There are estimated to be 1.8 billion M*sl*ms in the world making up about 25% of the population. But though M*sl*ms are just 25% of the world population, they seem to account for about 80% to 90% of world conflicts.In Thailand, M*sl*ms have been fighting the majority Buddhists for decades. In India there’s regular trouble between M*sl*ms and the majority Hindus. M*sl*m Pakistan is at daggers drawn with Hindu India and within Pakistan M*sl*ms are eagerly slaughtering each other. Across the border in Afghanistan there’s a very uncivil war between M*sl*ms. In China, there have been years of problems with their M*sl*ms. In Myanmar, the majority Buddhists are so fed up with M*sl*m violence that they’re throwing them out and sending them to M*sl*m Malaysia and Indonesia. In the Middle East, we’ve had more then half a century of M*sl*ms trying to destroy tiny Israel. And now across the Middle East, M*slims are both slaughtering the few remaining Christians they can find and also busily slaughtering each other.[1]
And since the seventh century the world has been afflicted by a savage, backward political system that worships death, revels in conquest, and rejects reason itself.[2]
Maybe there's some similar phenomenon today of self-loathing on the part of the left that makes them want to punish us for their sins? Dr. Sanity (see blogroll) would be the right person to explain that.
It's not an idle question. Were the left to cease its treasonous idiocy and help the West deal with the Muslim threat, we could work out a new understanding -- free of irrelevancies and distractions about "capitalist exploitation," "inequality," "structural racism," and assorted other foolishness -- while reversing the damage done to us by the madness of mass immigration of primitives and hostiles.
It already is if you consider that Muslim and third-world breeding rates will continue and Western men will almost certainly persist to the bitter end in their suicidal determination not to see and understand obvious mortal threats.
To repeat: Muslim and third-world fertility will inundate and destroy the West even if not one "immigrant" ever sets foot in the West for the next 50 years. That's now the default. Only Western action will change this.
It is not a plague we are helpless to reverse.
Notes
[1] "Are M*sl*ms always bad news?" By David Craig, Snouts in the Trough, 6/16/15. The Religion of Peace website will vastly expand on the author's list if you care to spend 15 minutes there.
[2] On the latter point, Muslim notables have decreed that the earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth, that scantily clad women cause earthquakes, and Mickey Mouse is a soldier of Satan. Breast feeding male business colleagues and the permissibility of eating mermaids have been discussed. Too, drinking the urine of Mohammed is blessing. You can read it here. There are Muslims who cringe at this nonsense as the brave scientist in the video linked to above. But in a contest between a rational Muslim and an imam who can decree that the former is being blasphemous, my money is on the imam so far as figuring out who runs things in Muslim societies. The idiots are not the minority in Islamic society and disputes with Muslims can put one in mortal danger.
This is all so disturbing, but then I wonder, is this some mechanism of God or nature in action? Humans are the most intelligent form of life known, and yet, we are our own worst enemy. Have the more intelligent among us raised our heads, or our "conscience", too high? Is advanced civilization as we know it not sustainable based on the intelligence level (or the sympathy) of the average human? This is not to say that it's "inevitable", but at the same time, it makes one wonder, what if EVERYONE was intelligent? Which leads to the unfortunate implication of what to do with those who are not.
ReplyDeleteIn times past, successful people called the shots, and progress was made. The industrial revolution, for example. Since then, we've opened the vote to everyone, we've fought wars of liberation, we've instituted things like welfare and "equal rights" ad nauseum. Why? Because we were successful, but felt "bad" about our success? That some didn't feel they had a "stake" in our success, even though we were successful? And look what it's gotten us.
In other words, if some people felt "oppressed", but they felt that "oppression" in a successful society, is it better to "free" them, so that society can sink? Who is served by the destruction of society? The stakeholders who brought it about, and will now be rabble? The "oppressed", who will be "liberated" into rabble? There's a deep point here, I'm not a good enough writer to elucidate it, but you may see what I'm getting at.
I think your writing skills are fine, it's just the difficulty of trying to explain how the West could shoot itself in the foot on Islamic and other third-world immigration, fanatic extension of our laws to those to whom they were not intended to apply (illegal immigrant welfare parasites, anchor babies), and sick devotion to creation of a parasitic, criminal minority population for political advantage.
ReplyDeleteI think one has to go back a long way to the Enlightenment where fanatics first got the bit between their teeth. Since then Western man has been toying with the idea of his godlike powers. No caution, advisement, or brake was ever again sought in law, custom, and history. The only thing that mattered was the human will and what it supposed to be "logic." Socialism has an appealing "logic" -- the successful have more than they deserve -- but the consequences of socialism just simply will not be considered by today's educated classes. Outside of the old right and what might be called today's reactionary, traditionalist, or (true) conservative blogs, journals, book authors, and talk radio, I can count on one hand the number of adult Americans who have voluntarily stated some concern about the danger of government with the power to implement socialist ideas. The constitutional scheme as regards the limited powers granted to the federal government has been upended in toto but untold millions of educated Americans are completely without an appreciation of or outrage over this sad fact.
There is that cheap, stupid sentimentality among the educated that drives the thinking that deprivation is the result of malice on the part of the successful and that the parasitic, irresponsible poor are earnest strivers "but for." Logic and a hard-headed view of human nature is proving to be quite not up to the task of countering such sappy, pathetic, and, often, dishonest thinking.
Some kind of retribution is baked into the cake here, whether originating in the will of God or the laws of arithmetic. It appears to be true that you can't fix stupid and Western man -- uniformly and throughout the West -- is determined to be stupid.