On the Moral Retardation and the Islamophobic Backlash

Earlier in this space we were visited by two anti-Christian anti-civilization bigots and morally retarded persons who used the opportunity of the mass murders of French satirists by Jihadists to express their delight and love for all things anti-Christian and barbaric.

I use the phrase ‘morally retarded’ extensively here, so allow me to explain what is meant. We speak of a man being ‘mentally retarded’ when he is unable to perform commonplace or elementary mental functions as heeding, comprehending, processing, deducing, judging and expressing himself on matter requiring abstract or concrete mental skills. It is different from being illiterate in that the ability is to perform the skill is missing, not just practice in the skill.

Likewise, here, MORALLY retarded is when a man is unable to perform elementary moral functions, as comprehending or processing, deducing or judging any matter requiring abstract moral judgment or concrete moral conscience. It is different from being an innocent savage because the ability to make elementary moral judgments is absent.

For example, a morally retarded person might be able to function anywhere in society, or even in academia, in terms of the ability to grasp abstract concepts and read and write and deduce a logical conclusion from a syllogism. But he is unable to make the moral distinctions and judgments of probity or relevance that even a child or a savage could make, or, indeed, not even these.

For example, a normal grammar mavin might from time to time be annoyed at seeing an ungrammatical term or expression in causal conversation, and, when it was appropriate to do so, correct another person’s grammar and generally be a jackass about it, much to the annoyance of all concerned. But the annoyance is tolerable, and the jackass is tolerated, because the matter is insignificant.

However, a morally retarded person will select a day on which innocent people have been slaughtered by blood sopped troglodytes from hell in the name of Islam, as part of a millennial-long war between Christendom and Dar-al-Islam, to make his grammar corrections, sniffing imperiously and adjusting his horned rimmed glasses to tell all and sundry that, in theory, there are somewhere moderate Muslims who do not support Jihad, so that calling the terrorists ‘Muslims’ is as technically inaccurate as calling a whale a fish. Whales are mammals.

This is not because the person is a jackass. A normal grammar mavin is a jackass. This is because the person is a moral retard. He actually cannot tell the difference between the moral gravity and significance of the mass murder of twelve innocent civilians by a sneak attack and the the moral gravity and significance of using an imprecise term in a conversation. To him, indeed, the grammar error if MORE SIGNIFICANT than the mass murder.

Now, keep in mind that moral retardation is not caused by a brain defect nor by a childhood trauma. It is something as deliberately induced and embraced and self inflicted as the blindness of Oedipus. In this case, it is not the alleged grammatical imprecision of using the word ‘Muslim’ to mean those who follow the teachings of Muslimism, including the doctrine commanding Jihad, nor the alleged grammatical imprecision of using the word ‘Mohammedan’ to refer to those who follow the heretical teachings of the heretic Mohammed which provokes the ire of the morally retarded jackass.

No, the jackass is afraid of a backlash.

He is afraid of me, an overweight, overage and undercoiffured science fiction writer.

He is afraid that if I say the magic word ‘Muslim’ to refer to those who (as all orthodox Muslims do) support the Mohammedan teaching of Jihad, that holy war against the infidel is not just allowed but mandatory, that I and the other Christian peasants, because we are a vile, stupid, violent and bigoted lot of neanderthal-jawed knuckle-dragging yokels, will form a lynch mob and immediately attack the nearest Mosque, where frail Muslim grandmothers and innocent big-eyed waifs huddle, cowering and trembling, while we Christians prance our savage war dance about the pile of burning Korans, brandishing our torches and pitchforks.

Slepping Beauty - Platinum Edition

Please note that there is not now, nor has there been any such a gang of Christians who lynched an innocent Muslim bystander. This is not because the fear of the bigoted jackass is realistic or related to reality in any way. He is a bigot. The picture in his head off Christians dancing around a bonfire waving pitchforks comes from some the turgid depths of his own neurotic heart and empty head. He simply hates Christians, and produces the picture to suit.

goblin christians

The main two points the two bigots made — well, to speak of a ‘point’ is giving them too much credit — the most frequent vocalizations centered around two verbal behaviors were these:

The first behavior was to issue a spasm of disconnected words to the effect that Jihadists were no different from Christians, not in any way, neither in the frequency of violence, nor in the degree, nor in whether it was done by soldiers in uniform, nor in the selection of targets, nor in the motivation.

One of the two bigots even offered to compile a list of unrelated mass shootings to prove that the Episcopalian and Amish have as long and horrific a history of organized political terror against innocent civilians as the Muslims. His argument was that since he could compile a list of mass shooting that were unrelated, the my compiling a list of Jihadist mass shootings was an illegitimate. By this means, Mr Gerrib the bigot proved that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was not a Muslim, and his shooting the soldiers are Fort Hood was not motivated by the religion of Mohammedan and that the Major was not saying “Alluha Ackbar!” while he shot the kaffir soldiers of the Great Satan, America, he was saying “Aloha Snackbar!” The fact that he was a Muslim in contact with a terrorist cell leader is a coincidence. Because racism.  I confess the logic of the argument escaped me.

The second behavior was to issue a spasm of disconnected words to the effect that the Jihadists were simply not representative of the Muslim community as a whole.

At this point, the two bigots took upon themselves the role of Pope of the Muslims, so that each could speak authoritatively, ex cathedra, decreeing what was and what was not orthodox Muslim doctrine. They decreed that violence and warfare, especially violence against the innocent, was utterly alien to the peaceful Religion of Peace, and that the mainstream leadership of the Muslim world unambiguously condemned it.

One of the two bigots offered proof for his contention that the Muslim world without any ambiguity rejected Jihad and acts of violence against the West. He linked to a propaganda piece put out by our modern version of Pravda. I here quote it in full. The name of the column, tellingly enough is “Islamic Leaders Condemn Paris Attack, Some Warn on Backlash.

Leaders from Muslim countries and organizations joined the worldwide condemnation of today’s deadly attack on a magazine office in Paris, and said it shouldn’t be associated with the Islamic faith.

“It looks on face value to be case of Islam against the western world, but what we are seeing is a battle going on within the Muslim world,” Greg Barton, acting director of Monash University’s Centre for Islam and the Modern World in Melbourne, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.“It is striking that even Tehran says ‘this is not what Islam does.’”

The following is a roundup of some of the reactions.

* Al-Azhar, the thousand-year-old seat of religious learning in Cairo that’s respected by Muslims around the world, referred to the attack as a criminal act, saying that “Islam denounces any violence,” according to Egypt’s state news agency MENA.

* The Organization of the Islamic Conference strongly condemned the attack. A spokesperson for the OIC’s Islamophobia Observatory in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia said that violence and radicalism are “biggest enemies of Islam.”

* The French Council of the Muslim Religion condemned the “barbaric” attack and said that first thoughts are with the victims and their families. It also called on “all those committed to the values of the Republic and democracy to avoid provocations that only serve to throw oil on the fire,” and on French Muslims to “exercise the utmost vigilance against possible manipulations from extremist groups.”

* Indonesia, the world’s most-populous Muslim nation, “condemns the attack” and “sends condolences to the government and people of France,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

* “Egypt stands by France in confronting terrorism, an international phenomenon that targets the world’s security and stability and which requires coordinated international efforts to eradicate,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry.

* “We, as Turkey, condemn with hatred any kind of terror,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said in Ankara. “We are against any form of terror regardless of where it comes from and what its motives are.”

The pro-government Turkish Islamist newspaper Yeni Akit headlined a story on its website: “Attack on the magazine that insulted our prophet.”

* Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry expressed “sympathies and full solidarity with the French government and people in their fight against terrorism,” in an e-mailed statement. It called on the international community to work through international laws to uproot terrorism so that “its shrapnel won’t hit the innocent anywhere else in the world.”

Sheikh Adnan Amama, a member of Lebanon’s Committee of Muslim Scholars, said that while he doesn’t support the attack, it came as a response to “extremism from the other side.” “When freedom of thought oversteps boundaries and legitimizes and encourages the insult of other religions, there will be such consequences,” Amama, a Sunni Muslim, said by phone.

* Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham condemned the attack and said any terrorist action against innocent humans was against the teachings of Islam, according to the news agency IRNA. “Such actions are a continuation of radical waves and physical aggressions which have spread throughout the world in the past decade, and incorrect policies and double standards in confronting extremism and violence have unfortunately given way to a spreading of such undertakings,” she said.

* “We strongly condemn this brutal and cowardly attack and reiterate our repudiation of any such assault on freedom of speech, even speech that mocks faiths and religious figures,” said the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the U.S.. “The proper response to such attacks on the freedoms we hold dear is not to vilify any faith, but instead to marginalize extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions.”

* The Muslim Council of Britain said on Twitter: “We condemn the attack on #CharlieHebdo. Whomever the attackers are, and whatever the cause may be, nothing justifies the taking of life.”

* Saudi Arabia has “followed with deep sorrow” the killings in Paris and condemns “this cowardly terrorist attack which is incompatible with Islam religion,” according to the official SPA news agency. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said that “these actions that targets civilians contravene all values and principles, moral and humanitarian.” Its counterpart in the United Arab Emirates said that “ that such appalling criminal acts require cooperation and solidarity at all levels to eradicate this menace.”

* “Malaysia condemns in the strongest terms all acts of violence. We stand in unity with the French people. We must fight extremism with moderation,” Prime Minister Najib Razak said in Twitter posting.

* King Mohammed of Morocco ‘‘strongly condemned the odious, cowardly terrorist attack’’ in a message of condolences to French President Francois Hollande, according to state news agency MAP.

Because I was a newspaperman, my eye catches things those outside the field might miss on how this column is presented, starting with the title.

The two talking points the intended reader (or, rather, the intended victim) of this piece are meant to carry away are in the title. The attempt is made to show that there is general condemnation by Muslims of the Jihadist attacks in France, and the attempt is made to make the reader uneasy about the coming backlash.

Please note that the opening paragraph is merely a statement of opinion by Alaa Shahine, the author of the column, interpreting the meaning of the quotes below it. Alaa Shahine says the quotes below are from Muslim religious leaders who say the attack should not be associated with Islam, but the quotes themselves do not necessarily say that.

However, the placement here is based on the psychological habit that most readers have of interpreting all following paragraphs after an introduction based on what the introduction says.

In other words, if I wrote an column with the lede “All Policemen condemn Racist Violence by Police” followed by a group of quotes that mentioned the words “police” and “violence” a surprising percentage of the audience would come away convinced that the article quoted policemen condemning racist violence, even if the quotes did not actually say so.

The next quote, placed in the opening paragraph is not from a Muslim, but from one Greg Barton, identified as an academic in Australia. He is not speaking as a Muslim cleric for the Muslim world, but giving his private opinion or interpretation. Again, this interpretation is not necessarily supported by the quotes.

That said, let us actually analyze the quotes.

The first calls the attack criminal, which, of course, technically it was, being against the laws of France. The only quoted words are “Islam denounces any violence” — which is, of course, not only false, but so vague as to be meaningless.

The statement could mean only that the violence by satirical Frenchmen against Islam is denounced, and that this attack was justified retaliation. It could mean something else. It could mean anything.

But what it cannot mean is what the two opening paragraphs and the headline ask the reader to interpret it to mean, which is a condemnation of Jihad in general and of this act of terrorist Jihad in particular.

The second identifies “violence and radicalism” as enemies of Islam, without saying whose violence or what radicalism. Again, it is not a condemnation of Jihad nor of the Paris massacre.

I am reminded of this cartoon:

tale of two radicalsThe third quote says that those who support democracy should avoid provocations and be on guard against possible manipulations from extremist groups. This could be read just as easily a statement condemning the satirists as defending them. And, again, the extremist group could be anyone. Again, it is not a condemnation of Jihad nor of the Paris massacre.

The fourth quote condemned the attack. It came from the government of Indonesia, not from a Muslim religious leader.  But, arguably, it might count.

So we have our first condemnation. Or so it seems. Keep in mind that this article does not give any context or state what else was said. The complete sentence was not given. Any qualifications or weasel words are left out.

The fifth quote is indeed an unambiguous condemnation of terrorism by the Egyptian government. It is to be noted that the Egyptian leader made a speech calling for the Muslim world to renounce terrorism. It is also to be noted that this is the one and only speech of its kind of which I have heard rumor in the last ten years.

The sixth quote is nauseating. It condemns not Jihad, but “terror regardless of where it comes from and what its motives are.”

So Episcopalian and Amish terrorists are condemned along with the Muslim terrorists. Thank you and bugger you for that broadminded nonsense statement. For the record, I oppose both the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews, and the American Holocaust of the Jews, and all Holocausts no matter who perpetrates them or when. Hitler gassed countless Jews in ovens, but FDR once ran over the big toe of a Jew with his wheelchair, and both acts of violence must be condemned.

The next quote, also from Turkey, says that the magazine insulted the Prophet Mohammed. Hardly a condemnation. It sounds to my ear like praise.

Lebanon also condemned the attacks, but with this little snide remark in the tail, that the shrapnel won’t hit the innocent. From the context, this does not read as a condemnation of the terrorists striking the innocent, but a preemptive condemnation of the anti-terrorist forces inflicting collateral damage. It is, in other words, a warning against the backlash. More on this below.

The eighth quote is an unambiguous expression not condemning the attacks but supporting them.

Sheikh Adnan Amama, a member of Lebanon’s Committee of Muslim Scholars, said that while he doesn’t support the attack, it came as a response to “extremism from the other side.” “When freedom of thought oversteps boundaries and legitimizes and encourages the insult of other religions, there will be such consequences”

This is not a condemnation of Islamic terrorism but of freedom of thought. The people called extremists are Charlie Hebdo and the dead journalists and cartoonists.

Do these newspapermen simply expect their brainwash victims not to read the things written on the page? The answer, unfortunately, is yes; and the reason for the answer is that they are right to do so. The morally retarded bigot, Mr Gerrib, who sent me this link obviously had not read to this paragraph.

The next quote starts as if it sounds like it means to be a condemnation of some sort of aggression performed by some unnamed parties, and then it twists like an eel, and ends up condemning the ‘double standards’ and ‘incorrect policies’ of those confronting and fighting terrorism. So this could be read as a condemnation of Charlie Hebdo as well.

The tenth quote unambiguously condemns the attacks, and then, with the same eel twist as seen above, segues into this trash: ““The proper response to such attacks on the freedoms we hold dear is not to vilify any faith, but instead to marginalize extremists of all backgrounds.”

Did you follow that twisted logic? It is improper to vilify the warlike teachings of the Prophet for being warlike, and to note the lack of condemnation by Muslim religious leaders for this mainstream interpretation of their faith supporting and demanding such acts, but it is proper to condemn all extremism. We should condemn the extreme Islamic acts of Osama bin Laden as well as the extreme Christian acts of Mother Theresa of Calcutta. Got it.

The Muslim counsel of Britain bravely condemns these mysterious and unknown attacks in France, who, acting in mysterious and unknown ways, in response either to their violent religion or because of some other mysterious and unknown reason, perform an unknown violent act for unknown reasons.  The Muslim counsel of Britain bravely condemn these bad but utterly unknown persons committing this surprising the utterly unmotivated crime “Whomever the attackers are, and whatever the cause may be.”

And this is the filthy bullshit, the total dreck, the nauseating idiotic drooling nonsense that our local village bigot the feminine and effete Mr Gerrib sends as proof of the unambiguous nature of the condemnation of Jihad by the Muslim world?

The twelfth quote is the first one that actually says these terrorist attacks are incompatible with Islam.

The thirteenth and fourteenth quotes express sympathy and solidarity with France, but neither one identifies the attackers as Islamic nor as Jihadists.

So, did you keep count? How many quotes were you told in the opening paragraph condemned Jihad in general and the French attacks in particular? All of them. How many actually did? Between one and three, depending on how you interpret the wording.

How many quotes were you told in the opening paragraph condemned a backlash? All of them. How many actually did? One or two, depending on how you interpret the wording.

Regarding the backlash:

For those of you blissfully unfamiliar with the fetid mental trash littering the psyches of the mainstream Left, allow me to point out that the Left does not deny that Jihadists commit savage atrocities against innocent civilians, but the Left does not give a tinker’s damn about the innocent and these deaths, this maiming, this pain. That is because these deaths and this pain is real.

No, the Leftist only cares, and he cares to the deepest depth of the well of compassion that is his generous and morally superior soul, about the so called backlash against innocent Muslims, moderate Muslims, and non-extremists Muslims harmed by mistake when the fury of the backlash of vile and evil White Christian Evildoers, lynch mobs, and Republic Hate-groups attack all Muslims as a mob, slaying their women and child first, inflicting pain and death on these innocent bystanders. Now, this is because these deaths and this pain is unreal.

Yes, you heard right. There is not a single reported case, not one, of a Christian killing an innocent Muslim in retaliation for the various depredations  of this generation of Jihadists atrocities. Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. The closest we have to such a case is a Sikh man who was killed. It turns out that that was gang violence related to a drug deal gone wrong.

The backlash of lynch mob vigilante violence against poor, big-eyed, trembling Muslim woman and children bystanders cowering in terror against Christian Maniacs that has had the Left in a frenzy of bold zeal ever with their brave  swords drawn and crusaders’ shields raised high has vowed to lay down their lives to forfend — ah, well, it does not exist, never has, and never will.

Now, you may ask, why does the Left fear these endless numbers of lynch mobs of Christian mosque-burning suicide bombers with such a deep and uninterrupted fear, when, in fact, the endless number of such mobs, indeed of such Christians, is not endless? When the number, in fact, is indistinguishable from absolute zero?

This is a mystery without an answer. No one can explain Leftism any more than anyone can explain the Fall of Lucifer.

To be sure, some theorize that Leftists are utterly depraved and evil and love making false accusations merely because they are evil.

Others theorize that Leftists are utterly stupid and actually believe their own unconvincing lies because they are too stupid to be skeptical about such transparent and obvious and unconvincing bullshit.

Other point to the reproductive strategies of rabbits or to arrested brain development leading to he growth of gonads, producing a hysterical fear complex rendering the Leftist unable to face reality or even think about it, but also unable to shut up his damnable mouth. This addiction to unreality combined with a neurotic inability to shut his damnable mouth forces the pathetic yet annoying Leftist utter statements utterly unrelated to reality. He must, must utter such statements even though he knows that they are stupid; but the internal pressure of his own gormlessness forces him, unwillingly, to humiliate himself in public, while decent men look on, aghast at the grotesque display.

Finally, let us insist upon one point of unambiguous logic. Individuals do not go to war. Groups do. What groups? Any group with the capacity to commit an act of war. It does not have to be a nation state. Indeed, historically speaking, nation states confronting each other in declared wars with a declared end date and a surrender from an authorized leader that actually ends the conflict is a rarity. Tribal war does not have an end date, nor do ethnic wars nor barbarian invasions, neither do Cold Wars.

When a group makes war on another group, will there be innocent people maimed and killed in the process? Yes, inevitably. However, two opposing nations, principalities, kingdoms or republics, if they are both civilized, can take steps to minimize innocent civilian causalities, such as by putting all soldiers in uniform, or agreeing to avoid certain targets or the use of certain weapons as unlawful. These are known as the usages of war.

What happens in the case where one of the two groups deliberately and with malice aforethought exposes their civilians to danger, places their women and children and noncombatants to return fire, eschews the use of uniforms, and uses only illegal weapons and seeks only innocent and random targets? Is the other side obligated to abide by the rules and usages of civilized warfare?

The only answer to that question is a rude noise I cannot reproduce in print, or swearwords I should not reproduce in print. Only a brain dead moral retard would even pose such a question.

So, then what happens if some of the group, while not fighters themselves, support both spiritually and financially the fighters? Should we refrain from fighting them, or even condemning them? Are we morally obligated to pretend they do not exist?

Again, the only answer is a rude noise. If the number of civilian supporter of Jihad is so small as to be negligible, then it is allowable to insist that the Jihadist act alone and without general support.

But what if they are in the majority?

Are we morally obligated to continue to pretend that they are moderate and peaceloving when, in fact, both in private and in public they say they support the ends and the means, the strategic goal of imposing Shariah Law and the tactical means of political terrorism, of Jihad?

The answer again is merely a rude noise and a roll of the eyes. There is no point in pointing out, and certainly no point in making it an endless, inevitable, and jackass habit of pointing out, that there were good Germans that did not support Hitler during the war, or good Japs that did not support Tojo.

You do not need to correct each person each time he says, “America fought the Germans during World War Two” by sniffing condescendingly and adjusting your Little Lord Fauntleroy coke-bottle glasses and insisting in a whiny, smug, little-girly voice that America only fought some of the Germans, that is, those in uniform as well as that vast majority of the civilian population that contributed material or moral support to the war effort. There was somewhere four or five Germans who opposed the war, who were killed with all their families, whose names no one recalls, because they made absolutely no difference to the outcome of the war in any way whatsoever.

Likewise here. Shut the full cup, Fauntleroy. You do not need to repeat the meaningless and stupid and incorrect correction and tell the world that not all Muslims are Jihadists.  Only Jihadists who train and take the field for Jihad, and the vast majority of the civilian population who gives them cover, concealment, apologetics, praise and encouragement and contribute material or moral support count as Jihadists. There was somewhere four or five Muslims who opposed the Jihad, who were killed with all their families, whose names no one recalls, because they made absolutely no difference to the outcome of the war in any way whatsoever.

The answer given as to why in the hell we should give a Tinkers’ damn about these moderate Muslims if they do not aid us is this: the moderates may grow offended with us if we refer to them by the same word used to refer to the orthodox Muslims who support Jihad, in which case, … well, in which case, who cares?

How many are there?

I will refer to Ben Shapiro for the answer to that question.

My final question is: Are we morally obligated to voice and to support a blatant and obvious untruth, knowing it to be an untruth, on the grounds that untruth helps us to sneer and mock at Christians and Republicans, whom we hate with a blinding, headache-inducing, ulcerous, leprous and irrational hatred? Are we required to pretend we are too morally retarded to make the simplest possible moral judgments between obvious right and obvious wrong, and to pretend to be unable to grasp difference both of degree, permanence and nature of a minor insult versus a major atrocity? Are we required to pretend to be unable to tell the difference between throwing a metal pretend-grenade at a mosque and a mass murder of journalists and cartoonists, or, for that matter, the mass murder of airline passengers, and innocent civilians whose only crime was the go to work in the World Trade Center?

The answer of the last question, if you are Mr Gerrib, a bigot, is as resounding YES. Bigots hate. That is what they do. Leftists are bigots. Hatred and more hatred, whining hatred, irrational hatred, frothing brain-diseased incomprehensible epileptic hatred is their only stock in trade. That is what they sell. That is all they sell. They are HATE-R-US.

And even when world civilization hangs in the balance, they would rather fling open the gates to the barbarian, and watch the world burn, and die themselves, rather than live with themselves, knowing that there is a Christian or a Jew or a White Man or a Rich Man anywhere on the globe living a happy and contended life.

The fact that we are alive and happy is what the Leftists hate with their all-consuming and soul destroying hatred.