Home A War of Laws
Home A War of Laws

A War of Laws

Civilization is law. A civilization makes its own laws and enforces them. And it views those who do not abide by those laws as lawless savages. Who the civilized lawkeepers and who the lawless savages is a matter of perspective. 

From the perspective of our rulers, law is defined by multilateral human rights commitments. From the perspective of their rulers, law is defined by the Koran and allegiance to Islamic law. Both consider their approach just and believe that their mission is to extend and universalize their legal codes. The transnationalists believe that they can integrate Muslims within their codes. Muslims believe that they can integrate transnationalists within their system. 

Similar alliances between Muslims and Leftists, whether in Iran or Egypt, have always broken in favor of the Islamists. The determining factor in those countries was ruthlessness and lower class support. In a global struggle for our civilization, it will be demographics that will determine the losers and winners. If Muslim immigration can shift the demographics of a region or of our entire civilization sufficiently in favor of their creed then freedom will be as dead as a rebellious daughter in Afghanistan.

The Clash of Civilizations is at its most essential a clash of laws. Law is the organizing principle of a civilization. It determines who has what powers and what rights. It structures responsibilities and penalties to create a system that encompasses any and all possibilities that may arise within a society. Western societies have attempted to impose their laws on their own Muslim immigrants and on entire Muslim countries. Muslims are attempting to impose their own laws on Western countries through violence and demographics.

At its most naked, law is control. Those who can force others to comply with their laws are the lawmakers. Those who cannot can be rebels or philosophers. 

Compliance with the law can be obtained through the higher means of convincing people that it represents an ideal. It can be obtained by convincing them that the law is in their interest. Or it can be obtained through the lowest barbaric means of pure compulsion.

Islamic law, with its manifold punishments and its ubiquitous brutalities, is rooted in the compulsion of force. Islam spread through conquest and retained its grip through empire. Its seduction of self-interest enlisted Muslim converts by sanctifying banditry and rape. The bandits became Emirs and Caliphs, and put on airs, filling their gardens with singing birds and their throne rooms with exotic treasures, but their power always derived from naked force. 

The instability of the Muslim world is tied to this essential lawlessness. For all the proliferation of scholars and clerics, the second-hand legalisms cobbled together from Jewish and Greek law, the essential foundation of Muslim civilizations is in the drug-peddling Taliban raiders and the Shiite militias in Iraq and Lebanon. Islamic law is a convenience that enshrines the force of the bandit into religious law.

A Muslim regime lasts only as long as the essential tensions in its society act to tear it apart. The Arab Spring was not a tremendous step forward, but a repetition of the long history of the region where the final law is the law of force. 

Tethered to the law of force, the Muslim world remains violent and unstable, and exports its bandit civilization with the same means. It imposes its laws, whether on Afghan schoolgirls or French artists, with the same measures that their barbaric tribal ancestors did over a thousand years ago. All the sophistication of Islamic legalism eventually comes down to the sharpened sword.

Western law’s universalism has a broader and narrower appeal to self-interest than Islamic law. This is the paradox that undermines any attempt to export it to the Muslim world. While universalism with its equality clause appears on the surface to have broader appeal, it actually has far less appeal, because it weakens the position of those in power while holding an appeal only to those who are not in power.

That paradox makes Western law a “slave religion” that appeals most to the oppressed. It holds little appeal for Muslim men who risk losing power over their wives and daughters. It holds little appeal for wives who risk losing power over their daughters. It holds little appeal for religious majorities who risk losing power over minorities. It holds little appeal for strong tribes and strong families who risk losing power over weaker tribes and families.

The problems exporting Western law also hold true for maintaining it in areas of America, Europe, Canada and Australia that have been overrun by Muslim immigrants. Honor killings are how Muslim men retain control of their women and how Muslim women retain control of their daughters nullifying the appeal of Western legal equality.  

While Western law is trying to push forward, Muslim law is working to go backward. The Arab Spring and the No Go Zones of Europe show that when it comes to pure control, backward is more effective than forward. 

The blasphemy clash is a war of laws. But those laws are more than mere technicalities. Freedom of Speech is a means of power redistribution. By making it possible for any idea to be expressed, this freedom deinstitutionalizes culture and political authority. Maintaining a monopoly on law and power is difficult when any idea can be expressed. 

Blasphemy codes on the other hand are a monopolization of ideas. Blasphemy makes Islam and the dominant form of the religion unchallengable. It takes religion and law away from the people and assigns them to a specialized class of interpreters and scholars. And it makes the political system dependent on faith in the system, rather than in open government. To believe in Islam is to believe in the Islamist politician. The outcome is not a government of laws, but a system of faith, not faith in any divinity, but in the power of Mohammed and his political descendants.

Mohammed represents the Divine Right of Caliphs, he cannot be blasphemed against because he embodies the power principle that underlies Islamic law. Without Mohammed there is no Islamic law and without Islamic law, there is neither law nor government, only the nakedness of the existing power struggles without the sanctification of any higher power. 

The Bill of Rights can survive the complete discrediting of Thomas Jefferson because we are not obligated to take its premises on faith. Islamic Law cannot survive even gentle mockery of Mohammed because to question the central figure is to destroy an entire edifice built on unquestioning faith.

Western governments have attempted to impose their law on Muslims by appealing to their ideals and their self-interest, and both approaches have failed. Far more Muslims believe that they have something to lose from universal rights than they have to gain from them. Add up every Muslim who can look down on someone else, even if he has to do it from the bottom rung of the ladder, and you have a compelling opposition to universal equality.

That leaves ideals and ideals come too close to faith and it is difficult to convert people with their own faith to your own faith. Western systems combine the populist mysticism of democracy with rational appeals to self-interest. Both fall flat when confronted by the denizens of medieval societies who do not accept universalist premises, either as self-interest or as mystic populism.

Muslim attempts to export their law into the West have become altogether direct. America has faced the same treatment as any domestic minority group has in the Muslim world. The gathering mobs had a very simple message, either prosecute blasphemy or face the mob. 

Obama chose to drag the Mohammed filmmaker to prison rather than face the mob. And so Islamic law was complied with, if not openly, but as a covert gesture that allowed both sides to save face. This has been the usual tactic adopted by Western governments that punish blasphemy as crimes against tolerance and social harmony.  

Western countries hold on to a facade of being free nations governed by reason and progressive politics, rather than medieval blasphemy laws. Muslims get to see blasphemers punished, but without the penal system acknowledging the Islamic law that serves as the basis for that punishment. The West loses its freedom while Muslims remain dissatisfied with the outcome. Through such means the transnationalists hope to integrate Muslim codes into their codes, but the effort is doomed from the start. 

Law is control and Muslims have used violence to take control of the process. For the last fifty years they have turned the problem of their violence into a challenge for civilization. That challenge intensified with the attacks of September 11 and in response the integrationists have worked overtime to align Muslim codes with our own. They have been willing to compromise, but Muslims have not.

The Clash of Civilizations will come down to control of spaces, the physical spaces in which we live and the conceptual spaces that define how we live. The nervous reaction to Muslim blasphemy laws shows the extent to which our conceptual spaces have already been taken care of. The No Go Zones carve out their own alien territories, imposing their systems on our cities and the way we live.
The extent to which we maintain control of these physical and conceptual spaces is also the extent to which we remain free. 

Freedom is not always taken at the point of a gun, sometimes it is taken at the very idea of the gun or at the economic and political disruption that would be caused by the idea of the gun. These are the effects that ripple through the conceptual spaces, breeding appeasement and surrender, as the system tries to integrate the foreign element, rather than spitting it out.

Our leaders are willing to pay almost any price to retain the multilateral and multicultural narrative, but as individuals, as societies and as nations, we cannot afford to lose our civil rights and our future for the sake of their Sisyphean progressivism. The conceptual spaces that they have imposed on us have no room for a world without multiculturalism and multilateralism. But to survive we must break with their discredited philosophies and their bloody cost or risk losing everything.

Law is the fundamental characteristic of a civilization. And law must be defended. To save our civilization, we must save our laws, and protect our territories, the physical territories of our cities, towns and villages, and the spiritual territories of our minds and cultures. Within those territories we must find the fortitude to defy the brute force of the lesser law that the savage would impose on us in the name of his bandit-prophet and his license to rule over those he can crush beneath his boots.


  1. Civilization is law. A civilization makes its own laws and enforces them. *And it views those who do abide by those laws as lawless savages.* Who the civilized lawkeepers and who the lawless savages is a matter of perspective.
    *Some clarification, please. ;-)

  2. In a way, it is correct. The law teaches us that without law we are indeed, savages.

  3. Anonymous11/10/12

    So calling them Undermenchen , putting them in gettos , and killing them with hellfire rockets ans 2000lb smartbombs is A-OK 'cause its THE LAW.Why don't you get it over? Just gas all those nasty subhuman A-RABS and throw them in ovens.Then go murder ANYONE that says you are a NAZI. After all, If you make it a law, Its OK right?

  4. You must have redacted that above paragraph, Darth Editor Knish. Thank goodness, Anonymous has saved it for us.

  5. .......Anonymous does come up with a good idea to solve the problems of Europe's No Go areas........In the end like at both previous attempts of Islam to conquer Europe it might be the only option left as education and/or integration failed miserably.

  6. Conflating the traditional western concept of "law" with the proscriptions and strictures of a state religion (Islame, Secular Humanism, et al) seems a little strange. The concept of law that emerges from the European Enlightenment seperates the law of the state from religion - and they diverge increasingly with time - while Islame and Secular Humanism both seek to unify their respective religions and governments into one seamless, harmonized religious state. I do believe you are correct in defining the fundamental underlying culture of Islame (and secular humanism too as far as I am concerned) as thuggish, barbaric and primitive. Both Islame and Leftist (secular humanist) societies are corrupt to the core because they primarily serve the interests of the power hungry and the powerful. The leaders in Islame pretend to serve the interests of god, and the leaders in Secular humanist societies pretend to serve as masters of fairness, but both are simply serving their own personal, private interests.

    American Exceptionalism is the dividing line in history that changed the ubiquitous rule of the strong and powerful to the true rule of law. Both Islame and the secular humanist (Libfilth) will stop at nothing to bring to America the horrific, bad old rule of the strong and powerful as exists in most of the world even today.

  7. Government is force.....that ours hides behind the facade of laws and equal treatment before the law in no way differentiates us from islam which does the exact same thing only they call their laws the koran and sharia and their judges mullahs. Both systems will kill any person within it's jurisdiction for even the most minor transgressions.

    Freedom is an unnatural transitory condition that only exists among small groups of tolerant people.....and tolerance is not a normal human sentiment.

    The question is basically which version of servitude by threat of force is preferable.....islam which makes no pretense regarding equality or western society which despises actual equality but gladly pays lip service to it in order to fool the masses into ignoring the fact that they are enslaved and that our system will dispassionately kill for a transgression as minor as jaywalking.

  8. The clash of legal systems is not between "multilateral human rights commitments" and Sharia law. To mention the legal system of the west, without mentioning the legal system of the west, is incomprehensible.

    "Jus Gentium" is the set of laws in common to all nations, or at the time it was originated, all ancient Roman city-states. After Rome conquered Athens, "Jus Gentium" fused with aspects of Stoicism, to form the theory of "Jus Naturale" or natural justice.

    By contrast, "multilateral commitments to human rights"--would that include treaties and the UN charter? What are you talking about?

  9. Not "Law", and not naked control, but Faith - this is what defines cultures, and societies that embody them.

    Today we ask, "what do you believe in?".

    In ancient times, people asked, "who are your gods?" / "who is your God?".

    This is what defined their set of ideals and dreams, their "do"-s and "don't"-s, and in turn it defined their civilization, culture and society.

    People used to really live by their beliefs and ideals. And die for them.

    Or to use a more scientific language, the core meme-complex. The Ethics axioms of a culture.

    Mine are:

    Do Not Cause Harm (knowingly and intentionally)
    Freedom of Thought, Rational and Informed
    No Coercion

    Everything else flows from that.

  10. (contd.) which is to say, the Non-Aggression Principle of the Libertarianism.

    Or, as not-so-ancient Hebrews put it only 2000 years ago, "Do Not Do onto Other what you wouldn't want them to do to you" (Hillel, was it?).

    The negative formulation is the key here; positive formulation is what Islam (and any other totalitarianism) says: "command Good and forbid Evil" or something like that. Which is coercion, pure and simple.

  11. The non-initiation-of-force principle is not faith-based.
    It is based on human nature, which can be measured.
    "Faith" is a process which is not bothered by contradictions.
    So a faith-based legal system could initiate force and/or contradict itself.

    "Multi-lateral agreements" -- what does that mean? Based on faith, nations can agree that the moon is made of blue cheese, or that non-aggession is aggression. The only reasonable multi-nation law is Jus Gentium. But that is not the same thing at all as "multi-lateral agreements" (like the UN).

  12. Kevin, I'm taking about individual's faith, what he holds dear. Don't hang onto a literal meaning of words.

    Laws without individual believes/ethics common for all members of society, is null and void. No police force will be able to enforce laws which are foreign to core values and beliefs of a community.

    Re: France's Islamic ghettos.

    There's no Law without Faith. Secular humanists have faith too, faith in the Good Nature of humans, and that we are all "the same".

    Their crucial mistake is, yes we are all inherently of same innate self-worth, but we are born into different cultures, and we make different choices.

    No Tolerance for the Intolerant.

  13. DrRJP:

    Simply substitute NAZI for ISLAMIST and ask the same questions:

    Would we bend over backwards to accomodate the wishes of NAZIS and do everything we can so as not to offend NAZIS? Would we go bananas every time we are called NAZIPHOBIC?

    Should we cower in fear if we accidentally "insult" Der Fuhrer?

    The comparison is more valid than you think as the Muislim Bortherhood and Nazisim developed in parallel in the same period of time. They shared a common ideology and hatred of Jews.

    The Ikhwan represents a greater threat to teh Jeweish People than the Third Reich because NAZIS were confined to one geographic area while Islamists are all over the place - especially right here in our government and military.

    We have a very serious and very dangerous 5th column within our borders and the only way to lessen the threat is to proactively dismantle their institutions that promulgate the overthrow of the US.

    Last time I checked, it was called, "Treason."

    Every immigrant who becomes a US citizen has tro recite an oath to uphold the constitution and fealty to America. Muslim immigrants are directed NOt to make any oaths with infidels, or to follow any infidel laws, except as muruna or taqiyya, i.e., pretending to be a good American while secretly waiting for the Ikhwan to be large enough to take more drastic actions.

    If we demand fealty to the US to become a citizen, then we should maintain the right to strip someone of that citizenship if they violate their oath and fealty, and the hell with what the PC Left will say.

    If there are Muslims who wish to be good Americans, then they should be honest about the danger that they face as well as we do, and help us to stop creeping Sharia.

    Sharia is incompatible with our laws. Period. It cannot and must not be accomodated. If a Muslim has a problem with that, then they have migrated to the wrong country.

    I have nothing personally against Muslims and I do know fully assimilated ones. But, if they wish to continue as a Muslim and seriously reform Islam, then they cannot remain on the sidelines and hope it changes itself - because it won't.

    If Islam is so great, then why must people be forced to convert to it and killed if they want to leave it? This is why it is nothing like Christianity or Judaism because of the power of free will that exists in them. There is no free will in a religion based on ultimate "submition."

    Islam began as an amalgam of Jewish and Christian traditions so as to appeal to Jews and Christians. But, Mohammed, seeing himself as the last great Prophet of God, was not happy coexisting with other religions. His personality was permanently stamped on it to where the two became inseparable.

    It was not until after his death that Islam embarked on the greatest and bloodiest conquest of the known world, such that, only 100 years after his death, Islam had conquered from 2/3 to 3/4 of the known world: mostly by the sword, but also by inmigration and overbreeding.

    We cannot allow outselves to become like Europe, and that means kicking the liberals totally out of governance.

  14. "Humanism" and "secularism" are two entirely different concepts.
    They are not mutually exclusive though; one could be nihilistic with respect to a particular belief system, and also affirming of humanism or human achievements.

    That's like saying, "anti-gay heterosexual". One could affirm heterosexuality and also worry against gays. But the nihilism does seem like insecurity.

    Humanists don't believe all humans are good; but define good as rational animality or natural fulfillment of human potential. Those who are evil, subvert their human potential. So "human nature" is defined rationally as well as empirically.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like