islam goes to war against gay race communism

and why the post modern marxist ideologues will (always) lose this one

the post modern political landscape has a distinct pattern of endlessly stepping into your space then denying it; once caught they minimize it, then they claim you should be happy about it, and finally they flip it around DARVO style and blame you for ever having wanted space and/or for noticing things. such praxis declares the bad guys good guys and therefore makes opposing them “evil” and brands with ad hominem and epithet any who resist as some form of monster undeserving of sympathy or rights.

every new depredation and lie follows the same four step dance.

1. it’s not really happening
2. yeah, it’s happening, but it’s not a big deal
3. it’s a good thing, actually
4. people freaking out about it are the real problem

but the game is coming apart because war is breaking out.

you basically cannot remain sane and at step 4 while being attacked this hard. the mental pretzel is too severe even for these people. the few who can still manage it are so obviously deranged and dangerous to themselves and anyone near them that their coalitions cannot hold.

people saying things like “stop using behavior as a reason to criticize behavior” just look too objectively stupid to sustain credibility.

and such claims just look increasingly ridiculous in the face of facts like this:

we have reached a point where it’s impossible to discern pastiche-level parody (which this is, her account is an epic troll)

and this which appears utterly sincere.

you can see that this is perfectly encapsulated reality fabrication in support of step 4. yes, these islamic extremists are violent and murderous, but “my reality” is that you are the problem for noticing. i then see this weird, made up idea that people are “celebrating” this, which, if true, is:

1. certainly somehting i have never seen. everyone i see is saying “and this is why we need to get these islamics out” not “atta boy, way to kill the gay people.” i have never heard that said once. by anyone.

2. which brings me to point two: if i did hear someone say that, i’d immediately condemn them and say “you’re a crap human who cheers for violating the sanctity of the person of others, you are not a social contract respector and i feel no inclination to afford you protection. get bent.”

this seems like a pretty normal and reasonable response set.

and so i wonder: “where is moderate islam in all this?”

why do they not speak out and condemn and rage about “stop this violence” and “you do not speak for me”? why are they not first in line to demand the deportation of radicals so that they themselves may be safe and live in peace?

the silence stands as indictment.

their practice stands as problem.

so the hallucination inhabitors refuse to condemn that which ought warrant condemnation and accuse others of made up support for islamic bad actors because their minds are so rooted in the idea that anyone who attacks my (alleged) enemy must be my ally and have become so hostile and mindwiped as to be unable to imagine a position of principle like “opposing attacks on all peaceful rights respectors.”

quite a gap in worldview, that one.

want to see it in action? watch this debate from the oxford union. watch the whole room go deadly tense as laurence fox declares that he’s going to show a picture of mohammed. watch the union start throwing up points of order to stop it. you have all heard me say “if you fear the thought police, you become the thought police.” you self censor. you submit. you do their job for them. your terror makes them ubiquitous and omnipresent. well, this is that.

allowing a religion that is not your own to control your actions and speech for fear of what its adherents might do to you if you fail to submit starts to look a lot like theocracy. once the west was like this as well and had things like blasphemy laws, but separation of church and state is intended to remove such stricture.

if this had been a picture of jesus, vishnu, buddha, abraham, god, moroni, or whatever other figure of veneration one chooses, there is no issue. only mohammed. there is nothing secular about this. if your religion says, “eat fish on friday” well, that’s fine. happy wahoo or flounder to you. i hope it’s tasty. but when it starts to say “attack anyone who eats meat on friday whether they are in our religion of not” well, “religion of peace” no longer seems apt, does it?

this penchant for demanding that others alter their lives and behavior to accommodate the demands of one dogma or doctrine seems to be where islam and much of the cancel culture collective of modern leftism find consonance and agreement. both want this power and attack those who seek to deny it.

“mispronouning or deadnaming ze/zem/zir who adopt such baroque neo-identities is a hate crime” is the exact same practice.

i call the shot and you may not disagree. the law and violence will fall on you for failure to do as i have demanded. whether or not you, as well, believe this thing is not relevant. you must submit.

they even adopt the same practices of institutional capture.

to my mind, the best part of the video is the actual self indictment by the woman, arwa hanin elrayess, then president of the oxford union, who stands and (fully out of order) interrupts him for this tirade:

“is it not enough that half the team who invited you to this debate were muslim women who wanted to hear out your expression and your arguments? is it not enough that i, as a muslim president have invited you to this chamber to give your arguments? is that not enough justification and evidence for you to believe that we do believe in free speech? i would not become the president of the free speech society (if i did not)!”

no. it is not enough.

in fact, it’s the opposite of enough, it’s proof of perfidy. here you stand draped in the vestments of a “free speech society” that you have gutted and captured to, in the very room where such speech is intended to be undertaken, demand censorship all while citing your free speech credentials in order to justify it. it’s appeal to the authority of the very institution you destroyed. this is the exact liar’s tactic of “we are the fluffy bunny love society” used to mask the serial strangling of rabbits like your name was lenny.

“can’t you see that our name is ‘the double super good guy association?’ how can we be the bad guys?” we are for open societies. we are for peace and tolerance.

the inversions are palpable.

wanna see the real final form? it’s here, where the mask drops.

meet aisha khan, officer in the oxford union:

“there is a crowd outside rioting against you tonight and without the protection and the generosity of a muslim palestinian president and a mostly south asian executive committee, you would be, quite literally, cooked.”

the crybully smugness is as palpable as the threat itself but both pale in comparison to the outlandish inversion of “you need the mafia’s protection to protect you from what the mafia might do to you if you don’t submit to us.” she does not condemn the mob outside. she demands thanks for keeping her fellow folks at bay. that’s not pluralism, that’s personal safety jizya, a mafia protection racket DBA “fellowship.” anyone unable to see that as conquest seems a bit lost.

“i have brought with me a mob that will tear you to pieces unless you thank me for protecting you from them.”

tell me again how this sort of diversity is our strength?

and yet the room applauds.

the oxford union has lost its way and become another flensed sheephide worn by wolves.

the very fact that all these free speech orgs have been so effectively penetrated by those with such views about speech (and safety) should chill you. the tangible disingenuousness and fear in the room should chill you. these are not the signs of freedom, they are signs of submission to speech stasi and violence to come.

as such, i feel zero inclination to accede to either the false vilification of “the people upset about this are the real problem here” or to ideas like the one below (again, pretty sure it’s parody, but it’s bang on bullseye parody that frames actuality well)

even the idea of “far right” has become absurd. it basically looks like this:

not all cultures and ideas are compatible with one another.

immigration control, no welfare for illegals, and strict deportation of immigrant criminals was a center-left policy cornerstone in the 1990’s under clinton and lasted through obama. the absurdity that this is some niche idea with far right roots and is somehow fascist, racist, white nationalist, or phobic is just counterfactual nonsense.

it’s middle of the road common sense.

always was.

the “liberal” tribe has embedded suicidal empathy and weakness in a make beleive edifice of morality that lionizes the soft men who bring hard times.

once you see it, you realize it’s everywhere.

see how it’s always “anyone responding to the problem is the problem”?

if i wanted a kid to get the crap kicked out of him, this is what i would tell him (and wow would these two be prime competitors in a “most punchable face” contest

hitting back when hit is both a right and a basic tenet of common law and personal space. fear of being hit back is basically the only thing that keeps half the world in check.

the reason that so many of the places that these immigrants (especially islam) flood in from are run as police states is that they have societies, structures, and humans that demand it. nothing else can keep them under control. granted western levels of license, such people become, by any western-civ standard, feral.

when such people move to a place where police and institutions have never seen such propensities to violence and predation, they simply lack a model to conceive of what comes next. they think if they are just nicer or give more or explain it again more simply, make one more heartfelt apologia, that the newcomers will “be just like us.” but they won’t. they do not want this. they think you are stupid for offering and weak for needing to. and they perceive weakness as invitation for taking.

if you think you’re going to enlighten this guy into being a good neighbor for your daughter, maybe “civilization” is not your thing.

it’s just plain reality denial.

“golden rule” is seen not as a basis for civilization but a pretext for plunder. this is another point of agreement with much of the left:

“when we take from you or suppress you, that is empathy, when you wish to keep your rights and property, that is hate and bigotry.”

it’s just horrible watching these two groups align.

and the mental gymnastics undertaken by much of the left to avoid discerning the nature of their erstwhile allies is breaking brains.

it’s outright bizarre watching so many people completely lose coherence after decades of long march mental health destruction defended by cancel culture suppressing a need (or desire) for debate and logic.

i mean, watch this. (it’s actually not easy, esp. the second guy) but wow is it illuminating.

the first two seem like maybe they should not be allowed to live on their own. the second guy is clearly autistic. but the third is the real capper.

imagine bragging about having just taken a fascism class and putting yourself forward as educated on the topic and then not having the slightest ability to define fascism. imagine knowing in your bones as a matter of tribal allegiance and “trump is a fascist” but not being able to name any fascist things he did. i sincerely struggle to imagine what it feels like to be a person with so little discernment, logic, or internal structure.

obviously, it’s not everyone. obviously, reasonable people can disagree about lots of things and remain both reasoned and principled.

but not this thing.

one cannot just decide to live in an evidence-free universe where emotions are facts and facts are ephemera. it demonstrates a profound breakage across which no engagement seems possible.

again, islam and cancel culture collectivism agree on point 4: anyone who complains about us when we do bad guy things is the real bad guy here.

but what does one say to someone who is sure that you are the problem, cannot tell you why, and flips the debate to “being upset about aggressive and crazy things i do and support means you are the problem?”

is engagement even possible?

the epithets are not meant to be descriptors, they are justification. they are permission to treat you as non-human, to indulge the basest forms of intolerance while convincing oneself that they are the side of fluffy bunny big love pluralistic tolerance.

i have never seen so many hateful people so in love with their own hatred and drunk on faux virtue. again, it’s not the whole left, nor is it confined to the left, but it does find a center of gravity there.

the whole world view boils down to “anyone who opposes me is evil.”

it’s one of the most fundamentalist, oppressive, and exclusionary religious doctrines i’ve ever seen. ironically, this is likely the commonality that the extreme woke find with islam. they share the same hobby:

going wild and relentlessly attacking and seeking to destroy anything that is not them.

they also share a common praxis:

find allies and preach tolerance when small and in the minority, then take power and become utterly intolerant and oppressive.

when weak, seek accommodation.

when strong, grant none.

but both cannot occupy this square.

in the end, they will fight each other.

the clash between islam and diversity dingbat doctrine is starting in earnest because while they may find common cause and common foes, the reality is that the former hates the latter and the latter is too insular and deranged to know it.

islam knows that it is a religion and knows that it is lying about tolerance. much of the left does not.

and in each place that islam grows strong enough to no longer grant accommodation, it will turn on the leftists who mistook them for fellow travelers.

it’s a seriously unfair fight.

the diversity goblins exist as “set against” whereas islam can state its own aims as a positive even in a vacuum. their views may be anathema to western ways, but they are coherent. islam also has lots of young men accustomed to and accepting of real violence. the modern left (unlike the communists of yore who understood the bayonet and jackboot) has soychildren, academic plagiarists, and a few noisy radicals. they are playschool LARPers raised in soft power systems. islam does not work like that. they are hard power societies.

this is why every time this alliance emerges the communists, diversity dictators, and mental frails never win.

it’s just going to be this, over and over again until someone saves these idiots who opened the city gates hoping the leopards would eat the faces of the enemy and not the anointed.

i wonder how much longer it will take them to figure it out?

because the price for not figuring it out is as severe as it is durable.

try to name 3 countries in all of history that have been improved by islam, made freer or more conducive to human flourishing.

it seems to me that much of the western left needs to be saved from itself. they simply cannot or do not want to see the nature of the fire they are playing with, the vampire they are inviting in.

they see hard, motivated, activist people who line up with them against rights and republics and the primacy of the individual, and they, who tend to be so soft, admire this hardness and commitment. they see an army to fight for them. they are desperately wrong.

it’s just astonishing watching self-styled progressive women lining up for this.

but islam are not the hard men who make for soft times.

these are the other guys.

once imposed, nobody votes their way out of this one.