audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Maybe I shouldn't have said they were coming in faster, since I don't know if the rate is increasing or not.

There is a steady influx of immigrants who do not share much of the classically liberal ideas of human rights. And it is happening as the population of Europe is dropping. Radical Islam is gaining ground, just as it did in Pakistan with Sharia law.

Doesn't take much to read the tea leaves, I'm afraid. If a steady growing immigrant population refuses to adopt the rule of law in their adopted country, well, you're in for it.

audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Item: Italy now pursuing social con reproductive policy through libertarian-friendly means, offering women 4500 Euros to not abort their babies but proceed, as is becoming increasingly rare in Europe, to a live birth. Russia has been attempting the much the same thing for some time now.

Might want to read the blog post.

Europe is pursuing a weird quasi-assimilationist policy, often with disastrous consequences:

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway’s capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily. Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, in 2001 said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

Immigrants are coming in faster and faster and it's not clear that they want to change their former social views. Europe's attitude to this is at best cavalier. See the above quote.

thank you for the explanation.
are there these sort of things happening on your home planet?

audiculous on June 3, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Ridicule - a sickly replacement for substance.

Black Yosh
what does “the invasion of Islam” mean?

audiculous on June 3, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Europe, like Israel, is pursing a strategy of simple survival, hoping that some accommodation shown now to its future masters will buy some reciprocal kindness, or at least civility, for its future slaves.

And, as in Israel's case, "rightness" is hardly a factor at all when you're talking about survival.

Whether Europe's gamble will work, I don't know; it's possible that the egregious barbarity of expansionist Islam will ameliorate in the next several decades; the beastly behavior of much of that population may be caused, in part, by a sense of being victims and thus (as the West reinforces their beliefs on this score) that all sorts of hellish behavior are justified when one speaks of "victims;" but, perhaps, in the future, with the confidence that they now will, as Mohammad promised, inherit the whole earth (or at least the majority of the earth, bracketed on one end by India and on the other by California), those tendencies will be eclipsed by a more charitable and ethical code.

The point of view you, Tav, Luka, Rick Barber, Ace, Rod Dreher, John Podhoretz, Andy McCarthy, and others are advancing fully cooperates with them in this strategy, and is, on this level, also collectivist. It is as though you yearn for a world war – not the difficult series of low level conflicts we have seen up until now, but for an all-out struggle in which 1 billion people at a minimum, as well as everyone who opposes the escalation of the conflict, is forced on to the other side.

This is the problem I have with the righty blog argument. Lots of wringing of hands about the invasion of Islam, not as much consideration about what we should do about it besides generalized rhetoric. At least, from my viewpoint. There's gotta be something out there.

I've read through CK's post and some of the comments. Just wanted to say that I trend towards the moderate side, but most of the moderates on this site (CK, Narutoboy, etc) come off as condescending, hiding behind a wall of bombastic text, or both. Makes me kind of sad.

Especially because this conflict with Islam has a lot to do with how we view freedom of religion in the Constitution. A lot of people make the case that Islam is a blob-like encroaching entity, and frankly, I can see support for their point at times. But their way of dealing with the pervasive spread of radical Islam often seems blatantly unconstitutional (suggesting the banning hijabs, Muslim immigration, minarets...).