Three Steps to Neutralize the Islamic Issue

An overt conflict with muslims will only be necessary because the leftists in Western Civilization and Europe allow islam to pose a threat.  There is an easy way to remedy the clash of civilizations without direct large-scale conflicts between infidels and mullahs, yet ironically it is the leftists’ own idealism and political correctness that denies any possibility of preventing massive amounts of death for all. There is a simple way to deal with the islamic issue – coincidentally, it actually leaves the opportunity for muslims to start pulling their own weight in the world and survive, unlike the current path that will inevitably end with infidels worldwide needing to kill muslims or be killed.  That might not be easy to see yet because of heavy censorship and indoctrination, but will become much clearer in a few more decades if the current course of islamic appeasement policy and subsidized expansion does not change.

Three simple steps that would neutralize the islamic issue:

1. End immigration, amnesty, visas, citizenship, tourism, etc. for muslims outside of islamic countries.

2. End the oil trade, foreign aid, and any assistance of food, service, or military including all funds/manpower to the UN ((which are disproportionately allocated to muslim nations).

3. Wall off any borders shared with muslims to deny them access outside of their lands and do not intervene in their affairs/infighting.

The first step in this plan is pretty self explanatory.  The reason why there’s no distinction between islamic sects, or the level of their extremism/moderatism, is because it applies to any who identify with islam.  There are many reasons for this, one of which is subjectivity.  How are the terms extremist or moderate muslim even defined?  There is such a small percentage of muslims that are considered in the extreme category – yes, with their huge numbers that small percent works out to be millions of extremists – yet it is likely the word “extremist” is not applied to enough muslims.  This means that the tens of millions of muslims categorized as extremists is inaccurate; the number is probably closer to hundreds of millions if the term applied to those in favor of sharia law.

Regardless of estimates it is impossible to determine a distinct line between moderates and extremists muslims – it’s more like a spectrum than black-and-white.  Sharia law is an integral aspect of islam and all muslims who support it are going to deteriorate the culture and freedoms of Western Civilization.  Islam is simply incompatible with the West and Europe, using the freedoms of host countries against themselves in a slow shift.  Whenever there is a bendable object and an inflexible object pulled together by a force, the bending object will lose more and more ground.  Muslims cannot coincide with any people – even their own of different sects – because their purpose is to dominate, not assimilate.

The “moderate” category (however loosely defined) is as much of a problem as the “extremists” if not more so – the two go hand-in-hand.   The “extremists” are used to fear monger away freedoms with their overt attacks, and in the backlash “moderates” then play the perpetual victim group role which slowly erodes more freedoms and shames the host culture.  The way one can tell the “moderate muslims” are an enemy is after an “extremist” attack their concerns are about discrimination and protecting the reputation of islam.  The moderates do not assist in catching and fighting their “extremists”, they instead make excuses of victimhood or proclaim how those few are not a representation of islam, when in fact the “extremists” are following far more closely to true islam than the “moderates”.  An invader won’t grieve with the nation they are squatting in, which would be any true patriots first response – the moderate and extremist muslims are all invaders with a common end goal of domination.

The second step is essential and the only way that muslims have any hope of changing to actually be self sustaining, though that isn’t likely at least it is possible.  The only real economic strength of islam is their oil trade.  Even in that, their corruption is evident when some princes are driving cars made of real gold while their muslim brothers are starving by the hundreds of thousands.  Oil seems to only give free, easy money to the most greedy muslim fat-cats and fund terrorism; the starving populations are sustained by foreign aid.

Why are muslims starving in the first place?  The answer to that is their own primitive procreation practices and not valuing life or responsibility.  The foreign aid given to them doesn’t teach self reliance, but only continues the cycle of irresponsible procreation which compounds over generations putting too much strain of supporting this on the responsible populations these muslims are raised to hate.  This is unnatural and the bleeding hearts that push for dhimmi-style aid only exacerbate the dsygenic aspects of islamic primitive culture.  Leftists are under the delusion that islamic poverty stems from external oppression instead of their own unnatural subsidization of generations that should never have been born.

The need for aid will be even higher once all muslims are not enjoying domestic welfare and social programs in Western and European countries.   Eliminating oil trade will also cut off the income of their corrupt rulers and defund terror programs.  The same leftists who create this whole mess are also the ones that don’t want to drill domestically for oil to fix their own economies.  If these steps do not happen the rest of the West and Europe will continue to slide further down the immigration invasion spectrum to conditions of places like Sweden and England.  Muslims spread like cancer to other lands and these three steps are needed to remove the unnatural disease before it metastasizes.  Muslims must pull their weight in the world; reap the fruits of their own labor or lack thereof.  Step two puts their fate in their own hands, as it should naturally be.

There will be conflicts and infighting that follow, which is why the outside world can’t intervene, as is laid out in step three.  Even if there is a chance that muslims will make better societies for themselves, that will be a small sect and their herds need much culling.  The best possible result is them fighting for their own freedoms or way of sustainable life; the worst possible outcome is they will destroy themselves instead of the rest of humanity along with them.  This might all sound emotionally hard to accept, yet the reasoning is logically sound.  Europe and the West must start living in reality for their future generations, not idealistic fantasy.

Asian Dishonor vs muslim Shame: islam Has No Honor

Many articles explaining Shame Based societies vs Guilt Based societies are terribly misleading.  Grouping both Asian and Islamic cultures under the Shame Based title wrongfully conflates.  Misunderstanding the muslim mindset when looking at terminology leads to less overall clarity on both cultures, as opposed to bringing insight.

The misuse of words creates confusion as does the simplification of complex subjects – it is necessary to look at the concepts behind labels.  This is evident when comparing traditional Japanese culture to traditional/current (since it is pretty static) islamic culture.

The Japanese do not have a shame based mindset; they have an honor based mindset.  The muslims have a shame based mindset – islamic doctrine does not allow for conceptualizing honor.  The term “honor killing” in reference to islam is misleading because it is infact “shame killing”.  The muslims only have negative reinforcement for preventing against their version of shame, with nothing to reward honor.  Their understanding of honor lacks abstract thinking, to where it is synonymous with anti-shame; in reality islam has no honor code.

Islamic culture externalizes punishment for shame while Japanese culture internalizes responsibility for maintaining honor or regaining it when lost.  The Japanese promote honor based personal responsibility with positive reinforcement – the islamic system leads to egotistical abuse.  The islamic concept of “honor killing” should be renamed “shame murdering”, while traditional Japanese culture actually practiced honor killing.  The goal of the Japanese was to instill honor into their very being and have their life end in a glorious death.  The goal of islam has always been predatorial and abusive – they want their own to fail and have a shameful death.

The Japanese empowered the will of their people through inclusive conditioning; muslims want(ed) to impose expectations so they can feel powerful in punishing others.  The most power in the traditional Japanese mindset is be in oneself to be honorable, while muslims derive their power from punishing other’s shameful acts.

In the end, the categorization of Shame Based cultures needs to be broken into two divisions: Shame based and Dishonor based.