Morally depraved West

Many Islamist denounce the West because they think it is decadent and morally depraved. They may have a point:

Reports show that western Djihadists who join up with murderous bands like ISIS, Al Shabab, Taliban or Boko Haram do so not because of religious zeal – but out of boredom. They torture, shoot and behead others as pastime.

Take the hipster Jihadi (another middle-class boy gone wrong). The photo of Islam Yaken that went viral doesn’t suggest a man who has submitted to the will of Allah but a boy who likes posing with kick-ass swords – with an effeminate little satchel which probably cost most people’s annual salary to buy. It’s quite obvious, isn’t it, that he thinks he’s cool? He’s the Islamist James Dean – the rebel with a cause.

Can you be any more decadent or morally depraved than that?

Darwin = Hitler

And here we go again. Dumb as doornail ‘Discovery Institute’ (DI) are trying to scientifically ‘prove’ that science leads to immoral behavior. This time around, they have drawn a line between Darwin and Hitler, claiming that the Holocaust is a direct result of Darwin’s theories. Citing a film by Dr. Richard Weikart called “Darwin to Hitler”, based on his book of the same name and funded in large parts by DI, their argument goes as follows:

Natural selection was the guiding idea for Hitler and the Nazis. … the term [selection] was related directly to Darwinian terminology that when you went to the camps, you went through a selection process. They were selecting this person to survive and this person to go to the gas chambers.

And that’s their complete line of reasoning. Just what did this ‘Dr.’ get his title for? I bet it’s not science. Darwin discovered the principle of natural selection. The grisly scene Weikart describes is unnatural selection, the exact opposite.

[slow clap]

Bravo.

PCphobia

In Rotherham more than 1400 children were systematically raped. The authorities knew about this, but did not step in. The reason? Because the perpetrators were all of Pakistani origin, and because all were Muslims, the people in charge preferred to look away, lest they be called ‘racist’. Politically correctness run amok.

Yesterday, Nazir Afzal, the Crown Prosecution Service’s lead on child sexual abuse and violence against women and girls, tried to politically correct the situation. It is an ill-advised attempt at saving something that shouldn’t be saved.

So I know that the vast majority of [sex] offenders are British white male

That’s not the point. In this case they weren’t. It is exactly this attempt at relativism that has angered the public. The children don’t really care if they have fallen prey to a statistical anomaly – they still were raped. The ethnicity and religion of the perpetrators is not in dispute. What has caused the anger was that the perpetrators were untouchable for exactly that reason. But the real scandal wasn’t their ethnicity, it was that the authorities ignored the girls.

A few weeks after the Rochdale case, we dealt with a case of 10 white men in North Yorkshire who had been abusing young girls, and they were all convicted and they got long sentences. It didn’t get the level of coverage

And neither got as much attention as Jimmy Savile who abused hundreds of children. It’s not the media’s job to attribute attention justly. It’s the authorities’ job.

He argues that evidence suggests that victims were not targeted because they were white but because they were vulnerable and their vulnerability caused them to seek out “warmth, love, transport, mind-numbing substances, drugs, alcohol and food”.

Except that the girls were all white, and did not represent the demographical average. Why argue against facts?

Afzal was disturbed at the way that some responded by muddling the actions of those prosecuted with their religious backgrounds. […] Someone called the Radio 4 Any Answers programme. “He said the Qu’ran supports paedophilia. I’m not paraphrasing, that is what he said. He wasn’t cut off”

That is probably because the Qu’ran does support paedophilia: As the Hadith narrates, Aisha was married to Mohammed at age 6, raped (Mohammed ‘consummated’ the marriage) at age 10 (Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64). Again, this is not in dispute. Why argue the facts?

if there are lessons to be learned from the Rotherham tragedy, they are less to do with the dangers of political correctness, and more with the need for a radical shift in the way that victims of this kind of crime are treated.

This is a surprising conclusion, given the fact that the problem stemmed entirely from too much politically correctness – the authorities didn’t act because they were afraid that they would be called racist.

Nazir’s attempt at downplaying this is entirely misguided. At issue isn’t as much the suspicion that ‘Religion’ (Islam) and ‘Asian’ (Pakistani) origins are the cause for the rapes. The issue is with the authorities who did not help the children because they feared for their own reputation. The whole Guardian interview is a textbook example of what went wrong: diversions, misattribution and red herrings are everywhere, and to blame is no-one but the nebulous community. A pity, since Nazir seems to be a decent chap who actually wants to help. But the first step is to acknowledge that this issue is much simpler than people make it out: Islamists are very quick to use the words ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Racist’, which has become an effective weapon because politically correct people fear being labelled that.

This will only improve once we understand that ‘Islamophobia’ is a BS term, and that religion is not a race.

And, perhaps, that it’s always a good idea to stop rapists.

Duck Brain

On the subject of ISIS’ barbaric murders, the bearded studio guest raises his hand, the index finger extended:

God said: “All who hate me, love death”

and

Either convert them or kill them, one or the other.

When you think that wacko was a fundamental islamist, you wouldn’t be too far off. It was Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, interviewed by FOX’s Sean Hannity, and he was talking about ISIS. That it’s difficult to discern a lunatic Islamist from a crazy Christian is no surprise; after all, the difference in their beliefs is semantic at best, their god is the same one. And both are blood-soaked, barbaric ideologies.

Ducky Brain then went on to say that he’d much prefer to convert the murderous thugs to christianity than to kill them. Oh, great. Then we’ll have lunatic, wide-eyed, heavily armed murderers for Jesus instead of Allah. What could possibly go wrong?

Now, as I remarked before, from the outside the loony bin is just a big building. I find it remarkable that the inmates are at each other’s throat while reciting exactly the same hate-filled stupidities.

And very, very, frightening.

Bible Libel

Forget the Grisons Exorcists, they are wimps. It seems that Nigeria has the one true Van Helsing, in the name of born-again Christian Pastor Helen Ukpabio. Now, Ukpabio is really into witchcraft and stuff. She can diagnose potential baby witches from more than a mile away (symptoms: they get sick, cry, and scream at night – all very unusual characteristics for children), has made a fortune with her anti-witchcraft, and has just sued BHA for a humble half a billion pounds. Yeah, with a ‘b’.

What for?

Because BHA had the insolence to write that Ukpabio attributes the above symptoms to satanic possession – when clearly they are signs of vampiric possession. This of course ruins her reputation and livelihood, hence the half a billion pounds of damages.

Well, I guess when your livelihood includes the budged of a small nation, it’s easy to lose track of details. Like, for instance, reality. Not that anyone who makes their living by endangering children (what do you think happens to a child in Nigeria – where superstition is rampant – when it is diagnosed with a demon?) can be expected to have trace elements of sanity or decency.

Boy, and I thought Nigerian Scams were bad. If it weren’t such a gross waste of resources, I’d have loved to see this go to trial in the UK. British humor and a frivolous lawsuit? Hand, glove.

Evil squared

There is a peculiar attribute of logic that is initially difficult to comprehend, and even more difficult to master: Negation. How is it that negating a statement twice makes it positive? And don’t get me started about negating a phrase with ‘or’. Eventually, though, we figure it out.

Or not. At least not when looking at religion: Evil, theologians say, is the negation of Good. Satan is evil – at least according to scripture. The epitome of evil.

And when evil people die, they’ll go to to hell where he tortures them.

Whoops… You see how difficult negation is? You just screwed up the negation. Satan would not torture evil people. Why would he? If he was truly evil, he’d torture good people.

Well, I guess there’s a reason why most holy scripture was written before people learned basic logic.