Thursday, May 13, 2010

Everybody Needs To Watch This Video

If you've watched it on another site, it wouldn't hurt to watch it again. It might be a good idea to remember its contents the next time someone encourages you to respect the "cultural differences" of Islam.

Looks like this Muslimah didn't really think she'd be arrested for expressing her enthusiasm for genocide.



  1. I don't think even the Nazis were this clear about their intentions before taking power. As blood thirsty as this girl is, it's not surprising that our ruling elites are too afraid of Muslims to do much besides running around like crazy people trying to figure out what they want and give it to them before they even ask.

  2. Excellent point, Chris.

    To compound the dishonor, our ruling elites (together with their administrators, hangers-on, and loyal followers) disguise their fear as a "virtue": multiculturalism.

    Peaceful co-existence is only a possibility if you are permitted to exist.

  3. I wonder if it is fear. Personally, I think it's moral cowardice. Multi-culturalism seems deeply based in relativism (although in practice it seems to create a bland, idealized "every culture" which would be universal-- go figure).

    I think all this nonsense underscores the inability of so many on the Left to take a stand when one is needed. Witness Holder today spinning and unable to say the words "radical Islam."

    Holder's dance doesn't appear, to me, to be driven by fear. But it does smack of moral cowardice.

  4. You guys are right about fear being the main motivator. I have been having thoughts lately about how a feelings based political philosophy and lifestyle will inevitably include blindness to much of reality.

  5. Yukio and Chris. I see a lot of ignorance behind the blinders and denial.

    Americans who have not have had a thorough dunking in cultures and legal systems very different from our own almost cannot grasp that other human beings can and do live in remarkably different value systems. Over and over again, Americans who have interacted with an Islamic terrorist mass murderer are completely befuddled because that monster was previously "polite" and "helpful." These Americans have had no experiences on which to base an understanding that a person can act in a polite manner one day and blow your head off the next, all the while remaining comfortably true to a socially acceptable internal moral compass (in a different society). So, plain ignorance accounts for a lot, I think. And it sure saves a lot of pain and worry to believe that one is living in an essentially safe world where even people who look and act and worship like one's enemy really aren't the enemy (they're too "nice").

    I think the moral cowardice in operation is complex in that it has many causes and modes of expression. I often see it rear its ugly head when circumstances require Lefties to face the possibility that they themselves are capable of "negative" feelings like fear, distrust, bias, and anger. To admit to such feelings toward someone the echo chamber considers a member of a minority group would require Lefties to abdicate the notion that they are morally superior to those who freely admit to such feelings. That is very, very difficult for Lefties, because their entire political and quasi-religious structure is based on the psychic (and social) rewards of that feeling of moral superiority. That's a lot to give up, and most Lefties just don't have the courage to do it.

  6. Correction: Americans who have not had a ...

  7. @ Chris M

    You wrote about a "feelings based political philosophy."

    That's interesting, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you give a specific example?

    Very true Quite Rightly. Ignorance and (sp.?)American-centrism (irony alert) is a huge factor.

  8. Yukio
    I stated it poorly. Saying that liberals have a feelings based political philosophy misses the point. I wonder how many libs actually have anything as coherent and complete as the word 'philosophy' implies. What QR says about, "their entire political and quasi-religious structure is based on the psychic (and social) rewards of that feeling of moral superiority," gets to the heart of the matter. But an existence based on creating such inner solace points to some major psychic emptiness from youth that controls them without them having any self-awareness of it. It points to a mental disorder. Because some normal part of the many steps toward emotional maturity was not successfully completed they experience a severe sense of emptiness unless they engage in their obsessive-compulsive behavior pattern. Thus they assuage intensely uncomfortable feelings by becoming involved in actions and thought patterns that allow them to convincingly say to themselves, "I don't hurt inside so much because I missed out on normal emotional development rather I hurt so much because I care so much about the wretched of the world and because I am better than a Rethuglican who only cares about himself." But they are only thinking about themselves and obsessively engaging in actions and thought patterns that help them to not look at themselves. They quickly accuse others of racism not because they could ever actually prove most of these accusations but because they have lost control of the discussion (and the loss of control precipitates the feelings of inner emptiness) and the accusation refreshes their sense of moral superiority: it is ritualistic in that they can say a few words and restore their psychic balance just as a Christian can move toward inner peace in an uncomfortable situation by reminding himself that God is all powerful, good and in control of all.
    It is not just that liberals obsessively compensate for inner pain. But there are more and more of them. Since so many of them are teachers they cannot help but pass their view of the world to their students. Thus kids who do not have strong influences for good in their lives are at danger of having this plague take over their lives.
    I have a good example of the blindness this creates toward the world. Last week I watched a Youtube video of a leftie historian (Michael Parenti) who explained that people do not understand American history. It was plain that he knows many, many facts from American history. But the man had no sense of history. His arguments implied that he could take every individual and event in American history and subject it to the values held by libs in 2008 and thereby prove that America and the men who founded America are very evil. This man who read much and thought much about men and events in history has not a clue that it makes little sense to judge a man born in 1745 by values not in existence until well into the 20th century. And, at the same time this poor blind 'historian' has not appreciation for the fact that his modern values could only have come about because the man born in 1745 did what he did. But this 'historian' has such an overwhelming inner need to see others as racist money grubbers that he is blinded to who they really were. And he cannot see how earth shattering the events of the late 18th century were because he is too driven to play the race card when ever he can to assuage his own inner pain. So here is this guy who probably makes $150,000 at some Ivy as a professor of history who has no sense of history. And there are lecture halls full of kids who are forced to listen to him or someone else just as clueless.

  9. @ Chris M.

    Okay. I see what you mean. Perhaps this not my place to say this (but I open my mouth too much anyway), but I would suggest great caution in stereotyping the people of the Left, and especially offering up psychological pathologies as explanations to their political beliefs. It is of the utmost importance to differentiate between the ideology and the believer.

    People believe what they believe for a number of reasons. While you may be right about a certain percentage of the Left's psychology (as would be almost any theory when dealing with a large enough group), it would be wildly inappropiate to apply it to any and all who profess to that ideology.

    One of the reasons for my own political beliefs is the conviction that people are individuals before being a part of a group, and that individuals have intrinsic worth and value. But these individualistic values that I believe in must be applied to all, no matter what their political views are. This does not equate to intrinsic equality or a relativism, but an equal application.

    Though it is ridiculous to suggest that there is no merit to the study of human groups (and I am not suggesting that), I think it is important to not apply any theory as an individual, pyschological explanation.

    Jeneane Garofalo professed that Republicans are brain damaged and that conservative women and minorities suffer from Stockhold Syndrome. I think the logical outcome of what you're suggesting is not wholly different in that it suggests some sort of psychological pathology as as an explanation for differing political beliefs. Sure, political beliefs can be wrong. Yet it is unrealistic to believe that there is a single political belief that all well-adjusted human beings would naturally believe in-- which is a Socialist argument that I have both heard and read.

    QR is correct in suggesting that there is tremendous pressure to conform within the Left. This pressure is even greater in the Black American community which I am far more familiar with then Ithaca (I did live in Eugene Ore. for a time, but that place is quite different than NY). The question as to why people conform is incredibly complicated. There are true believers. There are people wanting to fit in, there are people who don't care and find it easier to follow the crowd, there are people who want to avoid confrontations, etc. Are there psychological reasons for all this? Sure-- as there are psychological reasons for most major decisions. This is not to offer excuses, but to suggest that the situation is far too complicated to offer any over-riding psychological explanations.

    Now ideologies and philosophies are absolutely fair game, as is the manner in which they internalize into a segment of a population, and the pressures which they exert over people. I am just very dubious at speculating on individuals and then applying to a large segment based on their political beliefs.

    BTW, my previous question was honest. I was not trying to goad or start any kind of debate.

  10. Yukio
    Sorry it took me so long to reply but I've been giving it a lot of thought. I realize that I do not know how to answer your objections without writing something very long and probably rather boring. All of your objections have some validity. Some of them crossed my mind as I was writing my comment. But I decided to ignore them and concentrate on a description of some of the more severe cases and why they behave as they do. So what I wrote does not apply to all libs by any means.
    As for Garafalo, I do not think she understands the issues well enough to be making the statements she has made. But I am sure there are some conservatives whose beliefs arose because of psychological instability. I imagine that, as far as the numbers of individuals affected, she is probably wrong by at least two orders of magnitude.
    BTW, how is the novel coming along?

  11. Just for the sake of clarity, I was not comparing you to Garofalo-- she's an egotistical buffoon.

    I can understand wanting to look at segments of populations-- I mean that's what demographics are, right? But when dealing with academic libs (with which I have had some experience) I would suggest you look at two main factors outside of purely psychology first: career building and conformity. In Literary Criticism, it's basically a career to use books as a means (or excuse) to write socialist essays. I mean that's what Literary Criticism has devolved into.

    "BTW, how is the novel coming along?"

    After I lost a draft to the computer hard drive incident, I found myself trying to recreate, word-for-word, certain passages. Maybe there are some writers that can do that, but I can't. I have to set it aside and approach fresh later. Economics have also forced me to pound out some uninspired short stories (at last that's my excuse).

    I'm starting a new book this summer, historical fiction (my first in that genre), and have been doing research for about 18 mos. I'll begin it in early June.

    Man, I sound pompous. Sorry about that.

  12. Yukio
    Where and when are you going in history?

  13. The Aegean apocolypse at the end of the Bronze Age. I'm writing it in 3 sections from a closely focalized Mycenaean, Minoan, and Hittite perspective.

    So little is actually known about these cultures it's not all that different from writing sci-fi or fantasy...

  14. Are you familiar with the writings of Henri Frankfort about mythopoeic thought? He describes the mindset and the organization of the intellectual world of prescientific men.
    It sounds challenging and interesting.

  15. I'm not familiar with Frankfort's work. I'll check it out. Thanks.