Thursday, January 05, 2006

Christians fight, infidels do not fight

A comment from wiag about my post about fighting thugs. What wiag is saying is that people fight because a text or an authority tells them to fight. I disagree.

Texts are interesting but people are not blank slates (tabula rasa). People have fighting hard wired in their biology. The human species has been waging organised violence or "war" for hundreds of thousands of years already. So there are triggers in men and if you pull them men fight.

The New Testament is quite cynical about war, although not as is alleged by progressives pacifistic. The Old Testament is quite warlike. So people, like American Christians who are raised on these texts have cultural enhancements to their biological triggers. Which makes them more ready to stand up and defend themselves.

Europeans usually have become disconnected from their warlike Old Testament Christian traditions. The whole point of the Bible quote from Judges 2 is that Judges 2 tells us how people are triggered to fight. Once people are safe and secure there is no need for them to be warlike. So they will grow up forgetting those societal and cultural triggers that make them use violence. When this happened in Ancient Israel the tribes and peoples living around and even amongst the twelve
Tribes of Israel would come and rule and terrorize them. The Tribes would then reapply the old teachings in order to be able to shake of the yoke of the oppressor.

You are right to think that Christians will be more ready to resist immigrant violence and terror then secularized city dwellers. So the resistance will show up first in the areas that are heavily Christian, like Zeeland, the Veluwe and Overijssel even though they are least affected by immigration. White people from Amsterdam on the other hand are so modern and unmasculine that I have no hopes for any resistance from these groups apart from voting.

One can already see for instance that there is constant rioting between Calvinist youth from Zeeland and Muslims. Also the rank and file of the Dutch Churches was very interested in Fortuyn's anti-Islamic stance. Fortuyn was also very well treated by the evangelical Christian broadcaster EO. In spite of what could be expected by his lifestyle and modernist message.

The Netherlands are also not so secularised as you seem to think. The Church attendance in The Netherlands is higher than elsewhere in Europe, apart from Eastern Europe. It is only the mainstream that is thoroughly secularized, but there is still a strong undercurrent of Calvinism in the old borderlands between Catholic Southern areas and Protestant Northern areas, the bible belt.

In order to make resistance an option for Dutchmen it is not only necessary to bring back a culture of applied violence, but in addition the violence must be proportionate and honourable in order to gain the moral high ground. That father in Muiderberg that gave his son a pistol and forced his son to shoot the Moroccan gang that tormented him made a mistake. It would have been better if the lad had teamed up with some mates and beaten the crap out of the Moroccans, as happens a lot for instance in Aalsmeer, 15 kilometers from Amsterdam. That way it would probably never have involved police action.

Fist against fists, knives against knives, baseball bats against baseball bats, pistols against pistols that is the way to fight and maintain the own group in society. If Dutchmen that defend themselves lose the moral highground they will lose the ability to defend themselves.

Right now the media is trying to demonize ethnic Dutch youth as the so-called Lonsdale youth (extreme right wing youth wearing Lonsdale fashion). But the phenomenon is spreading around and getting stronger all the time because people have lost belief in the Leftist Church. Dutch teachers are these days getting counselling because ethnic Dutch youth is becoming so hostile against the Multiculturalism teachers are still spreading. The danger is that ethnic Dutch youth channels its energies in Nazism instead of healthy Dutch Nationalism.

It will all work out in the end. Some things will go wrong but no great venture went underway without coughs and hiccups.

23 comments:

Daniel said...

I think it is clear that you can use the Bible to support any view you like on God and war. I comment on this in a post on my blog--when people want Jesus peaceful, he is, when people want YHWH wrathful, he is.

eyesallaround said...

Great post! I think you're on to something, and I've never thought of it that way:>)

I may be full of hot air but, the thing I've noticed about liberals is they tend to wait until things get really bad and then over-react. It reminds me of a friend whose mother hates driving in traffic. She'll sit and wait to merge into traffic, until the cars are lined up behind her, honking horns,,, the pressure builds. Then she'll dart out into traffic at the most inopportune time, nearly killing everyone involved.

That's the way I see liberals and dangerous situations.

Snouck said...

Yes you can use the bible to support many views, although not any view on God and war.

I picked the quote from the book of Judges, because it describes a (partly) monotheistic population in a Pagan environment. I think that there are parallels with the present situation in Europe that make the book of Judges relevant for a quote. The New Testament is a book with a different kind of message, a message for the salvation of the individual soul.

I do not agree with the opinion that the message of Jesus has to be applied to the life of collectives, such as peoples or nations.

For the life of nations we have to read the Old Testament of the Bible. There are a number of viewpoints in the Old Testament as well. Some more, some less peaceful. I do not see in your post on your blog something I disagree with btw. If you think I use the Holy Writ as a source of AUTHORITY you get my message wrong.

Wiag said...

A comment from wiag about my post about fighting thugs. What wiag is saying is that people fight because a text or an authority tells them to fight. I disagree.

Actually I was merely noting (correctly or incorrectly) that (among other faiths) Christians are more likely to stand up to protect their views and way of living from outside attacks (figure of speech) than liberals or 'social' democrats.

Perhaps one reason might be that they study texts that tell about all kinds of problems and conflicts one might long have forgotten due to several decades of peace and quiet. This equips one with sensors to notice when something is going wrong , sensors that social democrats and liberals might miss.

Raised a Christian but have lost the faith, I still feel very enriched by reading the bible when I was younger. The views I have now still have roots in my Christian upbringing.

And suffice to say that I meant fighting figuratively as well as literally.

eyesallaround said...

I think also, "free will" is central to Judaism and Christianity and therefore freedom to choose is worth protecting.

I know as a Christian I feel sad for those under the thumb of tyranny because they can not even "seek" truth. They are prisoners in body and spirit. Liberals choose ignorance, and that's A-OK with me, because it's their choice.

nouille said...

I don't know about the Bible much, as I was raised by parents who let me choose what I would believe in.

I find religion can sometimes cloud ones judgement of a situation. This may make me unpopular here but I stand by this.

I am neither liberal nor conservative but take the issues as they come.
Some issues I am more conservative than others and some I am downright liberal on.

Americans seem to have to label people one or the other, this is troubling to me.

eyesallaround said...

I think most people self-label themselves either liberal or conservative, recognizing that there are many shades within each group. In the US, the division has historically been between:
1. Those who believe a strong central government and unified laws are paramount.

2. Strong States rights with central government much weaker and smaller.

Democrats are #1, Republicans are #2.

I am #2. I like the idea of being able to move within the Union and find the state which best reflects my values. I'm very happy in the South, although I was raised in Canada.

I've been to Europe, but haven't spent enough time there to know whether they "label" or not, so I can't offer an opinion there, but maybe Snouck can enlighten us:>)

I think a lot of Europeans labelled our President a "Cowboy" though... which I think they might have thought was an insult, but in fact was a compliment. Funny.

GayLikeAFox said...

I don't know. There are some things liberals will fight tooth and nail over. They are fanatical on the issue of abortion, for example. And just today, I had to call a liberal social worker into my office and explain to her that she can't refer to the Christmas decorations that her co-worker was putting up (in the privacy of his own office!!!) as "Christian crap" because that is offensive. Her response? "I FIND THE LACK OF DIVERSITY HERE OFFENSIVE!!!!!!" Keep in mind the organization I work for is 80% black and around 30% gay. But because we didn't have one menorah for every Christmas tree, we failed her diversity test and she went nuts.

The point of this is that liberals will fight, but mostly for their own convenience (i.e. abortion rights) or their own self-aggrandizement (i.e. the cult of multiculturalism). They do not fight for their own societies, cultures, or people. Generally speaking.

nouille said...

Cowboy, as used in Europe is a pejorative. Gun slinger, quick to the draw and provincial.

nouille said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
eyesallaround said...

Exactly. That's what makes it so funny. In the US it's the opposite: a hero, brave, adventurous, honorable, etc.

Snouck said...

Bwoah,

that anti-cowboy thing is just something for the chattering classes. Most people I know love American cowboy movies and everything connected to it. When I was a kid we were playing "Cowboys and Injuns" every day. And nobody wanted to be an Injun.

When an American travels abroad he is most likely to meet people from the big urban centres. That combined with the horrible leftist slant of European media does not give an accurate impression of general European opinion.

Mind you, European conservatives generally regard Americans as very ..... optimistic and enthusiastic. We do not allways share those US right wing enthusiasms which is probably confused by Americans as Leftism. I prefer to regard it as prudence and sensible cautiousness. We are an older and more settled group of nations. With a superiority complex which is tragically ignored by most Americans (sob!).

To take world leadership from us while we were fighting amongst ourselves. Disgraceful! Unsporting! :-)

Snouck said...

Nouille:

"Americans seem to have to label people one or the other, this is troubling to me."

It is just human nature, not specific to Americans.

Snouck

eyesallaround said...

Snouck, LOL!!! Hey, I'm reading a book about Andrew Jackson, and I found this priceless quote by a resident of New Orleans in 1814, he says something similar to what you just said:

"There can be no doubt the French are declining in power, and the Americans are not sufficiently prudent to hide it from them. We have all the advantages that superior education and enterprise will afford, while they on the other hand, are devoted to European prejudices and politics.... The purchase of this country by the Americans is mortifying to their vanity. They are sometimes told not to interfere with government, as that is a subject peculiar to ourselves. They have even been told that in purchasing the country we purchased them also, at no higher price than 50 cents per head."


Rolling on the floor with laughter... Even back then the French were the laughing stock..

Snouck said...

Nouille:
"I don't know about the Bible much, as I was raised by parents who let me choose what I would believe in.

I find religion can sometimes cloud ones judgement of a situation. This may make me unpopular here but I stand by this."

I used the bible quote just as an historical example. I thought most people have some familiarity with bible stories. I sense that my bible quotes guided some people's thinking in a direction that I did not intent. I will try to avoid to use bible quotes if it does obscure rather than enlighten.

Maybe I must read up a bit on American and English history in order to find a source of historic examples to illustrate my posts.

Blast it. It is not easy to run a transatlantic blog! The Bible is a really good source of historic analogies.

I again recommend reading the Old Testament for analogies of what is happening in the USA and Europe and mass immigration. Although I am a Christian I did not intend to pull the weight of the Bible as a way to give credence to my post.

eyesallaround said...

I wouldn't worry about it. I find the charm of blogs is the reflection of the individual's personality and history. We can get PC from the networks all day long...

nouille said...

Snouck, no worries, I understand you, we can perhaps try out my Dutch if you prefer ; )

I am no fan of PC, never have been. I simply stated I don't know the bible.

btw ,the Hours were the most read books in Europe, more so than the bible, I am not sure many know this.

The Book of Hours was the most popular book of the Middle Ages. Books of Hours were produced throughout Europe, but were especially popular in France and Flanders.

eyesallaround said...

Nouille, LOL! If the "Hours" was a picture book, it may have been popular. There wasn't much reading going on during the Middle Ages. It wasn't until after the Reformation that reading was considered a valuable endeavor, which isn't to say all people were illiterate, but rather the majority.

By the way, what you said was "I find religion can sometimes cloud ones judgement of a situation." which is somewhat different than " I simply stated I don't know the bible." FYI, lack of religious knowledge can also cloud ones judgment of a situation. Although I find your condescension
typical.

nouille said...

eyes all around you are mistaken, the Hours were indeed very popular and A PICTURE BOOK AS WELL, often ornately embellished.


you said : lack of religious knowledge can also cloud ones judgment of a situation.

Yes, perhaps in dealing with a bigot.



you said: "Although I find your condescension
typical."


Oh, the Irony of it all. :)

eyesallaround said...

Ah, the arrow has struck its target, and victory revealed when debate disintegrates to name calling :>)

Sue Bob said...

"The Church attendance in The Netherlands is higher than elsewhere in Europe, apart from Eastern Europe."

Corrie Ten Boom would be extremely happy with this fact.

netron said...

the lonsdale youth/nazism thing sounds dangerous man.

bad move. here's hoping some cooler heads will prevail. best of luck.

Snouck said...

Nazi symbols are popular because it gives white youth in The Netherlands an standard to rally around. There is little understanding of National Socialist ideology amongst Dutch youth. But as society become more violent by immigrant vcrime and insurrection the popularity of Nazi imagery will rise. Also more and more people will be interested in the ideology which will cause the movement to strengthen.