselves did not speak to substance, but spoke only in their own hyperventilated and irrational rhetoric by condemning the book in hollow generalities, ignoring the most threatening facts and realities of our time. Bawer had the perfect response: "As I and many others have pointed out a few million times, radical Islam is not a race...But it's easy - and in some circles highly effective - to fling the 'R' word instead of trying to respond to irrefutable facts and arguments."

He continues, "One of the most disgraceful developments of our time is that many Western authors and intellectuals who pride themselves on being liberals have effectively aligned themselves with an outrageously illiberal movement that rejects equal rights for women, that believes gays and Jews should be executed, that supports the cold-blooded murder of one's own children in the name of honor, etc., etc. These authors and intellectuals respond to every criticism of that chilling fundamentalist code - however cogent and correct the criticism may be - by hurling the 'R' word. I will not be cowed by such dangerous, duplicitous rhetoric. Civilized, tolerant, pluralistic values are at stake - values that affect freedom loving individuals of all races."

Then Bawer exposes his critics for the hypocritical, left-wing loonies and phonies they are: "Some people think it is terrific for writers to expose the offenses and perils of religious fundamentalism - just as long as its Christian fundamentalism." Ron Dreher, who has written a book critical of Christian fundamentalist, writes that this is the standard approach of the left - to yell bigotry at any ideas they don't want to confront, or perhaps can't logically respond to. Because the left views criticism of radical Islam as bigotry, it has failed to rationally respond to this existential threat to our civilization. For that reason, Europe has virtually surrendered its civilization to the on-rushing Islamic fundamentalists and the demands of Islam.

Dreher makes another point deadly to the critics of Bawer: "It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this sort of liberal hates political conservatives and orthodox Christians more than he loves his own liberty." These liberal types are in fact totally intolerant of ideas they don't like, and instead of considering such ideas they simply reject them out of hand by branding them as racist, as bigotry, or by applying some other pejorative. It is ironic indeed that the great bastions of liberalism - our colleges and universities, our mainstream media, and Hollywood - have also become the bastions of intolerance and the closed mind. Observe the ex-President of Harvard, who was driven from office, by making the claim that there may be differences between men and women. If it is not politically correct, you can't talk about it or believe it. The list of things that are sacred to the left - such as global warming - are now considered beyond discussion and dispute.

Unless we consider the ideas of the Bawers, the Steyns, and the Phillips of this world, we will not be able to consider or even think about ideas other than those imposed by radical, fundamentalist Islam. I challenge anyone to read the trilogy on radical Islam - by Steyn, Phillips, and Bawer - and not be convinced of their thesis.

Poetess

Someone gave me the info about your where abouts.

I am very close to finding your arcade game shop.

Don't fukk with us, you moron red neck, or else expect rain down on your little kiosk shop.

Sheesh, doesn't the nonsense ever stop? Poetess, I'm curious. What's your cultural background? How did you fall into the maw of warmongering neocons?

The info i got from a very close source is read like this:

Poetess is a middle age white man, owns a shop some where in ....... United state. He hates muslims and is probably a jew in the box.

Bagamundo

Experience informs me you're an America-hating communist, for expectorating epithets is their specialty. Or is it you belong to the Islamofascism espousing type. Does it really matter?

Pragmatic gal, I'm no warmonger, but I'm a conservative. I opposed the war in favor of neutralizing Afghanistan and not least because I didn't buy the WMD propaganda. Once the first shots were fired however, we were in for the long haul. Fighting to preserve America's democratic ideal in view of Europe's surrender to Islam need not be construed as warmongering.

[quote]Fighting to preserve America's democratic ideal in view of Europe's surrender to Islam need not be construed as warmongering.[/quote]

How is attacking a country of no credible threat to the United States "fighting to preserve America's democratic ideal"?

"How is attacking a country of no credible threat to the United States "fighting to preserve America's democratic ideal"?

That wasn't to be understood in relation to the war, which many conservatives initially opposed, rather the homefront, something you would have quite easily gathered if you read the sentence in full.

I quoted the entire sentence. It hardly matters whether you opposed the war initially and only jumped on the bandwagon when innocent Iraqis were being murdered by the car-loads. Your support for it now, combined with the bigotted subtext of the rhetoric of the "homefront" (ie, anyone who criticises the Bush Doctrine is an enemy of the United States), puts you firmly in the camp of jingoistic imperialists.

So what's your take on Guantanamo Bay? Is incarcerating illerate villagers from the boondocks of Afghanistan, then denying them due process and justice before the law protecting American democratic ideals?

"Once the first shots were fired, we were in for the long haul."

How could you continue on to support something you knew was flow in the first place and when realized it was a mistake to innitiate a war,still justify it with "safe guarding democracy."

Well if you want to safe guard democracy why not attack North Korea, or Cuba who were alot more threat to U S national security than Iraq for that matter?

I'm sure you know the truth, but you don't want to say it for reasons we all know.

Every civilization comes to an end. I don't see what the big deal is. Next civilization will be better and more advanced.

Pragmatic

You're making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions about what conservatives stand for. Foremost and perhaps one thing Muslims and the right can agree on (though for different reasons I'm sure): Bush is a total imbecile. For instance the war on terror, so-called, is a bad joke. Exactly how we can hold hands (quite literally in his case) with the Saudi regime, purveyors of wahhabism and fundamentalists of the worst kind, is beyond me.

We need not a "war on terror" but in lieu a "war on Islamic fundamentalism". Which means supporting democratic movements and ousting theocracies.

Another point of agreement is Gitmo which needs shutting down today, and those whom colluded with AQ tried in court, the rest set free.

As concerns Iraq, lest you haven't been closely following events on the ground, the immense civilian pool of blood which runs through Baghdad is the handiwork of sectarian strife. Blunty put: Muslim on Muslim.

Bagamundo

I dealt with your contention in my videoblog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJJFEo6vQQw

quote "This trilogy may be the most important reading of recent decades."

I very, VERY much doubt it.

"Furthermore, those who believe in the approach of current French government, "negotiate, appease, retreat, and surrender," will also not be convinced."

Is that REALLY their approach ? Either way, I quit reading after that paragraph of gibberish.

Ok poetess, i get your point. You don't want after the U S troops pull out of Iraq, the iraqis to slaughter each-other and blood path per se follow suite, which is a good point.

But don't you think austing more regimes in the middle east, in the name of spreading democracy would back fire just as it did in Afghanistan, Iraq and so many other places? And in retalitory reactionary would cause the Muslims to hate americans even more, creating even more problems?

I mean, why pray for more blood shed when you can simply let the muslims run their own affairs without you breathing down on their neck dictating what's good for them and what's not?

I'd appreciate if you leave your inputs here in writing where i am safe from flirts.

"But don't you think austing more regimes in the middle east, in the name of spreading democracy would back fire just as it did in Afghanistan, Iraq and so many other places? And in retalitory reactionary would cause the Muslims to hate americans even more, creating even more problems?"

The assertion which underlies your comment is that the impetus for Bush's swaggering into Iraq was democracy building. It most certainly wasn't. Here would be a useful moment to separate two quite distinct issues: what the Bush admin does, and what the political right stands for. Moreover, your comment betrays a subtle bigotry against people of colour to the effect Muslims prefer to live in totalitarianism than an all inclusive plural democracy. Au contraire, in the heart of even the most repressive Islamic republic, say Iran for instance, are to be found vibrant, truly democratic movements striving for a new dawn. The same is true in that most patriarchal of kingdoms Saudi Arabia, where incidentally I don't much care to believe women enjoy being outlawed from the political process, banned from driving, or so much as venturing outside without a chaperone.

The US needn't necessarily unleash "shock and awe" on despots. Often all it takes is strengthening the forces of democratic change and a bit of subversion from within.

Stemming the political tide of fundamentalism which is quite different from the war on terror is a win-win situation for America. Muslims benefit, as will western society.

Well, you can't really state a time when the U S choose what's right over its interest. Since immomerial, the U S government was undermining and in some sense were over throwing, a real elected democracies through out the world, while they helped installed totalterians. For instance, U S were behind the rise of Saddam regime into power, and were ironicly enough the ones supplying weapons to wipe out the iranians. It wasn't until Saddam went against the will and interest of the U S by invading Kuwait in 90 that they abanded him alltogether.

If your interest was not over clouding your moral judgment to do what's right vs the county's interst, you'd be cherished through the world as champions of liberation, but sadly that's never been the case.