An Additional Error in the Term, “Islamophobia”

On what basis would I buy a book written by a guy who has an irrational fear of Islam OR Muslims OR, worse, both?

Does anyone understand the question?

Let’s be clear: not only is the term “islamophobia” being misused by all those who peddle the syndrome, as a widespread phenomenon, but the chosen name, ITSELF, the word, contains an error: ‘islam’ is a religious doctrine; ‘muslim’ is an actual, factual human and the ONLY one of the two that will, THAT CAN, strike fear, in a person, in the heart of an infidel.

Therefore: ‘musliphobia, ‘muhamaphobia’ are more appropriate POTENTIAL candidates for an accurate term to represent an irrational fear of a violent, Islamic, religious zealot.

Am I the only sane person on the planet?

I want, I may want, to read books by people who do NOT have an irrational fear of Muslims OR, worse, Islam OR, much more worse, both.

 

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

The Non-existent Mean

From pages 5 – 6, The Undiscovered Self, by Carl G. Jung:
Any theory based on experience is necessarily statistical; it formulates an ideal average which abolishes all exceptions at either end of the scale and replaces them by an abstract mean. This mean is quite valid, though it need not necessarily occur in reality. Despite this it figures in the theory as an unassailable fundamental fact. The exceptions at either extreme, though equally factual, do not appear in the final result at all, since they cancel each other out. If, for instance, I determine the weight of each stone in a bed of pebbles and get an average weight of five ounces, this tells me very little about the real nature of the pebbles. Anyone who thought, on the basis of these findings, that he could pick up a pebble of five ounces at the first try would be in for a serious disappointment. Indeed, it might well happen that however long he searches he would not find a single pebble weighing exactly five ounces.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Burqa and Hijab: The Most Slippery of Intellectual Slopes

The argument about the incompatibility of the hijab being worn by a “feminist” is the most slippery of intellectual slopes. (Say that five times fast.) I’ve attempted to draw attention to this belief—I refrain using fact—by declaring that a pair of beautiful eyes exposed by the slit of the burqa is more than dangerous-enough when one is attempting to avoid sexual excitation.

You can take that to the bank.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Currency of Status Of Full-throated Leftists

We expect there to be a bit—or more—of truth in the humor that we all know pervade most jokes and jests. A Muslim guy made internet news for attributing a desire, his desire, to blow up things:

The point of the news system is to sensationalize everything. … Makes me so mad. I just want to blow stuff up. […] I get so angry!

The guy is, most likely, being honest. We all know that the currency of status®™ within the set of full-throated Leftists is degree of commitment: Communist vs. Socialist, vs. Antifa vs. Garden-variety Protester, Weather Underground vs. Garden-variety Protester, 19 9/11 Hijackers vs. Garden-variety Muslim (ex. Comedian)

(Source)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

‘All the Leaves are Brown’

Here is a good treatment of present-day environmentalists and environmentalism, All the Leaves are Brown: Today’s environmentalists see no hope for man-or nature, by: Steven F. Hayward, found on claremont.org.
McKibben is one of many current voices (Gore is another) who like to express their environmentalism by decrying “individualism” (McKibben calls it “hyperindividualism”). Finding that individualism is “the sole ideology of a continent,” he explains:

Fighting the ideology that was laying waste to so much of the planet demanded going beyond that individualism. Many found the means to do that in the notion of ‘community’—a word almost as fuzzy and hard to pin down as ‘wild,’ but one that has emerged as an even more compelling source of motive energy for the environmental movement.

This is not a new theme for McKibben. Al Gore employed the same “communitarian” trope in his first and most famous environmental book, Earth in the Balance (1992), where, in the course of arguing that the environment should be the “central organizing principle” of civilization, he suggested that the problem with individual liberty is that we have too much of it. This preference for soft despotism has become more concrete with the increasing panic over global warming in the past few years. Several environmental authors now argue openly that democracy itself is the obstacle and needs to be abandoned.

…Among other measures India required that families with three or more children had to be sterilized to be eligible for new housing (which the government, not the private market, controlled). “This war against the poor also swept across the countryside,” Connelly notes:

In one case, the village of Uttawar in Haryana was surrounded by police, hundreds were taken into custody, and every eligible male was sterilized. Hearing what had happened, thousands gathered to defend another village named Pipli. Four were killed when police fired upon the crowd. Protesters gave up only when, according to one report, a senior government official threatened aerial bombardment. The director of family planning in Maharashtra, D.N. Pai, considered it a problem of “people pollution” and defended the government: “If some excesses appear, don’t blame me…. You must consider it something like a war. There could be a certain amount of misfiring out of enthusiasm. There has been pressure to show results. Whether you like it or not, there will be a few dead people.”
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Resist the Bern,…Much?

Resist the Bern we much!!! We must and we will much—about that—be resist…ing!

.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

REPLAY: The Reasonable Gay Gene; Or, Reason Applied To The Subject

[REPLAY: Re-published for addition of Freudian input,…by Freud!]

From Civilization and Its Discontents, pages 59 and 60:

The tendency on the part of civilization to restrict sexual life is no less clear than its other tendency to expand the cultural unit. Its first, totemic, phase already brings with it the prohibition against an incestuous choice of object, and this is perhaps the most drastic mutilation which man’s erotic life has in all time experienced. Taboos, laws and customs impose further restrictions, which affect both men and women. Not all civilizations go equally far in this; and the economic structure of the society also influences the amount of sexual freedom that remains. Here, as we already know, civilization is obeying the laws of economic necessity, since a large amount of the psychical energy which it uses for its own purposes has to be withdrawn from sexuality. In this respect civilization behaves towards sexuality as people or a stratum of its population does which has subjected another one to its exploitation. Fear of a revolt by the suppressed elements drives it to stricter precautionary measures. A high-water mark in such a development has been reached in out Western European civilization. A cultural community is perfectly justified, psychologically, in starting by proscribing manifestations of the sexual life of children, for there would be no prospect of curbing the sexual lusts of adults if the ground had not been prepared for it in childhood. But such a community cannot in any way be justified in going to the length of actually disavowing such easily demonstrable, and, indeed striking phenomena. As regards the sexually mature individual, the choice of an object is restricted to the opposite sex, and most extra-gential satisfactions are forbidden as perversions. The requirement, demonstrated in these prohibitions, that there shall be a single kind of sexual life for everyone, disregards the dissimilarities, whether innate or acquired, in the sexual constitution of human beings; it cuts off a fair number of them from sexual enjoyment, and so becomes the source of serious injustice. The result of such restrictive measures might be that in people who are normal–who are not prevented by their constitution–the whole of their sexual interests would flow without loss into the channels that are left open. But heterosexual genital love, which has remained exempt from outlawry, is itself restricted by further limitations, in the shape of insistence upon legitimacy and monogamy. Present-day civilization makes it plain that it will only permit sexual relationships on the basis of a solitary, indissoluble bond between one man and one woman, an that it does not like sexuality as a source of pleasure in its own right and is only prepared to tolerate it because there is so far no substitute for it as a means of propagating the human race.

—————-Start of original post————–

I’m always amused slightly when I hear that more “reasoned” debate is what we need and what is desired.

Well, the truth is that it’s only been a few years since this became an “always.” It is now “always.”

I’m reminded of this amusement after reading, yet again, of the specter of that thing, the putative thing called the “gay gene”.

What follows is my personal analysis of applying “reason” and, thereby, enjoying the resultant judgement, “reasonable”, to the idea of “gay gene”, that is, an inheritable characteristic which we call homosexuality. (You will discover the reason for double-quotes bounding these three items.)

Is everyone ready? Don’t blame me for what I’ve concluded as I’m merely applying logic to the subject. In other words, one might get what one wishes for when wishing for more “reason”. As final preface, I can tell you that I’ve never read the equivalent to my reasoning and reasonable take on the “gay gene”.

If homosexuality is inherited, that is, that a person may be born with “it”, then it can be considered a birth-defect under the following condition: when the Species—or clan, group, community—is in jeopardy from a precluded birth-rate; that is, zero births.

Some may think straightaway of the “state of Nature” as being just such a possible scenario: our Species, we all know as fact—save the Creationists—has spent the bulk of it’s time on Earth in this state, where births were essential, or near-so.

Of course, some will consider the gay gene a birth-defect for the reason that we are always susceptible of being placed back into a or the state of nature.

This may be too much to bear for those who find great appeal in a return to “nature”, the “back to nature” semi-ideal, something we tend to think of as one of the Leftist’s callow fantasies.

The inescapable conclusion that I have reached from this “reasoning” is that homosexuality is a luxury at best, or, under periods of plenty and leisure, particularly when all basic needs are very far from NOT being met; our great wealth.

The message to those who yearn for being relieved of the burden of choice with respect to their sexuality is: be very careful for what you wish.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment