Dinesh D'Souza and Christian Sharia Law

One of the most grating and offensive arguments used by the right wing is that liberals are somehow in league with Muslim extremists. The truth is that the Christian right and the Muslim right share a great deal in common, in ideology if not (yet, or anymore) in tactics. This meme going around Facebook lately sums it up well:

Republiansharia

And you know who would agree with this? Our old pal Dinesh D’Souza. Near the end of the Bush administration, he wrote a book called The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, with the enemy, of course, being liberals. But in that book he admits that the social agenda of the Christian right is in line with the Muslim right:

The heart of D’Souza’s book isn’t his libeling of the American left, but rather his libeling of the American right. D’Souza notes, correctly, that al-Qaida’s hatred toward the West in general, and the United States in particular, is animated to a great extent by America’s permissive culture. But Bin Laden isn’t some Michael Medved figure grumping about the vulgarity of American Pie. He’s got bigger fish to fry. Al-Qaida’s enemy isn’t the excesses of secular culture; it’s secular culture itself. And to a surprising degree, D’Souza is willing to go along for the ride. Theocracy, D’Souza argues, is misunderstood to mean “rule by divine authority of the priesthood or clergy.” Not so! There are checks and balances, just like in the U.S. Constitution. In Iran, for instance, “the power of the state and of the mullahs is limited by the specific rules set forth in the Koran and the Islamic tradition. The rulers themselves are bound by these laws.”

I heaved a sigh of relief when D’Souza conceded, “The Islamic system of enforcing piety and virtue through the heavy hand of the law seems to me both unreasonable and imprudent.” But D’Souza makes no bones about believing, along with Islamic fundamentalists, that the following things are an affront to civilization: equality for homosexuals (“[W]hy would a sane people jeopardize an indispensable and already fragile institution such as marriage by redefining it away from its central purpose? Is the point of marriage to ensure that children have a father and mother, or is it to make Edgar and Austin feel more accepted by society?”); working motherhood (“[M]any mothers choose to have a career because it is more self-fulfilling than the life of a full-time mom”); divorce (“Now you hear people say things like, ‘I feel called to leave my marriage. My life would be wasted if I stayed’ “); and contraception (“Rather than call for non-Western women to have fewer children, the left speaks of a woman’s right to determine the number and spacing of her pregnancies”).

In fact, D’Souza suggests that conservatives should cozy up to Muslim reactionaries by expressing their shared revulsion at the idea of treating women and gay people like equal citizens:

Ordinarily, though, I would never equate hard-right views on these matters—even from a Dartmouth Review alumnus—with the rantings of an Islamist terrorist. I do so now only because D’Souza has written an entire book encouraging me to do just that. He wants his fellow conservatives to embrace their inner mullah. D’Souza scolds conservatives for seeking in the past to win over American leftists and European allies to the war on terror, and for reaching out to liberals in the Islamic world “who can be recruited the cause of ‘civilization’ against ‘barbarism.’ ” Not gonna happen, baby! Conservatives, he argues, should instead demonstrate “common ground” with Muslims sympathetic to Bin Laden—earlier D’Souza has cited a 2004 poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project showing that Bin Laden is viewed favorably by 45 percent of all Moroccans, 55 percent of all Jordanians, and 65 percent of all Pakistanis—by:

“attacking the left and the Europeans on the international stage. Instead of trying to unify America and the West, the right should highlight the division between red America and blue America, and also between traditional America and decadent Europe. By resisting the depravity of the left and the Europeans, conservatives can win friends among Muslims and other traditional people around the world.”

The truth is that the social agenda of the Christian right is virtually identical to that of the reactionary Muslims they claim to be so different from. The only difference is tactics, not ideology.

"I hear they got trapped on the up escalator. No matter how fast they run, ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"Crap! (Back is still sore from trying to kick that damn football!... Again!)"

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"They know it's wrong. They just don't care."

Local School Has Another Proselytizing Teacher
"I thought their mascot was the "Bum Steers."

Local School Has Another Proselytizing Teacher

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • pocketnerd

    Ed, you’re conflating two things that aren’t really the same:

    Muslim fundamentalists want to impose religious law, control women’s lives and sexuality, outlaw homosexuality, redefine science, annihilate the separation of church and state, and teach religion in schools because they believe it is the will of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal deity named named Allah (which simply means “God”).

    Christian fundamentalists want to impose religious law, control women’s lives and sexuality, outlaw homosexuality, redefine science, annihilate the separation of church and state, and teach religion in schools because they believe it is the will of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal deity named Elohim (which simply means “God”).

    See? Nothing at all alike!

  • corwyn

    …Elohim (which simply means “Gods”).

  • acroyear

    The graphic should add:

    If you do not support this agenda but vote for it anyways in exchange for a promise if lower taxes you don’t actually pay, then accept openly that you are being bought.

  • theguy

    “Now you hear people say things like, ‘I feel called to leave my marriage. My life would be wasted if I stayed”

    That must be what D’Shitta said after he (allegedly) beat his wife, cheated on her, and then left her for his mistress.

    You know what, I’d rather take our “decadent” society over a sanctimonious stick-up-the-ass theofascist society that abuses its poor, minorities, women and gay people.

  • otrame

    You know what, I’d rather take our “decadent” society over a sanctimonious stick-up-the-ass theofascist society that abuses its poor, minorities, women and gay people.

    QFFT!!!!

  • Morgan

    I’m honestly surprised to see it laid out so honestly. A career is more self-fulfilling (…I’m not sure that’s what that means, Dinesh) than staying at home? Tough, stay at home. Your marriage would be a waste of your life? Hard luck; waste your life. The purpose of social institutions is precisely to force people into arrangements that harm them and their interests, because it benefits the social order, which doesn’t exist to benefit the people within it. And of course, women are the ones who must sacrifice. Men don’t think being full-time dads is very fulfilling? No problem.

    I don’t know what to make of the bit about contraception at all. Possibly he thinks Western women wouldn’t care about reproductive rights if they could force down the birth rate in the rest of the world? As if the right to bodily autonomy and the power to control whether and when you become a parent is motivated only by a desire to skew the averages and delay Malthusian collapse?

  • abb3w

    By resisting the depravity of the left and the Europeans, conservatives can win friends among Muslims and other traditional people around the world.

    With friends like those, who needs enemies?

  • Scientismist

    (“[W]hy would a sane people jeopardize an indispensable and already fragile institution such as marriage by redefining it away from its central purpose? Is the point of marriage to ensure that children have a father and mother, or is it to make Edgar and Austin feel more accepted by society?”)

    Gee, I thought it was so that Betty, Edgar’s niece, who has been reared by Edgar and Austin since Edgar’s sister and her husband died in an auto accident, could be covered by Austin’s group health insurance, and so that Edgar and Betty could support and visit Austin in the hospital after his heart attack, and so that, after Austin’s death from a second heart attack a few years later, they could continue to use the group health insurance, and keep the house they all lived in, the one that Austin’s homophobic brother thinks he should inherit so he can throw Shawn and Edgar out on the street. Silly me.

    It’s just that I don’t understand how keeping marriage illegal for gay people would help to ensure that children have a father and mother — does denying people equal human rights help to prevent auto accidents?

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake Zaracorwyn, #2:

    …Elohim (which simply means “Gods”).

    Fide Wikipedia: “Elohim is a grammatically singular or plural noun for “god” or “gods” in both modern and ancient Hebrew language.”

  • Pierce R. Butler

    D’Souza just put in writing what Ronald Reagan put into action – specifically by allying with the Vatican, Libya, and Iran in campaigning against women’s rights at the UN and various international conferences devoted to the subject back in the ’80s.

  • jonathangray

    One of the most grating and offensive arguments used by the right wing is that liberals are somehow in league with Muslim extremists.

    It would be truer to say that the right believes liberals facilitate Muslim extremists. Liberals are the Muslims’ useful idiots by virtue of their self-hating ethnomasochism, uncritical xenophilia and cowardice.

    The truth is that the Christian right and the Muslim right share a great deal in common, in ideology if not (yet, or anymore) in tactics.

    That’s true if you see religions as ideologies. Obviously a true believer would regard isomorphic similarities as irrelevant.

    By resisting the depravity of the left and the Europeans, conservatives can win friends among Muslims and other traditional people around the world.

    This is a recurring delusion, whether it’s the “ecumenical jihad” briefly popular among conservative Catholic intellectuals during JPII’s reign or far-right neopagan radical traditionalists fapping over Sayyid Qutb.

  • Michael Heath

    Ed concludes:

    The truth is that the social agenda of the Christian right is virtually identical to that of the reactionary Muslims they claim to be so different from. The only difference is tactics, not ideology.

    The scholarly treatise that supports this conclusion is Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God.

    One of the more interesting findings in that book is why Muslims are more apt to resort to terrorism and Christians in the west rarely do. It’s self-evident for the most part, a disparity between political power and financial resources, where Ms. Armstrong fleshes out the evidence.

    The book was published prior to 9/11 where events then validate how prescient she was. Consider the casualty count between 9/11 and President George W. Bush’s Christian war on Iraq beginning in 2003 on why Christian fundamentalists don’t typically resort to terrorism. I.e., because they have far more effective means to carryout their Christianist agenda vs. the resources available to populist Muslim fundies.

  • Jean Markale

    Salaams to everyone,

    Your first error was to accept D’Souza’s interpretation of shari’ah as being based on facts and not the fevered imagination of D’Souza and his mates. That’s like getting an “interpretation” of canon law from Richard Dawkins.

    It’s clear, from the fact that you did accept his interpretation, that no-one here has any clue what shari’ah is or how it works. It’s equally clear that nopony here knows anything about Islam.

    Please educate yourselves.

    I’ll be back in a couple years to see whether that has happened.

  • raven

    It’s clear, from the fact that you did accept his interpretation, that no-one here has any clue what shari’ah is or how it works. It’s equally clear that nopony here knows anything about Islam.

    Please educate yourselves.

    I’ll be back in a couple years to see whether that has happened.

    You could explain where D’Souza went wrong. He is after all, as you point out, a discredited resource on anything.

    You could also explain Sharia law and Islam to us. In point of fact, we all know bits and pieces about Islam like anyone who has been awake for the last few decades. This is simple stuff.

  • jws1

    “Salaams to everyone.”

    Go fuck yourself.

  • jonathangray

    Michael Heath:

    The scholarly treatise that supports this conclusion is Karen Armstrong’s

    : D

    President George W. Bush’s Christian war on Iraq

    : D : D

    Jean Markale:

    … nopony here …

    : D : D : D

  • Nemo

    D’Souza notes, correctly, that al-Qaida’s hatred toward the West in general, and the United States in particular, is animated to a great extent by America’s permissive culture.

    In other words, Bush’s infamous “They hate us for our freedoms.” Yeah, no. I’m thinking they hate us mostly for meddling in their affairs, propping up dictators in their countries, etc.

  • Michael Heath

    “Jean Markale” @ 13:

    Your first error was to accept D’Souza’s interpretation of shari’ah as being based on facts and not the fevered imagination of D’Souza and his mates. That’s like getting an “interpretation” of canon law from Richard Dawkins.

    It’s clear, from the fact that you did accept his interpretation, that no-one here has any clue what shari’ah is or how it works. It’s equally clear that nopony here knows anything about Islam.

    Please educate yourselves.

    Here your claim we’re all ignorant on the matter is based on no evidence at all, in fact you present no evidence at all. It’s cowardly to criticize others without actually quoting and then directly rebutting what they wrote. That while allowing us to watch you take down the strawman you conjured up in your mind.

    This provides compelling evidence you don’t like what you read here, but can’t refute it; so you dismiss it. It’s a classic illustration of cognitive dissonance reduction; played out in public.

    “Jean Markale” @ 13:

    I’ll be back in a couple years to see whether that has happened.

    A classic example of avoidance. Lob your assertions out there to make yourself feel better about the fact you didn’t like what you read here, can’t refute it, but won’t adapt to factually premised ground. So you cowardly flee in order to get rid of that damn dissonance in your head.

  • jws1

    @Nemo: If you think they’d prefer democracy to dictatorships you haven’t been paying attention to the behavior and rhetoric of the Islamofascists. If you think they’re totally not animated by our culture being radically different from theirs you are fooling yourself. Our well-known meddling is a useful recruitment tool, nothing more. The dictators they’d prefer are no different than the ones we’ve had working with/for us.

  • Nemo

    @jws1: They shun democracy because they associate it with us. That’s how badly we’ve fucked things up. It hasn’t always been that way.

  • jws1

    There was a time when the Bin Ladens of the world just loved democracy? Nope. Not ever. Not for one second. Too much freedom for religious fascists who have no problem killing fellow travelers in their own tribe who split doctrinal hairs differently.

  • Nick Gotts

    jonathangray,

    It would be truer to say that the right believes liberals facilitate Muslim extremists.

    You are obviously incapable of accepting the abundant evidence of right-wingers claiming that Obama is in league with Islamist terrorists.

    Obviously a true believer would regard isomorphic similarities as irrelevant.

    So what? That’s just further evidence that they are deluded.

  • Nick Gotts

    Liberals are the Muslims’ useful idiots by virtue of their self-hating ethnomasochism, uncritical xenophilia and cowardice. – jonathangray

    Are you reporting what others believe, or putting this forward as your own view? Because if the latter, and if you were an honest man, you would produce the evidence for your claim.

    Incidentally, if there’s a prize for coining pseudoscholarly neologisms, the inventor of “ethnomasochism” would be a strong contender.

  • Owlmirror
    Liberals are the Muslims’ useful idiots by virtue of their self-hating ethnomasochism, uncritical xenophilia and cowardice. – jonathangray

    Are you reporting what others believe, or putting this forward as your own view?

    Of course it’s his own view. What others believe doesn’t matter. But it needs to be translated from his private language: “self-hating ethnomasochism, uncritical xenophilia and cowardice” means “not hating people or wanting to kill them because of the color of their skin, and thinking that people should be allowed to believe (and even sometimes practice!) religions other than Catholicism”.

    Incidentally, if there’s a prize for coining pseudoscholarly neologisms, the inventor of “ethnomasochism” would be a strong contender.

    Pseudoscholar has always been one of his favorite modes, the other being “evil clown”.

    Perhaps relevant to the OP, one of his older lines: “I admire the militant fervour of many Muslims”. He no doubt follows the blood-soaked news about ISIS with naked envy.

  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts:

    You are obviously incapable of accepting the abundant evidence of right-wingers claiming that Obama is in league with Islamist terrorists.

    If Obama is in league with Mohammedan terrorists, he can’t be a liberal, can he?

    Are you reporting what others believe, or putting this forward as your own view? Because if the latter, and if you were an honest man, you would produce the evidence for your claim.

    http://shiningartifact.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/banning-the-burqa-and-niqab-is-a-terrible-idea/

  • jonathangray

    Owlmirror:

    “self-hating ethnomasochism, uncritical xenophilia and cowardice” means “not hating people or wanting to kill them because of the color of their skin, and thinking that people should be allowed to believe (and even sometimes practice!) religions other than Catholicism”.

    Bullshit. It means what it says — people who have been so indoctrinated with cringing ethnic guilt that they grovel before any ‘Other’, even to the extent of making excuses for those ‘Others’ who would destroy them.

    Pseudoscholar has always been one of his favorite modes, the other being “evil clown”.

    There are worse things to be.

    “I admire the militant fervour of many Muslims”. He no doubt follows the blood-soaked news about ISIS with naked envy.

    “Militant fervour” needn’t imply crazed fanaticism.

  • dingojack

    hmm, ‘ethnophobia’* seems a perfectly apt description of Dinesh’s behaviour to me.

    Dingo

    ====-

    * and who, pray tell, gets to decide to which ‘ethnicity’ a person should belong? Us or them?

  • Owlmirror

    http://shiningartifact.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/banning-the-burqa-and-niqab-is-a-terrible-idea/

    I guess you’re not an honest man, because that sure isn’t evidence for your claim.

    It means what it says — people who have been so indoctrinated with cringing ethnic guilt that they grovel before any ‘Other’,

    Supporting women’s rights, immigrant rights, and religious tolerance is “groveling” only to a misogynist racist religious bigot.

    even to the extent of making excuses

    Such as “hey, they’re human too; they actually do have rights?”

    for those ‘Others’ who would destroy them.

    Like Anders Breivik, and yourself?

    “Militant fervour” needn’t imply crazed fanaticism.

    In your case, it pretty much does. You’ve opined on multiple occasions that Catholics can do whatever they want to non-Catholics: When they’re out of power, they can overthrow the government by whatever means they want; when they’re in power, they can do whatever they want to those who are not in power.

  • Nick Gotts

    If Obama is in league with Mohammedan terrorists, he can’t be a liberal, can he? – jonathangray

    Of course he can’t, but many on the American right both identify him as a liberal and claim he is in league with Islamist terrorists. (“Mohammadan” – what a quaint way of expressing your biogotry!)

    As Owlmirror says, whethe one agrees with David Neale’s argument or not (myself, I’d want to look at the evidence of what effect, if any, the French ban on the burqa and niqab has had), only a bigot like you could suppose that the article you link to is an expression of “self-hating ethnomasochism, uncritical xenophilia and cowardice”. I challenge you to point out anything in it that justifies this description. David Neale says:

    I do not believe – and I have never known a leftist who believes – that the state ought to turn a blind eye to abuse and violence merely because it forms part of the tradition of a minority culture. Many of us speak out against abusive cultural practices such as female genital cutting and forced marriage, and indeed campaign for the rights of asylum-seekers who are fleeing these abuses. I will be the first to argue that the state should protect people of all cultures from abuse and violence, whether it comes from within their own communities or from outside.

    and ends;

    An effective strategy for fighting domestic abuse in minority communities should not criminalize the victims, it should criminalize the abusers. We cannot liberate people by declaring them criminals.

    That you can characterise his article as you do says far more about you than about him – and what it says about you it utterly shameful.

  • Nick Gotts

    I find that I’ve falsely credited jonathangray with coining the pseudoscholarly term “ethnomasochism. A charming individual* called “Heartiste” uses it here (I followed a link from here).

    White ethnomasochism evil is like Ebola: Super virulent, kills with impunity, spreads easily, but burns itself out before reaching truly pandemic proportions.

    At least, that’s the hope. Anyone care to place bets?

    Was Heartiste’s blog where you found the term, jonathangray? I’m sure you’d feel right at home.

    *That is, a virulently racist, misogynist, scumbag whose blog includes posts with titles such as “How To Get A Girl To Send Nudes Of Herself”.

  • jonathangray

    Owlmirror:

    Supporting women’s rights, immigrant rights, and religious tolerance is “groveling” only to a misogynist racist religious bigot.

    Support for feminism, complicity in population replacement and toleration of error in principle have fucked up everything beyond repair.

    for those ‘Others’ who would destroy them.

    Like Anders Breivik, and yourself?

    Breivik was a monster, but who made him?

    Q: Violent Muslim gangs in European cities are not exactly a new phenomenon. We hear about indigenous European youths getting harassed, beaten, raped and robbed quite often. Tell us about your experiences during your “vulnerable years” (14-18) growing up in the urban multicultural streets of Oslo.

    A: Since I was 12 years old I was into the hip-hop movement. For several years I was one of the most notable “hip-hop‘ers” from Oslo‘s West side. It was a lot easier to “gain respect and credibility” in Oslo West because of the demographic factors. Oslo West was the “privileged and predominantly native side” of Oslo with very few immigrants in contrast to the East side which was less peaceful. Graffiti and break dance was an important part of our life at that point. Around 1993 and 1994, at 15, I was the most active tagger (graffiti artist) in Oslo as several people in the old school hip-hop community can attest to.

    Our standard “graffiti raid” consisted of going out at night, in groups of 2-3, with our backpacks full of spray cans. We took our bikes and “bombed” city blocks with our tags, “pieces” and crew name all over Oslo. “Morg, Wick and Spok” was everywhere. The fact that hundreds of kids our own age all over Oslo West and even Oslo East looked up to us was one of the driving forces I guess. At that time it felt very rewarding to us. If you wanted girls and respect then it was all about the hip hop community at that time. The more reckless you were the more respect and admiration you gained.

    Everyone didn’t approve though. The government had a no-tolerance attitude towards graffiti and removed 90% of our “creations” within 48 hours. I remember it was an unofficial war between the hip-hop community and the government and Oslo Sporveier, our public subway company. Two guys I knew, Stian and Charles, a few years older than me were arrested, received gigantic fines and was put in jail.

    The hip-hop movement In Norway had its climax around that time, in 92-93. The community was very “politically correct” in nature with close ties to the extreme left groups like SOS Rasisme (an extreme left wing movement) and Blitz (a violent left wing extremist movement). I remember we used to hang out with various people and groups all over Oslo. There were plenty of hip-hop concerts at Blitz and it was at this time that the communist hip-hop group; “Gatas Parlament” was created. It‘s hard to imagine but during this time everyone was into graffiti and hip-hop.

    […]

    We used to hang out with GSV crew, or B-Gjengen as they are popularly called today, a Muslim Pakistani gang, quite violent even back then. “Gang alliances” was a part of our everyday life at that point and assured that you avoided threats and harassment. Alliances with the right people guaranteed safe passage everywhere without the risk of being subdued and robbed (Jizya), beaten or harassed. We had close ties with B-Gjengen (B-Gang) and A-Gjengen (A-Gang), both Muslim Pakistani gangs through my best friend Arsalan who was also a Pakistani.

    Even at that time, the Muslim gangs were very dominating in Oslo East and in inner city Oslo. They even arranged “raids” in Oslo West occasionally, subduing the native youths (kuffars) and collecting Jizya from them (in the form of cell phones, cash, sunglasses etc.). I remember they systematically harassed, robbed and beat ethnic Norwegian youngsters who were unfortunate enough to not have the right affiliations. Muslim youths called the ethnic Norwegians “poteter” (potatoes, a derogatory term used by Muslims to describe ethnic Norwegians). These people occasionally raped the so called “potato whores.”

    In Oslo, as an ethnic Norwegian youth aged 14-18 you were restricted if you didn‘t have affiliations to the Muslim gangs. Your travel was restricted to your own neighbourhoods in Oslo West and certain central points in the city. Unless you had Muslim contacts you could easily be subject to harassment, beatings and robbery. Our alliances with the Muslim gangs were strictly seen as a necessity for us, at least for me. We, however, due to our alliances had the freedom of movement. As a result of our alliances we were allowed to have a relaxing and secure position on the West side of Oslo among our age group. Think of it as being local “warlords” for certain “kuffar areas,” which were regulated by the only dominant force, Muslim gangs collaborating with anarcho-Marxist networks.

    Many of these groups claim to be tolerant and anti-fascist, but yet, I have never met anyone as hypocritical, racist and fascist as the people whom I used to call friends and allies. The media glorifies them while they wreck havoc across the city, rob and plunder. Yet, any attempts their victims do to consolidate are harshly condemned by all aspects of the cultural establishment as racism and Nazism. I have witnessed the double standards and hypocrisy with my own eyes, it is hard to ignore. I was one of the protected “potatoes,” having friends and allies in the Jihadi-racist gangs such as the A and B gang and many other Muslim gangs.

    I gradually became appalled by the mentality, actions and hypocrisy of what he calls the “Marxist-Jihadi youth” movement of Oslo disguised under more socially acceptable brands such as: “SOS Rasisme”, “Youth against Racism”, Blitz who literally hijacked segments of the hiphop movement and used it as a front for recruitment.

    I have personally heard of and witnessed hundreds of Jihadi-racist attacks, more than 90% of them aimed at helpless Norwegian youth (who themselves are brought up to be “suicidally” tolerant and therefore are completely unprepared mentally for attacks such as these). This happens while the Marxist networks in the hiphop movement and the cultural establishment silently and indirectly condone it. There is absolutely no political will to ensure that justice is served on behalf of these victims. I remember at one point thinking: “This system makes me sick”.

    Q: Did you ever contribute to the Muslim atrocities against the indigenous during this period?

    A: I saw the “security alliances” in a strictly pragmatical way. They were a necessary evil at that time. During these years I heard of hundreds of cases where ethnic Norwegians were harassed, robbed and beaten by Muslim gangs. This type of behaviour was in fact acts of racism or even based on religious motives (Jihadi behaviour), although I failed to see that connection then due to lack of knowledge about Islam; I saw the practical manifestations and I didn‘t like it at all. The only thing you could do was to take the necessary precautions, create alliances or be subdued by them.

    If you made any attempt to create a “Norwegian gang” you would be instantly labelled as a Nazi and face the wrath of everyone, in addition to the Muslim gangs. They, however, were allowed to do anything while being indirectly cheered by society. So in other words, we were trapped between the “wood and the bark”. This is still the case in all Western European major cities. They are allowed to consolidate, while we are not.

    […]

    The lefties/hip-hop movement, including the Pakistani gangs and other minority gangs – in cooperation with SOS Rasisme and Blitz were notorically and systematically violent, even racist and discriminating towards ethnic Norwegian youths and anti-immigrant individuals. They abused drugs and many were involved in criminal activity, yet cheered by the media because of their “tolerance” and so called “anti-racist” attitude.

    Intolerance, racism and acts of Jihad were tolerated against native Norwegians as the perpetrators were categorised as victims by default (as minorities). They were seldom punished properly.

    I remember the occasional crackdowns on right wing youth movements during this period. The police raided them several times, called their parents and invested a lot of resources on squashing the right wing movement all over Norway. Blitz and other extreme left, SOS Rasisme and the hip-hop community on the other hand received public funding. The Blitz house, a building they had occupied a few decades earlier, was subsidised and under protection by the government in Oslo and still is even today. They are often referred to as the “storm troops” of the Norwegian Labour Party. The government subsidy of the apartment block were Blitz resides equates to more than 3 million USD per year alone. The violent Marxist group “SOS Rasisme” receives 2-3 million NOK annually. It‘s disgusting.

    […]

    When my friendship with Arsalan, Jon Trygve and Richard ended, I pursued and further developed a friendship with my old friends Marius and Christen who lived in my neighbourhood. They were to become my new core of close friends. I also befriended myself with a predominantly “ethnic Norwegian” gang from Tåsen in Oslo. Some of them were active on the graffiti front from earlier and that‘s how I first met them. This new “alliance” was also quite useful to create “security” for the rest of our “vulnerable years”.

    I remember once when a gang of Moroccans came to Tåsen (a predominantly ethnic Norwegian area in the northern part of Oslo) and tried to rob a couple of ethnic local youths. The Moroccan gang was well known for being notoriously violent, having robbed and beaten hundreds of ethnic Norwegian youths all over Oslo. We were at a party at that time. As we heard of the incident we rallied around 20 guys and found the Moroccans near the subway station. We made a deal with them telling them to never come back for their so called “Jizya raids”. They never showed their face on Tåsen again as far as I know. Muslim gangs respect people who respect themselves which is why they have no respect for people who are not prepared to use violence.

    As time went by and we started high school at around 17-18, the situation changed drastically. The need for security decreased considerably during this period (mostly because we kept to certain areas). Individuals affiliated with the Muslim gangs were academically weak and were basically “left behind” or they selected practical professional studies like mechanics courses or carpentry. Very few of them had the grades to enter any quality schools in Oslo West. In this regard the need for security vanished and a type of academic segregation occurred.

    In retrospect, it‘s easy to understand why ethnic Norwegians are fleeing Muslim areas. No one likes to be “subdued” – live in fear, being harassed, beaten and robbed. The Muslim ghettofication process has been ongoing the last 30 years and it will continue until there is close to 100% concentrated Muslim areas in Oslo (the same tendency we see in Paris, London and other large Western European cities). When I was around 15-16 there was only 1 or 2 schools where the majority was non-ethnic Norwegian. Now, 15 years later there are around 50 schools on the East side of Oslo where the majority of students are non-natives and primarily Muslim.

    It‘s a miracle how I managed to successfully pass through my “vulnerable years” without being subdued by Muslim gangs even once. I know that there are hundreds, even thousands of incidents per year (I have personally witnessed around 50 incidents) where ethnic Norwegian youths ranging 14-18 are harassed, beaten, raped and robbed and it‘s getting worse every year. I really don‘t envy the new generations and the challenges that are facing them regarding Muslim subjugation.

    If ethnic Norwegian youth or other non-Muslims attempt to create gangs of their own (for protection purposes), they are immediately labelled as racists and Nazis. At the same time numerous Muslim gangs commit thousands of racist acts each year against ethnic Norwegians and it‘s either hushed down, ignored and therefore tolerated.

    The last 20 years more than 100-200 ethnic Norwegians have been killed by Muslims, a majority by racist or religious/Jihadi motives. Yet, the press are systematically ignoring this and they attempt to link every single incident to non-relevant motives like for example the influence of narcotics/alcohol or blame the accused Muslim of being “psychologically unstable”. Norwegian media refuse to face the truth of the matter which is that most of these incidents are religiously and/or racially motivated.

    The only incident I can remember where a racist native have killed a non white was the murder of Benjamin Hermansen, who at the age of 15 years, was murdered in Holmlia, in Oslo, Norway. The death was racially motivated. The murder mobilised large parts of the Norwegian population. Throughout the entire country, marches were organised to protest against the murder, with nearly 40,000 people participating in Oslo. The Benjamin Prize was established as a Norwegian prize to counter racism in 2002. The prize is awarded to a school that actively works against racism and discrimination.

    Could this have happened if the victim was native and the aggressors were Muslims? No, not in a million years! Our politicians are terrified of offending the Muslim community in any way.

    Also, more than 80% of our parliamentarians have never experienced Muslim gangs with all its ugly manifestations. A great majority of them haven‘t even been raised in Oslo or any large European city with small but dominant Muslim minorities. They usually move to Oslo as adults and settle in the non-Muslim areas of the city. Our parliamentarians and media are completely unplugged from reality, they don‘t know what‘s going on or they don‘t want to know. On the other hand, the new generations that have experienced this development the last two decades are all urban, young individuals under 30-35 years. I‘m quite sure the majority of them now vote the Progress Party, Norway‘s only anti- immigration party. Several statistics indicate that indigenous Europeans in Muslim dominated areas oppose mass Muslim immigration.

    Oslo used to be a peaceful city. Thanks to the Norwegian cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regime they have transformed my beloved city into a broken city, a bunkered society, a multiculturalist shit hole where no one is safe anymore, to use blunt language.

    The following is an overview of experiences I have had during my youth in Oslo. I‘ve ―only‖ experienced 8 assaults, attempted robberies and multiple threats. I‘ve never actually been severely ravaged, robbed or beaten my Muslims (a broken nose is the worst thing that occurred) but I know more than 20 people who have. I know at least 2 girls that have been raped my Muslims and I am familiar with two more cases in my broader network (1 gang rape). One girl though was cut badly in the face by Muslims. As such, I guess I should feel lucky or privileged. I live in Oslo West far away from the nearest Muslim enclave as more or less all of them are localised on Oslo East. There is little difference in their level of aggressiveness among the various Muslim groups, regardless if they are from Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Morocco or Albania.

    I do, however, acknowledge that only a small proportion of Muslims are so called “Jihadi youth” but this argument is defeated by the mere fact that the same thing can be said about the Taliban in Pakistan. The Taliban only makes out 1-3% of the population, yet they have caused a civil war. It is apparent that dhimmitude and a bunkered society is the new reality as long as Islam (and individual Muslims) are allowed to move freely in our societies. Our major cities will remain “broken” as long as multiculturalism is allowed to be the prevalent ideology, as long as cultural Marxists are allowed to set the agenda.

    15 years – (when I was 15, time: 20.00) – Attempted robbery by Pakistani gang outside a concert. Luckily for me I knew a hardcore Pakistani thug (from the Pakistani A gang in Oslo) who told them I was under his protection. There have been approximately 10 other threatening situations where me and my friends were unharmed.

    16 years – (Time: 16.30) – Assault – an older and much stronger/bigger Pakistani hit me without provocation in front of Majorstuenhuset. Apparently, he wanted to subdue me in front of my “friend” Arsalan who apparently had told him to do it. This concluded, for my part, my friendship with him and I re-connected with my old friends after this incident. However, this restricted my territorial freedoms, as I was no longer under the protection of the Oslo Ummah. From now on we would have to arm ourselves whenever we went to parties in case Muslim gangs showed up and we usually chose to stay in our neighbourhoods‘ on Oslo West.

    17 years – (Time: 01.30) – Attempted assault and robbery – Us 2, them 3: 2 Pakistanis and 1 wannabe-Pakistani. We were actually heading home after being on the same party together. The wannabe-Pakistani suddenly turned on me without provocation and rallied the other two. Me and my friend had to run as we were unarmed at the time.

    17 years – (Time: 23.30) – Assault and attempted robbery – Us 10, them 12 Moroccans. Location Tåsen, Oslo.

    They were robbing (collecting Jizya) and beating local kafr/Norwegian kids at Tåsen center, they had done this on numerous occasions. They didn‘t live there but travelled to Tåsen from a Muslim enclave on Oslo East. I was at a party on Tåsen when we heard they had just beaten one of my friends younger brothers. We went there to chase them away from the neighbourhood. They had weapons, we had weapons. I was hit with a billiard pool in the head. Result of the fight: we made a deal with them, they promised they would never return and harass the Tåsen youngsters again.

    18 years – (Time: 01.00) – Assault by Pakistani gang outside a club. A friend of mine was attacked without provocation by a gang of 6. I told him to run as they outnumbered us. Result: broken nose.

    19 years – (Time: 02.00) – Attempted robbery by two Pakistanis at a bar. I had my friends nearby so I told them to fuck off or I we would bash their faces in (an effective psychological deterrent, most Pakistani thugs have a Neanderthal mentality so to show weakness will only invite to abuse etc;). Pakistanis are usually a lot more cowardly than Northern African Muslims though (I wouldn‘t have tried that strategy on Moroccans‘).

    20 years – (Time: 22.00) – Threats and attempted assault – Us 3, them 4. Me and two friends were about to order at Burger King when a Norwegian girl crossed the food queue. As she went by she pushed me, saying; “MOVE, YOU PIECE OF SHIT!”. Needless to say, I was very surprised and I managed to stutter the words; “suck my dick, bitch”, while perplexed. She ran over to her friends, 4 Moroccans‘ sitting at a corner and just waiting to pick a fight… They approached me (I was alone at the time) and told me they were going to “fuck me up severely” as soon as I left Burger King. I had tear gas on me, as I always have when going out late. However, I decided to go with the “deterrent strategy”, so I called my two friends, Erling, a relatively small adopted Columbian, and his friend a relatively big Christian Ugandan. Having established my deterrent, and obviously not interested in fighting these savages (as is my policy with all Muslim bullies under normal circumstances), I went ahead and started negotiating, offering the “Muslim whore” an apology. End result was, we left as a group and had the Muslims follow us until we managed to lose them. The most annoying things about the encounter is that you really can‘t control when you bump into them again. Luckily, a majority of Muslim savages like them live on the East side of town.

    21 years – (Time: 01.30) – Attempted assault and robbery – Us 4, them 4. Me and my best friends; Peter, Marius and Martin were out clubbing and drinking. This was actually the first time I smoked (normal cigarettes) and I fainted for a few seconds outside a store not far from the club. This was the first and only time I have fainted in my life btw, lol. Apparently, 4 Albanian Muslims saw this incident and figured I would make an easy target. All 4 of them approached me and tried to rob me. At that time my friends just arrived and they started to threaten them as well as one of them pulled out a knife.

    Obviously, we didn‘t want to fight these savages, so we said we would take out some cash for them in an ATM in the nearby Burger King. We called the police as soon as we entered. However, this was Saturday night so we had no luck getting a response. We ordered some food and stayed at Burger King for a little more than an hour, at which point the Muslim savages had left (probably busy robbing other victims).

    You’ve opined on multiple occasions that Catholics can do whatever they want to non-Catholics: When they’re out of power, they can overthrow the government by whatever means they want; when they’re in power, they can do whatever they want to those who are not in power.

    Got quotes to back any of that up?

  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts:

    many on the American right both identify him as a liberal and claim he is in league with Islamist terrorists.

    And do these right-wingers attempt to rationalise the apparent contradiction?

    That you can characterise his article as you do says far more about you than about him – and what it says about you it utterly shameful.

    Shameful is mouthing slogans about “ending injustice and tearing down oppressive power-structures”, while seeing a garment like the burka as a means of “expressing … faith through … clothing”.

    Shameful is denouncing a politician for “showing his true colours” as a “bigot” because said politician drew attention to the widespread phenomenon of Mohammedan gangs ensnaring adolescent white girls into sex slavery.

    Shameful is dismissing concerns at the traumatic social upheavals resulting from mass immigration (imposed on the British people without consultation) with a bland: “It’s not self-evident that people should have a veto power over who gets to move into their geographical area, any more than people should have a veto power over who gets to sit next to them on the train.”

    Was Heartiste’s blog where you found the term, jonathangray?

    No. It’s fairly common in alt-right discourse, along with “pathological altruism”. Heartiste is often amusing and insightful but there’s no getting away from it — the fellow’s a cad. (Yet another poisonous fruit of feminism.)

  • dingojack

    “… the widespread phenomenon of Mohammedan gangs ensnaring adolescent white girls into sex slavery.”

    Bwhahahaha. And here was I thinking the moral panic over ‘white slavery’ went out in the 1930’s.

    Oh BTW, you forgot the whole “‘Mohammedan’ gangs kidnapping and killing white christian children to drink their blood” thing. You must be slipping.

    Dingo

  • Nick Gotts

    jonathanray,

    I see you are unable to meet the challenge I posed @30. Providing unsourced and out-of-context quotes that did not appear in the blog post you linked to as if they were an answer is dishonest and cowardly – and of course, absolutely typical of you.

    Breivik was a monster, but who made him?

    The racist and misogynist subculture you belong to. He spent much of his time beofre his murders both reading and spouting very much the same kind of bigotry you do.

    It’s fairly common in alt-right discourse, along with “pathological altruism”.

    Where “alt-right” means the racist and misogynist subculture you belong to.

    Heartiste is often amusing and insightful but there’s no getting away from it — the fellow’s a cad. (Yet another poisonous fruit of feminism.)

    He’s vile scum, so I’m not surprised you find him “amusing an dinsightful”. Blaming him on feminism is typical of your moral and intellectual cowardice.

  • dingojack

    ‘Alt-right’? More like ‘Alt-F4’*, in my opinion.

    Dingo

    ———

    * or ‘alt-ctrl-del’ perhaps

  • jonathangray

    dingojack:

    “… the widespread phenomenon of Mohammedan gangs ensnaring adolescent white girls into sex slavery.”

    Bwhahahaha. And here was I thinking the moral panic over ‘white slavery’ went out in the 1930’s.

    So how would you describe it? (I assume you’re aware of the specific phenomenon to which I’m referring.)

  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts:

    Providing unsourced and out-of-context quotes that did not appear in the blog post you linked to as if they were an answer is dishonest and cowardly

    Actually one of the quotes did appear in the post, but there are none so blind as will not see.

    He spent much of his time beofre his murders both reading and spouting very much the same kind of bigotry you do.

    Given the autobiographical excerpts I quoted, it’s not hard to see why. Did you read them?

    Where “alt-right” means the racist and misogynist subculture you belong to.

    I don’t belong to any “subculture” and find the alt-right milieu vitiated by its pagan tendencies.

    He’s vile scum, so I’m not surprised you find him “amusing an dinsightful”.

    Spoken like a true tight-arsed Puritan moralist of the leftoid variety.

    Blaming him on feminism is typical of your moral and intellectual cowardice.

    Refusing to see the civilisational havoc wrought by feminism is typical of yours.

  • Nick Gotts

    jonathanray@38,

    Actually one of the quotes did appear in the post

    And the rest did not, so the charge stands. Nor do those four words you quoted in any way justify the charges you made against David Neale.

    Given the autobiographical excerpts I quoted, it’s not hard to see why. Did you read them?

    Yes. Since the man is a psychopathic mass murderer, I see even less reason to trust what he says than I do what you say.

    I don’t belong to any “subculture”

    Yes, you do. The racist and misogynist ultra-traditionalist Catholic subculture, which, we learn from your example, overlaps with the racist and misogynist “alt-right” subculture.

    Spoken like a true tight-arsed Puritan moralist of the leftoid variety.

    It’s an odd sort of “tight-arsed Puritan moralist” who says, as I do, that any kind of sex involving mutually consenting, mentally capable adults, which does not involve deceit, and does not risk death or serious injury to any of the participants, is ethically acceptable. What you mean, of course, is that I object to men exploiting, demeaning and deceiving women. I plead guilty to that charge.

    Refusing to see the civilisational havoc wrought by feminism is typical of yours.

    You fail, of course, to provide any evidence for your ludicrous claim of feminism causing “civilizational havoc”, just as you failed to provide any evidence for feminism being responsible for scumbags like Heartiste. Your real objection to feminism is that it means women no longer regard you as entitled to deference just because you have a penis.

  • Nick Gotts

    dingojack@34,

    jonathanray is referring to cases in the UK where gangs of men of Pakistani origin (and presumably Muslim, though AFAIK no-one has confirmed that they are religious believers – jonathanray, naturally, uses “Mohammedan” as a term of racial abuse) sexually exploited vulnerable teenage, often underage girls; first enticing them into sexual relationships with drink, drugs and pretended affection (most of the girls were in local authority care), then coercing them into sex with other gang members, pimping them for money, and often beating and threatening them. The perpetrators and the local police appear to have shared a contempt for the girls, while local elected councillors and their staff failed to act, apparently in part because they did not want to give ammunition to racists – but of course, have ended up giving far more than if they’d acted promptly, as jonathangray so aptly exemplifies. Of course, as a fanboi of the world’s largest and most powerful pedophile ring, he’s not really in a strong position to cast stones at “Mohammedans”.

  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts:

    Nor do those four words you quoted in any way justify the charges you made

    As I said, none so blind as will not see.

    Since the man is a psychopathic mass murderer, I see even less reason to trust what he says than I do what you say.

    How convenient to be able to tuck him away in a little box marked ‘psychopath’. Saves you having to contemplate the unpalatable possibility that his berserker rage was a human response to intolerable provocation. (What’s your opinion of leftist revolutionary violence, btw? Was Che a “psychopathic mass murderer”?)

    The racist and misogynist ultra-traditionalist Catholic subculture, which, we learn from your example, overlaps with the racist and misogynist “alt-right” subculture.

    Traditional Catholicism is not a subculture.

    It’s an odd sort of “tight-arsed Puritan moralist” who says, as I do, that any kind of sex involving mutually consenting, mentally capable adults, which does not involve deceit, and does not risk death or serious injury to any of the participants, is ethically acceptable. What you mean, of course, is that I object to men exploiting, demeaning and deceiving women. I plead guilty to that charge.

    What I meant by “Puritan moralist” is that you cannot conceive that one can indeed be “vile scum” and still be amusing and insightful.

    You fail, of course, to provide any evidence for your ludicrous claim of feminism causing “civilizational havoc”

    Oppressed slaves of the Patriarchy.

  • jonathangray

    [contd.]

    Liberated women. (They have the vote!)

    just as you failed to provide any evidence for feminism being responsible for scumbags like Heartiste.

    If women cease to act as ladies, what incentive is there for men to act like gentlemen?

    local elected councillors and their staff failed to act, apparently in part because they did not want to give ammunition to racists – but of course, have ended up giving far more than if they’d acted promptly,

    Because that’s what’s really important about these numberless cases — not giving ammunition to racists. See what I mean about ethnomasochism?

  • Nick Gotts

    jonathangray,

    As I said, none so blind as will not see.

    Evidently, you cannot produce any basis for the claim that those words justify the charge.

    Was Che a “psychopathic mass murderer”?

    Yes. Your stereotytpes are showing.

    Traditional Catholicism is not a subculture.

    Yes, it is. This is a simple matter of fact: it does not constitute the entirety of any culture; therefore it is a subculture.

    What I meant by “Puritan moralist” is that you cannot conceive that one can indeed be “vile scum” and still be amusing and insightful.

    I notice that when you reported that you found Heartiste “amusing and insightful”, you described him by the antiquated and euphemistic term “a cad”. Which rather suggests that you realize intellectually (to use that word in its broadest sense) that disgust is the ethically appropriate response to his blog, but because you share his contempt for the women he exploits, demeans and deceives, you can’t actually feel it.

    As for your contrasting pictures of women a century ago and now, even you cannot seriously believe these are representative. You must surely be aware of the prevalence of public drunkenness, violence, child exploitation, neglect and prostitution and other evils in Victorian Britain; while thousands of millions of women have benefited from feminism in being able to live the lives they want, and to contribute hugely in every field of worthwhile human endeavour.

    If women cease to act as ladies, what incentive is there for men to act like gentlemen?

    Clearly, given your hatred of feminism, by “act like ladies” you mean “remain subservient to men”. Actually, many “gentlemen” acted respectfully only to those women of their own class; but if by “act like gentlemen” you mean “refrain from exploiting, demeaning and deceiving women”, the “incentive” is to be a decent human being. But I’m unsurprised that that’s hard for you to grasp.

    Because that’s what’s really important about these numberless cases — not giving ammunition to racists. See what I mean about ethnomasochism?

    Of course I see what you mean – you interpret everything through the lens of your warped belief that one must either be a racist like yourself, or an “ethnomasochist”. But for decent people – unlike those who defend torture and slavery – it does not need explicitly spelling out that grooming, raping, pimping, threatening and beating teenage girls is evil; that those guilty of it should be severely punished, whatever the race or religion of either perpetrators or victims; and that those who failed to stop it when they had the power and duty to do so have considerable responsibility for the victims’ suffering, and should themselves face serious consequences, such as public exposure and losing their jobs. I was noting that, even in terms of their own warped priorities, those who did not take action against the criminals in order not to give ammunition to racists, failed completely.

  • dingojack

    “…what incentive is there for men to act like gentlemen?”

    When asked what he thought of Western Civilisation, Ghandi replied he thought it would be a very good idea.

    Dingo

  • Nick Gotts

    dingojack@44,

    It’s a neat line, but Gandhi was (a) himself fundamentally influenced by western ideas (he was trained in law in London, and revered Ruskin, Thoreau and Tolstoy among others), and (b) had some highly questionable ideas (he defended the caste system despite wanting to make it easier on those at the bottom, he advised the British not to resist Hitler) and practices (he slept with* young women followers, including his great-niece, supposedly to test his commitment to celibacy).

    As far as “gentlemen” are concerned, “behaving like a gentleman” covered a great deal of extremely brutal exploitation of the “lower classes” and colonial “natives”, as well as leaving even upper-class women (“ladies”) at the mercy of abusive fathers and husbands. All of which, of course, jonathangray would thoroughly approve.

    *AFAIK, not a euphemism in this case. At least, if it was, none of them talked. Still, pretty creepy at best.

  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts:

    Evidently, you cannot produce any basis for the claim that those words justify the charge.

    Correct. I withdraw the charge and apologise unreservedly to Mr Neale. (I believe I am correct in my assessment of Mr Neale as an ethnomasochist, but accept that the linked blog post was insufficient to demonstrate this.)

    Was Che a “psychopathic mass murderer”?

    Yes. Your stereotytpes are showing.

    Is that a repudiation of revolutionary violence?

    it does not constitute the entirety of any culture; therefore it is a subculture.

    Some would define subculture as a minority culture formed in conscious opposition to an establishment culture. Traditional Catholicism was not formed in conscious opposition to modernity; modernity (including Novus Ordo Catholicism) was formed in conscious opposition to traditional Catholicism, which is nothing other than the baseline culture of the West. Modernity won, transforming itself into a majority establishment culture in the process of usurpation.

    I notice that when you reported that you found Heartiste “amusing and insightful”, you described him by the antiquated and euphemistic term “a cad”. Which rather suggests that you realize intellectually (to use that word in its broadest sense) that disgust is the ethically appropriate response to his blog, but because you share his contempt for the women he exploits, demeans and deceives, you can’t actually feel it.

    No. I don’t regard cad as a euphemism; it’s a term of moral disapproval. The fact that I went on to say one can indeed be “vile scum” and still be amusing and insightful strongly implies I accept your designation of Heartiste as vile scum. He is, however, amusing and insightful vile scum, as are you in your way.

    You must surely be aware of the prevalence of public drunkenness, violence, child exploitation, neglect and prostitution and other evils in Victorian Britain

    Of course. But it was regarded with disgust, concern and shame; or it was shamefully ignored. It was not encouraged or sanctioned by powerful currents in mainstream popular culture.

    thousands of millions of women have benefited from feminism in being able to live the lives they want, and to contribute hugely in every field of worthwhile human endeavour.

    Disagree.

    Clearly, given your hatred of feminism, by “act like ladies” you mean “remain subservient to men”.

    In a certain sense — and among other things.

    Actually, many “gentlemen” acted respectfully only to those women of their own class

    No doubt.

    if by “act like gentlemen” you mean “refrain from exploiting, demeaning and deceiving women”, the “incentive” is to be a decent human being. But I’m unsurprised that that’s hard for you to grasp.

    Is it not possible that people do not always see that virtue is its own reward and need incentives to act like decent human beings?

    Of course I see what you mean – you interpret everything through the lens of your warped belief that one must either be a racist like yourself, or an “ethnomasochist”. But for decent people – unlike those who defend torture and slavery – it does not need explicitly spelling out that grooming, raping, pimping, threatening and beating teenage girls is evil; that those guilty of it should be severely punished, whatever the race or religion of either perpetrators or victims; and that those who failed to stop it when they had the power and duty to do so have considerable responsibility for the victims’ suffering, and should themselves face serious consequences, such as public exposure and losing their jobs.

    So you say. And yet I cannot help noting how, in discussing these matters, you adopt a tone that is curiously studied in its bland neutrality, notwithstanding your use of the term “evil”. A sexist on the internet is “vile scum”; Mohammedan gangs who rape white children are merely “perpetrators”. Also of interest is “whatever the race or religion of either perpetrators or victims” — as though race or religion were actually irrelevant to the issue.

  • jonathangray

    dingojack:

    When asked what he thought of Western Civilisation, Ghandi replied he thought it would be a very good idea.

    If I live to see the final collapse of the remnants of Western civilisation into ruin and darkness, it will be some small consolation to me that you will live to see it too.

  • Nick Gotts

    jonathangray,

    Is that a repudiation of revolutionary violence?

    No; violence, revolutionary or otherwise, is sometimes the lesser evil. I’m not calling either Brehvik or Guevara psychopathic simply because they killed people, but because the circumstances in which they did it indicate that they lacked empathy for victims in their presence and at their mercy, when that would have been the psychologically normal reaction. I doubt Brehvik was a born psychopath; rather, he deliberately cultivated such a lack of empathy. IIRC, this is stated in his writings.

    Traditional Catholicism was not formed in conscious opposition to modernity

    Yes, it was. That you can believe the “traditional Catholicism” of the present, with its pervasive resentment and hatred of the surrounding culture, is the same as pre-Reformation Catholicism with its almost unquestioned cultural dominance, just indicates that you have little knowledge and zero understanding of history.

    He is, however, amusing and insightful vile scum, as are you in your way.

    If vile scum like you did not consider me vile scum, I would be ashamed. You, however, like Heartiste, are neither amusing nor insightful.

    It was not encouraged or sanctioned by powerful currents in mainstream popular culture.

    As far as I’ve seen it, the attitude in mainstream popular culture (if what you mean by that is the tabloid press, reality TV etc.) is primarily one of overt disapprobation and disgust which allows its audience to enjoy the spectacle while feeling superior. Exactly the same was true of the Victorian press – see for example the sensationalist contemporary reports of murders.

    housands of millions of women have benefited from feminism in being able to live the lives they want, and to contribute hugely in every field of worthwhile human endeavour.

    Disagree.

    As for living the lives they want, it is obvious that women have a much wider range of choices now than they did in pre-feminist times. That women have contributed enormously over the past century in the arts, the sciences, philosophy, philanthropy, politics, sport… is simple fact. That you “disagree” says a lot about you: not only are you a misogynist, you are seriously disconnected from reality.

    Clearly, given your hatred of feminism, by “act like ladies” you mean “remain subservient to men”.

    In a certain sense — and among other things.

    As I said before, your real objection to feminism is that it deprives you of the subservience you feel possession of a penis entitles you to. How utterly contemptible.

    if by “act like gentlemen” you mean “refrain from exploiting, demeaning and deceiving women”, the “incentive” is to be a decent human being. But I’m unsurprised that that’s hard for you to grasp.

    Is it not possible that people do not always see that virtue is its own reward and need incentives to act like decent human beings?

    You asked “If women cease to act as ladies, what incentive is there for men to act like gentlemen?”, suggesting that there was none. I answered you, and now you move the goalposts. Of course there are also other incentives to acting like decent human beings, that do not depend on expecting subservience. Nor should anyone be obliged to be subservient in order to be treated decently.

    And yet I cannot help noting how, in discussing these matters, you adopt a tone that is curiously studied in its bland neutrality, notwithstanding your use of the term “evil”.

    I’m not responsible for your warped interpretations of what I say and how I say it.

    Also of interest is “whatever the race or religion of either perpetrators or victims” — as though race or religion were actually irrelevant to the issue.

    Here is the context you removed:

    grooming, raping, pimping, threatening and beating teenage girls is evil; that those guilty of it should be severely punished, whatever the race or religion of either perpetrators or victims

    It is irrelevant to the evil of the acts concerned, the vigour with which the vile scum responsible should be pursued and the severity with which they should be punished – which is the context you carefully removed from the quote. Do you disagree? As far as the wider context is concerned, there is evidence the victims also included Asian girls. That the misogyny and ethnocentrism of the criminals’ culture contributed to their criminality I don’t doubt (and made it particularly hard for victims from that culture to speak up); just as the misogyny, homophobia and authoritarianism of the Catholic church is relevant to the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, its cover-up by the hierarchy, and the astonishing criminal career of a well-known Papal knight; and as the misogyny of popular culture is to the exploitative activities of Heartiste.

  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts:

    That you can believe the “traditional Catholicism” of the present, with its pervasive resentment and hatred of the surrounding culture, is the same as pre-Reformation Catholicism with its almost unquestioned cultural dominance, just indicates that you have little knowledge and zero understanding of history.

    The fact that traditional Catholicism no longer enjoys almost unquestioned cultural dominance and that many traditional Catholics feel contempt (occasionally “resentment and hatred”) for the dominant culture of modernity does not mean the former arose in opposition to the latter except in the most trivial details. That’s like saying the remaining healthy cells in a cancer-riddled body arose in opposition to the cancer.

    You, however, like Heartiste, are neither amusing nor insightful.

    “Caviar to the general.”

    As far as I’ve seen it, the attitude in mainstream popular culture (if what you mean by that is the tabloid press, reality TV etc.) is primarily one of overt disapprobation and disgust which allows its audience to enjoy the spectacle while feeling superior.

    There is that, but there is also a broad current that simply promotes lewd and drunken behaviour — e.g. an editorial in a ‘lads’ mag’ some years ago that declared that popular publication’s intention to be the cultivation of “hedonistic ne’er-do-wells”. Liberalism breeds libertinism as a corpse breeds maggots. (It also breeds extremism.)

    As for living the lives they want, it is obvious that women have a much wider range of choices now than they did in pre-feminist times.

    But it is questionable whether women (and society as a whole) have “benefited” from this wide range of choices, as you claim. It’s also questionable just how much real “choice” they have in an all-pervasive cultural atmosphere that continuously denigrates traditional female roles and manners while extolling the joys of “strength”, “independence” and “power”.

    That women have contributed enormously over the past century in the arts, the sciences, philosophy, philanthropy, politics, sport… is simple fact.

    In the case of sport, I would not deny the possibility of a significant female contribution; I would follow Juvenal in questioning its inherent desirability. As for the other fields, I wonder who you had in mind…

    You asked “If women cease to act as ladies, what incentive is there for men to act like gentlemen?”, suggesting that there was none. I answered you, and now you move the goalposts.

    Since acting like a gentleman is simply a major part of acting like a decent (male) human being, I don’t see that I’ve shifted the goalposts at all.

    Of course there are also other incentives to acting like decent human beings

    Such as?

    Nor should anyone be obliged to be subservient in order to be treated decently.

    Reality does not defer to what one believes “should” be the case.

    It is irrelevant to the evil of the acts concerned, the vigour with which the vile scum responsible should be pursued and the severity with which they should be punished … . Do you disagree?

    No.

    As far as the wider context is concerned, there is evidence the victims also included Asian girls.

    Maybe so, but even if Pakistani Mohammedan gangs preyed on Pakistani Mohammedan girls to the same extent as they did white girls, ethnicity might still be relevant. Strange how one never hears about Hindus or Sikhs in the UK indulging in such depravity.

    That the misogyny and ethnocentrism of the criminals’ culture contributed to their criminality I don’t doubt (and made it particularly hard for victims from that culture to speak up)

    Surely you’re not suggesting it was a bad idea to disallow large-scale immigration by representatives of such a misogynistic and ethnocentric culture??

    just as the misogyny, homophobia and authoritarianism of the Catholic church is relevant to the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, its cover-up by the hierarchy

    I’m intrigued as to how this alleged misogyny and homophobia is relevant to pederastic abuse. As for “authoritarianism”, if you mean the Church’s hierarchical structure and the deferential attitude toward it, then I agree that probably played a significant part in enabling the pederasts infesting the Church to commit their crimes with impunity. The problem is, all human institutions that are not dysfunctional are hierarchical — secular as well as ecclesiastical, left-liberal as well as right-authoritarian; and these institutional hierarchies all demand their own deference to superiors and the ideological orthodoxy they work to uphold. Which is why social workers kept shtum about a homosexual foster couple abusing boys (mustn’t appear “homophobic”) and why police buried the Mohammedan white slavery gang scandal for years (mustn’t appear “racist”).

    and the astonishing criminal career of a well-known Papal knight

    That would be the well-known papal knight accused by some victims of engaging in explicitly satanic rituals; who granted an interview to a the in-house magazine of a well-known satanist cult*; and who visited a well-known children’s care home which was also regularly visited by a well-known serial child-rapist, who also happened to be a confirmed satanist.** They give papal knighthoods to anyone nowadays.

    *“I would say that I am highly moral during the day, and even higherly moral during the evening, but of course we won’t say anything about the night-time, because that is when all real wolves like myself rise from the darkness and leap about causing mayhem left and right.”

    **This latter gentleman was apparently inspired by the historical example of Gilles de Rais. Of course, Gilles de Rais lived at a time when the Catholic Church enjoyed almost unquestioned cultural dominance and so received just punishment for his crimes.

  • jonathangray

    [Oops – that should read “… a bad idea to allow large-scale immigration …”]