Short List

This page is a list of ideas intended for further development or simply things I wanted to write down for future reference.


The term "radical Islam" perpetuates a common misunderstanding: that there is somewhere a pacific, tolerant Islam of which "radical Islam" is an off-shoot. This gets things completely backwards. "Moderate Islam" is a mask which usefully disguises the real Islam which is commonly(and incorrectly) referred to as "radical Islam". Moderate Muslims provide Islam as a whole with plausible deniability.


Whilst Christianity can be characterised as a religion based on inclusiveness towards outsiders, Islam can be characterised as a religion (I'm being generous) based on exclusiveness towards outsiders. Neither all Muslims nor all Christians are totally true to their respective creeds but whereas a devout Christian will exhibit tolerance and forgiveness towards outsiders, devout Muslims will exhibit harshness and intolerance.


Ed Miliband, leader of Britain's socialist opposition said, “Death. I don’t like the idea of not, people not existing, my family … I’m not someone who believes in God. I respect people who believe … if you don’t believe in an afterlife death is daunting.” I'd say the opposite is true. If you believe in an afterlife then death is problematic; it raises all kinds of questions about the nature of the afterlife and whether one is destined for a good afterlife or a bad one. Without the belief in an afterlife there is nothing to be concerned about. Just do your best with this life, there is no other. When death comes all will be extinguished. Nothingness.


Those on the Left are generally comfortable loving those whom they can pity. Present a case to those on the left that you are worthy of their pity and you'll usually gain unthinking and unconditional support from them. This has paid off handsomely for the Palestinians. They have marketed themselves over the years as the most wretched and oppressed of people whose situation has no equal. This has turned many on the Left into Israel haters and to some extent Jew haters.

This is in contrast to the attitude many on the Left felt towards Jews after WWII when they obviously merited a great deal of pity. Since then they have demonstrated the typical Jewish ability to be successful. This success has triggered a very different emotion in those on the Left: Envy. This is the other great driving emotion for those on the Left. Those on the Left are generally uncomfortable with the success of others and particularly those more successful than themselves. They love to hate these people. Israel has proven itself to be very successful, a success which grows from a success-promoting culture.

You name a field of endeavour: science, literature, scholarship, figurative arts, music, and you will find Israelis excelling there. Those on the Left find this level of success is completely unbearable and they have to find clever arguments to try and undermine it. For example, an argument that fits very well with their love of the pitiable and their hatred of the successful is to say that the success is the result of "exploitation" or "discrimination", that the game was rigged from the start. This often locks their minds into a zero-sum game way of thinking which says that you can only succeed to the extent that others are caused to fail.
The unthinking and unconditional support for those who the Left deems worthy of pity, due to their ability to fail at everything except promoting themselves as objects of pity can dovetail very neatly with the desire of those on the Left to bring down those they envy. By continuously promoting the arguments such as the example outlined above they can channel resources towards the objects of pity and turn them into weapons against the successful.

This strategy has been applied extremely successfully through UNWRA the United Nations organisation set up to administer exclusively to the "needs" of the Palestinian refugees. By feeding the problem of refugees and actually turning refugee status into a status which can be passed on through the generations, UNWRA has created a vast weapon with which to bludgeon Israel. It creates a permanent state of wretchedness for a growing body of people whose condition can be blamed on Israel when it's actually the result of the intransigence of their own leadership and the culture of hatred towards Jews (itself born of envy) among Arabs and Muslims. None of this matters as long as those on the Left can use it to hurt the successful.


When we are discussing Islam with people who won't listen but instead try to defeat us we could try using the principles of ju-jitsu. Many of the martial arts originating in the orient make use of this principle.
According to Newtonian mechanics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When we try to impose a viewpoint on someone, it often elicits a reaction of resistance, a reaction of equal and opposite force. In this situation we may win the argument but the person will still go away with a mind in the same state as before, that is, unchanged. When we are arguing our counter-jihad position this law often comes into play. We get stereotyped and labelled as extremists ourselves and deemed intolerant.
The principle of ju-jitsu was developed for overcoming opponents using their own weight and momentum, a principle which allows combatants to overcome opponents of superior strength. The principles of ju-jitsu use the action of no-action to bring an opponent off balance and use his/her own weight and momentum to bring him/her to the floor (preferably with a bang).
We can use this principle in counter-jihad to turn the tables on our Islam-apologetic opponents. They identify us as enemies of their Muslim protégés and whenever we are critical of Islamic mores they leap to their defence through all the strategies of cultural relativism, moral equivalence, tu quoque arguments and ad hominem attacks with which we are so familiar. As we demonstrate our disapproval of Sharia they equivocate, apologise and relativize in order to obfuscate the import of our critique.
Perhaps, instead of taking the position of opposing Islam and Sharia we should' use the weapon of well-timed yielding to bring them off-balance. Instead of showing our disapproval we could state the facts in a non-judgemental way and elicit a reaction of opposition in our opponent - only this time it would be opposition to Sharia.
So rather than trying to point out how awful it is; how unjust towards non-Muslims, women, and homosexuals, take a radical multicultural viewpoint which is likely to be more extreme than the most extreme left-winger. Argue that in order to be truly accepting of Islam and Muslims we need to be submissive and respectful and never criticise Sharia or question the prophetic status of Muhammad. And, say it as sincerely as you can.
Obviously we have to be careful not to sound too absurd or sarcastic else it will give the game away. Perhaps use the occasion to show what Sharia  demands but don't do it in a condemnatory way. The reaction, even from the Left, will probably be to defend western values!
This strategy could probably be employed quiet effectively on comment threads where one is not well-known for holding a particular viewpoint.


Many people like to think that in any historical conflict the good will prevail, but does the good prevail or is that which prevails portrayed as the good?


"Everyone's doing penance. We've got the civil war, you've got Mussolini and the Mafia and all these corruption scandals, the British come in and apologise for the Empire and Cyprus, the Americans for Vietnam and Hiroshima. Everyone's apologising." from Captain Corelli's Mandolin (final chapter).
Why is the western world so wrapped up in guilt and shame? In the end, the western world is heavily influenced by Christianity and Christianity has placed a lot of emphasis on finding the fault in oneself ( look for the mote in one's own eye); it has taught that we are born in sin and can only be redeemed through surrender to Jesus Christ; it has focused again and again on sin, sin, sin arising from the natural self. It has thereby vilified something deep within us.


When looking for evidence of "human nature" we can confine ourselves to small but perennial phenomena to demonstrate it's existence: the tendency to look for evidence which supports our opinion rather than that which contradicts it - confirmation bias; the tendency to form snap judgements which follow in the wake of affective priming; the tendency to look for rationalisations for our feelings; our perennial desire to look good in the eyes of others. These are deeply ingrained tendencies which form definite aspects of our nature. They may not have big names like "selfishness", "altruism" or "aggression" but they are responsible for enormous consequences nonetheless.

In a more usual vein for such discussions: Do we really expect to be able to overcome our sexual lusts; our attachments and insecurities with respect to our loved ones; our envy and sense of inferiority in relation to those who succeed where we fail?


"The two most powerful warriors are patience and time." Leo Tolstoy


When Muslims arrive in a society, people in that society have a vague premonition that their community's days are numbered; the writing is on the wall. Figures shrouded in black begin to appear and become ever more numerous; after a few years, it is "normal". But the key difference is caused by the withering of the spirit of conviviality as it dies in the face of the spirit of submission.


What does does the relativist do when confronted by a dangerous absolutist?


Music is the food of love, that's why Islam forbids it.


Don't learn the truth about *sl*m. Enjoy the Conditions of Omar. Potential badge ideas.


If you are not an enemy of Allah then you are an enemy of God.


First they silence us then they enslave us and then they slaughter us.


 Islam versus the Universal People


Poor Muslims, torn between the unquestionable belief that Islam is the ultimate way of life and the overwhelming evidence that it isn't.


Many liberals find the suggestion that we have enemies preposterous. The only concession they would make is that any enmity towards us is of our own making.


Apparently, the idea that religious people might be motivated by their religious beliefs is too far-fetched for the Religious Society of Friends.


Millions of Muslims have taken to the streets to protest Israel's defense against thousands of rocket attacks. None have protested against the Islamic State massacring thousands, raping women and girls, and enslaving others. Why the difference?


Even as affluent jihadists descend on Iraq and Syria to persecute, enslave and kill people far poorer than themselves, the idiotic Left persists in looking for the causes of this barbarity in poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity.


Dear James Lovelock, should Gaia wish to arrest human progress would Islam be the instrument she chose?


The new Shahada: There is no God but Allah is an evil substitute for the gullible.


Many of us claim to have a conscience when in fact we only have respectability.


The word 'oppression' undergoes a strange transformation in Islam. 'Oppression' means not being able to live by Shariah. Since Shariah includes the oppression of non-Muslims as a religious right, 'oppression' therefore includes the inability to oppress non-Muslims.


"This has nothing to do with the peaceful teachings of Islam." The sleight of hand here is that not all, not even most, of Islam's teachings are peaceful.


Liberals tend to emphasise the role of circumstance in determining behaviour. Hence they talk of poverty, lack of opportunity, and inequality as the key drivers of social events. But ideas and beliefs play an important role, as do character and aspiration. Early liberalism imagined it possible to create a social calculus (Bentham) which treated social events as subject to similar laws to Newtonian mechanics. The emphasis on circumstance has created a culture of excuses.


Islam is in its entirety an extension of Muhammad. He is the seed from which it sprang; he is the personality enshrined in the Islamic scriptures; he is the model held up for emulation. Islam is like an organism. It is a self-organising system which has its own form of DNA. That DNA is the Islamic scriptures; the encoded personality of Muhammad, copied in perpetuity in the character of every Muslim unfortunate enough to have absorbed his message.


When talking to Muslims, otherwise pleasant people can suddenly become very defensive and hostile once you raise any critical questions about Islam. One is no longer talking to a person but an incarnation of Muhammad. His intolerance, intransigence, and will-to-power are what confronts you now.


The folly of the liberal is believing she lives in a liberal world.


I am trying to tell you something which is very difficult for you to believe but which is nonetheless true.


Many on the Left spend their whole lives protesting about the nature of reality.


Thank you Islam, for giving me the opportunity to fight a real evil.


Perhaps Europeans, in response to all the medieval Islamic garb appearing on our streets should start wearing the equivalent medieval garb from our own Middle Ages.


One of the few compensations of the current Islamic nightmare is to watch the progressives' fantasies blow up in their faces.


The progressives have lost their reason in a fog of emotion and self-deception.


The trap is set (Mecca) and will be sprung (Medina).


Where obedience is total, morality is absent. Islam demands total obedience. Therefore Islam is incompatible with morality.


I've heard it so often from journalists: "their twisted and violent interpretation of Islam." Islam is simply a twisted and violent religion.


Let there be no compulsion in religion." Surely, the religion consists of nothing but compulsion: believers are compelled to conform to thousands of rules and non-believers are compelled to become believers. Where exactly is the lack of compulsion?


He speaks blunt truths and sharp insights.


Equality is not always just, nor inequality always unjust.


Thanks to Islamic jihad we are heading towards war or extermination; the choice is ours.


Islam is a cult of personality in the most far-reaching sense: the core doctrine sprung from the fevered brain of one man - Muhammad; the self-serving "revelations" that he used to advance his egotistical cause became the "holy" Koran; his preaching and behaviour become encoded in the practice and laws of the way of life known as Sharia; every aspect of Islam is permeated by his personality. It is a tribal culture in which loyalty to Muhammad forms the demarcation between the worthy and the contemptible.


Muslim reformers have an impossible job on their hands: Somehow they have to cleanse their religion of the influence of Muhammad.


Liberal arguments that were once used to oppose dogmas have now become dogmas themselves.


Do those people who rush to try and defend Islam by pointing to violence in the Bible feel the same need to invoke the violence of the Koran as a counter to others pointing out the violence in the Bible?


Notwithstanding the sanctimonious pretences, one detects a foul smell coming from the basement in the House of Islam.


If you're thinking of converting to Islam make sure you read the small print.


The Left has a worldview in which the West is the exploiter and oppressor of the non-Western world. They decry the dominance of the West and long for greater equality between the West and the rest.

As the balance of power swings in favour of the non-Western world; as non-Western powers such as China, Iran, India, the Middle East, gain greater influence, we see the beginnings of a world in which the West is not only not dominant but subservient. In this new world order the West will find itself oppressed and dominated. How will the Left enjoy that experience?

They Left mistakenly believes that other powers in the world are only seeking greater fairness and would all love to live equally just as the Left would like, but they fail to realize that what other powers seek is what all powers seek - dominance.


Islam is an affront to all truth-loving people and yet it aims to compel all people to accept its absolute veracity.


Having lived among Muslims for over 30 years, I must say that in general they treat me as if I don't exist or as if I shouldn't.


Noam Chomsky represents a type: hatred of self masquerading as concern for others.


Whenever you hear someone say, "This has nothing to do with Islam"; you can be sure of one thing: It has everything to do with Islam.


The "vast majority of Muslims" are not actually Muslims; they do not follow the example of Muhammad to any great extent; they merely identify themselves as Muslims whilst knowing virtually nothing about the real nature of Islam or the real behaviour of Muhammad.


The accusation of "stirring up hatred" is an argument to the consequent since the underlying inference is that what you are saying could arouse hatred and therefore can't or musn't be true because of this negative consequence. You are only saying it to "stir up hatred".


I love kufr.


Many religions invoke the alleged power of sacrifice. Sacrifice of animals, of people, of self; symbolic or real sacrifice; the theme of sacrifice is pervasive. The word literally means "to make sacred".


Religions derive much of their hold over people's minds by laying claim to knowledge which they cannot possibly possess: knowledge of life after death; knowledge of creation; knowledge of God's existence.


The "Vast Majority" of  "Peaceful Muslims" are peacefully paving the road to Sharia.


Please don't talk to me about Islam; I find the whole subject extremely offensive.


I noticed that a "Muslim Book Store" had opened in my town and popped in. I was wandering around taking a look when the shop assistant stopped me and asked if he could help. So I asked for a copy of the Australian Immigration Policy book regarding Muslims.

The assistant said,"F*** off, get out, and stay out!" I said, "Yes, that's the one."

(from Daily Telegraph comments 3/7/2015 - El Garpazo)


Fatuous expression though it may be, and much beloved of Barack Obama, the Left really does fear "being on the wrong side of history".


Muhammad was the first jihadist; he is the gold standard for what is or is not Muslim; Mohammedans are true to their religion to the extent that they emulate Muhammad. No ideology with Muhammad as its inspiration can be a source of good. Muslims should be given a choice: give up Islam or leave the country.


Islamic terrorism is certainly a major problem but it is dwarfed by the threat arising from the demographic transformation of non-Muslim countries by millions of "peaceful" Muslims who are peacefully (and often unwittingly) paving the road to Sharia for all of us.


Another fatuous expression of Barack Obama is, "The future must not belong to..." There is only one group of people to whom the future belongs in any real sense and those are the people who have surviving offspring.


God did not create Man; Man created God.


It is generally accepted that the expectation by those favouring intervention in Iraq, that once we had toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein the people of Iraq would be grateful and treat us as friends was a very naive expectation. And yet, many of those most convinced of this are now welcoming Muslims from Iraq and Syria to their countries with the same expectation that these Muslims will be grateful and treat us as friends. But this too is a very naive expectation.


Ignorance is a difficult thing to explain to the ignorant.


To accuse most white people of being racist is itself an act of racism since it applies a negative stereotype to a group of people based on their race.


Europe 2015: many of the migrants are not fleeing persecution, they're bring it to Europe.


In my experience, those least knowledgeable of Islam are also those who fear it the least.


It is an unfortunate and unalterable fact that the more alike a Muslim is to Muhammad the more dangerous he is.


They say they believe in their religion and their religion advocates Sharia so why would they not believe in Sharia?


Progressive leftists demonstrate a unique blend of naivety and arrogance.


"...the New Left, on crime, immigration or Israel, is impelled by the simplistic notion that the relative poverty of one side in each case is alone proof of the justice of its cause." From Telegraph Letters 2nd May 2016


Those who demand that Israel meet a higher standard of conduct to her neighbours are guilty of anti-semitism.


"Diversity" is commonly held up as something one should approve of and be seen to support. But "diversity" is an empty term unless qualified by the type of diversity and the extent. In some circumstances diversity is desirable, such as ecological diversity but cultural diversity can bring many problems - Islamic culture is divisive and certain Islamic groups, such as Wahhabis, Deobandis, and Salafists are extremely divisive. When a cultural group is introduced into the social mix that believes its members will go to paradise if they are killed fighting out-group members, that diversity is not desirable.


Progressives appear to imagine that some settled end-state is achievable where everyone is basically equal and since inequality is the root of all evil we will have no conflicts. But as Heraclitus said long ago, "All is becoming and passing away, nothing ever is.". So should this state ever be achieved it will give way to something else.


Disapproval of the speaker is not an argument.


How do they propose to protect diversity from Islam? Islam will not tolerate any opposition, call it diversity or coexistence, it will still be seen as opposition. Islam is like an invasive species that seeks to dominate the territory; it will seek to completely cover an area and displace all else.


Muslims are generally good people who just happen to revere a despotic mass-murderer.


If we fail to criticize Muslims, we fail to treat them as equals.


Without the freedom to hate tyranny, I am not truly free.


We must focus our attack at the weakest point. The weakest point of Islam is Muhammad because the prophet of Islam is morally revolting.


Instead of protecting us, the law is now being used to prevent us from protecting ourselves - even with words.


Freedom of speech is a necessary condition of democracy. 
Islam does not allow freedom of speech.
Therefore Islam is not compatible with democracy.


"True courage is not ostentatious; men who wish to inspire terror seem thereby to confess themselves cowards. Why do they rely on it, but because they know how potent it is with themselves?"  Emerson


Many Muslims revere a book they have never read. If they did they would discover very quickly that it is not worthy of reverence. The emperor really is naked.


The battle against Islam is another round in the battle against slavery. We are fighting to defend ourselves from the slavery of Abdullah, "Slave of Allah", and from the slavery of conquered peoples under Islam. We are fighting to save our descendants from this fate. Islam has absolutely no problem with slavery and will impose slavery if it becomes dominant.


I know people who consider themselves to be Muslims and who are perfectly good people but I'm still terrified of Islam.


Nothing is more offensive to Muslims than the truth about Islam.


1.2 billion sheep can all be walking in the wrong direction.


How strange that in the 21st century the world should be torn apart by a taboo subject.


Can you find a "moderate" Muslim who does not believe in the supremacy of Islam?


Assumptions make fools of us all.


An Islamophobe is someone who is accused of sowing hatred and division whilst trying to warn people about a religion that sows hatred and division.


The niqab: the in-your-face non-face.


I do not feel threatened by most individual Muslims but I do feel threatened by the religion they represent.


Because things have turned out badly in Iraq there is a strong tendency to think that things would be better if we hadn't invaded. But we will never know whether this is true because we do not have the history of what would have happened had we not done so.


When the mad person recognizes their madness they are at once less mad.


When I tell the truth about Islam people think I'm being extreme because they don't realize how extreme Islam is.


Leaving Islam is an act of spiritual liberation.


Many left-wing people are bigots: those who "no-platform" speakers; those who shout down speakers; those who spread malicious rumours and defame people to damage their credibility; these people are all bigots; for what else is a bigot if not someone who refuses to listen to someone with a viewpoint different to their own?


Islam is a religion of personal submission and collective egotism.


Intimidation is the high road to falsehood. Prevent views being expressed other than your own and you thereby shield yourself from the light of consciousness, forever dwelling in darkness.


Unless I acknowledge where I am I cannot move forward.


An enemy you are too afraid to name has already defeated you.


Progressives like to consider themselves "advanced". Maybe they should consider whether they are an advanced form of social pathology.


Regardless of whether you're for it or against it, if you tell the truth about Islam you're labelled an extremist. What does that tell us about the nature of Islam?


In today's topsy-turvy world someone who is against Muslim extremism is an anti-Muslim extremist.


Islam is an intolerant set of beliefs which must not be criticized.


The progressives rush to Islam's defense whilst knowing virtually nothing about it.


The shadow of Islam inches closer as the sun sets on the Age of Reason.

No comments:

Post a Comment