The Islamic-Leftist Blob

[Donnadogsoth]

We are assailed by what I call The Blob, this amorphous, shifting, ever-changing entity that, like an amoeba, sucks prey into its vacuole and digests it.  The prey that The Blob is after is the much-hated and castigated Western Civilisation, and it is engulfing us with little complaint among the citizens who are too ignorant, crazy, evil, or stupid to do anything about it.

 

One tentacle of the Blob is what I here call the Islamic-Leftist blob.  Here is an article that details it, but here is the most relevant quote:

This detachment can take three forms. In some cases, individuals turn away from involvement in their culture to self-absorption. To assuage the loneliness of the unconnected self, they might turn to drugs or pornography or serial sex. Except for the world of pop entertainment, they are unconscious of the larger world. Like the clueless young people interviewed on the Watters’ World segment of the O’Reilly Factor, they might be unsure who the first president was, in which century the Civil War was fought, or who John Kerry is. None of that seems important to them. If a group of bearded men wearing long robes and speaking Arabic moved into the apartment above, they’d probably think, “that’s cool” and light up another joint.

 

The second form that the detachment takes is a transfer of allegiance from one’s own history and culture to a neo-Marxist perspective. Thanks in large part to our educational system, a growing segment of our population has come to look upon its own culture as the root of all the world’s evils. Unlike the self-absorbed detachers, they are politically engaged, but their political aims have to do with undermining traditional society and radically transforming it. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement is representative of this group.

The third group, the one that Prime Minister Cameron is primarily concerned about, is composed of those whose first loyalty is to the ummah—the worldwide community of Muslim believers. They may live in the UK, France, or the U.S., but their allegiance lies elsewhere. They may have always felt this way, or they may have undergone a conversion. The majority in this category pose no direct threat to the larger society; they simply prefer to lead their lives separate from it. These separate communities do, however, provide the soil in which the radicals take root. They are, to use another metaphor, the sea in which the jihadis swim. The radical Muslims themselves are in some ways similar to the anti-Western Westerners who repudiate the Western tradition. The radicals not only reject Western culture, they see it as evil and they want to bring it down.

 

Because they have the same goals—the destruction of Western and Christian civilization—the members of the second group often act as enablers of Muslim radicals...

 

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/08/multiculturalism-and-the-rise-of-islamic-terrorism

 

[shirgall]

I call it Abrahamist-Collectivist, but I just tend to cast my net a tad farther.

[Donnadogsoth]

I can't condemn the Abrahamic tradition entire because it produced Christian Europe, which is where science arose and where the sacredness of the person was fostered in culture and law.  Deadly foes of Western Civ almost always come out against Christianity, whether those foes be neoconservativism, communism, liberalism, or islamism.

 

When it comes to collectivism, I'm not sure I can condemn it either.  It can go too far at the expense of human rights, but the human right to exist is meaningless in a society that has no means for enforcing his existence.  Even if we switch to an anarchy, the force of obligation to help one's fellow men including the downtrodden will still be there and could still be pointed to as a kind of collectivism.  The destruction of all forms of collectivism is no less than the destruction of inferior men for the benefit of superior ones.

[shirgall]

I can't condemn the Abrahamic tradition entire because it produced Christian Europe, which is where science arose and where the sacredness of the person was fostered in culture and law.  Deadly foes of Western Civ almost always come out against Christianity, whether those foes be neoconservativism, communism, liberalism, or islamism.

 

When it comes to collectivism, I'm not sure I can condemn it either.  It can go too far at the expense of human rights, but the human right to exist is meaningless in a society that has no means for enforcing his existence.  Even if we switch to an anarchy, the force of obligation to help one's fellow men including the downtrodden will still be there and could still be pointed to as a kind of collectivism.  The destruction of all forms of collectivism is no less than the destruction of inferior men for the benefit of superior ones.

 

I can. "At least the trains run on time" is no reason to accept terror and abuse from early childhood to death and the concept of "human rights" is a far cry from objectively-derived morals. When people are reminded that they can only get from society those rights they are willing to fight over they realize just how tenuous and random "universal human rights" really are.

[Donnadogsoth]

What human rights of any description will remain without a collective response to Islam?

[Torero]

As there is no collective Islam (every individual muslim has his/her personal beliefs, just like any other human being), there is no collective 'response' possible nor needed.

The vast majority of muslims just live their lives peacefully, apart from the circumcision horrors. A response to that mutilation has been given by Stefan extensively.

[Donnadogsoth]

Or we could consider that wherever Islam gets a foothold, if it is not pushed back it inexorably takes over.  Do you have your dhimmi papers ready?

[Torero]

Islam a foothold? Islam is a religion, muslims are people. What foothold? Islamic law (sharia)? If people want to live by these laws and there's no coercion involved upon other people/non muslims/muslims that do not want sharia, what's the problem?

Why should "Islam" be pushed back (by force? ) but your christian fantasies would be no problem to get "a foothold"?

[Donnadogsoth]

Waiting for my response to be approved.

 

In the meantime, another response:  Is the Icelander statist a lazy mass murderer?

[Torero]

Is that Icelandic statist in favour of or against the Icelandic membership of and participation in international political statist organisations or associations?

[Donnadogsoth]

What if he doesn't have an opinion on international matters that don't directly affect Icelandic affairs?  Which is virtually everything.

[Donnadogsoth]

Islam a foothold? Islam is a religion, muslims are people. What foothold? Islamic law (sharia)? If people want to live by these laws and there's no coercion involved upon other people/non muslims/muslims that do not want sharia, what's the problem?

 

Why should "Islam" be pushed back (by force? ) but your christian fantasies would be no problem to get "a foothold"?

 

It should be pushed back for the sake of preserving Western civilisation, the same civilisation that was created by Christians and Christianity, and that the Muslims have been trying to tear down and subjugate from the moment they knew of its existence.  Sharia law, dhimmitude, the jizya tax, terrorism, child brides, sex slaves, polygamy and an endless influx of aliens determined to make here as much like there as possible.  No, thanks.  You like there so much?  You hate Christianity so much?  So go there and see what awaits Christendom when quietists allow it to fall to the hands of the heathens.