← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 20343 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2005-09-23
2005-09-23 03:32 | User Profile
[I]In a certain detail I disagree with Chudinova: moderate Muslims like Tatars and Bashkirs should [B]not[/B] be encouraged to re-assume their Islamic identity, but rather to ditch it alltogether. I support the similar approach to Jews - I consider it a preferable option to a massacre, "overcoming evil with good" if you will.
After all, Chudinova herself speaks about listening Rachmaninov, who was of Christianized Tatar origin, as his name alone would tell...[/I]
[url]http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/092205Russia.shtml[/url]
[FONT=Arial] [SIZE=5]Window on Eurasia: [B]Russian Novelist Does 'Not Want to Live in a Moscow Caliphate'[/SIZE]
(September 22, 2005)
Paul Goble[/B]
[B]Tartu, September 22 ââ¬â Elena Chudinova, the author of the already notorious dystopian novel "The Mosque of Notre Dame de Paris," says that she would rather live in a Russia controlled and garrisoned by the Americans than in a Moscow where the Russian Federation's own Muslims have established a caliphate.[/B]
In an interview published in the current issue of "Politicheskiy zhurnal," Chudinova said that if Russia were occupied by the Americans ââ¬â something which she does not like to contemplate -- she and other Russians "would again compose anecdotes, start up samizdat ââ¬â and live just as we did under Soviet power" ( [url]http://religare.ru&print21594.htm[/url] ).
But if the Muslims were to succeed in establishing their own rule in Moscow, she continued, then Russian culture, Russians as a people and Russia itself would cease to exist. And because that danger is not unthinkable, she said, she had written her novel calling for a struggle against what she says is the Islamic threat to the Christian world.
Challenged by her interviewer on the criticism her book has received since being released at the Moscow book fair earlier this month, Chudinova refused to back down on any point. She said she was "an enemy of all-human values," preferring instead national and religious ones and said she was struggling for her right not to know anything about Islam.
The former childrenââ¬â¢s book writer insisted that recent events in Europe and elsewhere had proven once and for all that "a dialogue between our civilizations [Christian and Muslim] was impossible," and that all attempts to promote it, however well-intentioned, were doomed to complete and total failure.
[B]Asked whether she did not think that her views might have the effect in the Russian Federation of driving the country's moderate Muslims into the hands of the fundamentalists and thus further dividing Russian society, Chudinova unapologetically said that such an outcome was "very possible."[/B]
Muslims, she insisted, even moderate ones like the Tatars and Bashkirs, increasingly are drawn to radicalism by the Internet, an institution that has undermined traditional Islam and give the radicals the chance to propagate their views and win over those Muslims who had opposed them.
She added that the Russian Empire had been much too tolerant of its Muslim subjects and had allowed them "freedom" of religious belief, a tragic mistake for which the Russian writer said contemporary Russians are now "paying for and one she implied should be corrected by a much harsher policy now against the country's Muslim citizens.
Russians as a cultural community must defend themselves, she insisted, by defending their culture and, together with other Christian nations, fighting off the Islamic challenge that threatens the Russian world and the Christian West. [B] Doing so will not be easy, Chudinova said, because only a relatively tiny share of Russians are in fact committed Orthodox Christians. But at the same time, she indicated that a committed minority could make all the difference, winning over the country's intellectuals and thus putting Muslims on the defensive.[/B]
At the end of her interview, Chudinova ringingly asserted that for her "only one thing is important: I read Dostoyevskiy and listen to Rachmaninov and I want people living fifty years from now [to do the same]. I speak Russian and I want them to speak it too," something she said that could be guaranteed only by struggling against Muslims now. [/FONT]
2005-09-23 22:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Russians as a cultural community must defend themselves, she insisted, by defending their culture....[/QUOTE]
There you have it. Obviously an White European Elitist seeking to keep the ethnic, cultural, minority down. Must not realize that the only "culture" worth saving, promoting, protecting is Non-White.
2005-09-24 18:12 | User Profile
Russia has enough nukes to destroy the globe 100 times over. The Iraq war has shown, definitively, the futility of maintaining a military superpower that can project power around the globe, ready to get into any sreet skirmish necessary to maintain global cop status. I've always maintained that if you have more than a dozen nukes, let alone hundreds and thousands of strategic nukes (250+ kt thermonukes), it is extremely stupid to get into, or rather reduce yourself down to, back-alley brawling. When you have as many thermonuclear weapons as Russia or the US, you have to approach any real threat or attack (e.g., Muslim jihadists) as , "Ok a-hole, you don't tug on superman's cape!" Then you back it up with disproportionate aggression, and act a little psycho in doing it to convey that you are willing to keep this game going until the world is a glowing carbon field. The Soviets should have used nukes in Afghanistan and Russia should have used nukes in Chechnya (if not to do some fusion-frying of these goatf-ers, than do a sort of "project plowshares" deforestation of the mountain areas-- if these ragheads want to play jihad, let them die of painful bone cancer in middle age).
Russia will never be part of any caliphate if she has the good sense to come up with a Russian version of the Samson option.
2005-09-24 18:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoBear]Russia has enough nukes to destroy the globe 100 times over. The Iraq war has shown, definitively, the futility of maintaining a military superpower that can project power around the globe, ready to get into any sreet skirmish necessary to maintain global cop status. I've always maintained that if you have more than a dozen nukes, let alone hundreds and thousands of strategic nukes (250+ kt thermonukes), it is extremely stupid to get into, or rather reduce yourself down to, back-alley brawling. When you have as many thermonuclear weapons as Russia or the US, you have to approach any real threat or attack (e.g., Muslim jihadists) as , "Ok a-hole, you don't tug on superman's cape!" Then you back it up with disproportionate aggression, and act a little psycho in doing it to convey that you are willing to keep this game going until the world is a glowing carbon field. The Soviets should have used nukes in Afghanistan and Russia should have used nukes in Chechnya (if not to do some fusion-frying of these goatf-ers, than do a sort of "project plowshares" deforestation of the mountain areas-- if these ragheads want to play jihad, let them die of painful bone cancer in middle age).
Russia will never be part of any caliphate if she has the good sense to come up with a Russian version of the Samson option.[/QUOTE] You seem to be forgetting that the Russians and the US are the aggressors, not the jihadists. Russia had no business being in Afghanistan, just as the US has no business being in Iraq.
Even still, if a nation adopts an extremely belligerent and imperialistic policy such as you're advocating, the victories obtained through such a policy would be short-lived. It would certainly cause that nation to lose any semblance of moral standing in the eyes of the world (and many of its own citizens). That would probably cause the rest of the world to unite against it in military fashion and through economic boycotts. Also, a nation that acted so quickly to destroy innocent people along with the "guilty" would have no room to complain when someone managed to set off a nuke in one of its own cities.
2005-09-24 18:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]You seem to be forgetting that the Russians and the US are the aggressors, not the jihadists. Russia had no business being in Afghanistan, just as the US has no business being in Iraq.
Even still, if a nation adopts an extremely belligerent and imperialistic policy such as you're advocating, the victories obtained through such a policy would be short-lived. It would certainly cause that nation to lose any semblance of moral standing in the eyes of the world (and many of its own citizens). That would probably cause the rest of the world to unite against it in military fashion and through economic boycotts. Also, a nation that acted so quickly to destroy innocent people along with the "guilty" would have no room to complain when someone managed to set off a nuke in one of its own cities.[/QUOTE] Look, do any of us really think that Muslims would not hesitate to depopulate Christian lands if they had possession of the majority of Nukes and ICBM's? We have two options, either sit back and follow high-minded principles of just war, while, like Europe, inexorably becoming the victims of demography the Russian novelist fears and writes about. OR, be prepared to go genocidal in the interest of self-preservation. Look on the positive side, Angler, if we choose the latter it means more food for you and me.:smile:
2005-09-24 19:21 | User Profile
As far as demographic threat is concerned, Muslim birthrates are collapsing. See these threads:
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20209&highlight=birthrates[/url]
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20283&highlight=winckler[/url]
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20313&highlight=birthrates[/url]
So let's stay away from Chicken Little solutions like "we've gotta nuke them or we'll be destroyed" for now, OK?
Petr