They hate our freedom – and so do Obama and Clinton

“This video is disgusting and reprehensible,” Mrs. Clinton said in remarks at the State Department, broadcast live on CNN.

Maybe she should not be telling people who murder ambassadors that they have perfectly good reasons for doing so, regardless of whether they do or they don’t.

Every Muslim believes that a video that depicts Mohammed, let alone a video that depicts him as a the thuggish power drunk mass murdering terrorist that he actually was, must be suppressed, and it is the responsibility of governments to suppress it, and that it is legitimate to wage jihad to suppress it.

When I say that every Muslim believes that,  almost everyone who thinks of themselves as a Muslim agrees, and anyone who does not agree is wrong to call himself a Muslim.  The number of Muslims, whether heartfelt Muslims or merely nominal Muslims, that disagree on this issue is similar to the number of Americans that doubt that all men were created equal.  It is the official government religious belief, and the average man in the street accepts official government religious beliefs without really thinking about them much, whether it is the US government or the Egyptian government.

If you are a sincere Muslim, you should be murdering Americans.  Of course most Muslims are not all that sincere, but the ones that are not nonetheless give at least lip service to the rationale that leads to murdering Americans.  That is what they learn in school.  That is what all the respectable people around them believe, or piously pretend to believe, what all the affluent, urban, well connected people, the ones that had lots of education at the most elite schools believe.  It is the high status belief of high status people. If you don’t believe it, it is like being a raaaciiiisssst in America. It is low status. It makes you one of those inbred hicks who lie far out in the wilderness.

The progressives wanted to export democracy because they believed it would lead to rule by people like themselves – urban, privileged, highly educated in all the correct elite schools.

And that is exactly what it did.

They failed, however, to notice that Osama bin Laden and company were urban, privileged, and highly educated in all the elite schools.

Progressives don’t recognize that they are a theocracy, or rather an atheocracy, that they are a priesthood. Their belief system is supposedly simply the truth, even though the official truth keeps rapidly moving ever leftwards, so they look at people very similar to themselves, with institutions very similar to their own and are endlessly astonished that these institutions somehow inculcate a truth other than “progressives should rule”. They cannot believe it, for in order to believe it, they would have to recognize that they also are a priesthood, a different and competing priesthood.

Theoretically, education is supposed to select the smartest, but the natural state of an education system is to select the obedient, those who will by rote echo back whatever they are told. Smart students are difficult. Teachers don’t really like them. Most teachers are not very smart, and find it a lot easier to deal with students less smart than themselves. Thus just as the natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to strangle itself in red tape until all motion stops, the natural tendency of any elite educational institution is to become a religious seminary, churning out docile brainwashed idiots, selecting the most compliant, not the most intelligent.

Hence the stagnation of Muslim countries, and the diminution of technological advance in the west.

The progressives look at people similar themselves, and institutions similar to their own, and cannot believe that it will not produce progressivism.

Because people have no incentive to form true opinions on political questions, the vast majority will vote as directed by religious or quasi religious groups.

If the military are in charge, the influence of religion will be small, soldiers and priests being natural enemies, like doctors and lawyers, and the propensity of theocracies to become ever more extreme will be restrained, perhaps by firing the extremists and blighting their careers, perhaps by shooting them, perhaps, as in Uganda, by chaining them into the shape of suitcases and feeding them to the crocodiles – whatever it takes. But usually making excessive religious purity a poor career move will amply suffice. You don’t need to purge the whole board. Just quietly let it be known that the business or institution will not get any government contracts unless it removes one of its more difficult board members, and appoints someone who loudly proclaims more appropriate beliefs as a replacement board member.

Democracy is apt to become theocracy, rule by priests, because religious organizations, especially official religious institutions teaching the official religion (schools and universities) can so easily manipulate the people, because the ordinary person has no incentive to form correct beliefs on these matters, and every reason to form beliefs that associate him with the powerful, the elite.

I repeat: The progressives wanted to export democracy because they believed it would lead to rule by people like themselves – urban, privileged, highly educated in all the right elite schools. And it did. Where formerly we had soldiers ruling, who not only did not take that stuff very seriously, but also seriously disapproved of actually acting on it, we now have priests ruling, and each priest wants to show he more pure than the other priest. Where once excessive faith was a bad career move, now it is a very good career move, and insufficient faith is the bad career move. The guy who was formerly on the board because the government liked him there, is now the guy who is off the board because the government does not like him there.

10 Responses to “They hate our freedom – and so do Obama and Clinton”


    They hate our freedom â?? and so do Obama and Clinton « Jim?s Blog…


    They hate our freedom â?? and so do Obama and Clinton « Jim?s Blog…

  3. reagan's ghost says:

    you are hate filled, and misgueded. this piece became too ridiculous to read after the whole ‘any muslim who doesn’t believe jihad is required to supress representations of muhammad isn’t a real muslim’

    go fuck yourself

  4. The fourth doorman of the apocalypse says:

    Does the cattleman value the freedom of his cattle? The slave master the freedom of his slaves?

    • With the thoughts you'd be thinkin says:

      Inasmuch the owner derives a benefit from their freedom, after all does not many people find more pleasure in free range beef than factory farmed.

  5. The fourth doorman of the apocalypse says:

    “For upwards of forty million years,
    South and East Asians have been kept
    apart by the Tibetan Plateau,”

    Quoted verbatim from the first para of chapter 1.

    That is just so completely wrong, that I wonder how much of the rest of the material is useful?

    That is, the current denizens of those regions have likely only been there for less than 10,000 years … and certainly only practicing large-scale civilization for less than 10,000 years.

  6. Baduin says:

    I observe lately that a lot of writing on the right side of internet uses the traditional tripartite caste system – Warriors, Priests and Traders. Or, as in the modern West, pseudo-Warriors (soldier-scholars and armament industry promoters), pseudo-Priests, and pseudo-Traders (specialists in derivatives and in lending money to unemployed minorities, educated at the best universities and impeccably orthodox in their beliefs). And below all three high castes, there is the seething mass of Untouchables.

    There is a lot of interesting writings on this topic, from Dumezil’s analysis of Indoeuropean mythology to Edward Kaplan’s lectures on the history of China.

  7. Jehu says:

    Muslims are wiser than that and know how to properly handle enemy cultural beachheads. See Afghanistan for examples.

  8. josh says:

    All progressives must do then is to take over the schools, etc. of Muslim countries. Doesn’t sound that hard. How much of the funding is already from the Cathedral? They may have oil, but we have dollars and more communist trainers than we know what to do with.

    • jim says:

      John Howard had a go at this, not in the middle east, but in Australia. He set up an official government Islam, making himself in effect Caliph. A Muslim preacher had to be in on this program. Preachers that were in the program got various benefits. Preachers outside the program were not exactly illegal, but they were not exactly legal either, much like “racists” in the US. They got scrutinized for terrorism, etc. Naturally, the approved preachers were moderate. Howard lost an election, multiculturists took charge, and the program turned upside down, providing government support for a version of Islam that was alarmingly true to the Koran, in part because the true believers were willing to cut throats, and the multiculturists had no balls, or, as CS Lewis would say, were men without chests.

      So if cannot implement that program within Australia, unlikely to be able to implement it in the middle east short of using the methods of good old fashioned colonialism.

      If someone is a government funded and approved Muslim preacher in Australia today, he now has the same relationship to Muslim terrorists as tenured professors in the US have to sixties terrorists such as Bill Ayers. He approves and supports, and if he does not quite approve and support, he makes the right sounds to sound sort of as if he does. Much like our new allies in Afghanistan who keep shooting our troops.

Leave a Reply