Thursday, November 12, 2015

The Collectivist Mentality of Muslims

 The Cretans both by land and sea are irresistible in ambuscades, forays, tricks played on the enemy, night attacks, and all petty operations which require fraud, but they are cowardly and down-hearted in the massed face-to-face charge of an open battle. – Polybius, Histories, Book IV, Volume II of the Loeb Classical Library (1922), p. 319. Translated by W.R. Paton.

The other evening, when I came upon that specific description of the military strengths and weaknesses of the various ancient Greek states in the events leading up to the Social War of 220-217 BC, I was too strongly reminded of how Muslims act when operating in gangs. Polybius’s description of the Cretan method of fighting and not fighting is also a description of guerrilla warfare – often called rape jihad. That is what Muslim gangs wage wherever they roam – in Britain, in France, in Germany, in Sweden, in virtually every country where they reside in large numbers, including in the United States.

Faced with a determined opposition and the prospect of a face-to-face imbroglio, Muslim gangs will only retreat to a safe distance and throw rocks, or simply fade away to raid another day, and oftimes never even show up, as has been the case with the massive anti-immigration demonstrations in Germany.

I have never seen a video – and I’ve seen dozens and dozens of videos on numerous Internet sites – of Muslims taking on an individual infidel in a fight. It might start out as a one-on-one fight, but other Muslims invariably join in to overwhelm the victim, regardless of whether or not “their” guy is winning. Muslim males roam in packs, looking for victims. I recently saw a video of Muslims harassing and chasing individual Swedish men in Stockholm, and Muslim brats taunting and pushing to the ground a German kid on rollerblades. There was another video of a black North African Muslim sneering at an elderly German in a bus, actually and literally getting into the man’s face, egged on by other laughing Muslims in the bus. And there was a Danish video of a black Muslim sidling up to the newscaster on site and on camera and telling him in so many expletives to shut up.

Muslim gang rape videos are rarely publicized. There have been pixilated CCTV videos of women being accosted, raped, or assaulted by individual Muslims, and those are unsettling to see. The authorities are reluctant to release such videos because they and their political overlords claim they contribute to a “negative” image of Muslims and immigrants. Polybius had a few choice words for the news media and government policy of sugar-coating the ugly truth:

For it is obvious that a man who thinks he can cloak by words the clear evidence of facts must be regarded as a foolish and futile person.  (p. 339)

But members of the news media and government officials don’t mind being regarded as foolish and futile persons; their political agenda demands that they be just that, panderers to Islamic sociopathology. After all, they’ve got their paychecks and pensions to take into account.

What ISIS does to captive Yazidi women is also another story, because wherever ISIS operates, that is a war zone. Read this Independent story here for an idea of the utter evil these women are subjected to repeatedly.

I have often in the past referred to the Umma, or the Islamic or Muslim collective worldwide, as the Borg or as The Walking Dead. The Borg term, of course, is taken from their debut in Star Trek: The Next Generation, when they are first encountered. The Borg inhabit the Hive, there are no individuals, just programmed slaves gussied up with high-tech weaponry, and the Hive’s sole collective end is conquest. The Walking Dead refers to mindless zombies who travel in herds looking for live people to feed on. Sometimes, I’ve referred to Muslims as the hideous Orcs, from the movies based on the Tolkien novels.

 These characterizations represent for me, at least, a handy and wholly justifiable mental shorthand that defines the essential attributes of Islam and Muslims. As Ralph Sidway, quoted in my August column, “The Myth of Muslim Male Superiority,” noted about paintings that portray gruesome truths:  Sometimes an image – a metaphor – is much more effective at presenting truth than even the most persuasive argument or laying out of facts.” And, quoting from the article itself, I note that:

Islam proclaims that the rape of infidel women is not the fault of Muslim men – who are portrayed as morally and even racially superior to everyone else – but that of the infidel women who shamelessly flaunt their beauty, thereby advertising their alleged promiscuity and immorality, and become “exposed meat” that causes Muslims to lose their self-control.  For the infidel women, there is no forgiveness; for the Muslim male, there is plenty of dispensation to be found in Islamic texts, because he’s superior and privileged by virtue of being Muslim, so his raping an infidel woman is no more a crime or a lapse in his morality than his raping a ewe.

Incredibly, Denmark has embarked, and Sweden is thinking of following suit, on a program to instruct its new immigrants on the mores of sex to reduce the incidence of rape by Muslims. It is a kind of “How to Contain and Control Your Muslim Male Libido” classroom approach to “deterring” crime. The instruction will focus on “consensual” sex as opposed to rape. Good luck with that.

Someone might object: Of course Muslims can act individually! Look at all those stabbings and car-jihad incidents and suicide bombers and so on! They were all carried out by individuals. Yes, and those individuals were in it for the martyrdom and were expecting to be killed. The Muslim gangs infesting Western nations do not wage guerilla warfare against the native population in hopes of martyrdom or getting killed. They are simply gangs of thugs acting out their basic Islamic, nihilist instincts. They expect to live and get away with their crimes, and if not get away with them, then survive in prison until they’re released to commit their crimes anew. They’re programmed, ready-made recidivists. Their nihilism is sanctioned and encouraged by their imams and political leaders and by the Koran and other Islamic texts. The only thing that will “reform” their character and behavior is death.

Muslim gangs enforce their own brand of a “safe space,” spaces free of unconquered infidels. They are roving vigilante posses.  A European rape victim beaten to a bloody pulp and left for dead, or a European man also beaten to a bloody pulp and left for dead, is the Muslim notion of a “safe space.”

Islam has been waging war against the West for centuries. Muslim gangs are Islam’s guerilla “fighters.” Most Western leaders are reluctant to grasp that they ought to declare war against Islam, to deal it a knock-out blow to eliminate the threat permanently. Polybius had some stern advice for those who would avoid war:

That war is a terrible thing I agree, but it is not so terrible that we should submit to anything in order to avoid it….Peace indeed, with justice and honor, is the fairest and most profitable of possessions, but when joined with baseness and disgraceful cowardice, nothing is more infamous and hurtful. (pp. 375-77)

Advice to Neville Chamberlain and other appeasers over two millennia before our time. I’m betting Polybius is another one of those “dead white males” university faculties no longer think worth exposing their students to.

But for all his bravado, chest-beating, and belligerence towards infidel men and women, the average Muslim male is an indoctrinated maquette, a male in physical form only. He has no personal values, was unable to formulate personal, rational values from the beginning, and seeks to fill the resultant internal vacuum by emulating his “ethical” icon, Mohammad, whom he knows was a rapist, a killer, a brigand, and a thief. I note in my “Muslim Myth” column:

Muslim men – and especially Muslim rapists – are not virile in the usual sense.  A virile man is someone like Sean Connery’s James Bond, and is seen as such by men and women alike. Rand’s heroes Francisco d’Anconia and Howard Roark, as well as John Galt, are virile. In the sex act, they celebrate their lives, their values, their selves as living, rational beings who love life. The women they “conquer” are their equals in spirit who also view sex as a celebration.

Muslim men, however (and this observation applies equally to non-Muslim rapists), are maquettes. They are half-formed creatures trapped inside the physical bodies of men. They have no values or selves to celebrate. Their notion of manhood and virility is one of nihilistic conquest, of force, of proving the efficacy of their capacity to destroy or cause pain.

Their only sense of “enjoyment” is in the act of killing, in inflicting pain. ISIS has sent us numerous beheading and gun barrel to the head videos that demonstrate that aspect of compliance with Koranic imperatives.
Muslim gang members, whatever their sect – Sunni, Shi’ite, Salafists – get psychological reinforcement from the others, a communal sense of committing their crimes as a “right” or “privilege” bestowed on them by Islamic theology, with which they may not even be even minimally versed in. It has been reported by escaped Yazidi women that their ISIS rapists made a ritual of praying before attacking their victims, and even after the act. But in all the videos of Western Muslim gangs attacking infidels, I have not once noted any of the gang members toting prayer rugs.

Moreover, Muslim gang members consider themselves both morally and racially superior to their victims, which is an enormous rationalization and evasion of what they are taught from day one. From “Muslim Myth”:

To qualify the contention that “these Muslim men consider themselves as unclean and unworthy” is the much-noised Islamic assertion and contradiction that Muslims are superior to all others of other faiths and races (even though Islam is not a race). But, superior in which respect? The Muslim male initially regards himself as foul and decrepit. This is a notion…of Original Sin shared by Islam and Christianity; Islam  doubtless cadged it from Christianity [whose formal establishment] predated Islam’s by about 500 years, just as Islam cadged elements of other religions from the 7th century onward, including, significantly, the pagan moon god, Allah. Being an imperfect plaything of Islam’s Allah necessitates a Muslim male’s needing to observe a strict moral code that will keep him on the “straight and narrow” path to Islamic virtue and “perfection” and “purity” with the expectation of Allah’s praise.

And, it’s okay to wander from the “straight and narrow” to rape infidel women, especially blondes. They deserve the treatment. It’s Allah’s will. Nay, his command.

The typical Muslim male gang member, therefore, is a cipher, a nonentity screaming for an identity that seems efficacious and potent. His only means of achieving that end is to commit crimes and pretend that he is the all-powerful party, and the “moral” party, at that. His “religion” inculcates in him and his fellows an active malevolence that is best demonstrated in groups. Sometimes he will act as a “lone wolf” rapist or bully of other men, but then his “efficacy” is not witnessed by others of his ilk and it’s just not as satisfactory as committing a crime as part of a collective. He desperately needs to have group approval when he chomps down on a living being or befouls beauty with his filthy being.

Without the Umma, without a collective hive of death to relate to, the Muslim gang member is nothing.

1 comment:

Joe said...

All too true Ed.