Back to School...

Palestinian style!

Comments

[Josh Scholar]

Read the article that inspired the cartoon.

My impression, years ago, was that Yasser Arafat was trying to create permanent institutions in Palestinian society to promote genocide - dreaming that one day, generations from now this genocide would come to fruition. Yes, the Islamist groups are pushing for the same, but the combination of a secular society promoting genocide along with the Islamist ones is not so common.

The mania is building so high that the hatred seems less deliberate now, all of the young adults grew up indoctrinated. I don't think it can be stopped. Palestine is committed to ever greater hatred and violence and to dreams of genocide.

If I lived in Israel, I would take my family and move somewhere where I wasn't surrounded by enemies. It's wrong to raise your children surrounded by monsters. I'm sorry for the world that Israelis being rational and leaving would mean a victory for genocidal hatred and possibly the start of the next world war, as Islamists see that they can win and try it ever again, but it's just the fact.

By the way, have you been watching the strange case of Matoko Kusanagi.

I think she's a young woman, rationalist, science and anime fan, and convert to Islam.

How can she be a convert and a rationalist?
How can she swing between seeming falling into feeling victimized with all Muslims and idolizing a man like John Derbyshire for arguing that Islam should be essentially outlawed in the west, immigration closed to Muslims and Muslims paid to emigrate? She's long admired Wretchard.

Just what sort of Islam does a rationalist convert believe in? One without Mohammad? In what sense is she a Muslim? She seems to love to rebel against all of his ideas, so why does she not admit that she rebels against Mohammad himself?

Or perhaps Islam is just a convenient peg to hang her alienation on without actually accepting any of it. A girl who thrives on internal conflict, perhaps.

[Josh Scholar]

I should correct one thing I wrote. I wrote "...swing between seeming falling into feeling victimized with all Muslims..." That didn't feel right when I wrote it. She's played the victim a couple of times, but she always seems to think of herself as an individual - yet another way she doesn't sound like a Muslim.

[Isaac Schrödinger]

Yes, I've read Ghost Blog. I made the completely opposite journey, so it's beyond me why she picked such a route.

I don't have any satisfactory answers, just questions. Why would someone willingly embrace an ideology of mental slavery? What does a woman find so appealing about the patriarchal nature of Islam?

The best case I could come up with: she doesn't know, or doesn't want to face, the truth. She has accepted the sweet, syrupy, "Islam means peace" garbage that is peddled by smiling Muslims.

Likely, she'll never worry about appearing immodest by showing too much ankle; never have a brother who'd beat her for the horrible crime of dating; never be married off to a demented first cousin; never live under the evil that is sharia.

Instead, she'll dwell freely and mock the infidels for their ignorance.

[Josh Scholar]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. She is idolizing a man who clearly said that Islam must be excluded from the west. She admires men who talk about how Jihad will lead to genocide, and talk about fighting Muslim countries.

Are these the attitudes of a new believer? I can't decide if she interested in Islam or becoming a warrior who fights Islam.

There is something more mysterious going on in that head than a normal conversion.

[Isaac Schrödinger]

I think she was being pro-Derbyshire because he was being anti-Spencer. I don't think she would support what Derbyshire thinks of Islam and Muslims.

Or maybe there is something mysterious going on upstairs.

[Josh Scholar]

Maybe she didn't read the whole article.

His criticism of Spenser was pretty mild. He attacked Spenser's worshipful attitude toward Christianity which includes the exaggerated claim that Christianity is responsible for rationality.

And then he blamed Christian attitudes for leading to open borders and multiculturalism.

After that he attacked Spenser for not prescribing any solution to Islamism, suggesting that he is not brave enough to say that Islam must be excluded fro the west.

Except for few mealy mouthed paragraphs at the beginning, soon strongly undermined, he in no way seemed to disagree with Spenser's take on Islam.

At most he suggested that Islam could have been better than it is, but that this doesn't matter because what it is now, in the real world, is a danger that, by the end of the article, he's saying will enslave the west.