PayPal

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

An Unleashed comment



Little did I realize that my discussion on defining evil echoed Augustine and Aquinas from centuries ago. As an informed and educational comment on Unleashed II, I could not resist republishing it in full. The author is one of the editors of Gates of Vienna, perhaps the best blog site reporting daily on the Islamic invasion of the West and the destruction wrought by the barbarians at the invitation of our political elites.  Gates of Vienna is one of the very few blog sites that has consistently damned Islam as a religion, so I stand corrected.  What I think deters such bloggers as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from across the board condemnations of Islam is their own religious tenets. It’s just a smidgen of political correctness that serves to undercut their arguments and reportage on the ongoing depredations of “radical Islam,” which is a term I myself have opposed for years. Examined more closely, Islam is nothing if not “radical” qua political ideology.  And here is the comment:

Evil as a negation of good goes all the way back to Augustine (he was the Bishop of Hippo, a cosmopolitan city with a university he founded. The city disappeared under the Islam hordes a few hundred years later). It was he, and later, Thomas Aquinas, who preserved Aristotelian and Platonic thought, and the philosophy of good and evil (later to be called "ponerology" in the realms of political evil).

I have often described Islam as evil. And we say repeatedly at GoV that it's not a religion but rather a juridical, supremacist, utopian world view (their Utopia would be the Ummah, of course). Islam closely resembles Marxist Communism. The main difference is that Islam has Allah stuck on top of its ideas where for Communism; the 'withering of the state' is the summum bonum.

Islam is not only evil, it's psychologically regressive; any kind of moral development stops at Level One or Two: something is wrong only if you get caught doing it.

The obsession with sex, with what's clean* vs. what's not, with what's haram vs. what's halal (the list of the former is much, much longer, including music, dogs, laughter)

A Turkish neurologist (M.D.) made a very good case* for why Mohammed, if he existed (and that is becoming more problematic as they examine original documents) probably had a lesion in his? parietal? lobe. That's why he was often slightly incontinent and obsessed on the long bathing rituals before prayer - a spot of urine on clothing meant you had to start all over. He also seemed not to be aware of his left side -or not as aware. Wore no jewelry on his left side, for instance. "Radical" imams, in imitation of Mohammed, wear watches on their right arm. His obsession with ritual was concerned with base things - the kind of poop/pee obsessions that very young children display. Thus the rules about which foot goes first into the toilet cubicle. It's a normal part of child development; Islam never outgrows it.

Its obsession with women's sexuality is also primitive: baby/momma revenge fantasies that normal Western adults outgrow as they move into the ten year-old range remain a conscious focal point for Islamic men. Thus their repetitive acting-out on women.

Part of the reason for so many unhinged adult male Muslims is the extremely high rate of sexual abuse of children, especially males, starting in infancy. In a kind of you-break-it-you-pay-for-it 'morality', a man who we in the West would call a pedophile is not seen that way in Islam. He only owes for his transgressions if he does any physical damage to the child-object. Same rules apply to a neighbor's goat. His own goat? He contaminates the animal for his own future consumption but he's free to sell it in the next village without mentioning his hobbies.

Yes, Islam is disgusting as well as evil. But many tribal cultures are, Rousseau and Margaret Mead be damned.

6 comments:

  1. "Radical Islam" Is as laughable and duplicitous a term as “Radical Nazism” or “moderate Nazism.” I guess the citizens of Venezuela are prospering and content with “moderate socialism.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. Couldn't agree more. The "radical" bit in Radical Islamic Terrorism is utterly redundant, to say nothing of tautological.
    As if 'terrorism' is not radical enough for anyone!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Olivia: Amen, sister (in a non-religious sense).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Freedom of religion is a subset of freedom of conscience, which should be broadly protected within the usual context of individual rights. That context is that everyone has each individual right. The use of force to promote the spread of Islam and its conflation of a force-utilizing political system with spiritual beliefs is a clear violation of that equal rights context. Consequently, though I recognize freedom of conscience, I do not recognize the right of Muslims to impose the religion of Islam on others by the use of force. Mohammed's use of force to spread his religion and the duty of his followers to emulate him deprive Islam of the freedom of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The resort to force to spread Islam is a political act, not a religious one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Some on my list said that Dymphna was off base in denying that Islam was a religion. I hope I set them straight with my rebuttal here:

    It’s not a religion. From the very beginning Islam was merely a come-on by Mohammad as a recruiting tool to gather larger and larger armies of bandits to raid, loot, rape and murder. He even borrowed or appropriated the name of Allah from other creeds of the time. But his main goal was to establish political supremacy on the Arabian Peninsula. His literate scribes were tasked with concocting an ideology that would unite the disparate tribes under his thumb. Over the 1400 years of Islam’s existence his theologians tweaked and revised the “religion” to appeal to converts and the subjected and conquered to rationalize its penchant and desire for total supremacy. Islam had to invent some sort of “moral” justification for its belligerent and murderous actions, just as the Nazis and communists had to. But Islam from the very beginning was founded as a means of acquiring political power. And by bringing in a half-baked, second-hand deity (the original Moon god) and creating a stew of the elements of other religions (Judaism and Christianity and some pagan creeds), Islam had to assume the patina or guise of a religion. But you will notice that the push for Sharia in Western countries is fundamentally a political campaign, not a religious one.

    ReplyDelete