Democratic apocalypse

The latest events in the middle east are not looking too favorable for the theory of democratic peace.

I said this in an earlier post, and this is just an “I told you so” repeat.  Things were bad then, and they are getting worse now, as the middle eastern parties converge to the center and the mainstream – revealing that the center and the mainstream favors suicidal war on infidels.

If nearby Jews and Christians are on the firing line, Jews and Christians further away, for example in US airliners, will be next in line.  If they kill the Copts, the Israelis are next, if they kill the Israelis, we are next.

The difference between Islamists, and what passes for “secular democrats” in the middle east, is insignificant., much like the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the US.  No matter which party wins the elections, the outcome for the US will be much the same.  The Islamists favor war on infidels, and the secular democrats favor slightly more selective war on infidels, just as in the US, the Democrats favor national socialism, and the Republicans favor national socialism.

The Middle Eastern kings generally favor peaceful coexistence with infidels.  The popular dictators, for example Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Qaddaffi in Libya, could be intimidated into reducing their level of violence against infidels with moderate amounts of violence.   Democrats, however, will have to be killed.  If we are to live, they will have to die.

It should be US policy that no Muslim anywhere gets to vote.  Not in America, not in the West, and especially not in Muslim majority countries.  Voters are dangerous, and Muslim voters are exceptionally dangerous.

A voter votes to demonstrate his allegiance to virtue, and or the group to which he belongs, thus is apt to vote unselfishly, because his vote affirms his support for virtue, without making any difference to the prospects that he will actually be forced to be virtuous, since his vote is merely one of millions.  And if the official religion deems suicidal war to be virtuous, the voter will vote for suicidal war, whereas a King hopes to bequeath his country to his sons, so selfishly chooses policies that lead to peace and prosperity.

In the US, non white votes are encouraged to vote to demonstrate allegiance to their race or ethnicity, thereby demonstrating virtue, while white voters are encouraged to demonstrate lack of allegiance to their race or ethnicity, thereby demonstrating virtue.  If you are a Muslim, however, virtue is demonstrated by support for death.  They say “We love death more than you love life”.  It is fairly obvious that Muslim Kings do not love death, because if they decided for death, they would quite likely be killed.  A voter, however, can vote for death, without altering his chances that the policy will actually be put into effect.  As a result, it will be put into effect. They will vote for measures that force us to kill them all.  A Muslim voter demonstrates virtue by demonstrating that he loves death, which he does by voting for whatever policy will force us to kill him.

No compromise is possible, since the median Muslim voter does not demonstrate his virtue by voting for policies that will lead to Israel withdrawing to pre-1967 borders, or policies that will lead to the US withdrawing from the middle east, or policies that will support and uphold the family by excluding sexual corruption and controlling female sexuality, but by voting for policies that will likely get him killed.  It will probably be easier to stop them from voting than to kill them all, but in the end, will have to do one or the other.

7 Responses to “Democratic apocalypse”

  1. Alrenous says:

    What? You’re paying attention to how things turn out? You’re not supposed to do that. You’re supposed to forget all about it once ‘democracy’ has ‘won.’

    Mainly because they turn out utterly horribly for everyone involved, without fail.

    I’m still pondering the fact that the West has the physical machines necessary to commit genocide on the Muslims, but the reverse isn’t true.
    I wonder if, were a Muslim state to actually threaten our elite, if they would continue to roll over and play dead.

    • jim says:

      I wonder if, were a Muslim state to actually threaten our elite, if they would continue to roll over and play dead.

      Depends on their sincerity. The true believers among our elite, are the most dangerous and harmful, but of course, hard to tell who is a true believer until the tide goes out.

  2. Prudence says:

    This is disturbingly well-reasoned.

  3. jytdog says:

    I just stumbled across your posting.

    I have to object to “In the US, non white votes are encouraged to vote to demonstrate allegiance to their race or ethnicity, thereby demonstrating virtue, while white voters are encouraged to demonstrate lack of allegiance to their race or ethnicity, thereby demonstrating virtue.”

    There is a long history in the US of whites being urged to vote, and actually voting, in order to maintain the power of white people. The quickest thing that jumps to mind and easiest to verify is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

    The point being, that whites are as capable of blind, ethnic voting as anybody.

    Christianity can be, and has been, used in vicious and ugly ways (see KKK which has always declared itself a defender of Christianity). Christianity has no special virtue vis a vis Islam.

    In my view most humans are social animals who follow the crowd. Whites are no different. Christians are no different. You and I happened to be born in a country with a tradition of democracy (which we are throwing away every day with our laziness and lack of vigilance).

    But our living here is an accident of birth that affords you and me no special virtue; you could have been born in backwater Egypt and if you had the world would look different to you.

    Anyway democracy did happen here through the hard work of a relative few over these past 200+ years; it can happen anywhere. As it did here, it will take hard work and decades to take root for sure.

    The claim that democracy is impossible in a muslim country is just essentialist, racist nonsense. (I’m not saying you are a racist, I am saying the claim is racist — this is a big difference). The claim also is contradicted by reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia

    • jim says:

      There is a long history in the US of whites being urged to vote, and actually voting, in order to maintain the power of white people.

      I find this claim no more credible than that the accusation that the tea party is racist.

      For example, that people objected to their children being forced to attend grossly inferior schools by people far away in Washington, schools where their children were frequently beaten up, is not “being urged to vote, and actually voting, in order to maintain the power of white people”

      That the white majority in Detroit was unhappy because the government was reluctant to quell organized collective violence against whites, which violence, politically motivated by racial hatred, ethnically cleansed whites out of Detroit, is not “being urged to vote, and actually voting, in order to maintain the power of white people”

      The quickest thing that jumps to mind and easiest to verify is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

      The”Southern Strategy” was implemented by a president who greatly intensified affirmative action, causing tremendous harm to white working class voters by forcing businessmen to elevate unqualified black men over their heads. Voting for such a president is not “voting, in order to maintain the power of white people.”

      Affirmative action got started in 1866, and has been getting steadily more severe ever since.

      Just as Marie Curie was awarded Nobel prizes in 1910 not because she could do science well, but because she could do it at all, because she was good at science for a woman, John Jacob Thomas was similarly inducted into the elite in 1866 not because he could write well, but because he could write at all, because he could write and argue well for a black man. His theory, that Trinidadian creole was a perfectly good language, rather than incoherent and ungrammatical mixture of English and fragments of old African languages, incapable of expressing any complex ideas, was credulously accepted without examination on political, rather than scientific, grounds, much like Global Warming. It might well be true, but, true or false, it was accepted because it was politically desirable, and that doubting it was dangerous, not because any plausible or coherent evidence was offered.

  4. jytdog says:

    I am speechless. You are too far gone.

  5. Oslo attacks says:

    Masonic terror…

    Democratic apocalypse « Jim’s Blog…

Leave a Reply