The Western Path

The Western Path

Friday, August 26, 2016

Islam: A Grim History

The last thirteen centuries have been largely a struggle of the West against Islam. Significant events include the Muslim takeover of much of southern Europe in the early Middle Ages, the fall of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453, the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, and the long centuries of turmoil in the Balkans. Since the days of Charles Martel and his grandson Charlemagne, some great victories have been won by the West, but the war is never over. All these historical events can easily be overlooked because of the wording of the standard history books, which blur when they should clarify. These Western books offer scattered anecdotes about "Saracens," "Moors," and "Barbary pirates," but almost never a coherent picture. That is because everywhere in the modern world we see the problem of "political correctness," but especially in academic situations. Every piece of paper that appears in public must emphasize "multiculturalism" at all costs, in spite of the fact that the expansion of one culture must lead to the shrinking of another.

Yet various Muslim groups, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, have detailed working plans for integrating Muslims into positions of power everywhere in the West. The non-Muslim world has no corresponding plans to put forward in opposition. People who have plans win; people who do not have plans lose.

Islam affects Europe in many ways. Saudi Arabia pours money into the West for the purpose of "education," i.e. propaganda. Many Western academic institutions receive grants from Saudi Arabia, or programs are set up with Saudi funding. Even Harvard University has a big Islamic-studies program. At the same time, the numerous mosques in the West serve as training grounds for young Muslims who live in those countries.

Another Muslim influence in the West is drugs. Opium from Afghanistan and Pakistan is turned into heroin and sold to the West, but of course not to Muslims. The heroin serves two purposes: it provides more money for the propagation of Islam, and it undermines the Western economy and Western ways of life.

Large-scale immigration of Muslims needs to be examined in terms of the growth of the European Union. The EU is quite undemocratic: the EU government is not an elected one, its constitution is unreadable, and the people of Europe have little input to EU decisions. The EU is a dictatorship that crept over Europe by disguising itself as a series of councils, agreements, co-operative movements, and so on, never referring to itself as a political power that was destroying self-government and democracy.

It was Charles de Gaulle, in the 1960s, who first opened the doors of Europe to massive Muslim immigration, although as a consequence France is now in turmoil. But pro-Islamic statements can be found throughout EU documentation, and the ultimate goal is to create a European-Arab state, in competition with the US.

One task that the EU set for itself was to halt the depopulation of European countries. Depopulation is bad for business, so politicians expanded the immigration of Muslims, who would provide cheap labor, support "labor" political parties, and breed quickly in order to reverse the depopulation. At the same time, friendly ties to richer Muslim countries would provide energy security to Europe, which except for Norway is largely without its own fossil fuels.

The danger with the spread of Islam, however, is that there is no such thing as "moderate Islam" versus "radical Islam," contrary to popular opinion. Christianity comes in various designs, but Islam comes in only one form, the morally anachronistic one that was invented in the seventh century and has remained unchanged since then.

The history of Islam is largely a history of slavery, even if the 1,065 pages of the Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery have only about a dozen pages on its Islamic forms. But Muslim slavery was geographically widespread: the Arabs themselves were slave owners and dealers, but so were many other Muslims of North and East Africa, and of a great deal of western and central Asia; these were people speaking not only Arabic but also a number of Turkic, Iranian, and other languages. And the Turks later formed the Ottoman Empire, quite famous for its cruelty and for its large proportion of slaves.

Slavery under Islam lasted for fourteen long centuries, beginning in the time of Mohammed, and it has not ended yet. Certainly with the ending of slavery in the US in the 1860s, the slave trade of the world was almost completely dominated by Muslims.

As George MacMunn explains in Slavery Through the Ages, slavery in the Americas was mostly for "production" in the cotton fields and elsewhere, whereas slavery under Islam was mostly for "consumption" -- sexual consumption. Sex slaves included both male and female, with the males generally castrated. By law a Muslim man could have four wives, but he could have any number of concubines, and so a wealthy man might father hundreds of children. Having large numbers of female sex slaves was therefore instrumental in the rapid growth of the world Muslim population. It is sometimes said that Muslim slavery was kinder than that of the US, since the Muslims often freed their slaves. But when Muslim slaves became too old to retain their sexual charms and were "freed," they then had little means of acquiring food or shelter and lived a precarious existence.

Muslims are even cruel to one another, and especially to their women. Female genital mutilation is customary. "Honor killing" is common: every year, according to Robert Fisk and others, over twenty thousand women worldwide die at the hands of their own families, and the majority of these women are Muslim. Yet the term "honor killing" is horrendously inaccurate. Most people in the modern West do not regard it as "honorable" for a man to torture and murder a female member of his family on the basis of some slight act of disobedience, often imaginary. Such "disobedience" even includes being raped: a raped woman is a shame to her family, and the way to remove the shame is to remove the woman.

Of the world's major religions, it is especially Islam that allows such brutality to happen with little more than token denunciation by the religious authorities or recognition by the Western press. Yet very few Muslims are willing to protest against these terrible killings. It is nonsense to excuse such behavior by saying it is "un-Islamic"; statistically, it is very much "Islamic."

The misunderstanding of the vast difference in perspective between Muslims and Westerners might be due to the fact that the debate is assumed merely to involve the respective merits of two religions, Islam and Christianity. Yet this assumption is wrong on two counts.

In the first place, Muslims regard it as self-evident that Allah spoke first to Moses, then to Jesus, and finally and most clearly to Mohammed. For Muslims, there is no possibility of a "dialog" among various religions.

The second and more important reason why it is not entirely logical to compare Islam and Christianity is that the former is, in some ways, more like a political movement than a religion. Every major religion has at times done some proselytizing "at the point of a sword," but that has always been more true of Islam. Quite clearly, Muslims think they are the "chosen people," even if the Western news-media do their best to obscure the pronouncement.

Muslim culture was created in the early seventh century out of a tribal society that was harsh and primitive, suited to a cruel and arid land, one that could barely support human life. To the basic pre-Muslim culture was added an imitation of the European life of that same century, although even Europe was in its own Dark Ages, a priest-ridden world of famine and tyranny. For example, Muslims copied European clothing of that time, and still do: Arabic women's clothing of the present day is almost identical to that of European women in the early Middle Ages. Even the Arabic language was frozen in that era: Arabic still bears strong marks of similarity to ancient European languages, not only of the seventh century but also of a far more distant time. Even the scripture is an imitation of earlier forms: the Koran is basically a bad translation of the Bible, although abbreviated and disorganized.

Yet the Koran, in spite of its occasional references to the Christian era, is in many ways ideologically closer to the world of the early city-states, such as that of the Assyrians, in which warfare would include the impalement of all male prisoners, and with either death or slavery as the fate of the females. Mass destruction of defeated enemies was characteristic of the ancient Near East, but Western civilization has gone through many changes since then, and most of the world has advanced both morally and spiritually since those early times.

As Fjordman (Peder Jensen) says in "Why the EU Needs to Be Destroyed, and Soon," it might even be best to let the Muslims keep pouring into Europe. A massive influx of Muslims would eventually destroy the EU, so at least those high rates of immigration would accomplish something useful. Since the Muslim population grows more quickly than that of the other inhabitants of each European country, the likelihood of a general collapse of the EU would therefore increase noticeably with each passing year.

But Muslims are spreading even further than Europe. According to the "Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life," the global Muslim population is expected to rise from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, twice the rate of the non-Muslim population. In recent years there has been a huge but mostly silent emigration from Muslim lands into many countries, but especially into Ireland, Canada, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, the US, Sweden, Niger, Italy, Paraguay, Laos, Guatemala, Timor-Leste, and the UK.

Why is this movement of population occurring? It may be that Muslims are thinking they should leave their homelands as quickly as possible. That's particularly the case for those Muslims who live in countries around the Persian Gulf -- Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. When they were no longer supposed to be making their living by running the slave trade, the Gulf Arabs switched to collecting money from the oil industry, as the Americans and British were busy drilling wells. Now the oil is starting to dry up, and the chances of making a living at anything else are rather slim, because the Gulf countries are really just sand. As a further result, there is also almost no agriculture. But, for now, many Muslims are wealthy enough to make investments in other countries.

Then there's the question of where Muslims can go. They're not always welcome in Europe, although that doesn't stop them from trying. Far better to find a land such as Canada, where people won't notice what's happening, where the locals have been brainwashed into thinking that theirs should be "a nation of immigrants," and where people have been convinced that it's better to be "multicultural" than to take pride in having a culture of their own.

From Marx to Multiculturalism

The moral and intellectual fabric of Western society has been disintegrating for some time. To a large extent the destruction can be blamed on Marxism. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Marxism never had much luck in intellectual contests among Westerners, so it had to burrow underground as "cultural Marxism" (Luk√°cs, Gramsci, Marcuse), eroding the foundations of modern society and leaving most people in a state of perpetual self-doubt and abnegation.

In France long ago, the terms "left" and "right" had a precise meaning, based on where one was actually sitting in the Estates General, indicating one's attitude toward the Revolution. But what does "left wing" mean nowadays? Perhaps it means big government, and big spending by that government, but above all it seems to mean supporting the "poor" rather than the "rich." In reality the poor have little to gain by the modern, perverted forms of "left-wing" government.

Arguments about fundamental political principles are often impossible to resolve, for the same reason that religious arguments cannot be resolved. It is often assumed that the difference between "left wing" and "right wing" is an intellectual (cognitive) matter. As is the case with religion, however, the difference is really a matter of fundamental pre-cognitive personality.

People who identify with the "underdogs" are more likely to become "left wing." For example, women are mothers and care-givers, and therefore women are perhaps more likely to be "left wing." Right-wingers, on the other hand, would have their own arguments in favor of "over-dogs." An obvious case of an "over-dog" argument would be that against "home rule" for countries that used to be part of European empires -- to a large extent, independence just meant tribal warfare.

"Left wing" and "liberal" are roughly identical terms. The word "liberal," derived from the Latin word liber, "free," goes back in the political sense over about three centuries. Since the end of the Second World War or thereabouts, however, the use of word "liberal" has been distorted to such an extent that it now refers roughly to the opposite of its original meaning. This new, occult form of Marxism uses the perverted sense of the word "liberal" to gain converts.

As cultural Marxism spread, any form of "nationalism," any statement of pride in one’s country, was discredited. Furthermore, any specific form of ethnicity or religion was downplayed. Western culture in general was denigrated, and Westerners were largely associated with colonialism. Reversing colonialism meant celebrating non-Western cultures. The new attitude was that "all cultures are equal." Instead of saying to Westerners, "You gave such-and-such to us," non-Westerners could now say, "You took such-and-such from us."

All these accusations against Westerners go in the face of the historical facts. Westerners have given a great deal to the rest of the world and have much to be proud of. The great majority of scientists and discoverers were Westerners; it was Westerners who gave the world such inventions as electricity, modern transportation, and modern medicine.

Cultural Marxism, by propagating its "underdog" mentality, has encouraged the nanny state, with people living in perpetual imbecility and irresponsibility. Cultural Marxism creates a strong sense of "wrong," but especially when these victims look at themselves. They hate their own culture and their own heritage. They live with a sense of guilt and shame, they suffer from self-loathing. They feel a need for self-abasement. They have low self-confidence, low self-assurance, low self-esteem.

Confirmed underdogs have self-destructive attitudes about sexuality, marriage, and the family. To them, a stable marriage, heterosexual and monogamous, is anathema. What better way to prevent the growth of what used to be called a "real man" than to suggest to a young boy that, deep down, he might not be a boy but a girl? (The same in reverse would apply to girls.) And so we create (or imagine) multiple "genders," "bi-" this and "poly-" that, psychologically disturbed mutations who have no chance of standing up against the totalitarian state. (How odd that no other species of mammal has more than two genders!)

Once that sense of low self-esteem has become fixed, all else follows. One must believe, for example, that a simplistic program of "sharing the wealth" would be of more value than reducing the problems of overpopulation and excessive resource-consumption, although such "sharing" would only create universal poverty.

But above all, one must believe that one's own culture is guilty of some nameless crime, making it necessary to give preferential treatment to any and all other cultures. Of course, that is a belief with which those "other cultures" are always happy to agree. And once that "guilt" has become established as "fact," every piece of writing that appears in public must emphasize "multiculturalism" at all costs.

There are corollaries to all the above. The victims of cultural Marxism must believe in prohibiting the ownership of guns, for example. If people believe they are inferior beings, they must also believe they have no right to defend themselves. Only grown-ups should have guns, and the victims of cultural Marxism know they are not grown-ups.

Most of those who are blinded by cultural Marxism believe that all cultures are, in some inexplicable way, equal. In their naivety, they cannot believe that many cultures are cruel and intolerant, locked in the pre-literate mentality of a thousand years ago. In reality, even in most cultures of the present day the average person can barely read or write, contrary to the official figures on literacy. There are, at the same time, many petty tribes each of which regards itself as "God's chosen people."

Most Westerners today cannot understand that there can be such vast differences between the mentality of one culture and another. The mainstream news-media foster this misunderstanding by failing to report the shocking statistics of rape, mutilation, murder, and other barbarisms that go on in this world.

Cultural Marxism is also an effective means of rationalizing the quest for "the ethnic vote." The cultural-Marxist dogma plays into an alleged economic need: to increase immigration and thereby sustain a "growing economy." Yet massive immigration really has little or no benefit to the country, and in fact leads to overcrowding, unemployment, and other social ills. For the rich, on the other hand, massive immigration means more buyers, more workers, and more investors. For politicians, more people means more votes. For religious groups, larger numbers of the "faithful" means a greater chance of pushing out competitors. Yet none of these groups has the overall good of the country in mind.

Peter Goodchild

The One-Party State

Here in Canada, as in most other Western countries, there is basically a one-party system. The elite of the supposed left and right spend their time together -- same restaurants, same marriages, same golf courses. For a change of pace they switch to journalism -- and so much for freedom of the press. During an election, it would be possible to make a list of all the slogans, mix up those items, and then ask someone to match the slogans with the parties. But it would turn out that the matching could not be done.

Actually there is only one slogan: "Bodies are good for business." So the population must be kept expanding forever. The price we pay for overpopulation and over-immigration is high unemployment, overcrowding, high urban density, environmental degradation, psychological stress, inadequate housing, traffic congestion, overloaded social services, high crime-rates, losses of water and farmland, and declining natural resources of all kinds. Overcrowding also leads to mental illness: in our overloaded cities, our nerves are often like wires that have been tightened to a point where their molecules will no longer hold.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is run by that same universal Big Brother, but in the particular one-party state known as Canada. The CBC is the mouthpiece for the political establishment. The CBC promotes the doctrine that anything good for business is good for the Party, and that anything good for the Party is good for Canada.

We are experiencing the rise of the police state, fascism with a smile. Consider the extreme sophistication of the persona designed to be the head of the government (and, no, he doesn't do his own thinking -- he's not paid for that, and he's not smart enough anyway), government spying on almost everybody, including a slow but steady integration of the entire Internet with high-level spy-ware -- and conversely the way the main chunks of the Internet are tweaked by the Wizard of Oz (Wikipedia has even found an Orwellian new definition of "objectivity"), shy as he may be, the way the biggest news-media corporations churn out images of Main Street mentality, to which everyone is expected to adhere (yes, of course we want all magazines to focus on the sex lives of Hollywood or Washington "celebrities"), the way the American Bill of Rights went to the scrap heap after the Patriot Act and a half-dozen follow-ups, but nobody cared. It's not a vast conspiracy, really. It's more like a virus -- hardly intelligent enough to be alive but alive enough to be deadly. 

People don't react to much of anything anymore, and one of the main reasons is that people don't become adults anymore. We have created a world of cultural neoteny -- prolonged childish behavior, a milieu of "dumbing down" that stretches from birth to death. "Neoteny" is a biological term referring to remaining juvenile for a long period after birth. Obviously humans do this anyway -- it takes years for an infant to turn into an adult. But a great deal of modern political sloganeering has the effect, consciously or otherwise, of keeping people silly and childish for life. Ibsen's play A Doll's House was an early look into that, at least in terms of women. Predictions of cultural neoteny can also be seen in Huxley's Brave New World and perhaps in a somewhat grimmer form in Orwell's 1984. This neoteny is pervasive, but it can be seen in such forms as the decline in literacy and the decline in education.

It's curious to note, however, that there is a definite substratum of the public that disagrees with official policies. On-line news articles that allow comments from viewers get deluged with people expressing heretical views. Then the comments get shut off, and it's back to Business as Usual -- literally. These members of the general public have never been brought together, and each person is largely unaware that there are many others holding the same views. The politically orthodox may be enforcing the rules for most daily conversation, but the disbelief gets larger as the years go by. 

If civilization is defined by the presence of writing, then the end of civilization might be defined by the disappearance of writing. People don't read books much anymore. I often find people coming up to me and asking, "Have you seen X?" They don't seem to feel the slightest bit guilty for the fact that instead of reading a book called X they have merely watched a movie called X, based on the book. Yes, it's true that film sometimes has advantages over print, but in general to make a movie out of a book one has to reduce it to action and dialogue, and all the exposition and analysis has to be erased. The time frame of a movie also means that a great deal will be cut out. Not much meaningful discussion can take place when the person to whom one is speaking is convinced that books and movies are simply different "media" providing the same educational service.

The alphabet was invented roughly three thousand years ago, and the beauty of it was that it led to the ideals of the Western way of life -- information wasn't restricted to an elite priesthood. Now, thanks to Microsoft, we're discarding literacy for "icons." The word used to refer to religious pictures, but our modern icons are just picture-writing, the same thing we discarded three thousand years ago.

There was a time when the purpose of a university education was to allow young people to explore the outer regions of space and time. Now it's just training in how to use a cash register. The lowest clerk in the huge building labeled "administration" has a more-pleasant job, and much greater job security, than the average instructor. It's money that keeps the university churning, apparently, not some vague and pretentious search for wisdom. Teachers are day-laborers, easily replaced, and it takes no great skill to deal with the reading materials supplied by the corporations for their future slaves.

Now that genuine education has been crushed, two colossal errors are being perpetuated. In the first place, "education" of the new sort is more form than substance: teachers are so afraid of being accused of heresy that the students are given little real information. The second error is that the average young person in the modern world spends about twenty thousand hours doing school work, yet nearly all of that is a waste of time, because a job at the end of that road does not require the ability to think in any Platonic or Aristotelian sense. In any case, it isn't real education at all. At most, it is just indoctrination.

We have created a world in which the state, the corporation, and the press are perfectly blended. There are no more sweaty proletarians like Hitler and Mussolini marching their private armies down Main Street. All of that was inefficient, and the answer -- as should have been obvious long ago -- was to invent "fascism with a smile." But it's somewhat beyond fascism, and perhaps should not really be called fascism at all. If I walk into a police station, I don't see Irish toughs swinging their billy clubs, I see young middle-class men and women who have been well trained in business etiquette, even if one can sense a little bloodthirstiness behind the smiles. But I get the suspicion that the building is bristling with cameras, microphones, and motion detectors. And as I head to my car but turn around, I notice that the "space age" look of the exterior is due to the strange windows, and to the fact that the building appears as invulnerable as a missile silo.

Peter Goodchild

Canada Is Not Vacant Land

It is a common misconception that Canada has vast amounts of land that could support large numbers of immigrants. Much of this belief is due to a failure to understand Canada's unique but rather daunting geography. About half of the country is bare (or, at best, spruce-covered), uninhabitable rock, namely the famous Canadian Shield. But bare rock is never "underpopulated." It is the border strip, 150 km wide, which is demographically the most significant part of the country: 80 percent of the population lives in this area. In contrast, Canada's largely uninhabited 5 million km2 of bare rock, the enormous area north of that border strip, has winters of unearthly cold stretching out over the better part of the year, with snow reaching to the rooftops, and the remainder of the year is characterized by dense clouds of mosquitoes and blackflies. The general impression is that Canada is an "empty" land, just waiting to get filled up. In reality, at 36 million the population is now nearly three times greater than in 1950.

Because only a certain amount of the country is livable, Canada is already well populated. There is simply no need to continue our mad rush to fill the country. Thanks to dishonest politicians over the years, Canada is tied only with Australia in having the highest immigration rate of all major industrialized countries. Canada also has many economic problems and is unable to provide adequate employment or other support for the people who already live here. A large increase in population is not a solution. In fact, in a world that now has a total population of over 7 billion, an increase in population is never a solution to anything. Yet, unlike many other countries, Canada has no political party that will take a firm stand against excessive immigration.

Canadian multiculturalism, designed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1971, is harmful partly because it fails to include strategies for integration, such as a requirement of proficiency in an official language before citizenship is granted. Multiculturalism as we see it today -- measured in terms of the quantity of bodies -- simply results in enclaves, ghettos, gang warfare. Each culture fights every other one. About 85 percent of recent immigrants have neither English nor French as their first language.

Multiculturalism also leads to cultural relativism. Canadians of European extraction are now taught to believe that there is no such thing as barbarism, only "cultural differences." We forget that there was actually a point to the long centuries of struggle in the West that fostered democracy, civil liberties, and human rights. Yet we bow to medieval mentality on the assumption that we are otherwise "racists."

Immigrants displace Canadian citizens in the job market, even though unemployment these days is already very high. They also add greatly to the costs of "free" medicine, education, legal advice, and all the other perquisites of the welfare state. In part this is because the immigrants of modern times often lack both language and education.

Pierre Trudeau's invention is destroying the country, and to speak against it is regarded as sheer heresy. The Chinese are by far the biggest immigrant group, and Vancouver is now an Asian city. But it is not only numbers of people that matter, because there are other ways of changing the country. Money from Saudi Arabia has insidious effects, and Muslim obsessions with "sharia" (Muslim law) corrode basic Canadian values. According to the highly respected journalist Robert Fisk ("The Crimewave That Shames the World"), about 20,000 Muslim women every year are the victims of "honor killings" by their own families, but when Canadians hear such accounts they fail to believe them: if such a story did not appear on last night's television it cannot be true. Yet I spent three years living in the Middle East, and I know that much of the world is far uglier than is imagined by most Westerners.

As an English teacher, I would sometimes have to advise immigrant students against infractions of Canadian laws, including those regarding assault, but my students' rationale for any moral or legal infractions was always the phrase "in my culture" (or "in my country"). Who, specifically, is teaching newcomers such expressions? Politicians are quite aware that "culture" is not a valid catch-all term, but they don't seem to care. After all, a higher rate of immigration means more votes, and more customers, and more sweatshops.

Until the creation of multiculturalism, freedom of speech and the press was an age-old right. Now, however, it is a crime to say anything that offends any group of people, because one is said to be attacking "human rights." A charge of this sort is a a circular argument: what is offensive is defined in terms of the claim of the other party to feel offended. It's like a charge of witchcraft: whatever you say, your statement can be turned around to "prove" you are guilty. The similarity between the twisted logic of Trudeauism and that of Stalinism (not to mention the Patriot Act and subsequent American legislation) is curious, but Orwell described such "thought crimes" long ago in 1984.

It's easy to understand why the inhabitants of the less-pleasant parts of the world have their eyes on Canada. The most significant result of Communist policy in China was famine, and the worst famine in all of world history was that of Mao Zedong's "Great Leap Forward," 1958-61, when about 30 million people died. Now hunger is again looming in that country. China's arable land is in decline, and about 600 km2 of land in China turns to desert each year. China has once more outgrown its food supply: the ratio of people to arable land in China is more than twice that of the world average, which is already too high to prevent hunger.

China is the world's leader in the mining or processing of quite a number of natural resources: aluminum, coal, gold, iron, magnesium, phosphate, zinc, and rare-earth minerals, for example. Yet basic energy reserves are in short supply. Although China has about 20 percent of the world's population, it produces only about 5 percent of the world's oil, it uses up coal so quickly that its reserves will not last beyond 2030, and the country's pollution problems are terrible. And China's "booming economy" is based on devalued currency, counterfeiting, and what is virtually slave labor.

The "fossil" (deep) aquifer of the North China Plain is being depleted, although fossil aquifers cannot be renewed. Yet this aquifer maintains half of China's wheat production and a third of its corn. As a result of the depletion of water, annual grain production has been in decline since 1998.

China now imports most of its soybeans, and conversely most of the world's soybean exports go to China. But China may soon need to import most of its grain as well. How will that amount compare with their soybean imports? No one knows for sure, but if China were to import only 20 percent of its grain it would be about the same amount that the US now exports to all countries.

Immigrants from Muslim countries are another large group entering Canada. According to the "Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life," the global Muslim population is expected to rise from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, twice the rate of the non-Muslim population. The Muslim population in Canada itself is expected to rise from about 940,000 in 2010 to nearly 2.7 million in 2030.

Saudi Arabia pours money into the West for the purpose of "education," and many Western academic institutions receive grants from Saudi Arabia, or programs are set up with Saudi funding. At the same time, the numerous mosques in the West serve as training grounds for young Muslims who live in those countries. Mosques are springing up everywhere in the West, yet in Saudi Arabia the building of a Christian church incurs an automatic death sentence. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no such thing as "moderate Islam" versus "radical Islam": Islam comes in only one form, the one that was invented in the seventh century.

The misunderstanding of the vast difference between Muslims and Christians might be due to the fact that the debate is assumed merely to involve the respective merits of two religions. Yet this assumption is wrong on two counts. In the first place, Muslims regard it as self-evident that Allah spoke first to Moses, then to Jesus, and finally and most clearly to Mohammed: for Muslims, therefore, there is no possibility of a "dialog" among various religions. The second and more important reason why it may not be entirely logical to compare Islam and Christianity is that the former is, in some ways, more like a political movement than a religion. Every major religion has at times done some proselytizing "at the point of a sword," but that has always been more true of Islam. The term "jihad" ("religious warfare") is not a metaphor.

The general public in Canada has become accustomed to submission and therefore remains mute. Unlike other people, most Canadians are never satisfied until they are feeling guilty about something. There is a constant undertone of "moral inferiority" being applied in Canada to people of a Western heritage. One must never mention Christmas, although one must portray a false joy toward the festivities of any other culture. One must constantly mumble and fumble in an attempt to find correct terms for various ethnic groups. Even the terms "B.C." and "A.D." must be rewritten as "BCE" and "CE." All of this is absolute nonsense. To be convinced of one's own inferiority is nothing more than to accept that some other person is superior -- which is exactly what manipulative politicians are planning. It is time to wake up. Those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others.

Peter Goodchild

One Ring to Bind Them All: From Islam to the EU

Muslims repeatedly kill and wound large numbers of people. Basically quite simple. But then I find a large number of questions floating around. For one thing, the politicians and the mainstream news-media are all saying that such attacks are perpetrated by "terrorists," not specifically by "Muslims." So this raises the large issue of disinformation (versus misinformation). The KGB, during the Cold War, were quite instrumental in developing this. One of the main tricks is not to tell a lie exactly, because it's possible to get caught, but simply to tweak the facts a tiny bit, even if the final effect is not so tiny. Now politicians do it all the time. By saying "terrorists" rather than "Muslims," the average television-viewer can wipe the sweat from his forehead and say, "Oh, thank God. Terrorists. I was afraid it was Muslims." Then he can go to bed, sleep like a baby, and snore all night long.

Somebody once asked me: Why would people deliberately blow themselves up? To a modern Westerner this seems incomprehensible. The answer is that the jihadis think they'll go straight to heaven if they perform these acts of martyrdom. And how could people believe such a thing? Because they have such faith in their God. Islam was created fourteen centuries ago, and it has hardly changed since then. In order to understand Islam one can study the history of Europe at that same time, the early Middle Ages. Consider the fact that even the Christian monks spent centuries burning other monks at the stake over minor issues of theological doctrine. And for Muslims nowadays, violence on that level is all part of the grand tradition.

For Westerners, part of the disturbing news these days is that Muslim attacks are often right in the heart of Europe. So the unspoken fear is that jihad is moving even further West. What will happen next in Germany, for example?

Then there's the great stumbling block of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. After all that we know of the Muslim assault on the West, why would she have allowed a vast crowd of Muslim invaders from three different continents -- sorry, "Syrian refugees" -- to swarm into Germany and destroy whatever was left of German self-esteem?

Well, that gets into a topic that is sometimes called One World, sometimes as Global Governance, sometimes as the New World Order. Basically, we are now living in something like 1984, a story in which the world is superficially divided into three huge political entities: Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia.

Consider the area that is sometimes called the ancient Old World: Europe and western Asia -- roughly what became the Roman Empire. At the present time, there are three groups shuffling for control: the European Union (EU), the Marxists (including cultural Marxists, underground Marxists, secret Marxists), and Islam. Each of the three presents good arguments for being holier, more pious, than the other two, but really they're all just a bunch of villains.

Each of the three has the same goal: to wipe out all the independence-loving particular countries that are now in place. That is why the news media always hammer out the message that one must never use the words "white," "race," "ethnic," or "nationalist." When those "rebels" (us) have been crushed, it will be possible for the One Worlders to set up their massive government that will have its fingers on all the buttons.

That's how it was possible to crush the independence movement in Quebec, which I fondly think of as Canada's schizophrenic province, always hovering between Catholicism and Communism. When Pierre Trudeau drastically increased Canada's annual intake of immigrants, the population of Quebec went from monolithically francophone to "multicultural" -- just enough to tip the balance and destroy the referendum on separation from Canada. Yes, it's true, as is frequently admitted, that all political parties wanted the "ethnic vote," but our beloved Marxist Prime Minister actually had a more-specific goal at the time.

In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington notes that "wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peacefully with their neighbors." Long ago, Charles de Gaulle had the bright idea of importing Muslims from his defunct North African empire, in order to form a union of Europeans and Muslims (called Eurabia by Bat Ye'or) that might even compete with the US as a world power. And now France, among many other countries, is paying the price, but the politicians deny all responsibility.

As Marine Le Pen once said, the European Union is not much different from the Soviet Union, and no better. But Islam, Marxism, and the EU all have the same goal: to establish a world government, and to turn the masses into obedient slaves. All three, of course, are ideologies that have always been quite opposed to democracy. The biggest step, though, is to crush any sense of pride in one's own country, and to do that the opposite to nationalism must be instituted: "multiculturalism." As Merkel knows, what better way to make a country "multicultural" than to bring in a few million families from places where people don't even believe in birth control? If a few suicide bombers get a little out of hand, then -- well, it's a small price to pay. And, yes, it's true that too many massacres could put a dent in the One Worlders' plans. Never mind. As Tolkien said: "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, / One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. . . ."

Peter Goodchild

The Overcrowded Neighborhood

On a day-to-day basis, the most frequent manifestation of overpopulation and social dysfunction is the death of the neighborhood and the rise of the Neighbor from Hell. I myself have been followed around by this character for a while. He wears various disguises, but he's easy to spot, and I can be sure that by the time I've spent a month in a new house or apartment he'll be playing Elvis Presley music at 3 a.m. His ability to find me is supernatural, and entire oceans don't keep him away. But in reality his name is Legion. A woman once told me, out of the blue, that the company her husband owneds had built most of the houses in her neighborhood, but where she lives was now plagued with such creatures. The N from H, in other words, no longer preys only on the poor -- I've heard just as many stories from people who have quite high incomes. The usual real-estate statement, that "location is everything," is no longer correct. Location is nothing.

Except in very small communities, most people hardly know their neighbors anymore. The dying rituals of capitalism mean that families must pack their bags and move on every couple of years, or the wage-earners will be replaced by more highly motivated people. So the family moves into a new block in a new town, and that block has neither a history nor a name. All that is certain is that it consists mainly of strangers surrounded by other strangers. And whoever is not a friend is almost certain to be regarded as an enemy.

To learn a new language, one might start with words that mean "hello," "goodbye," "please," "thank you," and "excuse me." Yet I have had, as neighbors, children who have never used such words in English, even though English is their first language.

Once there was an unusually heavy snowfall on a Saturday night. I knew the road wouldn't be plowed until late the next day, so I decided to spend the Sunday catching up on some studying. First, though, I took my plastic shovel and spent half an hour cleaning the driveway where my Toyota Yaris was parked. My neighbor, on the other hand, owned two huge vehicles, neither of which was used for carrying loads of any consequence. He also had a large and powerful snow-blower. It took him about three hours to clear his own driveway -- six times longer than I had taken. Because of the noise, I got no studying done in the morning, and my nerves were too shot by lunchtime for me to get much done for the rest of the day.

Somehow Westerners never caught on to the idea that increased crowding -- and now a world population of well over 7 billion -- might be a good moment for people to learn how to live more closely without basically getting on one another's nerves. Yet there are cultures in this world that figured that out centuries ago, hence their traditions of modesty, politeness, and simple living.

You would think Westerners would learn that collectivism wins over individualism. When there's trouble, it's time to start closing ranks, not to start a war of each against all. Two hundred years ago, Westerners did have such an ability. When someone needed a new barn, all the neighbors gathered and finished the job quickly. Some people could saw, some could hammer, and some could do the cooking. In modern suburbia, that just doesn't happen.

The most one can do to defeat a neighbor's loud noise is to make a louder noise oneself. Such a trick works, even if not very well. I once left a recording of Bach organ music blasting away on my high-rise porch, hoping my neighbor would get the message while I headed downtown for a few hours. It seemed to keep him quiet for a day or two, but there's always the horrible possibility that he actually enjoyed it. I'll never know.

Never mind. Time for another day in the library. Well, it's not really a library anymore, it's a "multi-purpose center." Besides, why would quiet be a necessity for grabbing a few Hollwood videos and heading out again? And if anyone wonders why municipal taxes are being spent on the distribution of videos, the answer is that in the modern world of pedagogy almost anything can be considered a learning experience.

I always sneak into the library the moment it opens, knowing that most of the world will still be half asleep. I can probably do some studying for a couple of hours at least. Later I might have to deal with stereophonic cell phones, as teenage underachievers use the cozy library chairs to call their friends. But eventually someone will come in and shout, "I'm here! It's me! The center of the universe! I'm Captain Ahab, and I'm looking for the White Whale!" But I should cheer up -- after all, it was the whale who won.

Still, whatever plan one makes in terms of survival bunkers, survival plans, etc., there will perhaps always be the problem of what might be called "accelerating decline." What I mean is that, because of continually diminishing resources, as well as the decline of everything else that constitutes the elements of collapse, any community is going to be dealing with an increasing problem of what is sometimes called "the quality of life." Decline will be happening in material terms, but that in turn will lead to decline in more psychological or sociological terms. It's hard even to find a name for such things -- grottiness, shoddiness, grimness? The human soul can handle occasional "ups" and "downs," but it cannot readily handle an interminable series of "downs," each more severe than the previous.

The result, not very far along, will be like what I discovered in rural Nova Scotia in 2011, a world which is slowly being taken over by creepy-crawlies. And that was in the middle of the northern coast. I've heard that the western and eastern tips, Yarmouth and Sydney, are much worse. Someone born and raised in Yarmouth told me that the town is now "just drugs, alcohol, and crime," and I heard similar stories about Sydney. But even my next-door neighbor, halfway between Yarmouth and Sydney, had quite a gun collection and was often threatening to shoot the people across the road, a gang that ran a marijuana operation and didn't think anyone else should be living in the vicinity.

A certain amount of animosity is bearable. But what happens as the years go by? How often can you hear gunshots in the middle of the night before you realize you can't take it anymore? What happens as you face the fact that you have to pack your bags and start living the homeless life? And what do you do when you understand that there are no UN volunteers at the end of that road, waiting for you with a tent and a hot meal?

Peter Goodchild