As a follow-up to his previous post about human sacrifice, MC takes a look at the sin of blasphemy as defined and punished by a postmodern politically correct regime.

by MC

Blasphemy, under Shariah law, is any action or speech that demeans Islam or Muslims, and the penalty under Shariah Law is death. Mostly without trial, since the Muslim in the street is authorized to take vigilante action in the case of perceived blasphemy.

Have we ever considered what is considered blasphemy in the socialist religions(s)?

Political religions hide behind the curtain of political parties, and are thus insulated from the norms of criticism as applied to Christianity etc. But we should stop and take stock of just what is done in the name of political religion and its impact on Western society. The impact of unremitting socialism is enormous, and ardent socialists are every bit as ruthless as any ISIS or Al Qaeda operative. The death tolls of Islam are admittedly huge, when spread over its 1400 years, but during the postmodern period they are dwarfed by the slaughter wreaked by the combined forces of the socialist religions.

Socialism is based upon a myth: the idea that if everybody is treated equally then all will be happy and content with their lot. This is a complete conjecture, a product of the religious forces that dominate secular humanism. It assumes that humanity is intrinsically ‘good’ and that if one provides the right motivation (usually terror- and murder-based ) then a peaceful prosperous society will ensue.

To criticize socialism is to blaspheme. However, displaying its usual ability to hide behind words, socialism does not use the negative word ‘blasphemy’. It substitutes the positive idea of ‘political correctness’.

The word ‘blasphemy’ conjures up old ideas of religious correctness and establishes visions of inquisitions and hostile clerics with cruel intentions, far from the idea that political religion wants to portray, but essentially the same as the reality: show trials and malevolent commissars (European courts and malicious EU commissioners).

Blasphemy arises out of heresy. All religions have a dogma which is woven into the fabric of the religion, and which is non-negotiable. Forced taxation for ‘redistribution’ of wealth, for example. To violate this dogma is to blaspheme, and the punishment is trial by media.

I was taught in school history how justice was meted out in mediaeval Europe, where one underwent punishments like ‘trial by ordeal’. ‘Trial by media’ is its extremely cruel modern equivalent. Partisan media create a one-sided diatribe against the political blasphemer which essentially strips the dissenting citizen of health, wealth and the pursuit of happiness. And, much in the way of the WW1 firing squads shooting PTSD sufferers, they deny accountability because it was a ‘group’ action.

Few people perceive the real disaster that is political blasphemy; it is a major tool of oppression. Just as General Haig went looking for soldiers to shoot (pour encourager les autres), so also must the discipline of socialism be upheld. But where socialist rule is not absolute, other devious means must be employed.

So we have ‘PC’ as a supposedly non-lethal rod for our oppressed backs. What a socialist totalitarian regime would achieve in the gulag or death camp, the proto-totalitarian regime can achieve making it neo-blasphemy to attack the dogma of PC, with the punishment being social and economic death.

Blasphemy laws are nasty, especially where the dogma is flexible and where one can be condemned to run the media gauntlet (running the gauntlet was another brutal mediaeval practice) almost by accident. All that is required is an implied criticism of one of the PC pillars of wisdom.

One of those pillars is ‘race’, which has become a critical weight-bearing column in the whole PC colossus. It is not a column as we understand it, however, being more a branched structure like a baobab tree:

Where the actual support is limited to a just few “preferred races” (and religions as well, it seems). PC is peppered with such absurdities. Its anti-racism is so selective as to be the most racist and divisive force currently known to mankind. It means that important issues cannot be discussed, and it means that the brown-coloured terrorists next door are free to kill and maim at will. It means that no ten-year-old is safe from sexual predation, and that an army of young strong men can invade sovereign countries whose people are powerless to stop them. The consequences of being branded a ‘racist’ are as dire as word itself is vague.

I am a ‘racist’. I believe that my Judeo-Christian culture is superior to anything else available, and that history proves this over and over, and so too does that endless stream of migrants who are willing to undergo hardship and expense to get a slice of my inheritance. Ironically, they are the most sincere proof of my cultural superiority.

Funny, that. I am deemed a ‘racist’ simply because my culture is superior and I know it…

It’s those baobab branches again. Non-racist racism is limited to those who have PC approval: Muslims, all Middle Easterners (except Israelis, Yazidis, Copts, Maronites and Syrian Orthodox), North Africans (but not Jews kicked out of North Africa, or persecuted Christian minorities), and of course the ‘radical’ Islamists who are Muslim Brotherhood activists.

Occasionally a branch falls off, maybe hanging on by last vestiges of stringy fibre: Liberal Jews, the ‘workers’ (only those in non-governmental occupations), and white males.

I can remember a time when Israel was the doyen of the left, and the Kibbutz was a glowing example of how socialism should be, but they gently fell from PC grace as the needs of the preferred religion race became apparent. Kibbutzim are socialist communities in Israel where everything is held in common, where needs are met, abundantly in some cases, and talents are utilized. But the stigma of being Jewish far outweighs their relative success in PC terms. Israel in itself has become a source of unlimited blasphemy. No matter what the realities and legalities are, they are wrong and Israel is a pariah and the land that they ‘stole’ should be given back. Emotion scores over reality every time.

Blasphemy and emotionalism are joined at the hip. The Loretta Lynch mob is ever ready to turn perceived blasphemies into ‘exceptions’ to the First Amendment, and there are absolutely no absolutes in this. Blasphemy, a.k.a. ‘hate’ speech, is just not acceptable in a free country such as the USA.

Ironies aside, political-religious blasphemy laws are destroying Western culture from within. Although mostly unlegislated, they are a cytotoxic snake venom which dissolves the very fabric of our societies around us. We now have to hide, for we can be denounced for that unintentional slip of the tongue, let alone by putting pen to paper. Never in recent history has so much been forbidden to so many by so few (with apologies to Winston). In Holland there is to be a show trial in true Stalinist fashion, and whilst it may not end in the inevitable Stalinist bullet, that is only because the last vestiges of the democratic doggy lead is still in place around the neck of the Dutch judiciary.

MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.

21 thoughts on “Blasphemy

  1. Great thinking, MC!

    Socialism is the – satanic – religion, dressed as Justice, of our time, aligning with, and then morphing into sharia.

    How to stop this process!?

  2. Dissidents

    Ethnic Europeans not following the socialist religions are becoming the dissidents of our time.

    On the other hand, ‘dissident’ seeming to be a new socialist/islamic honorific word, while still in office Obama is seeking to talk to dissidents in Cuba.

    • What do you mean by “Ethnic Europeans”?

      Are Jews “Ethnic Europeans”?

      Are Hungarians “Ethnic Europeans”?

      Just out of interest…

      • Good question!

        A better way of saying it might be – anyone adhering to the ideas upon which Western civilisation is based, be it an Hungarian, a Jew, an American, a Canadian, an Italian, a Russian etc.

        For Hungarians, I can’t see how they could not be of European ethnicity. Same for European Jews.

        • yepp, your first paragraph would be my answer, too.

          with “ethnicity” however, the controversy is real.
          despite I hate this word..

          looking at it more attentively, one realizes that any definition of “Ethnic European” would be arbitrary – for example, if judging by overall term of residence, or by the statehood. Jews were in Europe long before Hungarians, but Hungarians have their nation state, and Jews don’t.
          and so on.

          I think ethnicity in biological sense matters – because humans are unconscious xenophobes, and everyone can keep some (as far as it isn’t harming others..) but in the end, our racism is secondary issue; when it is about civilizational/moral choice, it should simply give way.

  3. Fully agreed!

    Only thing: I think that some Asian cultures are approximately equal to Judeo-Christian ones. The Chinese or Japanese, for example: they’re different – very different, but I don’t think inferior at all. They’ve had their moments of craziness like we’re having now, but they’ve recovered from it (as we hopefully will).

  4. At the proverbial end of the day, the only blasphemy that really matters is the one committed against Nature – and that’s precisely what’s happening in Europe right now.

  5. As always, MC is interesting and informative. How can the underlying ideas about genuine liberty be restored to the political system? Don’t say they can’t, for history shows us that such things are possible. Witness the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution, the Swiss Confederation, and even the Napoleonic Code… all of them legal instruments extending genuine protection from government excess (imperfect, perhaps, but nevertheless better than the alternatives).

    • Good leadership – get rid of the bought professional political class, new amendment maybe…..

  6. “wealth redistribution” is, in the root, the consequence of the separation of labour.
    in modern life we see it serving the essential communal needs such as defence, basic medicine and education, humanitarian and large-scale infrastructure projects.

    so, some fraction of socialism is inevitable.

    as well as some fraction of authoritarian rule (as opposed to consensus seeking), – albeit not the same everywhere;
    more authoritarianism is presumed in light infantry platoon management, less in local council assembly’s debate.

    socialism easy goes out of control when it grows parasitic, leans towards deceptive ideologies and mythologies, and applies authoritarianism to keep and spread control.
    I think that is what MC poetically expressed as imposing “blasphemy”.

    there are, however, several modern and emerging soc.-anthropological traits, that, in my view, will greatly moderate the dangers of socialist usurpation, namely

    – the increasing role of non-zero-sum collaboration,
    – expanded circle of confidence
    – globalization
    – secular education
    – multiple identities
    – feminism

    as a framework for uniting multiple and diverse groups of people together, I see the model of “people’s meritocracy”, namely

    – Western (Judeo-Christian, Kantian, Popperian, Pinkerian, – you name it) civilizational order
    – social management representative bodies based on professional, rather than political affiliation
    – taxes paid by individual’s discretion directly to charities and enterprises, therefore promoting fair competition
    – cashless model of goods/services exchange (yes – reduce or even abandon “finances” and “economy”)
    – global citizenship
    – differential approach to non-participating societies

    if applied consistently, these simple principles can define and pave ways out of present-day, ehm,.. hardships.. I think.

    • Wealth redistribution does not cover defence, basic medicine and education; redistribution of wealth is essentially forcibly taking from the ‘rich’ to give to the poor i.e. welfare payments. This is theft. Whilst it is incumbent on society to support the poor, this does not justify robbery.

      • maybe I use the term incorrectly, but not sure.

        I’ve meant it in the context of “social contract”.

        the meaning was evolving, but essentially it is the use of resources earned by one part of the society, by the others.

        here, not only the consent matters, but also the quality of communal projects.

        ancient Egyptians built pyramides.
        present days British Government sends aid to Somalia and Pakistan, and accomodates hordes of unassimilable immigrants.

        these are the example of ineffective wealth redistribution.
        there is very little solace in the fact that it haven’t simply gone to “rich”.

  7. I think you are following the PC of the late Twenties and Thirties in your sideswipe at
    Field Marshal Douglas Haig. As a corrective, may I recommend the book on the First World War, ” Mud, Blood and Poppycock” by Gordon Corrigan, himself a professional soldier.

    I don’t know how people withstood the immense horror of that struggle. The men I knew, who had taken part, we’re not the oppressed, proletarian cannon fodder of Joan Littlewood’s ” Oh What a Lovely War” – though they had mostly served in the ranks. Relatively few British soldiers were shot for desertion – some after having been given another chance for a similar offence.

    Compared with the French, choosing victims by lot from regiments which had disgraced themselves, it was an was positively civilised! Doubtless, injustices were done, but it is wrong to judge a previous age by the rather mawkish, self-indulgent standards of the present .

    • The debate about Haig and his competence is still ongoing but I have not challenged this, but that he signed the death warrants of underage soldiers suffering from PTSD is not disputed. He also signed the death warrant of a Naval Sub Lieutenant which exceeded his authority, a naval officer cannot be tried by an army Courts Martial.

      But this This is OT and should not be pursued in these comments.

        • No, not at all, forbidden speech is deleted! But the rules say keep to the topic which is blasphemy, not the debate about whether the WW1 generals were good/bad.

  8. I believe that the most horrifying aspect of today’s PC culture is the framework that it has provided for the stealth implementation of Sharia anti-blasphemy statues.

  9. MC my friend, we appear to have been writing about the same things. Unfortunately …

    “As Isaiah Berlin pointed out, and as any rational person understands, there can never be a final solution to the question of how all human beings are to live here on earth. Not only is there no evidence to suggest that such a thing is practicable, the concept itself is internally incoherent. The neo-totalitarians can never cross a finishing line and say their work is done, because that finishing line cannot exist. In this regard, the neo-totalitarian control system is the same as the one constructed by the Nazis. 

    The National Socialist regime was not controlled from the top, in the sense that explicit commands were issued by the Fuehrer which had to be followed to the letter by whoever was tasked with carrying them out. Instead, Hitler described the world he wanted to create, then left it up to Nazis further down the chain of command to turn his vision into reality. The system also forced the Nazis to compete with one another for power and influence.8 A gang of ruthless beasts had taken charge of Germany, and they deliberately set the lesser animals at each other’s throats. Nazi policies that evolved in that environment were not an expression of genetic attributes that caused the owners to live, but of moral choices that caused other people to die. If a devout follower did something that met with the leader’s approval, then his rivals would have to be even more radical if they wanted to gain the leader’s attention. If that worked, any subsequent actions or proposals would have to be more radical still. The Nazi system evolved in one direction, and it had no way of slowing itself down. 

    If the neo-totalitarians can never reach a position where they can say that their utopia has become a reality, then they will just keep going. And just like the Nazis, their policies and practices will become more radical.”

    Source: The Neo-Totalitarian Control System

  10. It’s all the more important now to put strictures on those religions which put persecution practices over others in the name of blasphemy committed by them. These religions must be brought under the control of States and in places where these religions own the administrations, continuous condemnation is rightly required to highlight their crimes committed on humanity in general.

Comments are closed.