THE CONTINUING FOLLY OF MORAL EQUIVALENCY
Why is it that when the hatred and intolerance that are the very essence of Islamic theology are exposed and discussed, those who participate are labeled "haters"? This is an illogical method of reasoning, resting on the foundation that should everyone just ignore the hate that oozes from Muslims and Islam, that generalized goodwill will mitigate the Islamic intensity and make it disappear.
Do people actually reside in the West who believe that hate and evil can be eradicated with kindness and love? Other than in the words of Jesus Christ I have never heard such idealism ushered into a play for reality, but now the Far Left in the West, of course, quite sturdy in their opinions without need of any religion, now spoofs us, and taunts us into believing the unreliable. The real world is not and will never be the multicultural utopia of these social deconstructionists' dreams, and Muslims want no part of such a world. They want a monocultural world, an Islamic world, a hardcore totalitarian structure which they would impose on all of us tomorrow if only they had the corporeal power to do it. Even CAIR has acknowledged this dream.
Islam creates and sustains the most insidious, inexorable, intractable hatred imaginable, an evil that most people of the contemporary Western mindset cannot imagine, much less comprehend. To acknowledge this takes a certain amount of courage because it means that conflict and self-defense are inevitable. Self-preservation requires constant diligence and close scrutiny of Muslims, most of whom are our enemies. If self-preservation and self-defense are now considered immoral, yes, we're guilty, but then so are the Muslims who fight tooth, nail, and children with bombs to preserve and extend their own dark sensibilities.
In addition to the remarkable congruence between Islam and many of the more extreme kinds of 'cult' groupthink, between Islam and organized crime 'families' (e.g. the Chinese Triads, or the Mafia) there are many clear symptoms of deep-rooted sociopathy—Mohammed's own sociopathy, perhaps, apoptheosized by religious decree as the perfect man and the perfect model for man. And woman, well, that requires a whole other set of inhumane formulas, and Islam does not flinch from the task.
For the benefit of those who don't have time to trawl the archives, let's draw attention to M. Scott Peck's chilling book 'People of the Lie' (1988). He is talking about evil people generally, but much of his analysis is directly relevant to our present encounter with Islam, the jihadists and their spin-masters. It also accounts remarkably well for the documented characteristics of all Islamised societies and their relationships with their unfortunate non-Muslim minorities and non-Muslim neighbours.
Among other things Peck stresses the pathological narcissism of truly evil people—they persistently reject both self-knowledge and external criticism. He notes: "evil people, refusing to accept their own failures, actually desire to project their evil onto others".
Page 82: "A predominant characteristic of the behaviour of those I call evil is scapegoating. BECAUSE IN THEIR HEARTS THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES ABOVE REPROACH, THEY MUST LASH OUT AT ANYONE WHO DOES REPROACH THEM. THEY SACRIFICE OTHERS TO PRESERVE THEIR SELF-IMAGE OF PERFECTION".
Reminded of anything, folks? Pope rage, cartoon rage, apostasy and other draconian blasphemy laws? Peck stresses that the truly evil personality also 'creates confusion' because it lies consistantly to itself and others—hence the title of his book, People of the Lie.
A key observation: "I have learned nothing in 20 years that would suggest that evil people can be rapidly influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond, at least in the short run, to either gentle kindness or any form of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar."
The susceptibility of the average person to ideas of moral equivalence is truly a sign of intellectual decadence. The conditions under which one could truly say two antagonists are morally equivalent seem to me to be much more rare than the opposite conditions, under which one of the antagonists would have to be considered the morally superior.
Compare moral standing to the system of accounting and ask yourself how frequently it happens that two distinct businesses have the same exact debits and credits in their accounting statements? Pretty rarely. Well, that's how frequently true moral equivalence can be asserted between two antagonists.
The intellectual decadence consists of asserting that the "exception" (true moral equivalence) is the "rule".
Do people actually reside in the West who believe that hate and evil can be eradicated with kindness and love? Other than in the words of Jesus Christ I have never heard such idealism ushered into a play for reality, but now the Far Left in the West, of course, quite sturdy in their opinions without need of any religion, now spoofs us, and taunts us into believing the unreliable. The real world is not and will never be the multicultural utopia of these social deconstructionists' dreams, and Muslims want no part of such a world. They want a monocultural world, an Islamic world, a hardcore totalitarian structure which they would impose on all of us tomorrow if only they had the corporeal power to do it. Even CAIR has acknowledged this dream.
Islam creates and sustains the most insidious, inexorable, intractable hatred imaginable, an evil that most people of the contemporary Western mindset cannot imagine, much less comprehend. To acknowledge this takes a certain amount of courage because it means that conflict and self-defense are inevitable. Self-preservation requires constant diligence and close scrutiny of Muslims, most of whom are our enemies. If self-preservation and self-defense are now considered immoral, yes, we're guilty, but then so are the Muslims who fight tooth, nail, and children with bombs to preserve and extend their own dark sensibilities.
In addition to the remarkable congruence between Islam and many of the more extreme kinds of 'cult' groupthink, between Islam and organized crime 'families' (e.g. the Chinese Triads, or the Mafia) there are many clear symptoms of deep-rooted sociopathy—Mohammed's own sociopathy, perhaps, apoptheosized by religious decree as the perfect man and the perfect model for man. And woman, well, that requires a whole other set of inhumane formulas, and Islam does not flinch from the task.
For the benefit of those who don't have time to trawl the archives, let's draw attention to M. Scott Peck's chilling book 'People of the Lie' (1988). He is talking about evil people generally, but much of his analysis is directly relevant to our present encounter with Islam, the jihadists and their spin-masters. It also accounts remarkably well for the documented characteristics of all Islamised societies and their relationships with their unfortunate non-Muslim minorities and non-Muslim neighbours.
Among other things Peck stresses the pathological narcissism of truly evil people—they persistently reject both self-knowledge and external criticism. He notes: "evil people, refusing to accept their own failures, actually desire to project their evil onto others".
Page 82: "A predominant characteristic of the behaviour of those I call evil is scapegoating. BECAUSE IN THEIR HEARTS THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES ABOVE REPROACH, THEY MUST LASH OUT AT ANYONE WHO DOES REPROACH THEM. THEY SACRIFICE OTHERS TO PRESERVE THEIR SELF-IMAGE OF PERFECTION".
Reminded of anything, folks? Pope rage, cartoon rage, apostasy and other draconian blasphemy laws? Peck stresses that the truly evil personality also 'creates confusion' because it lies consistantly to itself and others—hence the title of his book, People of the Lie.
A key observation: "I have learned nothing in 20 years that would suggest that evil people can be rapidly influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond, at least in the short run, to either gentle kindness or any form of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar."
The susceptibility of the average person to ideas of moral equivalence is truly a sign of intellectual decadence. The conditions under which one could truly say two antagonists are morally equivalent seem to me to be much more rare than the opposite conditions, under which one of the antagonists would have to be considered the morally superior.
Compare moral standing to the system of accounting and ask yourself how frequently it happens that two distinct businesses have the same exact debits and credits in their accounting statements? Pretty rarely. Well, that's how frequently true moral equivalence can be asserted between two antagonists.
The intellectual decadence consists of asserting that the "exception" (true moral equivalence) is the "rule".
posted by Gabriel Thy at 6:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home