Hero Worship and the Monoculture of the Anthill
by Kenneth Roberts
March 12, 2010
"Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom."
So said Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher. Think of North Korea, Stalinist
Russia, the Red Guards of China, Hitler's Germany, etc.
Now consider this: Wherever Mohammed is most admired, there is the lowest
regard for human rights, civil liberties and political freedoms, such as Syria,
Pakistan, Egypt, and Tunisia.
The reason for this lack of human rights is something that Muslims deny and
block out of consciousness. Plainly, Mohammed was a dictator and an abuser
of human rights. But Mohammed is said by Muslims to be perfect. It isn't abuse
if Mohammed did it.
Mohammed took away the human rights of peaceful, pluralistic, cultured people.
He insulted, robbed, assassinated, enslaved, and then expelled the rest of them
from their properties and ancestral homeland in Arabia. Since the hero Mohammed
committed these crimes, they are justifiable and good. Today, we call Mohammed's
political program ethnic cleansing or 'genocide.'
Aggressive ethnic cleansing is occurring today in Iran and Sudan.
It is 'good', because the hero Mohammed did it.
Muslims imitate Mohammed, so Islam naturally creates a despotic form of government
that represses women and minorities. It's Islam's DNA.
Islam, in theory, is a single imperial state. The constitution of Islam is
the biography of Mohammed. The Koran calls Mohammed's life 'a
beautiful example'. Muslims know this is true because Mohammed wrote it
in the Koran.
Mohammed struggled (jihad) to create a monocultural
society based on the model of the anthill. The queen ant rules; the soldier
ants all think the same way, do their dance and attack the same external enemies.
Alien animals (such as aphids) are either parasitized by ants or killed or expelled.
Ants go out regularly to destroy other anthills.
In the ideology of Mohammed, this is the perfect model for Islamic society.
There is even a chapter in the Koran called 'The Ants' and another called 'The
Bee'. It is easy to see why Mohammed felt these animals ran ideal societies.
Mohammed didn't rule by popular vote. Mohammed's god told Muslims repeatedly to obey him.
Whatever Mohammed decided, Gabriel always confirmed it shortly thereafter with
a message from Allah himself. Thus Mohammed was never wrong. He ruled by divine
decree. Allah constantly confirmed Mohammed's hero status in the Koran that
was written by Mohammed! Mohammed further claimed he was the
owner of the earth and that Allah Almighty had created the universe for
the benefit of Mohammed alone! This is a universal political claim. Mohammed
said so. Mohammed is a hero, so it must be true. A true hero would not call
himself a hero.
Muslims are lost in hero-worship.
Hero-worship of Mohammed is defended by law in all Islamic countries. Only
hero-worship of Mohammed is ever expressed in the public domain. Dissent about
Mohammed's hero status is never heard in Islamic countries, because ordinary
Muslims, like the ants in their hill, immediately and instinctively rush to
neutralize aliens, sting and eliminate them. Think of the cartoon riots! Think
of the Teddy Bear crisis. Think of the pursuit of critics and apostates from
Islam, how they are murdered by their own families or hunted by ordinary Muslims
acting as vigilantes. The greatest crime in the world is to express scepticism
about the hero status of Mohammed.
If an alien animal enters the anthill, perfect harmony and unity is quickly
restored. The alien is surrounded by ordinary ants and cut to pieces. In Islamic
countries, there is no real pluralism or the chaotic differences of opinion
found in full democracies. Alien animals (such as aphids) are only allowed into
an anthill so they may be parasitized for the benefit of the ants. In Islamic
countries, the anthill or the beehive is the model for the organization of society.
In Islamic countries, kafirs may work for Muslims, but not lead or rule over
them. That is Mohammed's method and thus it is the Islamic ideal.
Hero-worship of Mohammed is everywhere in the Islamic state. So, for decisions
to be perfectly acceptable, leaders must constantly appeal to his heroic example.
If Mohammed did it, it must be 'good'. Logic has nothing to do with it.
Mohammed never defended the human rights of kafirs. In Mohammed's Medina, jihad
occurred on the average of every six weeks. Medieval Islamic jurisprudence demanded
a minimum of attacks. Unprovoked jihad expeditions against kafirs should be
made a minimum of once
yearly . The human rights of kafirs are unimportant, since jihad against
them must take place so frequently and the very purpose of jihad is to remove
the human rights of kafirs. This cannot take place in a democracy.
Ordinary Muslims assume Islam is benign, so they never concern themselves with
the human rights of kafirs. Besides, kafirs have misfortunes coming to them,
because they did not submit to Islam. Either way, no empathy is ever wasted
on kafirs. Supremacists never apologize.
Only the politics of Islam are of concern to the kafirs. The only that kafirs
care about are the things that affect our rights and our pluralistic free societies.
Mohammed's method invades and destroys kafirs and their culture, just as anthills
expand to annihilate neighboring anthills. This is the traditional jihad method:
Invade, colonize, and then annihilate.
Mohammed is a hero, the perfect man, and so 'good' Muslims use Mohammed's monocultural
model. This is why Muslims always strive (jihad) to create a monoculture of
hero-worshipping wherever they go.
Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the
music of Mozart.
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute
as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment