Society · Subversion

Salman Rushdie and the Problem of Defending your Culture

As you may have read in the news, the author Salman Rushdie got knifed down at a public event the other day. The context is that over two decades ago Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa in response to Rushdie’s blasphemous book The Satanic Verses. There is the flippant saying, “fuck around and find out”, which is certainly appropriate here. Of course, I do not condone violence in any way, or against any person or group. Yet, if you are part of a culture with a very strict moral codex, and you think you will just see what will happen if you step out of line, then you are probably partly to blame if reality hits you like a brick, or cuts you like a knife.

You have to hand it to the moslems: They follow pretty clear rules and if you think you are above them, you may get killed. This happened to various jokers who thought that it is funny to draw caricatures of Mohammed. Those people were fully aware of the provocation this constitutes, and went ahead regardless, somehow believing that their Western, liberal values will act like a protective shield. You can say, “Je suis Charlie” all you want, but the fact of the matter is that different cultures have different moral standards, and if you have the great idea of inviting members of all kinds of cultures into your country, then you can expect conflicts to break out as there is no universal morality.

I once encountered the claim that people in the West became much more law-abiding during the Middle Ages as a consequence of rather harsh selection processes. In other words, if you fucked around too much, you disappeared in a torture chamber or were publicly executed. This may be cruel, but it is clear that the deterring effect of seeing someone being executed for blasphemy, defrauding his neighbor, or well-poisoning is rather substantial, to put it mildly. There is also the fact that a propensity towards criminality is hereditary, so by weeding those people out of the gene pool, your population becomes every more law-abiding and better behaved.

With the above in mind, can you even imagine what our once Christian society would look like today if we had killed blasphemers, like muslims do? The societal effects would be quite obvious. You can view modern manufactured culture as a means for the continual debasement of society. In the 19th century, there were scandalous novels in which married women “went for walks”, which was code for them sleeping with other men behind their husband’s back. A scandalous novella in the early 20th century was about people attending a ball who were “dancing with one attendee after another”, and this was code for those women sleeping around randomly. Fast forward a few decades, and you get novels in which people describe their paraphilic phantasies, nudity has been normalized, and miscegenation is the standard in advertising. Routinely, nuns give blowjobs in mainstream movies or moonlight as prostitutes, cutting off your genitals is empowering, and if you notice that the recent diversity hires at your company are not pulling their weight, you will be out of a job because you are a racist.

Nobody living in 1920s America would have believed how shitty life in 2020s American would be. They went to war against Hitler to save democracy, or something like that, and their descendants today find themselves in a country that pushes porn and drugs on them. This had also been prepared well in advance as you do not go from 0 to 60 in an instant. Yet, imagine if instead of twiddling their collective thumbs, your forebears would have stood up against the peddlers of garbage. Somehow, I cannot shake the feeling that society would look a lot different had they done so.

Imagine you live in 1920s American and some smutty novel appears. Instead of joining the celebrations of the mainstream press about this work of literature pushing moral boundaries, there is an outrage, muslim-style. Two days later, the author, everybody involved with the publication of the novel, as well as mainstream literary critics praising the supposedly high literary qualities of this genre-defining work find themselves impaled on a public square. Surely, the amount of boundary pushing would be a lot less in the future, just as it happened in Medieval Europe.

You may find the thought experiment above repulsive, yet it is quite powerful. If you do not defend your culture, it will be destroyed. Thus, I tip my had to the late Ayatollah. Salman Rushdie knew what he was doing, and justice got served, in the Islamic context. Yes, sure, for our Western sensibilities this is all shocking and brutish and barbarian. However, our Western culture is not universal. It is our set of rules. Well, our current set of rules of some kind of a bastardization, but you surely get what I am aiming at.

With little children there is the interesting phenomenon that they have the tendency to explore what they can get away with. Any school teacher, regardless of the grade he is teaching, will probably be able to tell stories of his students testing his boundaries, and the same is true in the workplace, too. Most if not all toddlers want to see what they can get away with, fewer school kids retain this impulse, and even fewer people in the workforce. However, some people seem to make it their life’s purpose to push moral boundaries. If they do not get put in their place, they will never stop, just like your toddler will only behave worse and worse. This is how we ended up with tranny story hour, unlimited mass immigration, and pornography in the mainstream. Probably all of this could have been avoided by publicly executing a bunch of people every few years.

14 thoughts on “Salman Rushdie and the Problem of Defending your Culture

    1. Well, the Israelis have basically two very antagonistic camps within thrir state: A very secular, “liberal” (still) minority and a very strict, religiously observant (and racist) “Jewish” orthodox (still) minority.
      Those orthodox Jews would in a way radically follow their religious traditions and would readily impose them onto the secular majority as well, but they are not the majority (yet), but in the not so distant future theiy will be…

    2. There is this stereotype that Jewish women are huge sluts, of course those are from the liberal camp. I find this quite amusing because there is the male Jewish obsession with banging gentile women, so-called “shiksas”. This makes me wonder if this is just projection on behalf of male Jews, i.e. they see their daughters or sisters getting railed by gentiles (and non-whites, too, presumably) so they fantasize about doing the same to gentile women.

      I am just reminded of an encounter I had back in the days. Some woman I met shared two key facts about her within 30 seconds. The first one was that she is Jewish, and the second one was that she loves to suck cock, (and proclaimed that she was very good at it). I skipped that one, though.

  1. “There is also the fact that a propensity towards criminality is hereditary, so by weeding those people out of the gene pool, your population becomes every more law-abiding and better behaved.”

    Not to mention the West has been heavy handed with its warrior class for some time, with the first and second world wars eliminating a great number of the most courageous among them. I guess we’ll have to settle for non-whites and trannies to fill the ranks.

  2. Are we ready for a fully traditional society? Even my much more trad brother continues listening to “subversive” music. I think it’d be too drastic a change, too fast. And there’s the fact that there exists subversive art that IS good… or at least it used to exist. From cinema to pictorial, quality seems almost absent these days, at least in the mainstream.

    1. Thanks will get much worse before most people truly embrace traditionalism, and many of these calamities will be intentional. Plagues, hunger, energy crises, “natural” disasters, cultural enrichment etc.

    2. With the current demographic trend in Europe, by the time things change, only variety of traditionalism left to embrace will be Islamic one. And if there is one thing Muslims have proved so far it is that they are fanatically devoted to their faith and impervious to leftist social engineering.

  3. “Impervious to leftist social engineering”.

    If you mean all the sodomite worship and its derivatives, yes. But what Sleazy talked about goes well beyond that. That muslim boy who will blow himself to pieces for his ayatollah probably listens to Western degenerate music, and is as much of a “coombrain” (as they say in trad circles) as any white boy, only he wants to coom inside 72 virgins in heaven instead of his favorite pornstar.

    1. Yes, that is a good observation. In a way this boy still has more balls than his Western “whiteboy” counterpart.

      Yet, the problems with Islam need to be adressed on a paradigmatic level. Yet, this is not possible from the grounds of a materialistic, naturalist, process philosophy, “flux and change” worldview either. Which is precisely, why “the West” is doomed on an essential level above mere politics. It’s not that the West itself is bad. It’s that it has adopted completely wrong paradigms, particularly by its Satanic elites, and both are doomed to fail. If you adopt the notion that Truth (which can only be an absolute, otherwise it would be mere opinion) does not exist, that 2+2 can equal 5, that solipsism rules (btw.: Hi there, Immanuel Kant!) and that Truth and Justice are the purview of power – then you are screwed.
      Which is precisely why the coming dominance of Islam in certain parts of Western Europe will be such an utter brainfuck for Western normies. Because here eith Islam you have a paradigm, which at least acknowledges the existence of overriding transcendental principles of truth and justice. And which, after all, will not shy away from using force to implement them force, if necessary.
      Exciting times ahead, folks!

  4. What baffles me is how “repressive” leftists labeled the old conservatives. If they were so repressive they wouldn’t collapse in one generation without one shot fired. They must have been really bad at repression. And someone needs a bottle about complaining over nothing. And the social Marxists have had the power for 50 years. Where is the social progress?

    1. Of course nowhere to be found. I once read in one of Mary Shelley’s letters (yes, the author of the “Frankenstein” novels) the laughable notion, that democracies and republics would inevitably leqd to more decent and moral people. Well, just take a good look around you for yourself and see how that’s been going!

    2. There is social progress, just not in the direction you would like. A key tenet of Marxism is to destroy society in order to create a new one. Collapse is coming, and leftists have been pretty good at engineering it.

    3. @ Sleaze: Yes, it’s the old “Ordo ab chao”, or “Solve et coagula” concept of Renaissance alchemy. Marxism apprently is just the most powerful contemporary iteration of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.