It takes a nation to protect the nation
Guardian Interview: Some Arguments with Merit
I've been having some interesting discussions with a Guardian reporter lately and think I have learned some valuable lessons from it. I feel that at least I can now see "the other side of the fence" and have some idea of how our 'opponents' think.
Five of his arguments have merit and need to be considered carefully. I will use the word 'topic' to refer to a whole discussion, and the words 'argument' or 'counter argument' to refer to opposing viewpoints within that topic.
T1. The Pandora's Box / Hijack Counter Argument
The answer is that we are concerned about both those risks, but the issues at stake are so important that that risks must be run. Our assessment of those risks is a lot less than their assessment tho, because looking from the inside, we have a better idea of what is going on. If anything, we see EDL going more middle class and mainstream as it develops. And as our assessment of the threat from militant Islam is greater, the difference between those opposing risks is even more compelling for us.
T2. The Tarring with the Same Brush Counter Argument
For these counters, suppose we have:
T2.1 "Its not true that there's only a tiny number"
T2.2 "The 'moderate Muslim Majority' is just as much of a problem as the Extremists"
Five of his arguments have merit and need to be considered carefully. I will use the word 'topic' to refer to a whole discussion, and the words 'argument' or 'counter argument' to refer to opposing viewpoints within that topic.
T1. The Pandora's Box / Hijack Counter Argument
This states that a movement like EDL should not pursue its agenda because it risks stirring up a lot of latent racism and causing attacks on innocent muslim shopkeepers, etc. Or a variant is that, altho EDL may be non-racist now, it could be taken over (or hijacked) by some right wing contingent later.
The answer is that we are concerned about both those risks, but the issues at stake are so important that that risks must be run. Our assessment of those risks is a lot less than their assessment tho, because looking from the inside, we have a better idea of what is going on. If anything, we see EDL going more middle class and mainstream as it develops. And as our assessment of the threat from militant Islam is greater, the difference between those opposing risks is even more compelling for us.
T2. The Tarring with the Same Brush Counter Argument
This states that you cannot judge the whole group of (say British) Muslims because of the actions of a tiny minority. This counter argument is like a kind of hidden bomb waiting to destroy this topic with its complexity. Both the argument and its counter have merit, so I will try unpack them. There are 4 defects with this counter argument. The first two relate to set definitions, the third is consistency, and the fourth relates to properties and causality.
For these counters, suppose we have:
- a set M of Muslims
- defined by a text T of properties
- a subset E of extremists
- defined by their acts of violence, intimidation, crime and terrorism VICT
T2.1 "Its not true that there's only a tiny number"
E is actually a significant percentage of M, because E includes:
- convicted terrorists
- 2000 cells being tracked by MI5
- 5 times more Muslims committing crimes than non-Muslims, and crime being advocated by Jihadist theory
- 40% of Muslim students want Sharia Law to be enforced in the UK
- virtually 100% of British muslims believe homosexual acts are morally unacceptable, and 61% believe homosexuality should be illegal. Imagine the outcry if one our slogans was "61% of British people want to see islam criminalized".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-ger... - 36% of 16-24 year olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death
Therefore, it is reasonable to criticise the group M for the actions & beliefs of 40-60% of its members.
The 'moderate Muslim majority', EC, is just as much a problem because they are the "sea that the extremist fish swim in" - they enable the extremists to hide and prepare their actions. But to prove that you have to show how Islam and Islamic society works, and that takes time. However, the degree of solid action by EC to stop the actions of E is so far very disappointing, and the statements of repudiation are very often skirted about with various caveats that the actions of E were 'justified' because of other current events like war in Iraq, existence of Israel, etc.
T2.3 "But you are the ones that want to define yourself as a separate group"
This is a variant of the "have your cake & eat it" type argument. Muslims constantly want to define themselves as separate and different to the other, the non-Muslim. The Kaffir is not only a pig and a dog, (and even faeces and urine), not only to be avoided as a friend, but can also be lied to or have his peace treaty broken, if convenient. This division into clean and unclean spins off into Halal only food in schools, hospitals, prisons and now KFC (our food is not even allowed to be in the same kitchen according to this divisive & intolerant ideology), separate prayer rooms (because the symbols of other religions are 'offensive'), and even now separate sessions in the swimming pool.
It is height of hypocrisy for Muslims to so rigorously separate themselves off from everyone else with a strictly defined creed, with clear insults to the others, and then to say that
(a) the actions of some of their group (E) are nothing to do with them
(b) but they still refuse to evict those others (E)
T2.4 "This is not a normal Syllogism"
However there is a 4th, even more serious problem with this argument, to do with identity.
Suppose we have:
Suppose we have:
- T = "wears a green tie"
- all M are defined by T (so they wear a green tie)
- all E are a member of M (therefore all E also wear green ties)
- the E are to blame for violence & terrorism, VICT
- therefore we blame M for VICT
Well, we've gone back 2500 years to Socrates, who showed that what we have here is a defective syllogism. On the syllogistic basis that the above conclusion does not follow, Islamic apologists quite correctly point out that its not fair to label all Muslims because of the actions of a minority.
But suppose we construct our sets like this:
- T = "wears a green tie & makes everyone else do so"
- all M are defined by T
- all E are a member of M
- the E are to blame for VICT (by forcing people to wear green ties)
- therefore we blame M for VICT
We are changing the identity of the last statement from set theory to causality. In this case, the property that defines the set is being used to extrapolate a deduction, not membership of the set! And that property can be used to deduce the actions because that property itself specifies actions to be performed. So we have moved beyond the realm of simple set theory and are instead considering a set which has a very long property list of instructions attached to it, and we are considering to what extent that property list of instructions causes the sets members to act in a certain way. So causality is being used to produce the final conclusion, not set theory; which leads us to a discussion of causality.
Imagine a spectrum of causes from what was written in a text T, to the personal inclinations or state of a person.
Textual instruction (T) <----> social pressure <----> mood <----> personality <----> mental health
When someone commits an act which was ordered in the textual instruction, we cannot easily prove that it was committed because of that instruction, or social pressure, or mood, or personality or mental disorder. In fact, the true mix of causes may lie anywhere in that range from totally on the left to totally on the right. But in the case of E, they have made it a lot easier for us because they:
Now, given that we blame T for VICT, we now have a problem with M, because M espouses T by definition, because M is defined by T! If M wishes to absolve themselves of blame for the actions of E, they have to repudiate those parts of their core definition which endorse the actions of E. This is blindingly obvious when stated like this, and it is for this reason that I want to see the imposition of government warnings against prescriptions for criminal and illegal acts in religious texts.
Except that now the problem gets even worse, because some people may dispute that M is defined by T, they will say that M are lovely people that make great curries and never read T anyway and they just want to get on with their lives and support secular democracy.
And that is a whole new argument , but I just wanted to show that the original assertion morphs into this new one, which is actually less slippery to handle (but I haven't time to get into that new one right now).
Imagine a spectrum of causes from what was written in a text T, to the personal inclinations or state of a person.
Textual instruction (T) <----> social pressure <----> mood <----> personality <----> mental health
When someone commits an act which was ordered in the textual instruction, we cannot easily prove that it was committed because of that instruction, or social pressure, or mood, or personality or mental disorder. In fact, the true mix of causes may lie anywhere in that range from totally on the left to totally on the right. But in the case of E, they have made it a lot easier for us because they:
- say that what defines them is the text T
- read out T that says everyone should wear a green tie
- say "we are going to make everyone wear a green tie"
- they make everyone wear a green tie
- they put it all on video on Youtube
Now, given that we blame T for VICT, we now have a problem with M, because M espouses T by definition, because M is defined by T! If M wishes to absolve themselves of blame for the actions of E, they have to repudiate those parts of their core definition which endorse the actions of E. This is blindingly obvious when stated like this, and it is for this reason that I want to see the imposition of government warnings against prescriptions for criminal and illegal acts in religious texts.
Except that now the problem gets even worse, because some people may dispute that M is defined by T, they will say that M are lovely people that make great curries and never read T anyway and they just want to get on with their lives and support secular democracy.
And that is a whole new argument , but I just wanted to show that the original assertion morphs into this new one, which is actually less slippery to handle (but I haven't time to get into that new one right now).
T3. "Its Just Poetic Old Nonsense" Argument
This argument is along the lines that the instructions of the QSH (Quran/Sira/Hadith) when programmed into the Muslim mind, in no way causes them to perform VICT. Therefore there is no reason to put government warnings and Islamic repudiations alongside them. The QSH is purported to be meaningless old nonsense that nobody pays attention to nowadays.
Just to put things in perspective, lets look at a textual analysis of the QSH.
- About 61% of the Koran is devoted to the kafir, and all of it is negative
- The Medinan Koran is 10.8% Jew hatred in nature. By comparison, only 6.8% of the text (measured by paragraphs) of Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kamph is anti-Jewish.
- Approximately 51% of the Medinan Koran text is about jihad and verbal threats directed against Jews, non-Muslims and hypocrites (half-hearted Muslims).
- The Koran says in 14 verses that a Muslim is not and cannot be the friend of the kafir.
- About 75% of the Sira (Mohammed's biography) is about the kafirs
- The Hadith of Bukhari can be used to define jihad. The discussion of jihad takes up 20% of Bukhari's total text.
- Of the hadiths devoted to jihad, 3% are about the inner struggle (to stop smoking, for exampl), the greater jihad. But 97% of the jihad hadiths are devoted to jihad as a way to annihilate kafirs and their culture, the lesser jihad.
Setting aside for the moment that all the extremist Muslims are patently paying attention to these texts, the above argument is disingenuous in the extreme. If the text is not important, then there should be no objection to putting those warning there.
This suggestion will normally lead to a heated objection that the QSH contains the holy word of God directly instructing man as to how he should behave. In which case we must conclude that there is all the more reason for putting those warnings and repudiations there!
T4. The "We Were Just As Bad" Argument
If you try to show how historically Islam has only ever taken ground and rarely lost it, how over 1400 years the 'Christian' world has lost over half its lands and is poised to lose the European remainder, the retort comes back that in terms of imperialist expansion, we the Western nations were just as bad. So the violent conquest of all the Middle East, half of Africa, central Asia, Iran and Anatolia (Turkey) is contrasted with the Western conquest of the Amerindians, the Australian aborigines, South America, and missionary proselytising worldwide. The difference in world view, and ignorance of history, that this statement implies, is challenging indeed. I'll try correct as many points as I can.
T4.1 Missionary Conversion is not Jihad
Jihad used the sword, rape and destruction to convert or eliminate. This cannot be compared to solitary unarmed missionaries speaking words from a bible.
T4.2 Separation of Church and State
Its important to get the timescales right. There was a time when the Church wielded political authority, but those days ended hundreds of years ago.
T4.3 Thats No Excuse
Prior to that separation of Church and state, there were some cases where the Church misused military force. But bear in mind those were also days when the pope was renowned for his sexual misconduct as well. Its important to ask for specific examples of where this 'Christian imperialism' has taken place. Even if they can provide any valid ones, those can be contrasted with ten times more examples of Islamic Imperialism. In any case, previous misbehaviour hundreds of years ago by Western countries clearly does not 'excuse' the genocide and ethnic cleansing being practised today by Islamic countries.
T4.4 Don't Blame Christianity for Capitalism
The expansion of settlers in North America and consequent destruction of the Amerindian civilisations, is purported to be an example of Christian Imperialism in exactly the same way as Islamic Imperialism. This thinking just shows how little the speaker knows about Islam.
The ideology that the American settlers were operating under was capitalism and the free market, not Christianity. Yes, they were Christians, but that regulated their private lives. Its hard for a Kaffir to understand the total integration of political, social, military and spiritual life that Islam performs; and it is just as hard for a Muslim to understand and make sense of the "separation of Church and State". But this difference is real. Capitalism is not a part of the Christian ideology, whereas Jihad is a part of the Islamic ideology. I will quote Bill Warner again:
"When Napoleon invaded Egypt, he discovered that the Muslim population knew nothing about the pyramids or temples. The 5,000 year old culture of the Pharaohs had been annihilated. There is no longer a population of Buddhists in Afghanistan. Baghdad was once home to the oldest community of Jews in the world, brought there as Babylonian captives, today it is estimated that there are no more than a few dozen old, sick and infirm Jews left in Iraq. All cultures living within
the borders of Islam are annihilated. People either leave, convert or die. There are no exceptions.
Once jihad has conquered a civilization, there is never another revolution. Even if the form of government changes, it remains Muslim. The only time Islam has left an occupied territory has been because it was forced out by military might."
the borders of Islam are annihilated. People either leave, convert or die. There are no exceptions.
Once jihad has conquered a civilization, there is never another revolution. Even if the form of government changes, it remains Muslim. The only time Islam has left an occupied territory has been because it was forced out by military might."
The same goes for the mono-culturalism of Islam. Where are the Zoroastrians that once ruled Iran? The Copts that ruled Egypt? The Anatolians and Christians that ruled Turkey? The Polytheists and Animists that ruled Saudi Arabia and Africa? Where have they all gone? Why are there now under 1 percent of Christians left in Istanbul, formerly the capital of the Christian world? Why are there only a few percent of Christians left in Bethlehem? Once Islam takes a country, it eradicates all the other religions starting with the sword, then by giving them all a second class status in society, in law and in the economy. Contrast that with the behaviour of the West after a conquest. China, Japan, Ceylon were left as Buddhist. Even where an Islamic country like Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia or the Middle East was taken over in WW2, it was left as Muslim - even where those countries had previously been converted by violence and terror to Islam from Christianity! Surely, there could be no clearer proof of the effective separation of Church and State.
So, to summarise all these 4 points, the realistic view of Islam is that it is a powerful and violent political ideology, that has over the last 1400 years succeeded in conquering half of the lands of its tolerant, weak and freedom loving neighbours, and (with 2 small exceptions), once Islam conquers some land, it ethnically cleanses all the other religions so successfully that it never reverts back to its original religion and culture.
T5. The "Ahh but Modern Muslims are Different" Argument
After the previous T4 has shown that for 1400 years Islam has been conquering the world, the apologist then alleges that the modern Muslim is different and won't behave like that at all, after being corrupted by modern luxuries and Western freedoms.
T5.1 Show Me the Country
So which Islamic country today exemplifies this 'new' trend? Persecution of other religions and peoples continues unabated in just about every single one of them. There are very tiny exceptions possibly in Dubai and UAE, which many Muslims will not accept as Islamic states anyway. The last 4 elections in Islamic countries have seen Islamic Fundamentalists gain power. And in the UN, the largest voting block - the OIC - pursues a solidly Islamic agenda based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which over-rides the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I don't see anything to calm my concerns there!
T5.2 Show Me the Statistics
This fantasy of a 'liberalisation' of Muslims taking place in the West, is obviously attractive, but sadly untrue. The statistics given before clearly show that liberalisation is not happening.
- 40% of Muslim students want Sharia Law to be enforced in the UK
- virtually 100% of British muslims believe homosexual acts are morally unacceptable, and 61% believe homosexuality should be illegal. Imagine the outcry if one our slogans was "61% of British people want to see islam criminalized".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-ger... - 36% of 16-24 year olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death
In fact, in many Islamic countries as well (like Egypt and Syria) there is a clear progression back towards old-fashioned conservative Islamic values (like the headscarf and the Hijab) - a process that would be unthinkable in the West.
In summary, the process of Islamic dominance and the submission of other cultures, is the same now, in essence, as it always has been. The only change is that, due to the Islamic states having inferior military / economic capacity, softer methods are being employed (for now).
Tags: Arguments, Guardian, Interview, Merit, Some
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Lake on
-
References.
Set Theory (for the vocab): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory
Syllogisms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism -
-
Permalink Reply by John Carlson on
-
I like the approach: (a) "Its not true that there's only a tiny number".
In fact, I wouldn't even let the opponent frame the debate in terms of E and M. It's best to take the initiative and attack them all as E right out of the gate. Of course, the liberals and muslims want to define E as "carrying out terrorist attacks" etc., and they stress that the vast majority of muslims are "law-abiding citizens". But I would strenuously resist allowing them to frame the issue that way. Instead, I would claim that any person satisfying the following criteria is an extremist:
1) They do not defend the right of people to insult Islam.
2) They promote Sharia law.
3) They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
4) They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
5) They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.
This argument puts them on the back foot, where they have to play defense. They get the extremist label by default and have to prove themselves innocent. And while doing so, they have to talk about all the issues they want to hide, like their support for Hamas, hate for homosexuals, longing for sharia etc. -
-
Permalink Reply by Kinana on
-
I confess confusion!
So I will respond to what I think you are saying with the various arguments that we come up against.
I think the numbers issue is largely a distraction. If your opponent admits even a tiny proportion then the principle is established that some is not none. So if some is not none then the problem exists with all who identify themselves as members of the same group. Given this agreement then it is an open discussion as to relationship between the moderates and the radicals, how the proportions change and how each group relate to the texts/teachings of that group.
The T1 point
I would add silence poses a greater risk. Inaction allows the danger of Islamisation to grow. Also the racism jab is hypocritical due to the supremacist and apartheid nature of Islam itself.
The T2 point
The EDL approach is not targeting the all Muslims, but media people do not believe what they read and hear! What can be done about that is simply to repeat it. I would add though that all Muslims are more susceptible to supremacist and apartheid teachings of Islam simply than non-Muslims. That should be obvious. So we return to those teachings. If those true teachings are benign then the majority should have not problem dislodging the minority from any positions of power or influence, but it is obvious that we do not see that happening anywhere and anytime!
more later
thank you AL -
-
-
Kinana's comments.
"The T1 point: I would add silence poses a greater risk. Inaction allows the danger of Islamisation to grow. Also the racism jab is hypocritical due to the supremacist and apartheid nature of Islam itself."
These are perfectly true and valid comments. However, one thing to remember is that if someone raises a concern which is valid, you must FIRST confirm back to them that you heard their message and appreciate its importance. So, if I say Martians being bothered by our space flights you can ignore it or say you aren't bothered. But if I say I am concerned about provision of music lessons for children, you should first acknowledge that concern. Then you can say that due to pressure of other, bigger problems you can't divert money to it; but people need to know that you have accepted it as a valid issue first.
"The T2 point: The EDL approach is not targeting all Muslims, but media people do not believe what they read and hear! What can be done about that is simply to repeat it. I would add though that all Muslims are more susceptible to supremacist and apartheid teachings of Islam simply than non-Muslims. That should be obvious. So we return to those teachings. If those true teachings are benign then the majority should have not problem dislodging the minority from any positions of power or influence, but it is obvious that we do not see that happening anywhere and anytime!"
Yes and no. EDL try not to target all Muslims, but (disagreed) it is true that by raising some issues around Islam, ALL Muslims become embroiled in the problem, which takes us right back to the problem of sets and subsets and allocation of blame. But (agreed) the answer is, as you say, to return to those teachings. I have tried to explain the strange reasons why that is so, and why arguments in this area are going awry. It might seem to be overly academic, but I believe in fact that this fog around identity and blame is the key method by which Islam is spreading in the world today (previously it was simple jihadist warfare, but now it is by fog and stealth). Therefore it is very important to understand why this part of the discourse is 'broken', and how to fix it. I'll try give some more examples.
A1. All Frenchmen drink wine
A2. Some people who drink wine eat garlic
A3. All people who eat garlic have smelly breath
A4. Therefore all Frenchmen have smelly breath
The conclusion (A4) is obviously false. However, that argument is a kind of copy of our argument against the 'Islamic community'. So on that basis, our arguments are false, and that's one thing Muslim speakers whine about so much. But if we change this slightly we get a completely different argument structure.
B1 All Frenchmen support the constitution, which states that all who insult the French flag deserve to die
B2. Some Frenchmen kill people who burn the French flag
B3. All people who kill others merely for insulting a symbol, are intolerant
B4. Therefore all Frenchmen are intolerant.
In this case conclusion (B4) is valid even though it is of almost the exact same form as A4, because by current standards, a constitution which advocates death for merely burning a flag would be seen as intolerant. Conclusion B4 is valid for completely different reasons to A4 being invalid. Conclusion A4 attempts to derive by the set membership, and fails. Conclusion B4 attempts to derive by causal reasoning, and succeeds. -
-
-
John Carlson:
Agreed - attack is always the best form of defence!
But there will be other situations where we are forced to get enmeshed in this thorny problem, and its then that we need to unpick the different threads involved, or it just disappears into fog and the other side 'get away with it'. -
-
-
Alan Lake said:
But if we change this slightly we get a completely different argument structure.
B1 All Frenchmen support the constitution, which states that all who insult the French flag deserve to die B2. Some Frenchmen kill people who burn the French flag
B3. All people who kill others merely for insulting a symbol, are intolerant
B4. Therefore all Frenchmen are intolerant.
In this case conclusion (B4) is valid even though it is of almost the exact same form as A4, because by current standards, a constitution which advocates death for merely burning a flag would be seen as intolerant.
The argument B1-B4 isn't actually valid. The counterexample is a Frenchman X who supports the constitution but doesn't actually kill people. None of the propositions B1-B3 imply that X is intolerant. Therefore, B4 does not follow for all Frenchmen, and the argument is invalid.
To make B4 follow, you need another assumption, such as:
B3') There are no Frenchmen who do not kill people who burn the French flag.
OR
B3") All people who believe in killing others merely for insulting a symbol, are intolerant.
Of course, if you smuggle in the assumption B3", you might as well use it explicitly, and get rid of B2 and B3, i.e.,
B1. All Frenchmen support the constitution, which states that all who insult the French flag deserve to die
B3". All people who believe in killing others merely for insulting a symbol, are intolerant.
B4. Therefore all Frenchmen are intolerant.
That is a valid argument, and it's simpler, easier to argue, and more persuasive. -
-
-
Yes, that is true, thank you.
I was aware that B1-4 was a muddle but I was kind of looking in the other direction. Yes, assumption B3' about what intolerance means is definitely required so I tossed it in at the end casually not formally :-)) We always assume things in the rich field of knowledge of the real word, like I assume that you agree with me on Newtons Laws of Motion, but you may not. However you are right, that was a little too important to toss in casually.
But what I mean by "looking in the other direction" is this, and its something we all need to up-our-game on, me as much as anyone else. A discussion or argument in the flesh, in person, is not a logical discourse (altho it may stand or fall because of that), but is more like a piece of theatre. Contrast this with a discussion here on 4F in print which will revolve 85-95% around the underlying logic or reason.
This 'theatre' aspect is one reason why Tony Blair was so successful, and why a disgraced rat like Mandelson can keep coming back to life in the political arena, because these two know how to perform in front of the camera.
So the question is, just like in the theatre, "what are people concerned about, what moves them?". People are concerned about being blown up by Islamists. So this forces people to be concerned with this tricky argument about dealing with the actions of a small group of people (who are pretty untraceable), by targeting the actions of a larger group of people (who are traceable) that they are a member of; and difficult questions around how you define group membership.
So for example, suppose Fly Fishermen are the most untidy of all fishermen. Again we have the problem of talking about 'untidiness' and fishermen and the deep sea fishermen getting upset about being wrongly accused. But nobody is getting blown up by fishermen, so this rather academic question of group membership and definition does not grab people. So also, the whole issue with "ethnic profiling" at airports would not be so difficult if human lives weren't at stake.
We need to tap into the middle ground of concerns and disappointment of the people of our countries. Your argument B1-B3'-B4 doesn't do that because "who cares?" if someone has a bit of intolerance? We all have it. But the point is that these guys have lots of it and are acting on it. They have eradicated all non-Islamic cultures in the countries they've conquered, and are beginning that same process now over here. Its not an academic question anymore. Your argument B1-B3'-B4 is definately the logically optimal one. But my argument B1-B2-B3-B3'-B4 works a lot better in front of the camera.
I need to mull this over a little more. -
-
Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on
-
Here some other Arguments to be cuntered, which are: the West has no Spirituality and is just Materialistic; Islam is fully Spiritual and is not Materialistic.
WORLD WAR III HAS ALREADY BEGUN
[ http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/112718-0/ ]
Some experts believe that World War III will start 100 years after the first one and will take lives of hundreds of millions of people. Some scientists think that the war is already going on, nareing the completion of its first stage.
Konstantin Sivkov, first VP of the Academy for Geopolitical Issues, developed a scientific concept of the reasons, stages and timeframes of World War II. He shared his forecast with Svobodnaya Pressa.
Sivkov believes that planet Earth has experienced a global, civilized crisis. The crisis was caused by several disproportions, namely: 1) conflicts between growth of production/consumption and available resources 2) conflicts between “poor” developing countries and “rich” industrially developed countries, between nations and transnational elite; 3) conflicts between spiritless free market with the power of money and spiritual roots of various civilizations, including Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist and others.
“The analysis of possible solutions of these misbalances and conflicts shows that they are of antagonistic nature, and the crisis cannot be solved without significant infringement of interests of some large geopolitical subjects. This means that participation of military forces is unavoidable. Considering the global nature of the crisis, we may assume that military participation will be global as well, “Sivkov believes.
He predicts that World War III will be of coalitional nature. Countries will form coalitions based on their loyalty to one of the two models of world order.
The first model is “the world of civilized hierarchy.” Select few brutally exploit the rest of humanity. The second model is “civilized mutual support” or “civilized harmony.”
“In other words, the war will be waged to define the spiritual basis of new world order. It will either be based on individualism, selfishness and suppression, or community, domination of mutual interest to survive and develop and support each other. This is the main difference between the war to come and previous wars that were fought for economic redistribution.”
Two coalitions already exist. The first one is the alliance of the so-called industrially developed countries represented by Western civilizations. Spiritual foundations of this coalition are based on individualism and material possessions generating power of money. The coalition’s military and political core is represented by the block NATO. The second coalition involves countries of orthodox, Islamic and other civilizations based on the domination of spiritual over material. This coalition is interested in multipolar world order. Yet, these countries have not realized that they have mutual geopolitical interests, let alone a necessity in a political or military unity.
“The countries that are not a part of Western civilization are not ready for military confrontation neither in terms of organization nor technical preparedness. On the other hand, this coalition has overwhelming majority of people and control over ample natural resources and territories. This greatly increases their chances to win a long war and provides favorable circumstances for fighting the aggressor during the initial stages of war. Another potential advantage is that simultaneous attacks in all directions are practically impossible. This creates a reserve of time for consolidation of countries into an anti-imperialistic coalition. There is a possibility of supporting the countries that will become the first victims of aggressors,” Sivkov says.
The scientist is convinced that the war is already going on. So far it is in a relatively peaceful stage.
“The first stage that we may call an “attempt of peaceful crisis resolution” is nearing its completion. 20G summits fighting in the battle field right now are obviously not bringing the results. Imedi and Helsingin Sanomat provocations mark the beginning of stage two, that we may call a “threat period before the beginning of world war.” During this stage Western civilization has commenced preparation for local wars and armed conflicts for resources.
The main actions at this stage are information operations and actions in economic area that may take various forms, from economic sanctions to terrorist attacks against industrial facilities, as well as different activities of Special Forces,” says Sivkov.
“In a few years, the third stage will commence, the stage of “limited wars,” that will later turn into a full scale world war with all types of weapons.
The only restricting factor at the moment is Russia ’ s nuclear potential . According to the forecast of the scientist, the West will try to take away Russia’s nuclear shield.
“Considering the situation in Russia, when the fifth column of the West significantly affects decisions in Russia’s defense sector, in particular, the direction Russia’s armed forces will take, we can expect the form of SNF contract that will deprive Russia of its nuclear shield. Of course, it will be presented with a beautiful wrapping of struggle for the world without nuclear weapons.
Russia may expect physical elimination of its nuclear potential during first stages of the world war (organized terrorist attacks, etc.) with further transition of neo-imperialistic coalition to unlimited use of nuclear weapons, which will bring it victory in the war,” Sivkov stated.
He believes that aggressors will not be stopped with a possibility of death of hundreds of millions of people.
“History shows that the elite of “selfish” civilization do not get stopped by human sacrifices if there is a guarantee they themselves will survive in bunkers. The analysis shows that if the new world war is waged, it will touch the majority of the world population, all continents, oceans and seas. Over 100 million people may participate in this war. Total demographic losses may exceed several hundred millions of people. Therefore, all honest people on Earth, including those who form the “selfish” coalition must do everything they can not to allow it to happen. To do this, we have to mitigate with the force of law or other methods, the greed of transnational and national
tycoons of the financial sector. We have to stop their ambitious, greedy, shameless and sometimes stupid politicians. This can only be done based on international consolidation efforts,” the expert summarized. -
-
Permalink Reply by Tha Grenadier on
-
The statement that a movement like EDL should not pursue its agenda because it risks stirring up a lot of latent racism and causing attacks on innocent Muslim shopkeepers, etc just dose not hold water to for me.
1st. That statement is inferring yet again that Islam is a Race which it patently is not no matter how much the Muslims, the Political Left and the PC brigade want to make it a racist issue in order to stifle debate on Islam.
2nd. This infers that the men and women who are members of the EDL are so stupid that we 1. don’t realise that this could happen and 2. we are so easily influenced that we would allow such people to take over.
The people I have met in the EDL are maid of sterner stuff than that and we are not geo politically naive, basically we have been about and no one is going to take over the EDL, it’s a non racist organisation and its going to stay that way no mater how much the political left want it to be, as I see it, to the UAF’s dismay the EDL is becoming more and more diverse and that is a very good thing and is in all our interests.
The fact is that there is a racist element within the EDL, but there is within any group, Yes even in the Labour party, I know because I was brought up labour and it was not that long ago that the trade unions in this country were campaigning for British jobs for British workers, Oh how times have changed ?
Some members of the EDL are or were members of the BNP, that is there choice, its what you get in a free society and rightly so, I am personally not and never have been a member of the BNP but I believe in free speech and democracy and as such I tolerate them as they should tolerate me.
As for there only being a small percentage, well I disagree completely, As has been said the ordinary decent Muslim is the sea the terrorist fish swims in.
Yes but what is ordinary decent Muslim mean ? Decent to Muslims means something completely different to us.
A small example, A young girl is Decent, Works hard, Goes to church and is a devout Christian, She is a virgin and will not have sex till she is married, her only vice is she likes to dress in modern clothing.
To us she is a nice decent hard working girl, To the Muslims she is a slut who shows of her body.
So you see Decent to us is not the same to them, same goes with lies, The Muslims say it is wrong to lie, except to an infidel were it is a duty
Extremism is they say done by a small minority and the Majority are against it.
Well there was a big percentage of our population who were against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they came out on the streets and they protested with banners that said things like NOT IN OUR NAME etc.
When Islamic terrorists massacred 186 children and 148 other non-Muslims on the morning of September 3rd, 2004 at a school house in Beslan, Russia, very few Muslims celebrated the high-profile event and some even took the time to denounce it. But, in a community renowned for its peevishness, there was very little passion over the routine slaughter of innocents in the name of Islam.
Since 9/11 there has been over 15,000 terrorist attacks with at least 60,000 dead and over 90,000 seriously injured and that dos not take in the deaths from Shariah courts or Honour killings
But when there are rumours of a Qur’an desecration or rather crud and silly Muhammad cartoon are published they bring out deadly protests, riots, arson and effigy-burnings, !0,000 Muslims rioting in French cities, 10.000 Muslims rioting in Dutch, Belgian and Danish Cities, Millions of pounds worth of damage, and innocents killed.
The mass murder of non-Muslims generally evokes nothing but yawns.
So if there are so many Muslims against radical Islam then why were they so conspicuous by there silence and absence from the streets, There has not been one demonstration were so called “Ordinary decent Muslims” Protested about the killing of non Muslims.
And on the other side of the coin, The radicals who rioted and are “Less than 1%” came out in there thousands and rioted and killed.
Sometimes I think “ Am I going mad, am I the only one who can see this”.
My personal view of the peaceful Muslim majority is that they are irrelevant, the fact is that the so called “Peaceful Muslim Majority” do not run the Mosques, the Courts, they don’t hang young men for homosexuality, they don’t stone people to death or hang 16 year old girls for killing there rapists, they don’t blow up trains or Plains or fly them in to buildings so you see the only Muslims who are relevant are the extremists, and there the only ones I’m actually interested in.
Muslims originally came here for a better life and we maid them welcome, now they want to take what is there’s by right because there Muslims, yes that’s right, by there teaching everything that is ours is not ours, its there’s because we are not Muslims.
I’m happy for them to live here in peace but that is never going to happen, the only peace they want is a peace of this and a peace of that.
Indoeuropean said:Here some other Arguments to be cuntered, which are: the West has no Spirituality and is just Materialistic; Islam is fully Spiritual and is not Materialistic.
WORLD WAR III HAS ALREADY BEGUN
[ http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/112718-0/ ]
Some experts believe that World War III will start 100 years after the first one and will take lives of hundreds of millions of people. Some scientists think that the war is already going on, nareing the completion of its first stage.
Konstantin Sivkov, first VP of the Academy for Geopolitical Issues, developed a scientific concept of the reasons, stages and timeframes of World War II. He shared his forecast with Svobodnaya Pressa.
Sivkov believes that planet Earth has experienced a global, civilized crisis. The crisis was caused by several disproportions, namely: 1) conflicts between growth of production/consumption and available resources 2) conflicts between “poor” developing countries and “rich” industrially developed countries, between nations and transnational elite; 3) conflicts between spiritless free market with the power of money and spiritual roots of various civilizations, including Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist and others.
“The analysis of possible solutions of these misbalances and conflicts shows that they are of antagonistic nature, and the crisis cannot be solved without significant infringement of interests of some large geopolitical subjects. This means that participation of military forces is unavoidable. Considering the global nature of the crisis, we may assume that military participation will be global as well, “Sivkov believes.
He predicts that World War III will be of coalitional nature. Countries will form coalitions based on their loyalty to one of the two models of world order.
The first model is “the world of civilized hierarchy.” Select few brutally exploit the rest of humanity. The second model is “civilized mutual support” or “civilized harmony.”
“In other words, the war will be waged to define the spiritual basis of new world order. It will either be based on individualism, selfishness and suppression, or community, domination of mutual interest to survive and develop and support each other. This is the main difference between the war to come and previous wars that were fought for economic redistribution.”
Two coalitions already exist. The first one is the alliance of the so-called industrially developed countries represented by Western civilizations. Spiritual foundations of this coalition are based on individualism and material possessions generating power of money. The coalition’s military and political core is represented by the block NATO. The second coalition involves countries of orthodox, Islamic and other civilizations based on the domination of spiritual over material. This coalition is interested in multipolar world order. Yet, these countries have not realized that they have mutual geopolitical interests, let alone a necessity in a political or military unity.
“The countries that are not a part of Western civilization are not ready for military confrontation neither in terms of organization nor technical preparedness. On the other hand, this coalition has overwhelming majority of people and control over ample natural resources and territories. This greatly increases their chances to win a long war and provides favorable circumstances for fighting the aggressor during the initial stages of war. Another potential advantage is that simultaneous attacks in all directions are practically impossible. This creates a reserve of time for consolidation of countries into an anti-imperialistic coalition. There is a possibility of supporting the countries that will become the first victims of aggressors,” Sivkov says.
The scientist is convinced that the war is already going on. So far it is in a relatively peaceful stage.
“The first stage that we may call an “attempt of peaceful crisis resolution” is nearing its completion. 20G summits fighting in the battle field right now are obviously not bringing the results. Imedi and Helsingin Sanomat provocations mark the beginning of stage two, that we may call a “threat period before the beginning of world war.” During this stage Western civilization has commenced preparation for local wars and armed conflicts for resources.
The main actions at this stage are information operations and actions in economic area that may take various forms, from economic sanctions to terrorist attacks against industrial facilities, as well as different activities of Special Forces,” says Sivkov.
“In a few years, the third stage will commence, the stage of “limited wars,” that will later turn into a full scale world war with all types of weapons.
The only restricting factor at the moment is Russia ’ s nuclear potential . According to the forecast of the scientist, the West will try to take away Russia’s nuclear shield.
“Considering the situation in Russia, when the fifth column of the West significantly affects decisions in Russia’s defense sector, in particular, the direction Russia’s armed forces will take, we can expect the form of SNF contract that will deprive Russia of its nuclear shield. Of course, it will be presented with a beautiful wrapping of struggle for the world without nuclear weapons.
Russia may expect physical elimination of its nuclear potential during first stages of the world war (organized terrorist attacks, etc.) with further transition of neo-imperialistic coalition to unlimited use of nuclear weapons, which will bring it victory in the war,” Sivkov stated.
He believes that aggressors will not be stopped with a possibility of death of hundreds of millions of people.
“History shows that the elite of “selfish” civilization do not get stopped by human sacrifices if there is a guarantee they themselves will survive in bunkers. The analysis shows that if the new world war is waged, it will touch the majority of the world population, all continents, oceans and seas. Over 100 million people may participate in this war. Total demographic losses may exceed several hundred millions of people. Therefore, all honest people on Earth, including those who form the “selfish” coalition must do everything they can not to allow it to happen. To do this, we have to mitigate with the force of law or other methods, the greed of transnational and national
tycoons of the financial sector. We have to stop their ambitious, greedy, shameless and sometimes stupid politicians. This can only be done based on international consolidation efforts,” the expert summarized. -
-
Permalink Reply by karl harrison on
-
i believe a country wide civil army needs to be raised to combat this abuse of our great land and values the last goverment sold us out for votes and power we are now the minority in our country such a sad state of affairs
-
Welcome to 4 Freedoms!
(currently not admitting new members)
Page Monitor
Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.
Muslim Terrorism Count
Mission Overview
Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them.
At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.
Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.
We need to capture this information before it is removed. The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.
We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.
The 4 Freedoms
These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper).
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:
- Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"
© 2023 Created by Netcon.
Powered by
