Friday, August 19, 2005

MUSLIM DEMOGRAPHY RECAP: how widespread sociopathy arises from widespread endogamous polygamy and misogyny - and what can be done about it

Read my previous posts on the subject HERE and HERE and HERE. The facts in these posts make a pretty convincing case: these practices - the ethos which empowers them, and the social conditions which arise from them - are at the core of Radical Islam.

The ethos which has produced these anti-social social organizing principles enables and reinforces jihadoterror against the "infidel," for if you must marry within the family to retain property, and if you can reclaim honor by murdering a female family member, then you can certainly commit genocide against "infidels" with a clear conscience.

IMHO: We must force the backward nations which still permit the practices of endogamy, polygamy and misogyny to pass laws prohibiting them, and thereby begin to transform them from tribal societies based on xenophobia, to modern societies based on the rule of law and respect for the individual.

The internatonal communtiy could pressure these backward nations by withholding loans, insurance, and free-trade agreements from any country which allows endogamy, polygamy and misogyny. And we should also insist on an arms embargo, too. After all: these archaic practices are indefensible.

This aggressive but non-military plan is consistent with the UN's Declaration of Universal Human Rights. This document holds that ALL HUMANS EVERYWHERE are entitled to their innate, UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS. Just as we should intervene internationally to stop genocide or slavery, so to must we intervene to halt these archaic sociopathic anti-humane practices. As free people, we have a duty to liberate our tyrannized brothers and sisters everywhere. As potential victims of jihadoterror, we have a duty to protect ourselves and and children.

AND, YUP: this should include Iraq. And Saudi Arabia, too! And Jordan. The whole lot of 'em!


Kyle said...

Don't hold your breath. We first would have to silence all the multi-culti's in the western nations, cuz after all, you can't impose your own culture and all cultures are just as good as all others except of course, the white male power structure!

reliapundit said...

kyle - you've hit the nail on the head!

but in the "ancient days of yore," like pre 1950 - before post modernism ruled academia and brainwashed folks that the West was evil -- -BEFORE the multi-culti idiocy took over AS A RESULT - folks like FDR and his wife (who wrote the UN's Declaration of Universal Human Rights) believed in the values of the West - of Judeo/Christian/Hellenic Ciivization.

That's why i mentioned them in the post - and hyperlinked to his great FF speech and her UN Dec.

Now, these concepts are considered "cultural hegemony" and "evil white/jweish neocon aggression."

But way back yon', they were at the center of the Democrat Party.
And the core of liberalism.

i will post on this directly.
thanks again for popping in and commenting!

Pastorius said...

You are a true liberal. I became very aware that I was a true liberal when I, a lifelong registered Democrat, watched my entire party back up and cross the line into raving moonbatery, while I just stood there thinking to myself, "WTF, am I Republican all of the sudden?"

Well, now I am, that's for freakin' sure. I'd rather work with guys like Bush, than, well, you know.

I want to add something to your post. You wrote,

"The ethos which has produced these anti-social social organizing principles enables and reinforces jihadoterror against the "infidel," for if you must marry within the family to retain property, and if you can reclaim honor by murdering a female family member, then you can certainly commit genocide against "infidels" with a clear conscience."

Yes, I agree, they immolate, or debase, themselves enough, through these sick practices, that they get to the point where it is easier to concieve of genocide against "infidels."

But, the fact remains that the Koran also calls for Jihad against the infidels, so that is a huge part of the problem as well.

In other words, murderous misogyny and endogamous polygamy are not the whole of the problem. I'm sure you know this. Maybe you have a different way of explaining it, or fitting the idea together.


reliapundit said...

you say many wise things Psto, buddy.

i mean this:

the sociological stuff probably predates islam/the prophet's apopearance in this world.

IMHO: these folks were endogamously marrying and beating their mothers/wives/daughters/sisters and aunts etc long before their prophet and gabriel started chatting.

this is their culture, and what grew in it was/is a reflection of that culture/milliey.

and we can get them to change that culture/miliieu.

that's my main point.

of course: you are right: jihad is in the koran.

but there is a way to RE-interpret the call for violent jihad: it can be interprted to mean only the actual call that the prophet made in his life and his physical presence. when he left this physical world, then the abilioty to make physical jihad left with him.

and all who ay ohterwise are committing apostasy and heresy for they would have you take thyem as the prophet.

i read thius a while back in an artricle about a specific sura verse,

can;t find it.


then we can post on it.

the antidote to violent physical jihad against infidels is enocuraging muslims to try to wein the hearts and minds of their fellow humans non-violently: by example and logic.

my FEELING is as long as humasn are raised in homes which foster violence against women, then a non-violent interpretation of ilsam will not take root.

also: this is why some islamic countries produce very veryt few jihadis: they don't raise violent men whoi hate women and are xenophobic.

anyhow... that's all for now.

thanks for stopping ion and commenting - and for your great blogging!

Pastorius said...

Your point is well taken. The polygamy, etc. would most likely predate Mohammed. In fact, when looked at anthropologically, it is easy to see how the notion of Jihad itself may very well have grown out of Bedouin/tribal culture.

You straightened me out.


reliapundit said...

pastoman -

leave the bedouins out of this.

it is a tribal thing.

most of us humans have grown out of it.

many cultures have not.

if anything, it is an arab thing , not bedouin.

the bedouin are a specific tribe of arabs.

this applies to all arabs and all other peoiples who still poractice thius stuff.

it must be oputlawed and consigned to the ductbin of history.

if not now... when!

luvya baby!

reliapundit said...

what i rally an to say is that this is definitely not ethnic in any genetic sense.

these folks are trapped in their culture, and we - from the outside - must change their culture/forece a change in their culture.

they can imporve their livesd and the whole world if the advance.

if they don't, then we'll have to wipe them out. cause it's us or them.

our two cultures - the West and Radical islam - repeat RADICAL - can't co-exist.

Pastorius said...

Sorry. I thought the definition of "Bedouin" was "nomadic Arab."

Didn't know it was a specific tribe.


I learn a lot from you. Thanks

reliapundit said...

pasto -
actually the bedouins are many tribes.

think of tribes as extended families.

so bedouins are a subroup iof arab and they are made up of many tribes with different leaders/sheikhs.

sunni iraq is tribal; it is run by sheikhs.

but they are not bedouin.

but they do practice polygamu and endogamous matrimony and misogyny.

BOTTOMLINE: whether they are nomadic or sedentary tribes, ALL trbes which prectice this archaic anti-woman stuiff must be brought into the modern world..


Princess Kimberley said...

How do you reform a "religion" that condones lying, cheating, stealing, rape, torture,polygamy, murder, genocide, slavery, and incest, with a drug addicted/ pedophile prophet leading the way? You don't.

reliapundit said...

MAYBE you don't. but if you wanna try, you do it by makijng "membership" in the international community of nations CONDITIONAL on their governments ending the practices i discuss.

i think that these changes would feedback upon their culture and force them to adapt - perhaps making them more open to other "isms" altogether.

IOW: islam might not change but the practice of islam can - and it might change through secular measn other than war alone.

i am A STILL advocating a war against the jiahdis.

i am just suggesting that we open another front: ajurisprudential/human rights front using trade and memebership in international associations.

i think it could help.

what yopu say is true about the core of islam. their prophet was imperfect, at best. he even mistook stana for the angel gabriel.

so he is hardly a foolproof indicator or interlovuter.

i would like to point otu, further, that their prophet NEVER talked to G-d.

but Moses did.

who would you choose to get your religion from: a man who according to his own account only spoke to an angel - and even once mistook the devil for the angel?

or a man who spoke to G-d. Even saw G-d. As Moses did.

Then of course, if you want - you can worship through someone who it is claimed is the direct incarbate son of G-d.

Seems to me, that of the three... isdlam has the least direct connection to G-d.

and that's according to what islam says itself about its own prophet.

well.. the Lord moves in mysterious ways.

so does evil.

but this is resally off-track: my case is that we muist fuight the jihadists militarily and culturally.

thanks for popping in and commenting!

Gruntled said...

Interesting series. I ran across it when looking at sex imbalances in general. See the whole series at The World's Missing Girls, at The Gruntled Center (http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/).