Merry Christmas To All

Dear Readers--

From Christmas until the New Year I shall be visiting relatives and will be out of computer range. I would like to thank those loyal readers who have seen some interest in my sporadic outpourings and to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I would also like to thank those webloggers who have been kind enough to have linked to me over the past year and to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year too - Daniel Larison, Vote Franco, Orycteropus Afer, Rev. Walter Snyder, Thomas Pietsch, Poor Miserable Sinner, Luther Library, The Honourable Jacob P. Murgatroid, John Wilkes, Sam, David Orland, The Croydonian, Will B, Laban Tall, Dennis Mangan, Mr Eugenides, Steve Edwards, Pub Philosopher, The Monarchist, Michael Cadwallader, Michael Courtman, David Farrar, C. Van Carter, Bernard Slattery, FaceRight, Cranmer and Guilherme Roesler.

Yours Sincerely,
Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

P.S. And a belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Rob at The Better Part of Valour

The word of the year

Dear Readers--

Dictionary makers, Meriam-Webster, have anounced the highly scientific and credible results of an online survey to find the word of the year for 2006.

That word is truthiness. (HT The Croydonian)

For a definition see:


The coiner of the word, Stephen Colbert, had this to say about the honour:

“Though I'm no fan of reference books and their fact-based agendas, I am a fan of anyone who chooses to honour me,” he said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

“And what an honour,” he said. “Truthiness now joins the lexicographical pantheon with words like ‘squash,' ‘merry,' ‘crumpet,' ‘the,' ‘xylophone,' ‘circuitous,' ‘others' and others.”

Truly a deserving winner.

Yours sincerely,
Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

A Neocon Musical Interlude

Billy Bragg - Great leap forward


Black Sabbath - War Pigs

A few Monarchist quotations

For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free.
~~Anatole France. (HT The Oxford Monarchists)




If a nation does not want a monarchy, change the nation's mind. If a nation does not need a monarchy, change the nation's needs.
~~Jan Christian Smuts, PM of South Africa 1939-1948. (HT League of Monarchists - University of Durham)

A Melancholic Musical Interlude

The Boys Next Door - Shiver


The Triffids - Wide open road

The Surrealistic Madness of Michael Ledeen; Or, do Neocons dream of Endless War?

Why nothing can be wrong if it makes our country strong
We got to get tough to save democracy.
And though it may mean war
We must defend Singapore
This don't hurt you half as much as it hurts me.

Oh, Franklin Roosevelt told the people how he felt
We damn near believed what he said
He said, "I hate war, and so does Eleanor
But we won't be safe 'till everybody's dead."
~~from the Ballad of October 16 by Millard Lampell

Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.
~~Michael Leedon according to Jonah Goldberg (via Arthur Silber)

Dear Readers--

Even by Necon standards, a recent post by Michael Ledeen was so deranged that it has attracted considerable horrified attention from the anti-war Right and Left; with Daniel Larison at Eunomia, Matt Barganier at Antiwar, Arthur Silber at Once upon a time, Doug Bandow at 4Pundits and Michael Dougherty at Surfeited with Dainties having their say.

Michael Ledeen's madness is not a drooling, raving at the moon, obscenity-spewing lunacy - it's more a quiet and intense meglomania, like a madman telling you that he is Jesus Christ reborn sent to defeat the Antichrist and usher in the Kingdom of God.

Michael Ledeen wrote:

Thanks to Cliff, and to Dexter Filkins for getting someone to admit, once again, that Iran and Syria are all over Iraq.

Victor says we should first stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's skipping a step. It is impossible so long as the mullahs rule in Tehran and Assad commands in Damascus. It is a regional war. If we continue to misunderstand it, if we remain locked in this fundamental error of strategic vision, we will endlessly respond to our enemies' initiatives, playing defense in one place after another. Today in Iraq and Afghanistan, tomorrow in Lebanon, Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopea and Eritrea (that is the mullahs' game plan), then in Israel and Europe, and finally here at home. We do not need intelligence agencies to know this, all we need to do is listen to our enemies, who announce it at the top of their lungs.

Leaving aside the apparently small matter of invading countries based on suspicion; this is sheer one-upmanship. It's not enough to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - we should also invade Iran and Syria too. And just where will we get the soldiers considering how their numbers are being stretched now. Does Michael Ledeen have a pouch full of dragon's teeth to sow or maybe he wants to reintroduce conscription. And the idea of fighting not just in two countries but in four at current armed forces levels is tactical and logistical madness. Who is he getting tactical advice from? Hitler? The voices in his head? Or is this just a way to justify the failure of Necon policy. It wouldn't be because a foreign policy of attempting to bring democracy to tribalized and sectarian divided countries by sheer force of arms was bound to fail - no, it was because we just hadn't killed enough people and invaded enough countries.

Then there is the idea that Africa is part of a regional war in the Middle East. This is a dominio theory with a vengeance - today Iraq, tomorrow Burkina Faso! As for the Iranian Mullahs as some sort of Mohammaden Illuminati bent on world domination - that's quite a trick when the Shia are 7.5-11% of Mohammaden population (with the rest being Sunni). Daniel Larison has effectively mocked these delusions at It could be worse you could be a realist and It's even funnier the second time around.

Michael Leedon continues:

There is no escape from this war, and we haven't even begun to wage it. Once we do, we will find that we've got many political and economic weapons, most of them inside our enemies' lands. I entirely agree with Victor that Iran and Syria are fragile, brittle, and anxious. They know their people hate them, and they know that revolution could erupt if we supported it.

When Michael Leedon says "we" should wage this ever increasing war - he means "you" should wage it. He's going to stay at home writing pro-war articles like a good little typewriter warrior while some other poor bastard dies in some godforsaken Middle Eastern wasteland in Ledeen's unnecessary war.

And it is a damnable lie to say that this regional war is unavoidable - if the soldiers aren't there they can't be attacked. If Iraq hadn't been invaded and sanctions had continued - the present unstable situation wouldn't exist. Furthermore the rhetoric of relying on internal enemies to help invading American armies shows that Mr Ledeen has learned nothing over the last three years and is resorting to the same useless tactics that have transformed Iraq "from a secular to a religious country; from a rogue to failed state"(in the words of Ilana Mercer).

Michael Leedon comes to the conclusion that:

Of course, as Victor says, our leaders may be so demoralized that we could just surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the realists and the antisemites desire. [Emphasis added]. But that would only delay the reckoning, and ensure that the war will be far bloodier. Sigh.

Antisemites? How dare some pundits notice that many Neocons seem more concerned with Israel than America - don't they know that what's good for Likud is good for America? And doesn't labelling as "realists" those who oppose Neocon schemes to transform the world mean that Necon policies are unrealistic. Or possibly, surrealistic considering the utter lack of concern with physical and cultural realities in their programs.

The real way to avoid future conflict with Mohammadean forces, as many "realists" have said, would be to withdraw troops from the Middle East and eliminate Muslim immigration to the West. And while we're at it imprison every Neocon pundit in a padded cell where they can't cause any more harm. But that won't happen while we pursue Necon policies of open immigration, multiculturalism and the application of War and invasion to any country that looks even remotely hostile to the West.

Yours sincerely,
Mild Colonial Boy

Hajnal Ban endorsed for Forde

Dear Readers--
I don't know how I missed this news but Miss Hajnal Ban has been endorsed as the Nationals' candidate for the seat of Forde for the Federal Elections next year.The Nationals State Director, Brad Henderson said that:

The Nationals believe in Members of Parliament who are strong local advocates committed to providing a better quality of life for all Queenslanders. We believe Hajnal Ban has what it takes to represent the people of Forde. She knows how to work, she has a determination to make this community an even better place to live and she wants to help provide more opportunity for local people to prosper.

Miss Ban said:

She wanted to provide balanced and effective representation in Parliament. "I’m running as a candidate for The Nationals because I share the party’s values and because The Nationals are the only party committed to fighting for families, small business and workers. A vote for Hajnal Ban will mean the people of Forde can continue benefiting from the strong economic management of the Federal Coalition Government, while also benefiting from the balanced, common sense representation that only The Nationals provide."

The Sectarian Strand would like to offer its congratulations and wish Miss Ban the best of luck in the upcoming election.

Yours sincerely,
Mild Colonial Boy

Assorted Library Odds and Ends

Dear Readers--

There are times that I envy our American cousins. Udolpho has an interesting take on the case of Campus Police tasering a student who refused to leave the library after failing to show student ID.

All college students should be tasered on the first day of orientation to break them in, and all UCLA students should receive a weekly taser enema if overheard using the expressions "abuse of power", "Patriot Act", or "civil rights" at any point in their school careers. (Mustafa babbled something about the Patriot Act which of course has nothing to do with unhappy university students who have been coddled their whole lives and subsequently refuse to follow library rules.)

I wish we could do this in Australia. I can think of a few patrons who's attitude would be markedly improved with repeated tasering. Anyone wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt, parents who think that public libraries are free childcare centres to dump their vile offspring unsupervised, parents who might as well be absent for all their (non-existent) efforts to control their hellspawn, students who not only want you to find all the books for an assignment but gaze gormlessly at you as if expecting you to write it for them as well, and those patrons that enter several minutes before closing with an involved reference question to answer.

In addition the clothes designer for the new State Library of Queensland staff uniforms would also benefit from some therapeutic tasering as well.



Only a person with a sadistic hatred of humanity second only to that of a modern architect would think that black polyester would be ideal for a sub-tropical climate. Furthermore the uniforms look more suitable to waiters at a trendy Melbourne bistro - not a library (and tight clothing is not the friend of some of the library staff).

Yours sincerely,
Mild Colonial Boy

Another Musical Interlude - An Eighties Special

Monochrome Set - Jet Set Junta


Men without Hats - Safety Dance


Lou Reed - No Money Down

Quotation of the Week

When I hear the phrase “spontaneous order,” I reach for my arqebuss.

Daniel Larison

A Musical Interlude

Cold Chisel - Khe Sanh


The Pogues - And the band played Waltzing Matilda

Remembrance Day

In Flanders’ Fields

In Flanders’ Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders’ Fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders’ Fields.

 John McCrae

Etiquette I : On the Necessity of Good Manners

Dear Readers--

It is obvious to many of a delicate Sensibility that our present Society is in a dreadful state of Decay in Manners, Politeness and simple Civility. The cultivation of Manners is thus not a Luxury but an urgent social and religious Necessity if we are to have a Civil Society rather than an unruly and selfish mob of Individualists. 

To assist in this educational project I will be quoting, in the following days,  a work of a Kinder and Gentler Age - the abridged edition of Etiquette : Rules & Usages of the Best Society (originally published Melbourne, Vic. : People's Publishing Co, 1886.) :

Preface

No one subject is of more importance to people generally than a knowledge of the rules, usages and ceremonies of good society, which are commonly expressed by the word "Etiquette." Its necessity is felt wherever men and women associate together, whether in the city, village, or country town, at home or abroad. To acquire a thorough knowledge of these matters, and to put that knowledge into practice with perfect ease and self-complacency, is what people call good breeding. To display an ignorance of them, is to subject the offender to the opprobrium of being ill-bred.

From Chapter I : Introductory

A knowledge of etiquette has been defined to be a knowledge of the rules of society at its best. These rules, the outgrowth of centuries of civilization, had their foundation in friendship and love of man for his fellow man - the vital principles of Christianity - and are most powerful agents for promoting peace, harmony and good-will among all people who are enjoying the blessings of more advanced civilized government. In all civilized countries the influence of the best society is of great importance to the welfare and prosperity of the nation, but in no country is the good influence of the most refined society more powerfully felt than in our own; "the land of the future, where mankind may plant, essay, and resolve all social problems." These rules make social intercourse more agreeable, and facilitate hospitalities when all members of society hold them as binding rules and faithfully regard their observance. They are to society what our laws are to the people as a political body, and to disregard them will give rise to constant misunderstandings, engender ill-will, and beget bad morals and bad manners.

Yours Sincerely,
Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

Guy Fawkes Day

Remember, remember the fifth of November,
gunpowder, treason and plot,
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes,
'twas his intent
to blow up the King and the Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below,
Poor old England to overthrow:
By God's providence he was catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match.

Holloa boys, holloa boys, make the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!
Hip hip hoorah!

A penny loaf to feed the Pope.
A farthing o' cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah!

Stephen Colbert on D&D

Dear Readers--

As a former player of Dungeons and Dragons, I found this Stephen Colbert skit hilarious. Some high school friends and I used to play AD&D during the lunch hour - before several Baptist teachers had it banned. Apparently rolling dice and moving makeshift figures around a hastily drawn dungeon would inevitably lead to stabbing each other with real swords and the practice of magic.

Yours sincerely,

Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

Alley cats attacking "uncovered meat"

Dear Readers--

Recent remarks by Sheik al-Hilaly regarding quaint Mohammadan courtship rituals and the dangers facing "uncovered meat" from cats have been proven correct following a recent occurence in his native country of Egypt.

According to the Egyptian internet writer Big Pharoah (who also has pictures of the event):

I never thought that the day would come when girls walking in downtown Cairo would get their clothes ripped off, not by a single street lunatic, not by 4 or 5 hormone driven youth, but by throngs of young men shouting "we will f**k, we will f**k".

The whole story started after hundreds, if not thousands of young people, were assembling in front of a cinema waiting for the arrival of movie stars who were going to attend the first screening of their movie. It was the Eid holidays and cinemas were ripe with newly released movies. Nobody knows exactly what happened but hundreds of young men started running towards any moving female creature that was unfortunate enough to be present there. Girls, both veiled and unveiled, were attacked, pulled, and had their clothes ripped off. Two girls from the gulf were surrounded by a mob that pulled off their hair cover and the long black gown that Gulf women wear. Girls started running like crazy in the street, shopkeepers pulled girls to hide them inside their shops, and a taxi carrying a girl was swarmed Bloggers who witnessed this whole ordeal stood at an intersection and warned girls and women not to approach the street where all this was happening. In short, what happened was unimaginable to almost any Egyptian.

This simply shows what happens when women don't follow the Mufti's advice:

If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen.

Your sincerely,
Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

A new face for the Nationals

Dear Readers--

The Sectarian Strand would like to introduce Miss Hajnal Ban [Hajnal is pronounced hi-nal].





Miss Ban, a 28 year old barrister and a Beaudesert Shire Councilor, will contest the National's preselection for the seat of Forde in December. The seat of Forde is presently held by the Liberal's Kay Elson who will be retiring next year.

The Sectarian Strand wishes Miss Ban the best of luck with the preselection and the election next year. She has demonstrated in her academic achievements and her work as a Councillor that she is intelligent, hardworking and self-starting. As Senator Barnaby Joyce has said : "People get caught in the trap of trying to treat her like a Barbie doll. She'll bite your head off," he said. "She's no fool. She's businesslike and very hard working. If people know her, they'll vote for her."

Miss Ban has the potential to attract many voters who would otherwise not vote Nationals and would bring a strong National Party voice to the Federal Parliament.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

 

P.S. Due to popular demand here are some additional photographs of the fair Miss Ban (some with unfortunately rather obtrusive watermarks):

Australia's New Anthem

Dear Readers--

Not satisfied with their unending campaigns to change our form of government and our flag, the Australian republicans have decided to attack our national Anthem. The following monstrosity was composed by "Renowned Australian composer" Ross Edwards (with lyrics by author, David Malouf)  as a response to what he called the "truly appalling" nature of Advance Australia Fair.

The Promised Land
Land of promise, promised land.
Still to be entered, still to be found, but close, mysterious.
The rainbow serpent seeking its sky-body in this covenant,
this arc from earth to earth, these towers, this water city,
these coral reefs, unit on living unit, built of breath.
Commonwealth. Commonwealth.
All that holds us, all that we hold, this common story built of breath.
Commonwealth. Commonwealth.
All that holds us, keeps us whole.
Land of promise.
Close. Mysterious. Promised land.
Still to be entered, still to be found.

My response to this risible doggrel? Stick to writing books, Mr Malouf! and, Who the blazes is Ross Edwards? The Australian republicans have managed to surpass even their low standards with this, beating hands down their failed "Mate for the Head of State" (renamed by some monarchists as, Clown for the Australian Crown) campaign. Do they truly imagine this will impress anyone? Can you imagine any athlete proudly singing about "the rainbow serpent seeking its sky-body in this covenant" or "unit on living unit" or "common story built of breath"? This anthem is objectionable not just on Patriotic grounds but simply on the grounds of Taste.

The fact that republicans are attacking an Anthem that was only officially adopted in 1984, as a result of ongoing republican pressure - shows what the future will be like in a People's Republic of Australia. Every twenty years it will be - let's rewrite our Constitution, let's redraw our Flag, let's rewrite our Anthem - it will never end.

Personally I think we should return to our old National Anthem:

God Save the Queen.

God save our gracious Queen
long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
happy and glorious,
long to reign over us:
God save the Queen!

O Lord our God arise,
Strike down her enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all!

Thy choicest gifts in store
on her be pleased to pour;
long may she reign;
may she defend our laws,
and ever give us cause
to sing with heart and voice
"God save the Queen!"

God Save the Queen!
Mild Colonial Boy

Gone to Wordpress

This web journal has been transfered to mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com

Welcome to the new look "The Sectarian Strand"

Greetings Gentle Readers,

I hope you like the new appearance of "The Sectarian Strand". I must beg your indulgence but posting will be irregular for a week or so, while I complete the necessary changes and improvements.

Yours sincerely,

Mild Colonial Boy

School denies converting girl in 'honour kill' case

Yesterday's The Australian reported that:

AN elite Christian college has moved to quell suggestions that a Muslim girl was inspired to convert while attending the school, as police prepared to interview her father over the alleged honour killing of her mother.

Adelaide's non-denominational Pembroke School insisted students were "encouraged to seek their own spiritual journeys".....

Pembroke students said yesterday that the school did not require students to participate in Christian services, and only taught compulsory religious education up to Year 9.

Principal Malcolm Lamb said in a statement that the school had "a philosophy where individuals are encouraged to seek their own spiritual journeys". "In the case of Islamic students, the school is in principle and in practice very supportive of students observing religious customs, such as wearing the hijab - this has happened in the past, observing fasting and the need for prayer rooms," Mr Lamb said.

After all, we wouldn't want to give the impression that "Christian" schools were actually concerned with passing on the Christian faith. But I guess that the Great Commision takes second place to student fees. In any case why pass on 2000 years of Christian tradition when the children's "individual spiritual journeys" are far more important.

However even if the school actually wanted to pass on Christianity, how can a "non-denominational school" actually teach anything about Christianity? How can it teach anything on Baptism, the Church, the works of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's Supper without taking a "denominational" position? Only by avoiding any indepth discussion, and thereby producing a worthless, vague and watered-down Faith.

Personally I'm convinced that nothing this school could have done could have "inspired" anyone to convert to Christianity.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. (Matthew 5:13 KJV)

School denies converting girl in 'honour kill' case

Yesterday's The Australian reported that:

AN elite Christian college has moved to quell suggestions that a Muslim girl was inspired to convert while attending the school, as police prepared to interview her father over the alleged honour killing of her mother.

Adelaide's non-denominational Pembroke School insisted students were "encouraged to seek their own spiritual journeys".....

Pembroke students said yesterday that the school did not require students to participate in Christian services, and only taught compulsory religious education up to Year 9.

Principal Malcolm Lamb said in a statement that the school had "a philosophy where individuals are encouraged to seek their own spiritual journeys". "In the case of Islamic students, the school is in principle and in practice very supportive of students observing religious customs, such as wearing the hijab - this has happened in the past, observing fasting and the need for prayer rooms," Mr Lamb said.

After all, we wouldn't want to give the impression that "Christian" schools were actually concerned with passing on the Christian faith. But I guess that the Great Commision takes second place to student fees. In any case why pass on 2000 years of Christian tradition when the children's "individual spiritual journeys" are far more important.

However even if the school actually wanted to pass on Christianity, how can a "non-denominational school" actually teach anything about Christianity? How can it teach anything on Baptism, the Church, the works of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's Supper without taking a "denominational" position? Only by avoiding any indepth discussion, and thereby producing a worthless, vague and watered-down Faith.

Personally I'm convinced that nothing this school could have done could have "inspired" anyone to convert to Christianity.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. (Matthew 5:13 KJV)

Poem

THE DIFFICULTY

“It is difficult to eat well outside the capital cities.” — Food writer Cherry Ripe on ABC Radio, 1/10/97

It’s a heartrending thing to see
A gourmet who’s been caught peckish
And who knows he will never make it back
To the capital by dinner time.

There’s the look of mute despair in the eye,
The slack lips and distended belly,
The hand clutching the empty champers bottle,
The weak voice crying out for caviar.

We found a whole car-load of them once,
Their BMW stalled by the roadside.
We somehow got them back to the homestead
And offered what we could for pity’s sake.

There was nothing appropriate in the house,
Just Mum’s Sunday roast with the trimmings,
Followed by the apple-pie and cream.
Of course they couldn’t swallow muck like that.

We had to watch them wasting away.
We buried the pitiful bodies by the creek.
You blame yourself, thinking they might’ve lived
If only you’d had a French chef standing by.

Now we brood continually upon
Hardships that we have never known,
The endless compassion that we owe
To palates more exquisite than our own.

-Peter Kocan (HT Club Troppo)

Peter Kocan -- The Difficulty

THE DIFFICULTY

“It is difficult to eat well outside the capital cities.” — Food writer Cherry Ripe on ABC Radio, 1/10/97

It’s a heartrending thing to see
A gourmet who’s been caught peckish
And who knows he will never make it back
To the capital by dinner time.

There’s the look of mute despair in the eye,
The slack lips and distended belly,
The hand clutching the empty champers bottle,
The weak voice crying out for caviar.

We found a whole car-load of them once,
Their BMW stalled by the roadside.
We somehow got them back to the homestead
And offered what we could for pity’s sake.

There was nothing appropriate in the house,
Just Mum’s Sunday roast with the trimmings,
Followed by the apple-pie and cream.
Of course they couldn’t swallow muck like that.

We had to watch them wasting away.
We buried the pitiful bodies by the creek.
You blame yourself, thinking they might’ve lived
If only you’d had a French chef standing by.

Now we brood continually upon
Hardships that we have never known,
The endless compassion that we owe
To palates more exquisite than our own.

~~Peter Kocan (HT Club Troppo)

On the crime of "misquoting" the Koran

Guy Reid-Brown, a commentator on a Peter Hitchen's column on misquoting the Koran, made the following remarks:

Peter, I am afraid that you are indeed quoting the Koran out of context. For example, where you cite Surah 9:121 ‘Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate’ you have omitted the crucial qualifying consecutive verse which goes as follow: ‘No, I’m only joking, you’ve got to have a laugh, haven’t you? No, take people as you find them, that’s what I always say.’

On the crime of "misquoting" the Koran

Guy Reid-Brown, a commentator on a Peter Hitchen's column on misquoting the Koran, made the following remarks:

Peter, I am afraid that you are indeed quoting the Koran out of context. For example, where you cite Surah 9:121 ‘Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate’ you have omitted the crucial qualifying consecutive verse which goes as follow: ‘No, I’m only joking, you’ve got to have a laugh, haven’t you? No, take people as you find them, that’s what I always say.’

A Chip off the Old Block? or, The Thin Edge of the Wedge?

Mr C. Van Carter of Across Difficult Country reports:

In other news, Indonesian Islamofascists have opened a new front in the ongoing Jihad by launching a series of attacks against a banyan tree. Apparently the 100 year old tree possesses mystical powers, something the Musselmen find intolerable. Though slightly damaged, so far the tree appears to be winning.

First they came for the Banyan Tree and I did not speak out because I was not a Banyan Tree ...
(with apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller)

A Chip off the Old Block? or, The Thin Edge of the Wedge?

Mr C. Van Carter of Across Difficult Country reports:

In other news, Indonesian Islamofascists have opened a new front in the ongoing Jihad by launching a series of attacks against a banyan tree. Apparently the 100 year old tree possesses mystical powers, something the Musselmen find intolerable. Though slightly damaged, so far the tree appears to be winning.

First they came for the Banyan Tree and I did not speak out because I was not a Banyan Tree ...
(with apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller)

They kill Christians don't they? - Why Mohammadanism is of the Devil

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?Rev 6:9-10 (KJV)

To most Christians, Mohammedanism ; a religion that has from the seventh century to the present day, threatened, persecuted, killed Christians and converts and suppressed the preaching of the Gospel; is generally considered a Bad Thing.

Not however to David Schütz of Sentire cum Ecclesia. Mr Schütz, an ex-Lutheran pastor, now the Executive Officer of the Ecumenical & Interfaith Commission of the Romanist Archdiocese of Melbourne, has in a number of recent posts defended Mohammadanism from its Christian critics.

For instance in a post from August entitled: Islam: "Of God" or "of the Devil"? - he apparently argued that Mohammedanism is of God:

I was shocked recently by a priest who said to me that he prays every day for the downfall of Islam. As if to explain, he told me that he believes that Islam is “of the devil”, and that the world would be a better place if it had never originated.

Well. See my previous blog re “vilification”, but in return, I not only pointed out that it was perhaps a good thing that the Muslim religion had converted so very many from paganism to monotheism, but that we could have no idea what might have been the alternative. I can imagine Jews not being totally thrilled about Christianity, and even thinking that Christianity was “of the devil”, nevertheless, it was via Christianity that the names of Abraham and Moses, the Torah, the practice of monotheism, etc. etc. came to the entire civilised world, and surely that can be “no bad thing”. Likewise, has not Islam carried the name of Abraham, Moses, AND Jesus to the world? Albeit in a way that we would not endorse, nevertheless, can all this be “of the devil”?....Contrary to my friend’s prayers, Islam looks like it is here to stay. Perhaps this is because God is blessing them for blessing Abraham? Perhaps it is because, far from being totally “of the devil”, there is in fact something “of God” in the religion of Muhammad?[emphasis added]

Frankly I'm shocked that any educated Christian could so grossly mischaracterise the Mohammadan conquest, let alone the Gospel. The Mohammedans didn't convert "so very many from paganism to monotheism" - they converted many Christians from Christianity to Mohammedanism - through centuries of preaching but also murder, rape, threats, kidnapping, harsh unjust laws, and punitive taxation - indeed they converted many Christians from alive to dead, from wives to widows and concubines, from freemen to slaves. Two of the major homelands of historical Christinanity in North Africa and Asia Minor are now fervently Mohammadan areas. Surely it would have been a better alternative for these areas to have remained Christian and to have sent out missionaries with a Gospel that saved, rather than a false religion that condemns.

The position of the Christian church has always been that anyone who trusts in Jesus as the Son of God and the Savior of the world will be saved - and that those who do not believe this, are not saved. Instead of quotations about Abraham, and from the Pharisee Gamaliel perhaps some more relevant Biblical quotations in regard to Salvation would be:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "(John 3:16-18 KJV).

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."(John 3:36 KJV).

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."(John 14:6 KJV).

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."(Acts 4:12 KJV).

As these quotations make clear it is not enough to give garbled and incorrect information regarding Moses, Abraham, Jesus and God that Mohammedanism does - this will not save souls. The problem is not only Mohammadanism but that the Church of Rome has added an incoherant semi-Universalism to its already existing heresies.

To quote from the WELS Q & A site:

Catholic church teaches two doctrines which, if taken literally, contradict each other. They teach both that one cannot be saved without being a member of the Catholic Church and that heathen can be saved. They reconcile these contradictory teachings by claiming that the heathen who live good lives are "anonymous Christians," that is, they are Christians without realizing it. According to this way of defining things, one does not need to be "enrolled in a Catholic parish" to be a "member" of the Catholic church, or as you say to be saved "through the Catholic church." A member of another church or religious organization is really a member of the Catholic church through baptism, which by right belongs to the Catholic church.This theory of "anonymous Christians" exposes the erroneous view of the Roman Catholic Church about the nature of the Christian faith. If they believe that works without explicit faith in Christ can make a person a "Christian," then the essence of Christianity is works. In this one doctrine they include the two opposite errors—claiming that the Catholic Church is the one saving church and claiming heathen can be saved without faith in Christ.

This idea of "anonymous Christians" and of Mohammadans being saved while remaining Mohammedans not only undercuts the clear teaching of the Gospel; it undermines the impetus to preach, the urge to convert and it betrays and makes meaningless the great personal sacrifices that Christians are undergoing in Mahometan lands to remain faithful to Jesus Christ.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5.20 KJV)

Daniel Larison vs A Proposition Nation and a Nation of Migrants

I'm predicting that America will no longer be one nation but more like the Roman Empire--a conglomerate of races and cultures held together by a regime. The country I grew up in was culturally united, even if it was racially divided. We spoke the same language, had the same faith, laughed at the same comedians. We were one nationality. We're ceasing to be that when you have hundreds of thousands of people who want to retain their own culture, their own language, their own loyalty. What do we have in common that makes us fellow Americans? Is it simply citizenship? Or is it blood, soil, history and heroes?[emphasis added] - Pat Buchanan

Recent arguments over mass immigration and the signing of an Australian values statement brought to my mind certain statements by one of my favourite internet writers, Daniel Larison of Eunomia.

This is an excerpt from Mr Larison's attack on the idea of a Proposition nation:

Mr. Forsyth objects to Mr. Buchanan’s call for American identity to be rooted in “blood, soil, history and heroes.” I confess to being perplexed as to why this call should actually be controversial. Yes, I know why many people think it is controversial, but their position makes no sense. No real national identity of any kind, and certainly none that ever lasted, has ever endured without being olidly based in these things. Indeed, what else could our national identity plausibly be rooted in? Most Americans today do not hold to the political philosophy of the founders in their attitudes towards consolidated government and their preference for the rule of law over the rule of men. This is unfortunate, but it will happen in the course of time that peoples adopt different and even diametrically opposed political creeds. ....

As for myself, I have strong reservations about the “values” expressed in the Declaration, at least if we are to take the platitudes expressed therein as claims of truth about the real world; I respect and honour the Constitution, but recognise the serious consolidationist flaws in it; I cannot in good conscience accept anything in the Gettysburg Address, mendacious piece of revisionist propaganda that it was, nor can I accept the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act or the enthusiasm for egalitarianism that inspired it. According to Mr. Forsyth, I am not an American, though some part of my people have been here since 1634 and most of my family has been here since the early 1700s. I obviously cannot and will not accept such a definition of my nation that would put me–and a considerable number of my countrymen–outside its boundaries. I cannot countenance a definition of national identity that makes one’s loyalty to a political position the basis for belonging to the nation. I want no part of any “ideological,” “credal” or “proposition” nation–you cannot love a proposition.

There is nothing more artificial, more insubstantial and more dangerous than categorising a nation according to ideology–this is to make honest disagreement over political principles a betrayal of the nation itself. It is to make dissent into a kind of treason; it is to make fidelity to older traditions that contradict the reigning ideology a mark of disloyalty to the nation. Fundamentally it is also to confuse ideas for concrete realities and to give them the loyalty we owe to real things. It is to ignore the concrete realities of kin and place and our memory of our kin and place down through the centuries for the sake of abstractions. This sort of thinking may very well make it easier for people to enter the country, but it makes it impossible to say any longer what kind of country it is, where it came from or who we are as a people.

This is Daniel Larison on the phrase "A nation of immigrants":

The phrase “nation of immigrants” is surely one of the strangest phrases, and also one of the most ingenious rhetorical dodges, ever invented. A nation is, literally from the Latin natio, a tribe or a people, and natio is the same word for birth, which implies that this is a tribe or people bound, as tribes normally are, by kinship. Now it is possible for someone from outside a tribe to be adopted into it, but it is a contradiction in terms to speak of a “nation of immigrants,” unless one is describing an entire people that picked up and went to another country, since these immigrants have typically been overwhelmingly unrelated by kinship or, in many cases, even by ethnicity to the people that was already here. To be a ”nation of immigrants,” being an immigrant would have to be the defining feature of everyone in the nation. Whatever may have been true about great-granddad is not true of you, which means that you and most everyone around you are not part of any “nation of immigrants,” but of an American nation. The ancient Israelites were perhaps such a “nation of immigrants,” but there are few other obvious examples....

But the reason why it is ingenious is that it forcibly identifies everyone in the debate–or at least everyone who concedes the use of the phrase–with the current immigrants. If we are a nation of immigrants, this means that we are all immigrants, which ultimately means that we have no more right to this place than the new immigrants do, which is a manifest lie. We do have more right to it, and will have at least until such time as we have been driven off the land, and perhaps our better claim will not cease even then.

Most peoples throughout history have created myths of heroic ancestors who first settled in a land and gave their name to it; most peoples will construct elaborate mythologies to establish their timeless claims to a piece of land. With this preposterous rhetoric of being a “nation of immigrants” (who is responsible for this travesty of language?), Americans are among the few nations in the world who pride themselves on not being from the land that they live in and making no attempt to pretend otherwise. That may have seemed clever when it allowed Americans to mock the Old World’s decrepitude and the New World’s possibilities, but now this attitude seems like a recipe for the eventual displacement of the nation and its recreation as something all together different. Oh, granted, our grandchildren probably won’t see the final effects of that displacement, but if current trends continue they will see a large part of it. It seems to me that no one can really look on with equanimity at the prospect of the gradual displacement of the peoples who fashioned this country–he is either dispirited at the prospect, or enthusiastic and chooses his policy options accordingly.

This is another quote that from Daniel Larison on the necessity of a common national identity for a democracy something known to Australia's forefathers, but ignored by the present New Class elite:

Democracies that pride themselves on their ethnic and racial diversity and actually allow ethnicity and race to become politicised and a marker of political identity will sooner or later go the way of a Bolivia or an Ivory Coast as tribal and racial consciousness becomes the banner for mass mobilisation and/or supremacism combined with violence. For a democratic system to succeed at all, these identities should not be suppressed (they will not disappear, but simply take on more radical and destructive forms) but be superseded by some common national identity that incorporates all members of the political community. However, I cannot stress enough that this common national identity must be based in the history, the people and the land of the nation to which all newcomers are joining themselves; if the overarching national identity is ideological in nature, it will not last much more than two generations without suffering significant internal strife.

All of this is why either the thorough political assimilation of immigrants or the reduction of levels of immigration is essential to future stability of the American political system. The alternatives are a breakdown in political consensus, a loss of shared identity and the rise of a more aggressive tribal politics....

The Ivory Coast in particular was once something close to a model African democratic success story: it was democratically governed, relatively prosperous for West Africa, multiethnic and generally peaceful, but also a magnet for foreign labour from the surrounding nations because of its relative prosperity. Pressures began to build to define Ivoirite, i.e., Ivorianness, vis-a-vis neighbouring countries, which aggravated ethnic resentments, which was followed by President Gbagbo’s writing about the superiority of his tribe and stoking anti-foreign and specifically anti-Fasoan hatred among his kinsmen. Northern Ivorians took this ill, which created the conditions for the attempted coup that sparked the war.

The “return of the tribes” happened all right, and Mr. Brooks’ precious democracy did not smooth out the rough edges of Ivorian politics, but instead provoked an attempted coup against Gbagbo and made Ivorian political conflict–which had already been increasingly organised along tribal and ethnic lines–into an ethnic war aggravated by the Muslim-Christian division of the country. “Melting pots,” even if they have actually succeeded in assimilating new populations, can themselves melt down and break, and the more large numbers of unassimilated people–people who may not want to assimilate–that a country takes in puts that much more stress on the capacity of any country to absorb and incorporate the newcomers. If assimilation is simply assumed rather than actively pursued as policy and as a social rule, it will not work nearly as well, leaving whole swathes of the country increasingly isolated from the rest.

Daniel Larison vs The Proposition Nation and a Nation of Migrants

I'm predicting that America will no longer be one nation but more like the Roman Empire--a conglomerate of races and cultures held together by a regime. The country I grew up in was culturally united, even if it was racially divided. We spoke the same language, had the same faith, laughed at the same comedians. We were one nationality. We're ceasing to be that when you have hundreds of thousands of people who want to retain their own culture, their own language, their own loyalty. What do we have in common that makes us fellow Americans? Is it simply citizenship? Or is it blood, soil, history and heroes?[emphasis added] - Pat Buchanan

Recent arguments over mass immigration and the signing of an Australian values statement brought to my mind certain statements by one of my favourite internet writers, Daniel Larison of Eunomia.

This is an excerpt from Mr Larison's attack on the idea of a Proposition nation:

Mr. Forsyth objects to Mr. Buchanan’s call for American identity to be rooted in “blood, soil, history and heroes.” I confess to being perplexed as to why this call should actually be controversial. Yes, I know why many people think it is controversial, but their position makes no sense. No real national identity of any kind, and certainly none that ever lasted, has ever endured without being olidly based in these things. Indeed, what else could our national identity plausibly be rooted in? Most Americans today do not hold to the political philosophy of the founders in their attitudes towards consolidated government and their preference for the rule of law over the rule of men. This is unfortunate, but it will happen in the course of time that peoples adopt different and even diametrically opposed political creeds. ....

As for myself, I have strong reservations about the “values” expressed in the Declaration, at least if we are to take the platitudes expressed therein as claims of truth about the real world; I respect and honour the Constitution, but recognise the serious consolidationist flaws in it; I cannot in good conscience accept anything in the Gettysburg Address, mendacious piece of revisionist propaganda that it was, nor can I accept the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act or the enthusiasm for egalitarianism that inspired it. According to Mr. Forsyth, I am not an American, though some part of my people have been here since 1634 and most of my family has been here since the early 1700s. I obviously cannot and will not accept such a definition of my nation that would put me–and a considerable number of my countrymen–outside its boundaries. I cannot countenance a definition of national identity that makes one’s loyalty to a political position the basis for belonging to the nation. I want no part of any “ideological,” “credal” or “proposition” nation–you cannot love a proposition.

There is nothing more artificial, more insubstantial and more dangerous than categorising a nation according to ideology–this is to make honest disagreement over political principles a betrayal of the nation itself. It is to make dissent into a kind of treason; it is to make fidelity to older traditions that contradict the reigning ideology a mark of disloyalty to the nation. Fundamentally it is also to confuse ideas for concrete realities and to give them the loyalty we owe to real things. It is to ignore the concrete realities of kin and place and our memory of our kin and place down through the centuries for the sake of abstractions. This sort of thinking may very well make it easier for people to enter the country, but it makes it impossible to say any longer what kind of country it is, where it came from or who we are as a people.

This is Daniel Larison on the phrase "A nation of immigrants":

The phrase “nation of immigrants” is surely one of the strangest phrases, and also one of the most ingenious rhetorical dodges, ever invented. A nation is, literally from the Latin natio, a tribe or a people, and natio is the same word for birth, which implies that this is a tribe or people bound, as tribes normally are, by kinship. Now it is possible for someone from outside a tribe to be adopted into it, but it is a contradiction in terms to speak of a “nation of immigrants,” unless one is describing an entire people that picked up and went to another country, since these immigrants have typically been overwhelmingly unrelated by kinship or, in many cases, even by ethnicity to the people that was already here. To be a ”nation of immigrants,” being an immigrant would have to be the defining feature of everyone in the nation. Whatever may have been true about great-granddad is not true of you, which means that you and most everyone around you are not part of any “nation of immigrants,” but of an American nation. The ancient Israelites were perhaps such a “nation of immigrants,” but there are few other obvious examples....

But the reason why it is ingenious is that it forcibly identifies everyone in the debate–or at least everyone who concedes the use of the phrase–with the current immigrants. If we are a nation of immigrants, this means that we are all immigrants, which ultimately means that we have no more right to this place than the new immigrants do, which is a manifest lie. We do have more right to it, and will have at least until such time as we have been driven off the land, and perhaps our better claim will not cease even then.

Most peoples throughout history have created myths of heroic ancestors who first settled in a land and gave their name to it; most peoples will construct elaborate mythologies to establish their timeless claims to a piece of land. With this preposterous rhetoric of being a “nation of immigrants” (who is responsible for this travesty of language?), Americans are among the few nations in the world who pride themselves on not being from the land that they live in and making no attempt to pretend otherwise. That may have seemed clever when it allowed Americans to mock the Old World’s decrepitude and the New World’s possibilities, but now this attitude seems like a recipe for the eventual displacement of the nation and its recreation as something all together different. Oh, granted, our grandchildren probably won’t see the final effects of that displacement, but if current trends continue they will see a large part of it. It seems to me that no one can really look on with equanimity at the prospect of the gradual displacement of the peoples who fashioned this country–he is either dispirited at the prospect, or enthusiastic and chooses his policy options accordingly.

This is another quote that from Daniel Larison on the necessity of a common national identity for a democracy something known to Australia's forefathers, but ignored by the present New Class elite:

Democracies that pride themselves on their ethnic and racial diversity and actually allow ethnicity and race to become politicised and a marker of political identity will sooner or later go the way of a Bolivia or an Ivory Coast as tribal and racial consciousness becomes the banner for mass mobilisation and/or supremacism combined with violence. For a democratic system to succeed at all, these identities should not be suppressed (they will not disappear, but simply take on more radical and destructive forms) but be superseded by some common national identity that incorporates all members of the political community. However, I cannot stress enough that this common national identity must be based in the history, the people and the land of the nation to which all newcomers are joining themselves; if the overarching national identity is ideological in nature, it will not last much more than two generations without suffering significant internal strife.

All of this is why either the thorough political assimilation of immigrants or the reduction of levels of immigration is essential to future stability of the American political system. The alternatives are a breakdown in political consensus, a loss of shared identity and the rise of a more aggressive tribal politics....

The Ivory Coast in particular was once something close to a model African democratic success story: it was democratically governed, relatively prosperous for West Africa, multiethnic and generally peaceful, but also a magnet for foreign labour from the surrounding nations because of its relative prosperity. Pressures began to build to define Ivoirite, i.e., Ivorianness, vis-a-vis neighbouring countries, which aggravated ethnic resentments, which was followed by President Gbagbo’s writing about the superiority of his tribe and stoking anti-foreign and specifically anti-Fasoan hatred among his kinsmen. Northern Ivorians took this ill, which created the conditions for the attempted coup that sparked the war.

The “return of the tribes” happened all right, and Mr. Brooks’ precious democracy did not smooth out the rough edges of Ivorian politics, but instead provoked an attempted coup against Gbagbo and made Ivorian political conflict–which had already been increasingly organised along tribal and ethnic lines–into an ethnic war aggravated by the Muslim-Christian division of the country. “Melting pots,” even if they have actually succeeded in assimilating new populations, can themselves melt down and break, and the more large numbers of unassimilated people–people who may not want to assimilate–that a country takes in puts that much more stress on the capacity of any country to absorb and incorporate the newcomers. If assimilation is simply assumed rather than actively pursued as policy and as a social rule, it will not work nearly as well, leaving whole swathes of the country increasingly isolated from the rest.

It's Mohammadanism, not Fascism

Dr J.R. Ray has recently reprinted a part of Victor Hansen's speech "It's fascism - and its Islamic" at Dissecting Leftism and A Western Heart, and probably at half-a-dozen other places.

It is somewhat surprising that Dr. Ray, a gentleman who is concerned with the intellectual provenence of Nazism, would uncritically perpetuate an intellectually lazy and meaningless term as "Islamofascism" and its variants.

As George Orwell said in Politics and the English language:

When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."

The term "Islamofascism" obscures the fact that Mohammedan terrorism stems from Mohammadanism - its history, its scriptures and its laws, and has nothing to do with a secularist, nationalist movement of the early twentieth century however authoritarian and unpleasant it was.

For a more detailed and reasoned explanation for not using this inaccurate term may I recommend Daniel Larison at Eunomia:

"First, Islamofascist. I cannot stress strongly enough how stupid this word is, as are its close cousins Islamic fascist or the latest absurdity, Islamo-Nazi. I understand what people think they mean when they say it, and to a large extent I share the same opposition and revulsion to the reality to which this term obscurely refers, but I am obliged to recognise that it is a meaningless term. It takes the enemy of the moment, Islam, and in an attempt (not terribly convincing) to tell us that the war does not have a religious dimension or to say that we have beaten these sorts of people before or to claim that they are just like the people we have fought before we attach to it the handy label of fascist. Never mind that most people couldn’t give a serious, working definition of fascism that would be even remotely accurate, or that there are no substantive similarities between Islam and fascism except for their ready justification, use and glorification of violence and their shared commitment to a life lived as struggle.

Islam is submission to an almost entirely transcendent deity; fascism is a doctrine that claims that you can create your own transcendence through labour, struggle and action. One is theocentric, whatever you may think of their god, while the other is anthropocentric. Islam is a religion that makes no sharp distinction between the political and the spiritual realms; fascism is a political religion that elevates materialistic politics to the level of the sacred. Islamic civilisation, while severely burdened by the constraints of its religion, has still managed to create poetry, architecture and largely geometric art of some real skill and accomplishment; fascism has historically always been tied to kitsch and modernism and the ugliness associated with them. They are, it is true, both appeals to the masses, but appeals based in entirely different things: one the complete subjugation of everything to the will of Allah, the other the exaltation of a nation or nation-state to the point of earthly godhood. Both are pernicious and hostile to the creative synthesis of Christian civilisation and are historically most hostile to Christianity as a creed and way of life, but they remain distinct and very separate phenomena that we could not more press together into one term than we could could talk about ”conservatocommunism.”

If we object to Muslims fighting and believing as they have fought and believed for centuries, that is what we should say. Recognising Islam as the central problem of the Islamic world would also lower our expectations about the kinds of “solutions” or “cures” that can be administered, because you cannot cure another people’s religion. There has always been a vague awareness about this in the nations of the West, but because the role of Islam has been deliberately kept obscure (for various and sundry ideological and allegedly pragmatic reasons) our awareness of the limits of what can be done has also been diminished.

Furthermore, recognising Islam as the central problem of the Islamic world does not therefore oblige us to play the game the jihadis would like us to play, namely to engage them in fruitless conflict after fruitless conflict. Neither does it oblige us to justify perpetual war for perpetual peace, nor to endorse policies that we know, by our own standards, to be unjust or wrongheaded. But, if for Christians the blood of martyrs if the seed of the Church, we should understand that it is advantageous for the jihadis and Islam if we willingly provide them with more martyrs to their cause."

Other excellent posts by Daniel Larison on the same topic of "Islamofascism" can be found at: Islamofascism may not be true but at least its dramatic; You must be a fascist to object to using a word like fascism ; Not Islamofascism II,III,IV,V,VI.

The problem with the term "Islamofascism" is not simply pedantry. It perpetuates a false dichotomy between good Mohammedans (moderate Muslims) and bad Mohammedans (Islamofascists).

The only essential difference between Mohammadans is between those who wish to destroy the West immediately through violence and intimidation; and those who hope to destroy the West gradually from within through immigation, higher birthrates, and support for terrorism.

The futile attempts to create Western-style democracies out of tribal and Mohammedan peoples are wasteful of Western lives and resources; and do nothing to address the problem of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia financing and supplying Mujahadeen in the world, or the problem of hostile Mohammadan populations within the West.

The enemy of the West is Mohammadanism and Mohammadans - not "Islamofascism".


[Update: Several hours after writing the above - I discovered that someone else had made similar statements, far more clearly than myself:

Laurence Auster on Diana West's latest editorial:

West doesn’t merely complain about others who don’t know or who misrepresent our enemy’s identity. She has answers:

The “who” are Muslim jihadists; the “what” is Muslim jihad. There is violent jihad (terrorism), and there is “quiet jihad,” the peaceful consequence of the demographic shift of Muslims into the West. Both, however, result in Islamization—the spread of Islamic law. This is a dire threat to what could have once upon a time been summed up by the word “us.”

That is damned good, and it leaves the Hansons, the Bushes, the Lowrys, with their “fascism,” their “extremism,” their “it doesn’t matterism,” looking like shuffling dolts unable to think their way out of a paper bag.]

It's Mohammedanism not Fascism

Dr J.R. Ray has recently reprinted a part of Victor Hansen's speech "It's fascism - and its Islamic" at Dissecting Leftism and A Western Heart, and probably at half-a-dozen other places.

It is somewhat surprising that Dr. Ray, a gentleman who is concerned with the intellectual provenence of Nazism, would uncritically perpetuate an intellectually lazy and meaningless term as "Islamofascism" and its variants.

As George Orwell said in Politics and the English language:

When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."

The term "Islamofascism" obscures the fact that Mohammedan terrorism stems from Mohammadanism - its history, its scriptures and its laws, and has nothing to do with a secularist, nationalist movement of the early twentieth century however authoritarian and unpleasant it was.

For a more detailed and reasoned explanation for not using this inaccurate term may I recommend Daniel Larison at Eunomia:

"First, Islamofascist. I cannot stress strongly enough how stupid this word is, as are its close cousins Islamic fascist or the latest absurdity, Islamo-Nazi. I understand what people think they mean when they say it, and to a large extent I share the same opposition and revulsion to the reality to which this term obscurely refers, but I am obliged to recognise that it is a meaningless term. It takes the enemy of the moment, Islam, and in an attempt (not terribly convincing) to tell us that the war does not have a religious dimension or to say that we have beaten these sorts of people before or to claim that they are just like the people we have fought before we attach to it the handy label of fascist. Never mind that most people couldn’t give a serious, working definition of fascism that would be even remotely accurate, or that there are no substantive similarities between Islam and fascism except for their ready justification, use and glorification of violence and their shared commitment to a life lived as struggle.

Islam is submission to an almost entirely transcendent deity; fascism is a doctrine that claims that you can create your own transcendence through labour, struggle and action. One is theocentric, whatever you may think of their god, while the other is anthropocentric. Islam is a religion that makes no sharp distinction between the political and the spiritual realms; fascism is a political religion that elevates materialistic politics to the level of the sacred. Islamic civilisation, while severely burdened by the constraints of its religion, has still managed to create poetry, architecture and largely geometric art of some real skill and accomplishment; fascism has historically always been tied to kitsch and modernism and the ugliness associated with them. They are, it is true, both appeals to the masses, but appeals based in entirely different things: one the complete subjugation of everything to the will of Allah, the other the exaltation of a nation or nation-state to the point of earthly godhood. Both are pernicious and hostile to the creative synthesis of Christian civilisation and are historically most hostile to Christianity as a creed and way of life, but they remain distinct and very separate phenomena that we could not more press together into one term than we could could talk about ”conservatocommunism.”

If we object to Muslims fighting and believing as they have fought and believed for centuries, that is what we should say. Recognising Islam as the central problem of the Islamic world would also lower our expectations about the kinds of “solutions” or “cures” that can be administered, because you cannot cure another people’s religion. There has always been a vague awareness about this in the nations of the West, but because the role of Islam has been deliberately kept obscure (for various and sundry ideological and allegedly pragmatic reasons) our awareness of the limits of what can be done has also been diminished.

Furthermore, recognising Islam as the central problem of the Islamic world does not therefore oblige us to play the game the jihadis would like us to play, namely to engage them in fruitless conflict after fruitless conflict. Neither does it oblige us to justify perpetual war for perpetual peace, nor to endorse policies that we know, by our own standards, to be unjust or wrongheaded. But, if for Christians the blood of martyrs if the seed of the Church, we should understand that it is advantageous for the jihadis and Islam if we willingly provide them with more martyrs to their cause."

Other excellent posts by Daniel Larison on the same topic of "Islamofascism" can be found at: Islamofascism may not be true but at least its dramatic; You must be a fascist to object to using a word like fascism ; Not Islamofascism II,III,IV,V,VI.

The problem with the term "Islamofascism" is not simply pedantry. It perpetuates a false dichotomy between good Mohammedans (moderate Muslims) and bad Mohammedans (Islamofascists).

The only essential difference between Mohammadans is between those who wish to destroy the West immediately through violence and intimidation; and those who hope to destroy the West gradually from within through immigation, higher birthrates, and support for terrorism.

The futile attempts to create Western-style democracies out of tribal and Mohammedan peoples are wasteful of Western lives and resources; and do nothing to address the problem of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia financing and supplying Mujahadeen in the world, or the problem of hostile Mohammadan populations within the West.

The enemy of the West is Mohammadanism and Mohammadans - not "Islamofascism".

[Update: Several hours after writing the above - I discovered that someone else had made similar statements, far more clearly than myself:

Laurence Auster on Diana West's latest editorial:

West doesn’t merely complain about others who don’t know or who misrepresent our enemy’s identity. She has answers:

The “who” are Muslim jihadists; the “what” is Muslim jihad. There is violent jihad (terrorism), and there is “quiet jihad,” the peaceful consequence of the demographic shift of Muslims into the West. Both, however, result in Islamization—the spread of Islamic law. This is a dire threat to what could have once upon a time been summed up by the word “us.”

That is damned good, and it leaves the Hansons, the Bushes, the Lowrys, with their “fascism,” their “extremism,” their “it doesn’t matterism,” looking like shuffling dolts unable to think their way out of a paper bag.]

Book tag

Normally I ignore these Internet chain-letters - especially as the attempt to create a hierarchical list out of the changing tastes and the many events in a person's life can only ever give a partial and inaccurate picture. However, as books are one of my besetting weaknesses, I will accept young Thomas Pietsch's 'tag'.


1. One book that changed your life:

The Reformation's conflict with Rome : why it must continue by Presbyterian writer, Robert L. Reymond. During my rather tortuous spiritual journey, from Atheism to Unitarianism and eventually to Lutheranism - I briefly investigated the Church of Rome. This book confirmed the doubts I had with the claims of the Church of Rome - particularly the numerous flaws in it's tradition regarding the Apocrypha, the Papacy, and most importantly the difference between the Biblical definition of Justification and the Church of Rome's definition.

Or, Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq. This book opened my eyes to the essentially barbarous and violent nature of Mohammadism - in its Koran, its traditional interpretations and its history. Never again would I be able to accept any facile and deceptive comparisons between Jesus and Mohammad; or references to mythical Mohammadean tolerance.


2. One book that you’ve read more than once:

The Earthsea Trilogy by Ursula LeGuin.

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:

The Complete Idiot's guide to Shipbuilding. (With apologies to GK Chesterton)

4. One book that made you laugh:

The most recent one was Library Mascot Death Match - a collection of the third year of Unshelved comic strips. To really appreciate this you have to have worked in a public library.

6. One book that you wish had been written:

The Confessions of Pope Leo X - how he reformed the Church of Rome according to the advice of Martin Luther.

7. One book that you wish had never been written:

Any of the Hillsong songbooks, or the Catechism of Trent.


8. One book you’re currently reading:

The Algebraist by Iain M. Banks.

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:

The Book of Concord.

10. Tag others.

The madness ends with me!

Book Tag

Normally I ignore these Internet chain-letters - especially as the attempt to create a hierarchical list out of the changing tastes and the many events in a person's life can only ever give a partial and inaccurate picture. However, as books are one of my besetting weaknesses, I will accept young Thomas Pietsch's 'tag'.


1. One book that changed your life:

The Reformation's conflict with Rome : why it must continue by Presbyterian writer, Robert L. Reymond. During my rather tortuous spiritual journey, from Atheism to Unitarianism and eventually to Lutheranism - I briefly investigated the Church of Rome. This book confirmed the doubts I had with the claims of the Church of Rome - particularly the numerous flaws in it's tradition regarding the Apocrypha, the Papacy, and most importantly the difference between the Biblical definition of Justification and the Church of Rome's definition.

Or, Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq. This book opened my eyes to the essentially barbarous and violent nature of Mohammadism - in its Koran, its traditional interpretations and its history. Never again would I be able to accept any facile and deceptive comparisons between Jesus and Mohammad; or references to mythical Mohammadean tolerance.


2. One book that you’ve read more than once:

The Earthsea Trilogy by Ursula LeGuin.

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:

The Complete Idiot's guide to Shipbuilding. (With apologies to GK Chesterton)

4. One book that made you laugh:

The most recent one was Library Mascot Death Match - a collection of the third year of Unshelved comic strips. To really appreciate this you have to have worked in a public library.

6. One book that you wish had been written:

The Confessions of Pope Leo X - how he reformed the Church of Rome according to the advice of Martin Luther.

7. One book that you wish had never been written:

Any of the Hillsong songbooks, or the Catechism of Trent.


8. One book you’re currently reading:

The Algebraist by Iain M. Banks.

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:

The Book of Concord.

10. Tag others.

The madness ends with me!

Queensland Election 2006 - Mulgrave news

In the seat of Mulgrave, in the upcoming Queensland election, the people will have the choice of either:

The National's Krista Dunford.




Or, the Labor incumbent, Warren Pitt.



Although I do not live in this electorate, after careful consideration, my fervent support and best wishes must go to Krista Dunsford. If elected, she would be at the age of twenty, the youngest MP to enter the Queensland Parliament. She would be true ornament and a credit to the Parliament - and I'm not saying that simply as a National Party supporter.

People of Mulgrave do your duty!