Good Rhetoric, Bad Argument

Via Powerline, I found this quotation from FrontPageMag:

The dhimmitude of Europe began with the subversion of its culture and its values, with the destruction of its history and its replacement by an Islamic vision of that history, supported by the romantic myth of Andalusia. Eurabia adopted the Islamic conception of history, in which Islam is defined as a liberating force, a force for peace, and the jihad is regarded a “just war.” Those who resist the jihad, like the Israelis and the Americans, are the guilty ones, rather than those who wage it. It is this policy that has inculcated in us, the Europeans, the spirit of dhimmitude that blinds us, that instills in us a hatred for our own values, and the wish to destroy our own origins and our own history. “The greatest intellectual swindle would be to allow Europe to continue to believe that it derives from a Judeo-Christian tradition. That is a complete lie,” Tariq Ramadan has stated. And thus we despise George Bush because he still believes in that tradition. What simpletons those Americans…

The spirit of dhimmitude is not merely that of submission without fighting, not even a surrender. It is also the denial of one’s own humiliation through this process of integrating values that lead to our own destruction; it is the ideological mercenaries offering themselves up for service in the jihad; it is the traditional tribute paid by their own hand, and with humiliation, by the European dhimmis, in order to obtain a false security; it is the betrayal of one’s own people. The non-Muslim protected dhimmi under Islamic rule could obtain an ephemeral and delusive security through services rendered to the Muslim oppressor, and through servility and flattery. And that is precisely the situation in Europe today.

Although I am sympathetic to the spirit of the quotation, the lack of any quotations or identities of individuals holding this attitude makes it sort of hard to use in any relevant fashion.


2 Responses to Good Rhetoric, Bad Argument

  1. ooghe says:

    hmm. it is an odd-sounding argument, although it sounds as if it might be in reference to the political alignments revealed in the assassination of pim fortuyn- wherein the openly gay and socially liberal fortuyn was the “right wing nativist” assassinated by a european leftist because he was trying to limit the influx of muslim immigration and the deformation to the social values of the netherlands that would entail.

    still, i got the feeling that those that opposed him were moral relativists, not non-muslims that believed that europe had an islamic destiny.

    on another note- i was wondering if you might consider splitting up your page… it’s getting to be an almost 500k load…

  2. I think the point of the article is that they are not simply moral relativists; they are closer to the Rouseau’s noble savage, actively deploring European culture for its inauthenticity (as compared with e.g. Islam).

    Or perhaps alternately failure to support/endorse/defend that culture in the face of expansionist Islam and specifically failure to treat Islamic culture just as negatively as they do European culture is tantamount to endorsing dhimitude.

    FYI, I just cut down the page length.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: