Friday, July 29, 2016

Trouble in Paradise...?

Kudos to Mr. Adam for his bravery, and best of luck to him.
I have a different take on this, Angemon. Here it is in a nutshell: What took this guy so long?...

Wellington then proceeds to articulate an elementary argument of skeptical suspicion that should be the absolute minimum we would apply to any ex-Muslim (especially the strangely robotic Ismaaaaaa'eeeeeeel; though on principle, one doesn't want to compromise one's intolerance with casuistry).

Two other Rabbit Packers (the decidedly mainstream ECAW and the infantile JayBoo) chimed in to congratulate Wellington.  You see, it's okay to congratulate a fellow Rabbit Packer if he happens, on the odd blue moon, to disagree with a Rabbit Pack Party Line; but had that comment been posted by me, or Peggy, or anyone else who's on the Rabbit Pack Turd List, Angemon would have zoomed in to pester them with sophistry -- and, of course, none of the other Rabbit Packers (or Jihad Watchers at all) would have seen fit to do the right thing: actually respond responsively and maturely to the demurrer's argument.

And, naturally, Angemon is making himself uncharacteristically scarce.

So the toadies of that Paradise of Conformity, Jihad Watch Comments, need not worry their pretty little heads...

6 comments:

Henry said...

Hi Hesperado, to continue from previous post/comments.

I get what you say. What I seek, for me, is to be as precise as I can in understanding the situation.

So, I think that at any point in time there are two groups of Muslims who reject Muhammad.

First group are Muslims who will sometime in the future leave islam out of disgust or anger towards the values islam represents. Future apostates. They are already out of islam, morally, but still didn't decide to leave completely. (I don’t believe all apostates reject core islamic values, hate-based values, and I’m not talking about those apostates.)

Second group are Muslims who are morally opposed to islamic values, but will not leave islam for any number of reasons. We could simplistically say they are good people who are led by evil. Since that is problematic position to be in, and we know they won’t leave, it probably won't end well for most of them. They could give in and go “to the dark side”. They could become somewhat, if not fully, schizophrenic. They could live in permanent deep depresion.

This doesn’t necessarily change the final conclusion you make, though. I just want to be as precise as I can. In that sense, it would be interesting to enumerate two groups I mentioned. Some expert could calculate it, or get good approximation. I think it’s valuable to do so.

By the way, I would also say there are plenty of moderate Muslims. But the term is hijacked. Since islam is hate-based ideology/religion, moderate Muslims are Muslims who moderately hate or just plainly dislike non-Muslims. What people want when they say “moderate Muslim” is in fact anti-islamic Muslim.

Finally, what do you say about probable consequence to your proposed solution to reject all Muslims in western civilization - a severe, if not genocidal, blowback to Christians in Muslim countries? An excuse for islam to do what islam does, unmitigated. Does that mean that full solution is, actually, at-home rejection + crusades of sorts?

Richard James said...

Does that mean that full solution is, actually, at-home rejection + crusades of sorts?

I can't speak for Hesp but for myself I would say that we can't let our hand be stayed at home for fear of a very likely blow-back against Christians and other non-Muhammadan minorities in Muhammadan countries. The moral responsibility for Muhammadan persecution and murder of non-Muhammadans lies with the Muhammadans themselves, not with us.

And I would say that sooner or later not a Crusade - by which I think you mean a military intervention to protect Christian and other minorities - but total war against the whole Muhammadan world will be necessary. The source of the poison needs to be eliminated completely.

Henry said...

@Richard

Yes, I wasn't talking about deciding what to do based on fear of retaliation. I was talking about what to do, period, with inclusion of all that's needed to be done in such case. Guiding force would be, I'd say, a sense of moral responsibility for protecting unprotected from "evil".

Hesperado said...

Henry,

At the end of the day, your position seems built upon speculation -- generous speculation about Muslims.

For example: "moderate Muslims are Muslims who moderately hate or just plainly dislike non-Muslims. What people want when they say “moderate Muslim” is in fact anti-islamic Muslim."

You have no way of knowing this, except by superficial data which would be for some unexplained reason bracketing out the devastating importance of taqiyya (and the related, all-too common phenomenon, the Later Discovered False Moderate).

As for your construction in general, I'm sorry; I'm so beyond that now. We need to cultivate zero tolerance for all Muslims, we need to cultivate prejudice against all Muslims, merely by vcirtue of the fact that they are Muslims. This ceaseless, multifarious industry of Muslim Taxonomy by which we denote all types & flavors of different Muslims, in our anxiety in order to try to parse out the Muslims who want to kill and torture us from the Muslims who lie about the killing, from the Muslims who enable it, from the Muslims who seem to be "milder", from the Muslims who wear blue jeans and smile at us... Enough already. I've "had it" in the same sense and with the same infuriated passion of Michael Savage's famous rant. And the fury is not really directed at Muslims -- they gotta do what they gotta do -- what they've done for 1,400 motherfucking years -- kill, torture, erape, destroy -- and lie about it all with wiles and white-fanged smiles when they have to. My fury is directed at my stupid fellow Westerners who won't smell the Islamic coffee (including the deceptive decaf moderates).

If we don't cultivate zero tolerance for all Muslims, if we don't cultivate prejudice against all Muslims, our civilization will be destroyed -- not tomorrow, not next Tuesday, not next month, five years from now; but surely at some point in the future (say, by the turning of the 22nd century). If someone cares only about their own life and not the West and our future generations, then they would not be terribly alarmed at the metastasis of Mohammedanism in our time.

Hesperado said...

Richard James,

The West (not to mention the Rest of the world) won't survive unless and until 1) all Muslims are deported from the West to the Muslim world; and 2) the Muslims of that infernal world are globally quarantined (cut off all economic & cultural intercourse with them, and don't allow them to leave their borders).

A typical red herring at this point is to harp on the unfeasibility of this, whether political, moral, or technical -- a red herring not only arguable, but also irrelevant to the viability of the prediction that unless this is done, Western survival is doomed.

Egghead said...

It's feasible.

The first step is to refer to Islam as Mohammedism and Muslims as Mohammedans. Make Muslims OWN Mohammed and his six year old wife.

The second step is to categorically ban all symbols of Islam (like what recently happened with the confederate flag) as being seditious - including the foreign war manual called the Koran and foreign military razzias and bases called mosques or community centers.

The third step is void all 'religious' protections for Islam which is clearly a seditious political philosophy that advocates both the overthrow of Western government and criminality against Westerners.

The fourth step is to void all 'legal' protections for Islam that have been preventing USA mosques from being sued for their part in promoting terror attacks.

Here's how Britain used to handle Islam:

https://www.amazon.com/White-Gold-Forgotten-Africas-European/dp/0340895098