The New York Times’ final solution to the Moslem problem
from the New York Times editorial
on the slaughter (“brutal murder” is too mild a description) of Theo van Gogh by a Moslem fanatic in the Netherlands:
The problem is not Muslim immigration, but a failure to plan for a smoother transition to a more diverse society.
You see, the reason that Dutch citizens are being systemetically threatened, and now slaughtered, by jihadist Moslems in the Netherlands is not that the Netherlands has been importing jihadist Moslems en masse into the Netherlands; it is that Netherlands is not Islamicizing itself fast
enough, which is what the Times means by a “smoother transition to a more diverse society.” The sooner we Westerners accept the status of subordinate dhimmis under Islamic rule, the sooner we will be safe. And oh, how we long for that day.
The title of the editorial is “Deadly Hatreds in the Netherlands.” Notice the plural “hatreds.” The hatreds are mutual, you see. The Moslems hate the Dutch, but the Dutch also hate the Moslems, like the old Tom Lehrer song. That’s why there are all these problems. If the Dutch would only work harder at overcoming their residual anti-Moslem prejudices which are slowing the transition to a more diverse society, all would be well.
The Times’ editors are not just Eloi, they are—if this doesn’t sound too grandiose for such miserable creepy creatures—the master Eloi of the universe.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 06, 2004 02:01 AM | Send
Outrageous, insane and despicable. But what would you expect, sanity from that Mecca of multiculturism and moral relevance on 43rd Street?
I think the EU should drop all calls for adding another 70 million Muslims to the European population and rescind any possible entry of Turkey into that body from which their effects and culture can never be excised barring an Al Andulus Crusade.
Boy, it’s great to be a Muslim in the West today!
This NY Times editorial just confirms to me that the culture war we find ourselves involved in here in America is going to end very badly. There IS no possible way to reason with the kind of people that wrote this editorial……and the millions more like them in the blue states. There is a profound death wish, or death impulse, that has infected Western culture. We are being hollowed out…..and when they come for us, and come they will, we will; like Van Gogh, be easy prey.
There is a way to reason with them—by constantly reminding them that false rhetoric does not sell newspapers. Write, write, and write again. Tell all your friends to write. And then, write some more.
What is happening in the West Gayl goes far beyond reason. This is an historic collapase of civilizations…..a profound sickness.
What follows is a letter I wrote to an acquaintance in the UK on Thursday, who is fighting against Islamism and dhimmitude:
I spoke to a colleague today about Islam in Europe. He is Scottish Catholic from London and assured me that there is no danger. He said Muslim immigration to the UK is successful at assimilating. He vigorously defended Muslims and tried to compare the situation to the IRA and spoke at length about Christian-Protestant violence. Basically, for some reason Muslims were very low on his radar screen, while every historic wrong of Christianity was mentioned.
I asked him what he thought about Theo Van Gogh and France’s problem if things were so honkey- dory. He said he and some friends were in Paris and were jumped by several knife wielding Moroccan types. He and his friends prevailed and beat the living heck out of the heathens. I said “So there is a problem with Muslims in France”, he said “YES, very bad, but not in the UK”, but BLAMED the French for being “xenophobic”. He also said he and his friends were attacked because they sounded British, not because they were white in a Moroccan suburb of Paris.
My colleague is a journalist. His final assessment, Theo van Gogh’s ritual slaughter was “A problem of assimilation”.
Is England in your opinion a multicultural Kumbya as he says???
Theo van Gogh was one sick puppy. He appeared to hate the West as much as does the Times. But at least he saw through Islam.
Great-uncle Vincent had an excuse— he was certifiably insane.
The suicidal, death-wish nature of liberalism precludes any possibility of reconciliation. These people are at least as intent on destroying what’s left of the west, pathetic as it is, as the jihadis themselves.
From anther thread:
Father Seraphim Rose described liberalism and its ultimate destination - suicidal nihilism - more than three decades ago. There will probably be a few, perhaps the decayed rump of neoconservatism, who will insist that the Muslims will be corrupted by our degenerate culture before they are able conquer it. The mainstream leftsts will end up like Theo Van Gogh, nihilists who rejoice in death - especially that of our civilization. Unlike Van Gogh, most leftists wouldn’t even consider questioning - much less ridiculing - the practices of their sacred Islamic cows. The Caliphate will be glad to oblige their death wish, of course.
Doesn’t this describe the NY Times? Leftists hate the traditional west so much that they are quite willing to die at the hands of the jihadis in order to see it destroyed. Who, pray tell, are the real fanatics?
Andrew’s English mate may have read Friday’s Times of London, p. 23:
“A Church of England school is being urged by its local council to drop the word Saint from its name in case it causes offence to other religions.
“St Mary Magdalene Church of England primary School in North London has been threatened with the name change when it expands into a city academy for all ages in 2007.”
Lest anyone get the erroneous idea that the enemy is external, the Times quoted some of the supposed beneficiaries of the change:
“Last night a spokeswoman for the Association of Muslim Social Scientists said she had never heard of any complaints about the prefix of ‘saint’ attached to a school’s name. She said: ‘This is silly. We actually revere Mary a lot, as the mother of Jesus. All people related to the prophets are accepted in Islam, and she especially so.’
“A spokesman for the Board of Deputies of British Jews was astonished that the name should cause any offence. He said: ‘This is not an issue, we live in a country which is Christian by history and culture.’”
I wonder which side Mr van Gogh would take in this?
Van Gogh was indeed a no-talent, self-loathing smut machine. As he was being slaughtered he begged his killer for mercy……..perhaps at that moment, for the first time in his worthless, hate filled life, he found something true, something of value, respect for his own life…..alas too late.
Yes, but not as sick as the Muslim who actually attempted to saw Theo’s head from his body on the street in broad daylight for a perceived offence against his religion.
Theo van Gogh is us, we are Theo van Gogh to the Muslims.
Yes he was smutty, a by product of Western ideals. The Moroccan assassain was a butcher, a seemingly normal person. But he was in fact a Manchurian candidate waiting to be triggered, a product of HIS civilization.
Mr. Caesar, do you really wonder wich side Van Gogh would take? He hated our civilization much more than he loved the Islamic one. His ridicule of Islam was really a ridicule of the West, and its endless worship of tolerance and equality. In a sense, he was given his wish - death. Was not death the entire focus of the man’s life? To my mind, Van Gogh represents end-stage liberalism - the final reduction to suicidal nihilism. God has granted him the desire of his heart, it would seem.
Yes, we discussed it a bit. It is staggering to think that we can’t or won’t defend our CIVILIZATION. My English correspondence is very well aware of this and is on the front lines trying to do something over there. His response to my letter was bascically, that only a fool would refuse to acknowledge what is happening. He said PC has seeped into everythjing and is largely responsible.
See Carl…..I take Van Gogh’s cry for mercy at the end of his slaughter as a sign of rational awaking, a good if you will. He seemed to be a nothing but a poser, a comfortable fraud, not a radical artist.
I think focusing your disdain on the slaughterd Theo Van Gogh is not only in poor taste but a bit disturbing. It’s like you are saying “Good for him, he got what he deserved.” In that case, you may have more in common with Islamists than you think.
Now I know we are lost. The State Department, you know, that left-leaning organization which is now characterized by a decidedly liberal bend, has set up “Prayer Rooms” for Muslims.
All I can say is where is Charles (The Hammer) Martel and Richard the Lionheart when you need them.
You read me wrong Andrew2. I take no pleasure in the man’s death, swine that he was. I account for the fact that his asking for mercy was perhaps the first time he truly valued something. And in valuing something there can be a kind of redemption. A kind of love, or self-worth, that’s what I was getting at.
Sorry for all the spelling mistakes…it’s late here !
Maybe, but if everyone received his fate in Europe or America for some moral transgression, our cities would be empty. Hopefully his death will not be in vain as he represents a big part of what the Islamic civilization views as proof of their superiority. it is possible this may force awareness of what is in store for all of us if we do not halt Islamic immigration significantly and embark on a great Crusade to regain our shared heritage.
I guess the NY Times spent so long pandering and glorifying black muslim criminals here, they feel the need to help out their violent criminal counterparts in Holland. This is all due to affirmative action where some ignoramus with his worldview formed by Public Enemy and the Clash gets the job thanks to his ethnicity or race.
The dhimmis-suiciders of NYT say:
“The problem is not Muslim immigration, but a failure to plan for a smoother transition to a more diverse society.”
Notice that they wish for a smootHER transition, not a smooth one. So even in an ideal JFKerry world, where everything is planned for, the best we can hope for is a smootHER transition.
What it can possible mean? Errant film directors get killed after making 2 blasphemous movies?
After 1 movie an artist looses his limb but not his life?
Moslems are limited to 2 wifes instead of 4?
World is waiting for that plan.
There’s no doubt that Theo Van Gogh was a degenerate. After all he mocked and denigrated Christianity, spat on the Holocaust, and killed animals in his movies. The only reason he went against Islam is because he realized that the Muslims were threatening the sick liberal values he espoused. He didn’t care about Christendom, he just didn’t want any interference with his sick, drug-filled lifestyle. It is people like him, who through their destructive liberal nihilism made the current situation possible.
The main point is that Van Gogh’s murder was the last drop to many Dutch, who were afraid to speak out against the Muslim invasion. The teenagers that were arrested in the Hague “for taunting and attacking” Muslims may be Christendom’s last hope. It’s time to dump liberalism, return to Judeo-Christian values, and deport the Muslims.
I think Mr. Auster is unfair to the Eloi; at least, from the viewpoint of Wells’ Time Traveler, they seemed to have more of humanity left in them than the suicidal creeps at the World’s Greatest Newspaper. Look at the last lines of “The Time Machine.”
Mr. Hagan wrote: “See Carl.….I take Van Gogh’s cry for mercy at the end of his slaughter as a sign of rational awaking, a good if you will. He seemed to be a nothing but a poser, a comfortable fraud, not a radical artist.”
This is a good point. Van Gogh spewed his suicidal nihilism only up to the point where he came face to face with its real-life consequences. At that point, be begged for mercy, revealing the fraud of his whole worldview. Panning out to the larger view - our civilization under liberalism’s rule, specifically the liberal elite whole control all the levers of power, is very much like Van Gogh: Hellbent on a course of nihilistic suicide and unable to do much but beg for mercy when confronted with the reality of jihad.
As Mr. Auster and others at VFR have stated many times, the west cannot fight jihad unless it abandons liberalism. Liberalism is Van Gogh writ large.
The Times reported, without comment, some weeks back, that the Dutch authorities are trying to educate Muslim clerics to acceptance of certain Dutch values, explaining to them that they really ought not to object too much to euthanasia and drugs.
By the way, describing the future position of Westerners under Muslim rule as equivalent to dhimmis seems to me to be too optimistic. This assumes the Islamists are more traditional and for lack of a better term, more “moderate” than they really are. The position of Christians and Jews will almost certainly be considerably worse than that of dhimmis under the original Arab empire or the Ottomans, although, by traditional Western standards that was really bad enough. Moreover, though the point is not often discussed, there seems to be some kind of ethnic edge, even racial hostility, in Islamist attitudes to Europeans, Jews, and also Hindus, that is lacking in traditional Islam. I cannot cite chapter and verse for this argument, but I am not the only person who has sensed this. If true, even those who convert will never be more than second-class Muslims….. possibly not even that.
The NYT has a summer internship program, which last time I saw, accepts an overwhelming majority of minority students every year. I meet several and formed an opinion about the intellectual quality and objectivity of these lucky individuals. It was not good.
Look at the New York’s View on Diversity:
“The Times, which must not only speak the language of the Washington foreign policy community but hear and understand the voices of the Dominican community in the Bronx, a diverse staff is vital.”:
Look at their photo promoting “Diversity” in their Summer Internship Program, I guess a non-diverse run of the mill white person need not apply:
Diversity means selecting the very best. So the appointment of an individual named Hussain Ali Khan to a high position in the company simply represents the best and brightest the times could find:
NEW YORK—(BUSINESS WIRE)—Oct. 25, 2004—The New York Times Company announced today that Hussain Ali-Khan has been named vice president of real estate development. :
To get a real good picture of their insane liberalism and diversity obsession read their mission and statement:
So it is no surprise the most influential newspaper in the world is becoming another Tower of Babel with no soul whatsoever attempting to shameless promote its vision of their company on a national scale.
Thanks Pinch Sulzberger, I’m glad I stepped on your foot in the elevator that time you CREEP!
I was aware when I wrote “miserable creepy creatures” that that did not describe Wells’s Eloi, who are attractive, nice, innocent, if somewhat dim, creatures. But the NY Times editorialists are, as I said, not mere Eloi, they are the master Eloi, they are the moral monsters who deliberately turn the human race into Eloi so that they can be consumed by the Morlocks.
So maybe I should have described the Times’ editors not as Eloi, but as agents of the Morlocks; or perhaps as half-Eloi, half-Morlock.
Europe’s relapse to nihilistic socialism, the current elite experiment being cultural marxism has only taken fifteen years to bring it the brink of inter-racial/religious conflict not seen since the 1400’s.
Seems unlikely Eurabians will ever see political ideology as a poor subsitute for bible based spiritual values. Rather ironic, was discussing with my brother last week the issue of trouble with Islam, like many he’s temporarily still infected with Western self loathing, I made the offhand comment that liberal elites will be getting chased around the streets by sword wielding muslims in the near future, then we’ll see any acknowledgement that there’s a big problem with islam. For Theo van Gogh, how true it came to be. Expect more…
Maybe an Eloilock hybrid.
“Van Gogh spewed his suicidal nihilism only up to the point where he came face to face with its real-life consequences. At that point, be begged for mercy, revealing the fraud of his whole worldview.”
This is really interesting. Could someone provide a link to any article explaining van Gogh’s suicidal nihilism?
Even “Morlock” might be too favorable a description of the people at the Times!
To Andrew2: I think I speak for all us when I say, thank you for stepping on Pinch Sulzberger’s foot.
Sulzberger is probably getting ready for the position of court Jew to the Caliph of Eurabia.
Lawrence, VDARE had an article a few days ago about the incident - which seems to have disappeared from their site. It was entitled Death among the Tulips, some something similar.
In contrast to the Robert Spencer article, whose focus was pointing out the murder’s consistency with the principles of Jihad, this article gave a short history of Theo Van Gogh’s career, which was struck me as being utterly nihilistic. After early efforts attacking Christianity, which didn’t generate much sensation in Holland as there are few real Christians left, he turned his attention to Jews - even going so far as to state that a Jewish woman who criticized his movie trashing Ann Frank was driven by sexual fantasies of Dr. Mengele. He even called himself a “piece of shit.”
Reading about this charcter reminded me of the Seraphim Rose article about the stages of liberalism. It struck me that Van Gogh’s entire career could stand as a real-life model of Rose’s premise. Interestingly, the article didn’t mention that Van Gogh begged for mercy before the jihadi delivered the final dagger thrust.
It’s like a scene in a novel, perhaps a Russian novel: nihilistic artist who describes himself as “s- -t” is savagely slaughtered, and realizes, as the knife is cutting through him, that he’s not a nihilist after all.
It’s not possible to be a 100 percent nihilist. As with liberals, the nihilist must always hold to some unprincipled exceptions. For van Gogh, the unprincipled exception was his own violent death.
I seen an article that stated Van Gogh did indeed beg for mercy as he was being killed…..I will look for it.
Here’s the link to the VDare article Carl mentioned: http://www.vdare.com/misc/belien_041103_islamic.htm
It’s written by Flemish historian Paul Belien who is one of the leaders of the Vlaams Blok. He made a great point:
“When asked, after the murder of his friend Pim Fortuyn by an animal rights activist, whether he was not afraid of being killed as well, van Gogh said: “No. Who would want to kill the village idiot?”
“As it turned out, his big mistake was that, unlike Christians and Jews, Muslims do not seem to be very tolerant of village idiots. Consequently, van Gogh was butchered in the holy month of Ramadan by a fanatic who had just finished his morning prayers in the mosque.”
He died squealing like a pig, on his knees in front of the Arab butcher. He was not a true anti-Islamist, but just a “disgusting vandal” to borrow Mr. Auster’s brilliant characterization of him. It’s people like Van Gogh that allowed Allah to conquer Amsterdam and only the return of Christ will take it back.
How would you have died in the face of such sudden terror Mr. Girin?
I would’ve died fighting like fifteen of my relatives who died fighting against the Wehrmacht and the SS on the Eastern Front.
Andrew, Van Gogh was a nobody, a disgusting degenerate who got the spotlight. How many people have heard of the Belgian Yeshiva student who was brutally beaten by Arab thugs or the French girls that were savagely raped by Muslim gangs? How many tears have been shed over the less famous victims of Muslim violence in Europe?
Eugene Girin writes:
“I would’ve died fighting like fifteen of my relatives who died fighting against the Wehrmacht “.
You hope but you cannot really know. Unless you have served in combat. I assume you didn’t, those who did as a rule don’t write what you write.
I have the highest respect for your 15 relatives who died with honor fighting for their country. That is a heavy toll for freedom that any one family should have to bear.
Theo, van Gogh was a slime ball by all accounts. I understand that his value system was convoluted and he was the embodiment of Western decadence and cultural decay etc. I am not defending his lifestyle or his morality (or lack of).
But fine philosophical arguments are not necessary in his case. He was as illogical as the governments which imported Jihadic warriors by the millions into Europe. In that sense I understand him as being the embodiment of the rot that is post Christian Europe and let his death serve as an example to all of us.
Unlike the rest of those cowards in the EU, he in his own madness, not only mocked the usual safe targets, he attacked Islam. He spoke of its designs on Europe and he wrote books and made movies exposing it. That may have been courage, it may have been insanity or both. But he spoke of Islam in no uncertain terms and as a result he was slaughtered by a Jihadi proving the truth of his argument.
Now as far as unprincipled exceptions, demonstrated by the final realization that his life was at an end while he begged for mercy, I understand that a person possessed of the strength of his convictions would defy that which contradicts his principles. Like you said when you pointed out that you would fight like your brave relatives. His begging is not relative, as it was his survival instinct at work in the instant of sheer terror.
Not knowing all of his principles, I would say however that the few he had were a contraction. Some have correctly called it nihilism, the view that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded- yet on the other hand he was aware that traditional Dutch society was in danger. He communicated that danger for reasons known only to him.
Your final point is true. Many have died in the name of Jihad. 200 in Spain on 11 March. That massacre had the result of showing the principles of the Spanish nation. His death is just causality in the Jihad on our civilization, but maybe it will serve to wake the Scandinavians up from their deadly slumber.
Van Gogh was hardly an ally of the West. He was, as Mr. Auster characterized him, a disgusting vandal - a nihilist. He was clever enough to see that Islam is a sacred cow for the Euro-Eloi, and that it presented a mortal danger to his own amoral sensibilities.
Mr. Girin stated above: “There’s no doubt that Theo Van Gogh was a degenerate. After all he mocked and denigrated Christianity, spat on the Holocaust, and killed animals in his movies. The only reason he went against Islam is because he realized that the Muslims were threatening the sick liberal values he espoused. He didn’t care about Christendom, he just didn’t want any interference with his sick, drug-filled lifestyle. It is people like him, who through their destructive liberal nihilism made the current situation possible.”
That’s the bottom line. The trouble for Europe (and much of America - lest we start feeling overconfident) is that well over half of the native population drinks from the same Kool-Aid cup that Van Gogh did, to judge by the kind of people they willingly elect to positions of power. In short, they have no moral basis to oppose their own destruction.
Here’s another little twist of irony. Holland, like all of Europe, is a gun-controller’s dream. What was this jihadi doing with a gun? If Van Gogh were bicycling in Crawford, Texas, he could have lawfully carried a concealed gun to at least even the odds against his attacker. Like everything leftists claim as a motive, their stated reason for gun control (to make our streets safer) is a lie.
When you said “you hope, but you cannot really know”, you’re right for the most part, in fact I never served in combat, but it’s the psychological mindset that matters.
If I was in a position similar to Van Gogh’s when I would receive dozens of death threats, I would simply prepare myself to face an attack and no matter what the concealed weapons laws would be, I would at least carry a switchblade, if not a pistol. As they say, “it’s better to be judged by twelve than carried out by six”.