The Islamic Vortex (Note-6)

Why (sane) non-Muslims hate Islam, made simple:

So, Islam was established as a polygynous system, meaning it created a wife shortage among believers. But raiding non-believers who do not submit to Muslim rule was sanctified and taking their women for your sexual use was also sanctified. So, sexual frustration generated by Sharia marriage rules was then explicitly directed outwards towards the non-believers who have not submitted to Muslim rule. The ghazis raiding across the frontier into “the lands of unbelief” which were such a feature of the borders of Islam for over a millennia represented Islam sanctifying (and so intensifying) patterns of typical of polygyny; polygyny that it also sanctified.

All dithering aside, it’s an inter-culturally aggressive rape machine, by essence.

ADDED: “The problem, ultimately, is this …”


December 3, 2015admin 29 Comments »


29 Responses to this entry

  • jay Says:

    Then when Islam finally conquers the world. The last man stands on a pile of skulls and shoots himself in the head.


    admin Reply:

    Islam is weak. It survives only through the pathological altruism of foreigners.


    Wenshuang Reply:

    Randianesqueish sanction of the victims


    SVErshov Reply:

    islamic fundamentalism spreading in India too.


    Erebus Reply:

    Islam is weak in certain respects, but it is extraordinarily strong in others. It is the only religion that still pulses with vitality; the only one that is still capable of waging holy war; arguably the only one that still means anything at all. The respect and devotion that Islam demands is astounding — it is, without question, the strongest faith in the world.
    (…The institutions of Christianity, in contrast, inspire little but contempt. Easy example: Pope Francis, chief evangelist of the doctrine of climate change.)

    The way I see it, Islam is strong in every way that matters. Societies which are utterly divided, which have faith in nothing, and which spit on their pasts are decadent and rotten. Something must change in the West. Strength means nothing without the will to wield it. Were we truly strong, we would crush Islam at the first provocation. We would not hesitate. We would not assume that we can predict or understand the behavior and actions of the enemy. We would all know — innately, without being told — that we are dealing with beings who are significantly different from us, and that the continued survival of our culture must take precedence over the survival of theirs.


    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    *Muslims* are weak, but most of them would be under any belief system. *Islam* is effective at what it does. (see op)

    Contrast with whites, who nature has made strong, but who have an incredibly weak belief system that makes them weak.

    Remember, war universe.


    DB Reply:

    Islam is not effective against China, and there’s no sign of this changing anytime soon. Everyone who fears “Islam conquering the world” seems to be ignorant of this.


    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 4:20 am Reply | Quote
  • The Islamic Vortex (Note-6) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 4:21 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    What ethnicity is this guy?


    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 4:48 am Reply | Quote
  • Bob Says:

    The problem with this analysis is that polygyny rates are low among Muslims:

    Jack Goody lists the following polygyny rates:

    rural Morocco – 3.1% (1963)
    Casablanca – 2% (1963)
    rural Egypt – 4.7% (1937)
    Egypt – 5% (early 19th century)

    In his survey of the literature (19th century), Westermarck concluded that 95% of Muslims were monogamous. This was true even among traditional nomadic groups like the Tuareg, the Toda, the Marea, and the Beni-Amer.

    Contemporary Western society seems more polygynous than Muslim societies. Most Muslim men and women marry and pair bond for life the first man or woman they have a relationship with. Islam’s sanctioning of polygamy with a hard limit of 4 wives could just as well be a mechanism that limits polygyny in society, especially if you take into account its other rules on social and sexual behavior.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    All the wrong areas? Saudi arabia/Indonesia?


    admin Reply:

    A polygyny rate of 2% already pushes something between 2-6% of your male population into the zone (assuming max. four wives). If 5% then it’s somewhere between 5-15%.


    jay Reply:

    Calculated total Muslim population. 1.6 Billion divided by 2 multiplied by 1.05(Given normal sex ratio) yielding 0.84 Billion men multiplied by 6% results in 50.4 million low status men ready to serve as soldiers for Allah.


    Bob Reply:

    All human societies are effectively mildly polygynous. A greater proportion of women marry and reproduce than men, and a minority of men have greater access to more women than the majority of men.

    The nominal status of polygamy doesn’t tell us anything about the effective polygyny rate. We’re nominally monogamous, but we have serial dating, fornication, and divorce and remarriage, to say nothing of their non-serial forms that also go on. Do you suppose that only 2% – 5% of the population in the West has multiple partners?


    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 5:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    “… treating religion as the central feature of Muslim identity plays into the hands of the most conservative elements in Muslim communities.”

    What the fuck am I reading?


    Alrenous Reply:

    It’s generally safe to assume the top 0.5% or so of any religious group are atheists that keep their traps shut about it.


    vxxc2014 Reply:


    You base that the top .5% are atheists on what?


    nydwracu Reply:

    Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz (what the fuck kind of name is that?), a former Grand Mufti (lmao) of Saudi Arabia and the guy who gave the king approval to use force when the Grand Mosque was seized, thought the Earth was flat until some Saudi prince went up on an American space shuttle and convinced him it was round.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Political ideologies come with a religion and religion with a political ideology. They are pair bonded. Liberalism/progressivism is bonded with Protestantism. Catholicism is dead along with the throne and alter ideology it was paired with (modern Catholicism is Protestantism wearing a Catholic suit). We do so many so called atheists care so much about equality, because they’re Protestants who became holier than Jesus. Heretics gonna heretic. Romans were permissive about foreign gods, so long as the gods of the state religion (they had to worship past Caesars, the modern version requires worship of diversity and equality) were also worshiped (which cemented Roman authority/sovereignty over conquered lands), and thus lead to their persecution of monotheistic Jews and Christians who they perceived as rebelling against state authority/sovereignty. Even in Japan, during the Meiji restoration Buddhism was associated with the Shogun (and remained wealthy) so they clamped down on it and made Shinto into a state religion.

    Islam is an extremely rigid religion without room for interpretation, it’s pair bonded with a very specific political ideology, sharia law, theocracy, and conquering the world by any means necessary. It’s so rigid and politically entwined that the whole Shia Sunni split had nothing to do with religious differences (they interpret the Koran exactly the same) but entirely over political differences regarding a particular instance of succession.


    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 5:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    Isn’t this just laudable capitalism? Each man is increasing his capital, and then excess demand is being met through a market mechanism. Isn’t placing a limit (monogamy) kind of communist?


    Butler Reply:

    I guess I would say “Yes, with a but”.

    Channeling dear old Deng Xiaoping in the opposite direction: it doesn’t matter whether the mechanism is communist or capitalist, so long as it results in long-term order and stability and prosperity.

    And having a lot of angry, frustrated young men running around your nation with no families to anchor them to the social milieu or invest in them an appreciation of the status quo (or, “without a nagging harridan of a wife to crush their idealistic revolutionary spirit”, ymmv)… is probably not condusive to long-term order and stability.

    So I’ll take my cat in red in this instance, please.


    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Ghazis waging jihad to acquire slaves is not a market mechanism.

    (It pains me to have to say it, but I wanted to spare admin the trouble).


    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 9:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    It is fair to point out Polygyny is not common practice among Muslims, likely because of its maladaptive civilizational effects. After all, the Prophet Mohamed said that taking more than one wife was permissible, not mandatory (if I remember correctly). It seems clear monogamy is superior, but is not required for survival, just higher tier civilization. Islam has all the doctrinal tools at its disposal to survive and propagate nicely, however it should not dream of total destruction of outsiders (as ISIS does) since it stands to gain much more through parasitism off of them.

    “The way I see it, Islam is strong in every way that matters. Societies which are utterly divided, which have faith in nothing, and which spit on their pasts are decadent and rotten. Something must change in the West. Strength means nothing without the will to wield it. Were we truly strong, we would crush Islam at the first provocation. We would not hesitate. We would not assume that we can predict or understand the behavior and actions of the enemy. We would all know — innately, without being told — that we are dealing with beings who are significantly different from us, and that the continued survival of our culture must take precedence over the survival of theirs.”

    This seems to be a healthy Western attitude in keeping with the Occidental spiritual disposition. Disregarding the colonial infusion with Christian ideas, prior to this Christianity was by external metrics a remarkably isolationist phenomena. It was willing to bring all forces to bear when assaulted from without, (Battle of Tours, Siege of Vienna, the First Crusade, etc.), but did not have need to seek dragons abroad for wives or other such goods.

    I would also argue, were we truly strong, we would have no need to crush Islam because the current conflict probably wouldn’t be at this level. The heightened danger is fueled by the fact that the West’s secularism has allowed competing religions and their practitioners to enter the market, and these then become actionable cells from abroad. There is a reason that Bhutan doesn’t suffer Islamic terror attacks. A strong state has the Traditional institutions, including a state church with interests that preclude the allowance of heresies. This essentially disqualifies foreigners from entering the state in most instances. Heresies do emerge at home, but they are usually crushed (Protestant Reformation broke the dam). I have been pushing in Christian circles for Islam to be seen as a heresy rather than a competing religion. They do after all, revere Jesus of Nazareth, but deny His divinity (as some early Christian sects did). You have to wonder, what might have been different had Mecca been under the jurisdiction of some kind of inquisition during the time of Mohamed.


    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 4:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    Yes, all polygynous groups show this pattern. Peter Frost has a long piece on this…


    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 5:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jefferson Says:

    Very interesting stuff. One idea that really stuck out to me was that Islam accepts and accommodates nomads. Nomadic life is antithetical to civilization, a fact that is baked firmly into the laws of Torah (which strongly emphasizes the importance of agriculture), and which the Romans dealt with constantly (through breaking and civilizing barbarous tribes). Yet Islam essentially compromises with barbarians to enhance its virulence. Instead of saying “civilization requires property rights, so settle down,” it declares that property is less important than mimetic spread.This is a huge structural difference between Islam and other universalist religions, really highlights the destructive nature inherent in Islam, and never occurred to me on over a decade of working/studying the middle east.


    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 7:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Our elites are weak and cowards.

    Out they go and Islam shall follow them to the Pyre.



    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 3:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Barbarians within the Gates of the Eloi-Union.

    There were wars across Africa and the Middle East displacing millions from the end of Colonialism until the Dictators consolidated control.

    Why when we also had massive human suffering from wars in Africa in the 1970’s – possibly worse than now – wasn’t letting in millions of refugees a priority then? Sure we took them but not at existential threat levels.

    What’s changed is the desperation of our own Elites in Europe and America. They need any purchase they can get on their own peoples even if the purchase’s grasp is the hands of barbarians.

    One existential threat deserves another.


    Bob Reply:

    The Cold War was going on in the 70s. Those wars in Africa and elsewhere were Soviet backed wars of national liberation. The European colonial empires were losing control of access to those populations.


    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 4:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2015/12/06) | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Nick Land finds a glimmer of hope in the US Space Act of 2015. Also this: The reason why Sane non-Muslims hate Islam. […]

    Posted on December 10th, 2015 at 2:43 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment