The West's Moral Superiority To Islam

The Muslim jihadists continue to make the claim that they are morally superior to the West. It is time that this claim be addressed, not as part of war between Christianity and Islam, and not as some relativistic doubletalk, but on the basis of values and institutions that actually make the West superior to the Muslims.

The West does not have people throwing sulfuric acid into girls' faces for going to school.
The West does not have people setting their daughters on fire for getting raped.
The West does not have children being sent to blow up marketplaces and themselves in the process.

The West has free speech. The West has women's rights. The West has a lot of people working around the globe to extend to others development, opportunity and education.

I do not say that the West is better than Islam for relativistic reasons. I say that it is better than Islam for absolute reasons. I say that West is morally superior to Islam, period. And that, instead of practicing a defensive posture or some sort of religious me-tooism, it needs to go to outright offensive against Islam and seize the moral ground that the Islamists wrongfully claim right from under their feet.

The West's moral superiority comes from free speech. It comes from democracy. It comes from science and technology. It comes from women's rights. And yes, it comes from the belief that people are better authority over their lives than is a government or a religious institution.

For all things that one or another person does wrong, the Western system has produced far better results than has the Muslim system. And while there will always be people who look for alternatives, even they will for the most part come to the conclusions that the Muslim system is far inferior to what is here now. The Muslim system is not only worse than the Western system; it's also worse than Communism, Hinduism or Confucianism. Its global reputation is this: The bottom of the world.

Further, the Muslim people owe a lot to America and the rest of the West. If not for the Western democracies, the Middle East as well as the rest of the world would be practicing Communism; and that means that they would not be able to practice Islam at all. Whereas with the current world leadership they can be as Muslim as they want to be for as long as they aren't blowing up Western nationals in the process. Whereas if Muslims had their way, then everyone would be practicing Islam. And from what we've seen from the condition of the Muslim countries in Middle East, that is not a promising future.

The Middle East used to host the world's greatest civilizations. At this time, and any number of decades past independence, the place is a quagmire and an obscenity. It is entirely not the case, as Hashemi Rafsanjani claims, that Islam keeps these places on the right path. The opposite is true. Islam has taken these places on a destructive path and has turned the world's greatest civilizations into its worst obscenities.

Not enough people are brave enough to confront wrongs like this; and there need to be more. I for one do not care one bit if saying such things will bring onto me a fatwah. The issues here are too important, and they are especially important for the women - such as for example my daughter - who will be growing up in whatever world results from contemporary entanglements.

The West is morally superior to the Islamic world. And it is time that more people say so outright.

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

 

Ok, here is a problem, the west doesn't even manage to maintain its population without mass migration of people which doesn't belong to the western culture.
Islam is mediocre, but nowodays western world is worst, because it destroying itself.

 

It's called "greed". Some people wanted cheap labor for their factories and trash collecting, so they imported third world people.
Or they probably wanted to make it up for the colonialism.
Or they just wanted to help "undeveloped" people grow.

Anyway, no good deed remains unpunished.

 

Yes, but even with that, even western countries with low migration rates, they fail to reproduce.

 

Yes, because social environment is "contaminated" with barbarians and other people of unsavory nature.
How would you like your kids going near a Muslim or a Gitane ghetto? It's simply dangerous, pretty dangerous of being humiliated, mugged, beaten, raped, killed.

 

Yes and no, because even before multiculturalism, that was the case in Germany for instance. Finland is a rather xenophobic country, despite that they have a low birth rate.

A woman is the most fertile between 15 and 30 years, for obvious reasons, let speak only of between 18 and 30. A woman having child in her late 30's have much more chance to get miscarriage or problems like autism or down syndrome. If I remember well, even homosexuality probability tend to rise, because homosexuality is something which happen during the intra utero period of life, but honnestly I don't want to spend 2 hours to find a study about the correlation of age of women when they get a baby and homosexuality. Furthermore, a civilization to maintain its population must have around 2,1 children per women. Most western feminist children have only 1 children, sometimes 2 but it's more rare. As far as I know, no western feminist country manage to get that number, and we should consider that in country like France and germany, there is many muslim patriarchal families which tend to rise up the average of babies.

Woman in the west want to focus on their career, it is their most essential freedom but it can't be compatible on the civilization level with maternity and so the fact that your civilization remain alive. I don't deny that some women managed to get a great career and more than 2 children, but I'm speaking of a general tendancy not an all true rule.

Western men on their side became weak. The mass trauma of WW1 and WW2 explain this to me. I will just take the example of my country France. We lost 1,3 millions soldiers during WW1. 30 % of the young men of that time. That doesn't include people wounded, probably another 30 %, it doesn't include either the people with mental trauma. It was a whole generation which was destroyed either physically or mentally. We carry that weight. Those young men which were slaughtered were rised in values like a "true man must fight". They were sacrificed, slaughtered in name of their manhood. Furthermore, feminism rised, and then they were taught things like that men were opressor during their whole history, they were inherently evil and toxic. That's false, by the way, men were maybe hierachically superior, some oppressed their women, but many were always able to endure taugh work so their women may have a decent living, men had always the work where people die the most. That old school manly behaviour can be seen in the titanic where men sacrificed themselve for their spouses and daughters.
With the increasing number of divorces, men are becoming optionnal in a family, in a way, they aren't usefull anymore. Maybe some men abandon their children, but during a divorce, even if the father ask to keep the children and it's the woman is asking the divorce, it's the woman which would keep the children.
What's my point on that : the western man became useless in every of his traditionnal role : Useless as a warrior because it led him to his annihalation, useless as a husband and a father because he is optionnal, and useless as a worker, as many feminists claim there is too many men in many domain of prestige.

I often wondered why white men liked this much to enclose themselves so many on tabletop RPG or computer one. Why so many white men were fleeing in their comics, their fictionnal universe. Now I suppose it's because they prefer to play a mage which has a role in a fictionnal universe than having no interesting role in that society.

There is an expression in french "babtou fragile". "Babtou" come from the inversed wolof word "Toubab" is an african word which mean "white, westerner", and it's often with the word "fragile" mean the same thing in english. It's how african people see us, and with reasons.

Sophisticated societies are often societies near collapse. The french nobility was extremly sophisticated, and felt morally superior to the commoner, with reasons, it didn't prevented them to collapse into the revolution. The chinese emperor felt vastly superior to those european barbarian, it didn't prevented china to collapse thereafter. The roman were sure of their moral and intellectual superiority to the barbarian, the greek felt superior to the roman, which didn't prevented the roman to invade them and include them to their empire.

Should we blame the barbarian ? No. Let's face the mean truth : we are weak, degenerated and undisciplined. Let's stop for a moment to blame the migrants, the feminists, they won because we became weak.

Rather to complain that migrants came, let's see the other way : When did we became so weak that we let foreigners walk on our lands without authorization ? When did we became so weak that we let foreigners kill our wives and son ? When did we became so weak we became unable to create a family ?

I'm really sorry to have wrote a so long text it was hard to make shorter.

 

Several Islamic terror groups were formed from mujahideen funded by the U.S., recruited by U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, and trained by U.S. ally Pakistan.

 

Key phrase here.
Being a gentleman is always way harder than being an arrogant butthead.
I think this addresses all your other points.

 

The great thing about the American system is that in a generation it assimilates immigrants into the population. The system either works or it doesn't. Peoples skin color or language has no bearing on whether or not a system works.

 

French integration system managed to integrate many poles and Italian, however, it does an indigestion on subsaharian african and muslims.

 

French integration system sucks.

Black African immigrants do very well in the US.

They exceed native born black citizens at basically everything. Are barely below native born whites in education, income etc. They learn English at a higher rate than all other immigrant groups, have lower crime, have cohesive family groups. Africans succeed in America very well.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/201...rtrait-of-the-u-s-black-immigrant-population/

The US system either works or it doesn't. I belive it does.

 

You don't know anything about french integration system. I personnaly consider that the best migrant is the one which stay in his own country, you don't need to integrate him.

 

I know quite a bit about French integration actually. You apparently dont know about how Black African immigrants have succeeded in America.

Immigration is an important part of our system and always has been.

 

American system yes, french system no.

 

Yeah. The French are obviously not assimilating immigrants well. The unemployment rate is heinous for young immigrants in France. So maybe France should do a better job at it.

 

So, which West are we talking about? It must be the post-1945 West. Because I don't think you want to brag too much about the pre-1945 West. A certain part of it did a lot of unspeakable things and killed a whole lot of people.

 

I of course mean the West today.

 

Some accidental confluence of historical trends doesn't make the West "morally superior," just lucky. Especially the United States.

 

How convienent. Let's forget about the time a big chunk of the West tried to conquer the world and kill all the Jews.

 

When future generations think back on this era, they won't be condemning the Islamic Jihad, they will be cursing at the west that screwed them by turning their world into a greenhouse and burned through earth's natural resources.

 

That's why I am promoting a clean energy invention: http://htnresearch.com

 

The West won't take action quickly or severely enough to avoid the catastrophe we're creating. In part because it's not going to effect us as much as it's going to affect places like Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.

We're creating the greatest global catastrophe that humans have ever faced, and we're not going to do anything about it because we're going to suffer a fraction of the consequences.

So much for "moral superiority."

 

Once again, you can count me out on this. I am doing what I can.

 

I'm not blaming you for global warming, bud, I'm pointing out that whatever metric you're using to determine relative moral strength seems to leave out some important facts. Namely: the most important ones.

 

You can't assimilate people which don't wish for assimilation.