The Roots of Muslim Rage

Kunk Fu Zoby Kung Fu Zu  1/10/15
In their September 1990 issue, The Atlantic Monthly published a short article by Bernard Lewis, titled “The Roots of Muslim Rage”. In this brief piece, Professor Lewis lays out why Islam has become such a problem in the modern world. In doing so, Dr. Lewis points out facts, which too many Westerners try to ignore.

He reminds us,

“Muhammed, it will be recalled, was not only a prophet and teacher, like the founders of other religions; he was also the head of a polity and of a community, a ruler and a solder. Hence his struggle involved a state and its armed forces.”

To give some idea of how this intertwining of government and religion plays out from an Islamic view, Lewis writes,

“If the fighters in the war for Islam, the holy war, “in the path of God”, are fighting for God, it follows that their opponents are fighting against God. And since God is in principle the sovereign, the supreme head of the Islamic state-and the Prophet and, after the Prophet, the caliphs are his vicegerents(sic)-then God as sovereign commands the army. The army is God’s army and the enemy is God’s enemy. The duty of God’s soldiers is to dispatch God’s enemies as quickly as possible to the place where God will chastise them-that is to say, the afterlife.”

Given this attitude, it is not surprising that the traditional Muslim view had the world divided into two realms, the House of Islam and the House of Unbelief or War, as it is sometimes called.  I will point out there are other philosophies which divide the world in an equally crass way, Communism and Nazism come immediately to mind, but Islam has the clear advantage of promising an afterlife.

The professor gives a short history lesson on the origins and growth of Islamic civilization, which he contends had a glorious era of one thousand years. And that “since the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 and the rise of the European colonial empires in Asia and Africa”  Islam has been on the defensive.

According to the professor,

“For a long time now there has been a rising tide of rebellion against the Western paramountcy, and a desire to reassert Muslim values and restore Muslim greatness. The Muslim has suffered successive stages of defeat. The first was his loss of dominion in the world,…..The second was the undermining of his authority in his own country, through an invasion of foreign ideas and laws…..The third-the last straw-was the challenge to his mastery in his own house, from emancipated women and rebellious children.”

Lewis contends that to the Muslim, these humiliations arose as a direct result of the rise of Western i.e. European power. For those who have wondered why so many Muslims hate America, even though America is a completely different place with a different history, Lewis states that it is because Muslims see America, with its material success and decadence, as a sort of culmination of the West. Lewis points out that much of this anti-West sentiment is supported and pushed by Westerners themselves. I believe the useful idiots, such as our elected leaders tacitly support this view when they pretend that the problem is not one of Islam, but of a sort of generic terrorism.

According to Lewis, the sorest point of contention with the anti-Western crowd is that of Imperialism. But when one looks deeper,

“One also sometimes gets the impression that the offense of imperialism is not….the domination by one people over another but rather the allocation of roles in the relationship. What is truly evil and unacceptable is the dominion of infidels over true believers. For true believers to rule misbelievers is proper and natural, since this provides for the maintenance of the holy law, and gives the misbelievers both the opportunity and the incentive to embrace the true faith. But for misbelievers to rule over true believers is blasphemous and unnatural, since it leads to the corruption of religion and morality in society, and to the flouting or even abrogation of God’s law.” 

Here we have an unbridgeable gap.

Professor Lewis notes that only after the religious wars in Europe did Christians, “evolve a doctrine of the separation of religion from the State.” And writes,

“Muslims experienced no such need and evolved no such doctrine. There was no need for secularism in Islam, …Islam was never prepared, either in theory or in practice, to accord full equality to those who held other beliefs and practiced other forms of worship.”

Lewis notes that at one time in the Islamic world there was, “admiration of the West as regards, science, technology, its manufactures, and its form of government.” Unfortunately, “In our own time this mood….has, among many Muslims, given way to one of hostility and rejection.” Which is, in part, “surely due to a feeling of humiliation.”

At its root, Lewis sees the “fundamentalists’” fighting against secularism and modernism. He clearly believes this to be a very serious threat as he writes,

“It should by now be clear that we are facing a mood and movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations-the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both.”

How wonderful would it be if the leaders of the West realized and acknowledged this?

Toward the end of his article, Lewis writes,

“The movement nowadays called fundamentalism is not the only Islamic tradition. There are others, more tolerant, more open, that helped to inspire the great achievements of Islamic civilization in the past, and we may hope that these other traditions will in time prevail. But before this issue is decided there will be a hard struggle, in which we of the West can do little or nothing. Even the attempt might do harm, for these are issues that Muslims must decide among themselves.”

Sadly, if this was ever true, it is no longer the case. The fundamentalists have taken their resentment and spread it over much of the world. Islamic countries do not exist in a vacuum and need to take a forceful stand against the primitives who have not taken the caravan out of the seventh century. Leaders such as al Sisi in Egypt are in short supply, but should be encouraged by Western governments.

It should be clear that only fools and liars claim what is happening is not part of Islam. Why these scoundrels dissemble is known only to themselves, but we must start to push back. We, in the West, need to force our leaders to grow some spine and ignore the oil money which has corrupted so many of our policies. This must be done even at the risk of being called racists, etc.

A good way to start would be to prevent all individuals who have travelled to the Middle East to join groups such as ISIS or Al Queda in Yemen, from returning to our shores. How insane is it for us to allow these avowed jihadiis to return to the West and enjoy the privileges and protection of our civilization and law?

We must educate and prepare ourselves for a difficult time. Professor Lewis’ piece should be part of this education. • (13988 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to The Roots of Muslim Rage

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I think I read this, probably in a collection of his writing, or else something expressing very similar views. In essence, the Muslim world (especially the Evil Crescent of North Africa and the Near/Middle East) has spectacularly failed to prevail as its beliefs indicate it should. Dealing with the consequences of this reality as the Jews did in the creation of the Talmud is unacceptable to Muslims, so their only response is to hate the world that has been so harmful to their self-conceit, and thus to achieve the only superiority they’re capable of — superiority in nihilistic destruction.

  2. Jerry Richardson says:

    KFZ,

    Great article! I noticed especially that you have noticed the very interesting and potentially helpful actions of the Egypt leader.

    Leaders such as al Sisi in Egypt are in short supply, but should be encouraged by Western governments.

    Absolutely correct. But I’m not holding my breathe until Obama compliments him.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      One of the problems with supporting “moderate” leaders such as Sisi is the Islamic doctrine does not support a “moderate” view. That one head Islamic cleric who said “There is no ‘moderate’ Islam. There is only Islam” was speaking the truth of his religion.

      Contrast that with some Christian if he or she were to gun down a dozen people because of supposed blasphemy. The doctrine does not support that.

      But we’ve grown up in an era where people are taught “All religions are the same…except for Christianity which killed millions during the Inquisition and opposed science.” Their head and heart are dead to discernment and filled with misinformation. Look at the Pope. Look at our president. Look at Howard Dean. Look at so many others.

      The truth is that Islam is a form of Nazism…a supremacist ideology. What happened in France is normal for Islam because Islam is a barbaric ideology.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        And of course the Nazis thought Islam was the best of the major monotheisms precisely because of its propensity for violence. A shared hatred of Jews didn’t hurt, either. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (who had been appointed by the British) supported them.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        One of the problems with supporting “moderate” leaders such as Sisi is the Islamic doctrine does not support a “moderate” view.

        Yet it is one of the only ways we have to deal with the larger problem. There are something like 1.3-1.5 billion Muslims in the world. They are not going to disappear any time soon. If we can give support to such leaders as al Sisi, it may help tamp down the Salafist problem somewhat. And that is better than what our idiot president is doing at present.

        As you know, I do not generally blame religions for the sorry conduct of their adherents. I almost always say the problem is not religion, it is people. This applies to Islam as well. But what makes Islam so dangerous is its call to violence against Kafirs. This gives free reign to the criminals in its midst.

        One way to look at it is that there are studies which show the percentage of psychopaths and sociopaths in the general population is something like 3-4% combined. This would mean, at the lower end of estimates, there are something like 39 million Islamic psychopaths/sociopaths running around the world. And there is a very clear positive correlation between these conditions and criminality. (Interestingly, there is also data showing how many criminals become Muslims in jail) So for those who wish to manifest their illness, Islam can be seen to give them religious cover.

        I suspect most of the jihadiis out there are sociopaths being run by psychopaths. They cannot be reasoned or negotiated with so they must be controlled or eradicated. Far better to let people like al Sisi, who understand the problem, call for Islamic reform yet keep a firm hand on people like the Muslim Brotherhood, until reform comes.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Obama has repeatedly shown a preference for the Muslim Brotherhood. He will never praise Sisi unless the latter restores the Islamists and jihadists to power, which I can’t imagine happening.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Thanks Jerry,

      I see China, the Islamic question and unfettered immigration as our biggest foreign policy problems. And they could easily become our biggest problems period. Owreaker certainly seems to be damaging the USA in all these areas.

      I can tell you he is hated by both sides in Egypt.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Yes, indeed. That was good, Jerry. Thanks, Mr. Kung!

  3. Dave Glabais says:

    Great article KFZ. If I had to draw up my own list of criteria in order to stem the tide of radical Islam, Wahhabism etc, the following conditions must be met. 1st, the removal of the American MARXIST government who are sympathizers with radical Islamists and currently entertain them in the Whitehouse. 2nd the destruction of the Statist media mouth pieces who report at the behest of the government, cover up the truth, fail to report the truth, and enforce their brand of cultural Marxism. 3rd destroy Progressive Liberalism which is intent on changing the definition of words, the definitions and implementations of laws, and the reiteration of false talking points and narratives, all which serve to aid in the dissent of the civil society in a plethora of ways and enable the implementation of their unlawful fiats. Where we have arrived at, is a place where Al Qaeda terrorists are now “activists” and Conservatives are “extremists”. Jews and Christians are evil and Islam is the “religion of peace”, the Police are “racist murderers” and the felons are the “heroes”. Terrorism is “our fault” and when they kill us we should apologize. If not for these conditions, terrorism would be in our rear view mirror, and in the event that it does creep into our lane, we could deal with it unequivocally. The defeat of radical Islam is contingent on the defeat of Liberalism.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Or as was said in “Symphony for the Devil”: “Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints. Just as heads is tails, call me Lucifer.” Such lyrics are why National Review included this on a list of conservative rock songs. Such inversions are very satanic — and also very liberal. Funny about that.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    In his today’s column on NRO, Jonah Goldberg wrote,

    If you work from the dogmatic assumption that liberalism is morally infallible and that liberals are, by definition, pitted against sinister and — more importantly — powerful forces, then it’s easy to explain away what seem like double standards. Any lapse, error, or transgression by conservatives is evidence of their real nature, while similar lapses, errors, and transgressions by liberals are trivial when balanced against the fact that their hearts are in the right place

    I quote Professor Lewis as writing,

    “If the fighters in the war for Islam, the holy war, “in the path of God”, are fighting for God, it follows that their opponents are fighting against God. And since God is in principle the sovereign, the supreme head of the Islamic state-and the Prophet and, after the Prophet, the caliphs are his vicegerents(sic)-then God as sovereign commands the army. The army is God’s army and the enemy is God’s enemy. The duty of God’s soldiers is to dispatch God’s enemies as quickly as possible to the place where God will chastise them-that is to say, the afterlife.”

    Please note the similarity in thought between the zealous Muslim and Liberal. Neither can be argued with, because they hold the keys to truth.

    I must say that as troublesome as the jihadiis are, they represent a small threat when compared with the Leftists who hold the West in thrall.

  5. SkepticalCynic says:

    If this country can pass laws such as “hate” laws, which I disagree with because you cannot see into the human heart. (You may misdiagnose many forms of dissension for hate.) Surely, we can use our sedition and insurrection laws to control the vitriol spewed by all of these raving maniac imams in their mosques. To prosecute our own people for hate crimes and not prosecute pseudo-muslim churches for the type of message they preach right here in our own communities is akin to treason of our police and judicial systems. Yet these, & I quote George Wallace, “pointy headed” intellectuals running our government who continue to believe that we can live in peace with Muslims is a policy of complete idiocy.

  6. Jerry Richardson says:

    KFZ,

    In the article you reference in the Atlantic Monthly Professor Lewis states:

    In the classical Islamic view, to which many Muslims are beginning to return, the world and all mankind are divided into two: the House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief or the House of War, which it is the duty of Muslims ultimately to bring to Islam. But the greater part of the world is still outside Islam, and even inside the Islamic lands, according to the view of the Muslim radicals, the faith of Islam has been undermined and the law of Islam has been abrogated. The obligation of holy war therefore begins at home and continues abroad, against the same infidel enemy.

    This is the trending-state of the Islamic worldview that I find most disturbing. It is why I get very annoyed after an obvious Islamic-Jihad event whenever Islam and/or Muslims are criticized, even with very civil language, when the apologists for all things Islamic immediately roll-out all the worn-out excuse-litanies: “most Muslims are peaceful” or “Remember, only a minority of Muslims are violent” or “Islam is a religion of peace” or “This violence had nothing to do with Islam” or on-an-on ad nauseam; meanwhile no major Muslim leader in the world opens their mouth in protest of the gratuitous violence of Jihad.

    There has been recently, perhaps an exception to this “silence of the Muslim leaders”:

    Egypt’s president opened the new year with a dramatic call for a “revolution” in Islam to reform interpretations of the faith entrenched for hundreds of years, which he said have made the Muslim world a source of “destruction” and pitted it against the rest of the world.

    The speech was Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi’s boldest effort yet to position himself as a modernizer of Islam. His professed goal is to purge the religion of extremist ideas of intolerance and violence that fuel groups like al-Qaida and the Islamic State ? and that appear to have motivated Wednesday’s attack in Paris on a French satirical newspaper that killed 12 people.

    But those looking for the “Muslim Martin Luther” bringing a radical Reformation of Islam may be overreaching ? and making a false comparison to begin with. El-Sissi is clearly seeking to impose change through the state, using government religious institutions like the 1,000-year-old al-Azhar, one of the most eminent centers of Sunni Muslim thought and teaching.

    Al-Azhar’s vision for change, however, is piecemeal, and conservative, focusing on messaging and outreach but wary of addressing deeper and more controversial issues.

    An Ambitious Call for Reform in Islam

    Unfortunately, I have yet to read of any other Muslim leaders joining El-Sissi in voicing a need for reform. And of course the current cowardly leaders of the west, such as Barack Obama have not even acknowledged in any way El-Sissi comments. I’m not holding my breath for this to lead anywhere.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Perhaps the most idiotic of the defenses is the “religion of peace” bullmoyers. Islam means “submission” (as imam Choudary stated last Wednesday), not peace; the defenders are (probably deliberately) conflating “islam” with the mildly similar “salaam”, which does mean “peace”. Go back a few decades and you find a clear awareness that Islam is quite comfortable with violence in the name of Allah the Most Merciless. But after the 9/11/01 attacks, it became emotionally necessary for the politically correct to exculpate Islam in every way.

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Wakari masen

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This sign in Indiana is, apparently, causing a stir.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/06/05/indianapolis-muslims-call-out-creators-local-billboard-insults-prophet-muhammad/370969001/

    Several times during the article attached, Muslims say the claims made on the sign are not true, but they do not rebut the claims with facts. Perhaps they don’t because they can’t.

    It is true Mohammed married a six-year- old girl, but some Muslims will point out that he didn’t have sex with her until she was nine or ten. She turned out to be his favorite wife, Aisha.

    There is no doubt that old Mo owned slaves. I don’t have the specifics on his slave-trading, but he was a caravan merchant, so it is very possible that he did sell slaves. Even more important is the fact that he took slaves in battle and said it was alright to do so and, apropos rape, said it was just fine to take the women of defeated foes and use them as slave-concubines.

    It is also true that he slaughtered a huge number of Jews after defeating them in one particular battle. I can’t recall their name but I think it was the Bani something-or-other.

    I can’t recall the exact number of wives he had, I had thought it was nine, but he gave himself special dispensation as regards wives and no other Muslim besides him was allowed so many. They could only have four. (At a time) I just checked the number of wives he had and it was thirteen.

    I am still waiting to hear where the sign erred.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Robert Spencer has had the same problem — telling the truth about Mohammed and being forced to live in hiding as a result. The Muslims don’t object to what Mohammed did, but they’re angry when people criticize it.

      Incidentally, that favorite wife was once accused of sexual misconduct, and her husband was very concerned about this. Then Allah informed him that a conviction would require 4 male eye-witnesses. This is where that particular Muslim law came from.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Well… Aisha was something like forty or so years younger than Mohammed, so one might understandably wonder about this.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          From a completely practical standpoint, Progressives are protecting and promoting a movement that has as its end their extinction. First off, how smart is that? And it really shows you the sheer depth of the ideological zealotry and willingness to drink the Kool-aid. Muslims must laugh amongst themselves at this.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            You must understand Progressives are convinced that they will be able to do to Islam the same thing they have done to Christianity in Europe, i.e. destroy it.

            And while I am at it, let me explain the Left’s view on the deaths caused by jihadists. “In order to make an omelet one must crack a view eggs.” They don’t give a rat’s ass about the victims. Individual life is not terribly important to them. Their view is we all have to die, so it matters little when and how an individual dies. The important thing is that the violence helps the “arc of history” toward a perfect hive.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Mr. Kung, it makes sense the Progressives think they can mollify Islam. But I wonder if they really think they need to do so. We can distinguish between those at the top and the “useful idiot” rank-and-file. But the widespread belief is that Islam really is a religion of peace. I’m not sure much logical thought is given to why “extremists” keep popping up out of that religion. But this situation is easily enough rationalized away.

              Whatever the case may be, if we’re taking an objective look and keeping score in Europe, Islam is winning, Progressives are losing, literally being blown up bit by bit and pushed into a corner. They have Dhimmituded themselves. Laws are on the books, and enforced, that forbid defaming the “religion of peace.”

              This is suicidal behavior. I do think people care about the victims. But it would seem that for most, if they acknowledged that Islam isn’t a religion of peace (but, instead, more of a fascistic death cult) it would counter every deep belief they have — the very foundation of their world view. The Progressive mind (that is, White People) have taken upon themselves the guilt of the ages. And the only way out of the guilt is to be “nice” to people-of-color. Their every habit of thought is about avoiding making judgments about people-of-color, for to do so is racist. Their “white privilege” and other forms of guilt are thus redeemed through this niceness and non-judgmentalism toward people-of-color.

              It’s interesting that this basic redemptive belief system even trumps feminism, so strong is the commitment to be “nice” to people-of-color. So strong has been the inculcation of white guilt.

              Which then leads to a logical possibility: The only people who will stand against Islam will be non-white people, the ones who do not carry the burden of white guilt. But is that a large enough coalition in Europe considering that it’s likely most non-white people are Muslims? And to the extent that they exist, reform is further complicated by the second-tier faction of feminism. White guilt clearly trumps feminism in regards to acknowledging the realities of Islam. But does the feminist agenda even among people-of-color allow for the rejection of those who are “the enemy of my enemy”?

              It’s a good question as to whether or not the Progressive sheep have heightened Islamic Jihad because of their friendliness to it or, like a patient with AIDS, if the sheer lack of an immune system means that Islam is just doing what it always does everywhere and it breaking out in a rash because of the lack of opposition combined with a critical level of population percentage. It’s likely both, of course. But by the time they gain their immune system back (assuming this ever happens), the percentage of the Muslim population may be so significant that it will be too late.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Part of the problem is liberals’ ostentatious racial guilt. They consider Muslims a racial minority, and (as we saw with O. J. Simpson) this trumps feminism. I’m sure many of them really do believe that if you just proclaim your love for them they’ll respond in kind, and renounce their belief in Submission to the Will of Allah.

                Of course, there are exceptions, such as the late Pim Fortuyn (who opposed all that Muslim immigration because he knew what it meant long-term to the relaxed Dutch sexual mores). But so far, not many. I suspect it will be too late by the time enough of them realize it.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I’m sure many of them really do believe that if you just proclaim your love for them they’ll respond in kind, and renounce their belief in Submission to the Will of Allah.

                This is an esoteric point — a quibble, really — so I shan’t make a scene. 😀 But, again, my gut feeling is that most Progressives already believe they are loved by the rank-and-file (that is, 99.99%) of Muslims, all of whom are “moderate,” of course. Surely this is one reason they try so hard to deflect any blame for terrorism on Islam itself. We can count all the clever psychological and rhetorical ploys they use (including even thinking of the terrorists as co-victims, acting out against an oppressive West). But they do so to keep this image of “good Islam” going in their minds and of themselves as the particularly “nice” and understanding people.

                And when Jihadists engage us in battle (that is, blow us up or slit our throats), it’s interesting to note that not even Jihadists can get their wrath. It’s usually reserved for those who point out the truth about the Jihadists.

                But I’d really love some reporter to go around England and get people’s anonymous reactions to these attacks by Islam on Western Civilization. It might be revealing.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I suspect that with many liberals we have a case of doublethink. They proclaim their love to hide their fear — even hiding it from themselves. But there’s a reason militant homosexuals won’t go after Muslims as they do Christians over homosexual marriage. At root, they know it’s dangerous, though they never admit it.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                But, again, my gut feeling is that most Progressives already believe they are loved by the rank-and-file (that is, 99.99%) of Muslims, all of whom are “moderate,” of course

                I have my doubts that most Progressives take the time and effort to consider this. My gut feeling is that they don’t really care. There is something deeper at work.

                They only know that Muslims are not Christians i.e. the real enemy. Yes, I think the hate Progressives have for Christians, and to a lesser degree Jews, is that strong. I even suspect some of these fanatics would, if given the stark choice, accept the supremacy of Islam if it would guarantee the destruction of Christianity and Israel. Just think of the nutty left-wing Jews who are strongly anti-Israel and pro-everything that is against Israel. Talk about self-hating.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Wonderful. Where can I send my check to support these guys?

      Mohammed was an evil man. Islam therefore can’t avoid being inherently evil because of its core foundation. It is a death cult. Islam normalizes brutal, sadistic, and decidedly anti-social behavior. It is yet another pathogenic human belief system. It should be expunged completely from Western culture and eventually beaten back into non-existence.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        We currently must live with the false construct that Islam is part of a triad of Abrahamic religions. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Judaeo/Christian Western tradition is well documented. There is no Western tradition in Islam. It is totally foreign to our culture in every aspect and in practice pagan to its core.

        For about 1400 years our culture has been at war with Islam in large and small. Until the 7th century most of the fertile crescent was Christian/Jewish or Zoroastrian with a few pagans mixed in. Islam sought and seeks to destroy any and all cultures not Islamic and that has not changed.

        It may be that it will take a smoking, glowing city in the west to force our fool leaders into action that brands Islam as big a threat to humanity as Nazism.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          No argument there. If people knew history, they would see that Islam has been at war with everyone since its inception. It has no intention to live peaceably. It is an ideology of conquest. Trump may take heat for the idea of a travel ban but a President Brad would make Trump look like a piker.

          I often wonder if a glowing city would change attitudes, Steve. I’ve come to believe that it would simply cause billions to be spent for suitcase-bomb detectors even while the Islamic horde pours across the borders and creates more and more no-go zones of Islamic separatism. Remember the movie, “The Dead Pool”? Okay, not one of Dirty Harry’s best. But I think we ought to have an ongoing Dead Pool here for which city gets nuked first. My guess is Paris. I’ve got $5.00 on that square.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I fear that you’re right. Our elites have no intention of seeing the truth, ever, partly because (in Europe, at least) they see Muslims immigration as necessary to ease the continent’s demographic crisis. A nuked Paris might wake up the voters, though. Of course, if the source of the nuke is Iran and it’s delivered by missile, the first target will be Tel Aviv.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              It’s a horrible experiment to run to see what happens. But I think that experiment will be run by 2025.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                A frightening thought, and all too likely to come true. Incidentally, Rush reported on a interesting note: that most of the top leaders in Europe (including May, Merkel, and Macron as well as several others) are childless. Does this make them less concerned about long-term effects? Of course, many of us are also childless and do care. But it might also affect their views on the European demographic crisis.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Timothy, NR (or someone) had an interesting article lately that pointed out the barren aspect of almost all European leaders. One or two of them are not by choice, but still.

                And it has long been my belief that one of the primary instigators of socialism is women who have forgone families but still have the maternal instinct. Therefore they will “mother” us through government. And, yes, I think it’s obvious by now that Europeans — whether with children or without — have little or no mind to what kind of continent they will leave to their children. Their unstated motto is “Eat, drink, and have free stuff for tomorrow we shall die.”

            • Steve Lancaster says:

              Its hard to determine who the Mullahs hate more. Israel or the West. If your taking odds my bet is that the West is the first target, and the city most likely to be nuked by Iran is Rome, for all the religious, and historical reasons.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Okay, I’ve got Paris. You make a pretty good case for Rome. Tel Aviv is such an obvious target, maybe we should take that one off the board. Another possibility is the Iranians sort of “warming up” their nukes and using one or two on Saudi Arabia in a bid for regional dominance. It might be a good play because Americans would not risk a fuller-scale nuclear exchange in the region in order to protect Saudi Arabia.

                Once the nukes are dropped, all you have left is retaliation. And maybe if New York went down, even America-hating leftists would defend their country (although I wouldn’t bet on it).

                But if Iran lobbed a nuke at Saudi Arabia it could be affective both in gaining control in the region and in paralyzing the West for Iran will have shown that it means business. I mean, look at how most of Europe already is doing the bidding of Muslims for various reasons (oil, warm bodies to fill their aging and barren population in order to keep the pyramid scheme of entitlements going, self hatred expressed as “multiculturalism,” etc.) If I can think this they surely can too.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                If New York were nuked liberals would be very unhappy — or say they were, anyway. The politicians, at least, would know that they have to pretend to love America. And even the America-haters would be sad to lose New York instead of, say, Dallas.

  9. Steve Lancaster says:

    Tim,
    The demographic time bomb in Europe is an indication of a culture that not only has lost faith in G-d, but also in themselves. They have no past and no future. Only among people of faith is there a drive to make the future better for our children. That is why religious families have more children and why Europe is demography a lost cause. For 20 years the average birth rate per woman has held at 1.2-1.4 children. European cities may be larger, but the populations are not the same culture. By 2050 one half of the native population alive in 1980 will be dead and only half that number will be born to replace them.

    The problem is that religion can be manipulated to awful, obscene ends. The 16th century proved that. Religion is a beast that devours not only the wicked but the innocent and once unleashed, as it has been with Islam, can only be countered with a mass movement of equal or greater power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *