I'm not going to respond directly to Srdja Trifkovic, since he said that our correspondence was over (for the record: in a responspe to a comment where I told him the same thing first), but there is an argument used by him and other professional Muslim haters that I can't stand. It's called the "True Islam theory." It goes like this.
Oh so you think we can exist on the same planet as Muslims? Do you know that in 1453 the Grand Turk said that the Holy Roman Emperor looked like a homo? That in 1652 there were Muslim tourists who spit on the Sistine Chapel? That the Koran says a woman is worth three toenails of a man? That the great Muslim theologian Kareem Abdul-Jabar wrote in 1068 that moving to Europe to live off the welfare state and rape blondes is part of jihad? Read up on the real Islam, and what the religion is really about. Then you'll be ready to debate.
The problem is that it doesn't take any historical or theological knowledge to know that "True Islam" is a chimera.
I knew this from the first time I picked up the Bible as a child. I saw a passage commanding that disobedient children be stoned to death. Nobody I knew did this, so nobody I knew was a real Christian. Jesus tells us that "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple," (Luke 14:26) while one of the commandments is to honor one's parents. Other blatant contradictions can be found. Not only would people who practiced some of the more bizarre edicts in the Old Testament be locked in mental institutions, but for there to be a true version of an ideology that contradicts itself is a logical impossibility.
Of course practicing Christians believe that there is a "True Christianity," usually the one they just happen to be born into. For the rest of us, the faith where it is practiced is simply one of the many historical and sociological factors that blend in with a group's innate characteristics to produce what we call a "culture."
Both sides in the Civil War thought Christ was on their side, as did the most fanatical slaveholders and abolitionists. John Calvin, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jim Wallis, Jerry Falwell, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Phillip Berryman, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Herbert Armstrong, St. Augustine. All and a thousand others claimed to be men of God and shared the same Savior and same Bible. Arguing over which of these are the "True Christians" is a project fit for morons.
It is the same with Islam. Followers of Muhammad are told both to slay the infidels and that there is no compulsion in religion. Here's a website that lists Koranic contradictions. A simple Google search will find you several sites that similarly take apart the Bible. Do Malaysians, Saudis or Bosnians practice the "True Islam"? Each of these groups has filtered Islam and the Koran through their respective biological makeups and pre-Islamic cultures. The most populous Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, with a population of 238 million. The fact that its culture is not that of Pakistan is due to a large extent to genetic differences. (Someone should ask Trifkovic if he believes in evolution or racial differences.)
Looking across the world, it seems that Muslim ethnies tend to have more in common with biologically related groups than they do genetically distant coreligionists. Is Indonesia more like Thailand or Afghanistan? Are Albanians more like Serbs or Saudis? I by no means underestimate the importance of culture. Indonesia and Buddhist Thailand are very different but in the former case Islam has not made a pacific race into a nation of holy warriors.
As for Christians who go on about Islam's bloody history, “why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" The religion that gave us the rack, the Inquisitions, burning at the stake, witch hunts and the Crusades has little room to talk. A body count comparing the two faiths wouldn't even be close.
But Christians and Jewish and Serbian activists would agree with none of this. They take the worst practices from the worst cultures of a community that makes up a sixth of the world's population and tell us that this is the "True Islam." I think the motivations of the Zionists have been rehashed plenty of times already, but as for those of the Christian Muslim haters, I think one commentator to Trifkovic's last thread put it well and is worth quoting at length.
Those conservatives itching to start another Crusades (this time, against a feckless, inbred, infighting foe) are either evangelicals or Jews. Both have strong psychological need for an absurd Dar al-Islam bogeyman that has little to do with love of Western civilization.
Starting with Christians: let's face it... it's very hard for someone well-educated to believe in Bronze-Age Abrahamic gibberish. But many people still do (people who for similar reasons tend to be political conservatives; they 're simply overwhelmed to unreason by the prospect of a metaphysically unknowable, cruelly material world). Seeing how much more devoted Muslims are to their God (how many Christians would leave their EZ-loungers and die for their God?) embarrasses them; it also braces them by suggesting relativism (all religions can't be right, but all can certainly be wrong), setting into stark relief the superstition of religious belief in general. Thus, they need to believe Allah is the very incarnate of Evil, a false diabolical temptation. (It also doesn't hurt to have a common enemy to build morale among those Christians embarrassed at the effeminacy of the modern church.)
Then, more importantly, don't be fooled: Christians cannot care first and foremost about the eugenic advancement of the European races. Christianity is, after all, universalist (the mother of universalism, really). Because they must believe their eternal salvation is more important than any worldly consideration, devout Christians like Trifkovic have an "Apres Christianity, le deluge!" mentality. For them, the answer to all our problems has to be a rebirth of Christianity. Hoste is free to consider the fascinating question of what a European Islam would be like (Nietzsche: "If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men"); Hoste is free to consider the possibility that, perhaps, Europe owes its greatness to the superiority of the European people, to eugenic breeding arrangements, and to classical values, not Christian values (which are obviously Jewish in origin, though certainly refined by Europeans over millennia); Hoste is free to wonder whether, in fact, these very Christian values that Trifovic wants to rehabilitate (especially when co-opted by Jewish Leftists) sunk the West into the pitiful state it's in today. Trifkovic, on the other hand, has no such freedom. He is forced to consider the spread of Islam the moral equivalent of European genocide.
I stand by my statement about Turks having a superior culture to that of the Swedes. Men having to sit down to pee, toddlers finding examples of gender stereotyping in animal stories, large scale projects to get men to take maternity leave, men trying to breastfeed their babies, little boys being forced to wear dresses, a state Church that approves of "homosexual marriage," etc. If you don't prefer Albania to this (and we can agree that a Swedish Islam would be no more misogynist than that of of Albania), one is not of the Alternative Right, but of the Neo-con or Christian Zionist variety. The main problem with a mass conversion would be possibly seeing even more non-white immigration-exacerbating Europe's racial problems. These, however, can only be solved by spatial separation, not through a Holy War of our own which brings out the aspects of the historical West we don't want to revive.