Déjà vu of the Worst Kind

DejaVuby Deana Chadwell    9/29/14
Here we are back in Iraq, jets screaming and buildings exploding, fighting the same war we just “finished.” It’s déjà vu of the worst kind; we have been here before, and this recurrent nightmare begs some troubling questions:

Why weren’t we successful in building a democracy in Iraq? Why couldn’t we just coach the Iraqis through democratic procedures and walk away and have it all function well? What is essentially different about Muslim populations that makes democracy so fragile? I’d like to offer some possible answers to those questions.

In the first place a democratic constitutional republic demands integrity, and integrity is only possible when people take responsibility for controlling their own actions and decisions – that only happens when people feel they are accountable and grateful to a higher power whose integrity is perfect.

If integrity = justice + righteousness + veracity, then Allah is not such a higher power. Allah demands none of these attributes from his adherents –quite the opposite. Allah demands that the victim of rape be punished. Is that just? Of course not. Allah demands death for all who disbelieve. Is that righteous? Allah demands that Muslims lie in order to promote Islam. It there any veracity in that?[pullquote]If we can’t be honest, not even with ourselves, about what has gone wrong for these people, there is no permanent way we can be helpful to them, and therefore no way to protect our own society.[/pullquote]

Islam, in fact, has no set morality code. It promotes tight controls on women, but these are human controls, not issues that are between a woman and her god. Islam requires adherence to the goal of promoting itself, but allows and encourages followers to engage in absolutely any behavior that will further that goal.

A republic like ours demands a belief in free will. This is part of the reason that our own “democracy” is faltering; free will is a concept that’s only applicable to theists – it has no relevance to the materialist, to the Darwinian naturalist, or to the atheist. Without God our “decision making” is nothing more than chemistry and synapses, so free will is nonsense. If free will is nonsense then so is freedom. Enter Islam where freedom of thought and action are completely off the table. (If you want an intellectual and inside look at this read Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi.) Fourteen centuries of truncated individual thinking and it’s no wonder that democracy is a blinding light in the darkness of their lives.

A democratic republic demands an informed, intelligent, and mentally healthy populace. This is a scary one because Americans are losing these abilities; our schools are doing more propagandizing than informing, our people are dumbing themselves down with drugs, and our trying so hard to do it all without God is ruining our mental stability. But Iraq, and Afghanistan, have an even steeper hill to climb.

Nothing in their ideology demands or requires thinking in any productive, inventive, questioning fashion. We take for granted that all humans do that kind of thinking, but in a society where it is rarely rewarded, let alone taught and encouraged, it is unlikely to occur. The recent news about an Al Qaeda operative inventing a new bomb using toothpaste and clothing is unusual indeed — almost unbelievable. Just try naming a half-dozen things that Muslims have invented that have been of benefit to the world, and don’t tell me “numbers.” The so-called “Arabic” numerals were invented in India.

Here we get into genetic territory. Nothing in the genetic make-up of Muslim societies makes the traditionally American approach to problem solving and rational discussion possible. I don’t mean this as a racist slur. There are Chinese Muslims, African Muslims, and lately, European Muslims. It’s not racial, nor is it ethnic, it is a cultural problem. For 1400 years, almost 47 generations, Muslims have been marrying 1st cousins – and not just occasionally. So?

We know what happens when unethical dog breeders practice the breeding of closely related dogs; the offspring become erratic, nervous, and hard to train. They develop structural difficulties like hip dysplasia and immunodeficiency disorders. Similar things happen with humans, so ever since Moses there have been laws forbidding first-cousin marriage.

Why was it OK before that? Because, over time all systems break down – the laws of entropy wreak havoc on all that exists. The human gene pool, starting if you will, with Adam and Eve, was perfect – no anomalies, no mutations, no problems. Their children – hundreds and hundreds of them because they lived for hundreds and hundreds of years, could reproduce amongst themselves and still produce physically perfect offspring, but as the generations went by, little by little, genetic problems developed – a chromosome broken here, an amino acid out of place there and imperfection crept into the gene pool. (I won’t here go into the ramifications of the sin nature and its effect on the physicality of human beings, though I suspect that had much to do with the early genetic bugs.) As that began to happen, people (who were no doubt a lot brighter than we are today) realized the problem, and sibling marriage became anathema. It wasn’t until Moses carried the tablets down from Mt. Sinai that first cousin marriage was prohibited.

Islam prohibits many close relational marriages, but not 1st cousin marriage, in fact it has been actually encouraged; it keeps money, and therefore power, within the clan and allows the tribal elders to keep tighter control over their young women. Today, as many as 70% of Muslims are inbred (Pakistan). Nick Sennels’ famous study of Muslim immigrants in Denmark shows a marked difference in intelligence and mental health between native Danes and immigrants from Muslim countries.

Reports from American servicemen assigned to train both Iraqi and Afghani soldiers indicate that these young men are almost un-trainable. They demonstrate very feeble recall abilities, a low level of problem solving aptitude and very shaky mental stability. It is no wonder that when ISIS attacked the Iraqi army ran away.

I know that it is politically incorrect to make such sweeping statements about a group of people. Truth, though, is often politically incorrect, politics and truth being such distant cousins. And the truth is that first cousin marriage for nearly 50 generations has augmented the negative traits of the people of any race whose family has long been practicing this Muslim tradition. Without an influx of new blood – which may be what drives their hyper-aggressive proselytization – there is little hope of Muslim societies fitting comfortably and prosperously into the world of the 21st century.

The final reason we have not been successful at rehabilitating Iraq, nor Afghanistan for that matter, is that we’ve tried to do this job without making any moral judgments about those societies. We’ve tried to guide these countries with our eyes tightly closed and our ears plugged. If we can’t be honest, not even with ourselves, about what has gone wrong for these people, there is no permanent way we can be helpful to them, and therefore no way to protect our own society. We can make no progress apart from the truth.

As this “war” heats up anyone with any common sense can see what is going to go wrong militarily, but beyond that we must be aware of the mistakes we made the last time we “won” a war against militant Islamists. We pretended that this negative, brutal, damaging culture didn’t matter. We pretended that God Almighty didn’t have a stake, a plan, a solution. We acted as if Islam had nothing to do with the brutal attack on our homeland. We acted like this culture of hatred didn’t matter. It does matter and we’re going to need divine intervention and a lot of it if jihad is going to become a permanent thing of the past.


Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (1460 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I’m blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing — and more keeps popping up — needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation.
I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.

This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Déjà vu of the Worst Kind

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    A fine, detailed study of the history of numerals can be found in The Universal History of Numbers by Georges Ifrah, which I think I’ve mentioned here before.

    If the United States had to create a republic today, it would probably fail. It’s quite doubtful the one we have can endure for long if people fail to realize the nature of its enemies (the allied cults of Islam and Leftism).

    To be fair, Islam doesn’t actually mandate punishing the victim of rape; rather, this follows (if the victim is foolish enough to make an accusation) from the peculiar standards of Sharia law (and perhaps even more so the misogyny of most of its practitioners).

    It’s very interesting that you make the point that free will results from religion — even belief in an omnipotent, omniscient God. One would think it would be the reverse, but in fact the secularists see human thought as resulting purely from biochemical reactions and thus are basically determinists of a sort (or perhaps we might call it “quantum determinism”, which actually come up in a discussion in our group once a few decades ago). The key isn’t so much a deity as a soul that is separate (at least to some extent) from the physical body.

    • The issue of the omnipotence and sovereignty of God as it pertains to human free will is very interesting. I can’t imagine how free will can even be an issue without these divine attributes — without the will of God in the picture there is nothing for human will to be free from. It is true that the Bible gives human society behavioral guidance, but actually only gives one 2-part command: Believe in Christ and love your neighbor as yourself. And the assumption is that we can choose otherwise — we have that ability, i.e. free will.

      I agree that the separation of body and soul (and, actually, spirit) is important here, but even more important is the creator/creature distinction. God created us, and miracle of miracles, He shared His sovereignty with His creatures. Amazing.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    You speak the truth, Deana. The problem with Islam is Islam…and there may be some genetic factors as well, as you pointed out. Even so, I would say that being of a lower IQ has little more to do with being evil than being poor.

    If one actually cared about Muslims, one would try to convert them to another religion.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Ann Coulter strikes again!

    • Rosalys says:

      And that is one thing that Islam will not allow, to be converted away from Islam. Death to both proselyte and proselytizer alike!

      Maybe someone with a better head for remembering can help me here, but I heard or read somewhere, some time ago that an American Christian offered to set up a medical mission in, I think, Saudi Arabia. The sultan or chief or whatever he called himself welcomed this American, as long as he promised that no proselytizing would take place. That began a relationship with the US lasting many decades and giving us access to their oil. Not only in retrospect was that a mistake. It was wrong right from the outset. The purpose of a Christian medical mission is not to cure bodies but to cure both body and soul. You may understand that many will take the physical help and say, “No Thanks!”, to the spiritual, but the primary focus must be to spread the Gospel. That original medical “missionary” should have said, “No way!”

  3. Glenn Fairman says:

    Genetic disabilities from 1st cousin marriage account for the lion’s share of special Ed resources in European countries with large Muslim populations. Due to that knowledge of genetic entropy, the practice was forbidden by Moses (God) in Deut. This biological tragedy and Islam’s determinism creates the most obscene form of fatalism. One need only recall the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Lawrence goes back for the missing warrior and is accused of blasphemy for not honoring the will of Allah. Coming back with the man to the cheers of the throng he mutters: “Nothing is Written.” Great article as always, Deana.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The lion’s share of SpecEd in EU countries? Holy smokes. That’s a problem…one that doesn’t exist, of course. Nothing to see here. Keep moving along.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Yes, even after Rotherham, the impulse for political correctness is unstoppable, as we see with the beheading in Moore, Oklahoma. Ideology is immune to factual evidence.

  4. Rosalys says:

    Satan is a liar, a murderer, and roams about the earth seeking whom he may devour. Tell me if that doesn’t describe the “god” of Islam to a T!

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Aside from making actor Ben Affleck look stupid — oh, what am I saying? That is the main point. Bu you’ll enjoy this article on a number of levels: Ben Afflecks’ Islamophilia

    What is the difference between all those Klan lynchings and the horrendous murders of “non-believers” in Islam committed by jihadists? One group committed its crimes in the name of racial superiority, and the other today commits its savage acts in the name of religious superiority.

    The American Left today has succumbed to appeasement and political correctness. Fifty years ago, unwilling any longer to tolerate the brutality their own progressive movement had nourished and encouraged for the sake of political power, finally — finally — people like Hubert Humphrey, JFK, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy would abide it no longer. Today liberals like Ben Affleck have become Islamophiles. We know that when a jihadist in Oklahoma beheads a colleague, or a major in the United States Army commits mass murder in the name of Allah, the U.S. government that once rallied to the side of black Americans will simply shrug off the attacks on non-Muslims as “work place violence.” In fact, President Obama sent an emissary to Oklahoma — not to see the family of the jihadist victims but to the Mosque the killer attended. A Mosque revealed by a whistle blower to be teaching jihad behind close doors when only the faithful were present.

    Let’s recall the case of Emmett Till. The young African-American teenager who was visiting relatives in 1955 Mississippi and made the “mistake” of speaking to a married white woman. Resulting in the woman’s husband and one of his relatives kidnapping the 14 year old, brutally beating him, gouging out an eye, shooting him and dumping his body in the local river. Can you imagine the outcry if the authorities then or today — classified or re-classified the murder of Emmett Till as simply a case of “domestic violence”? A young man who got caught in a triangle between husband and wife? The fury would be — justifiably — ear splitting.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Hubert Humphrey, unlike the Kennedys, had a genuinely good record on civil rights (he pushed the very liberal 1948 civil rights plank in the Democratic convention, which led to the Dixiecrat walkout); perhaps because of this, he did win a single primary in his 1960 presidential race — in mostly black D.C. (JFK wasn’t on the ballot, so he was able to keep his winning streak intact.)

      Political correctness, in recent years, has gone from being a nuisance and a restriction on free speech (if usually not a severe one) to a toxic threat. You cannot solve a problem if your ideology leads you to refuse to recognize what it really is. I should note that one article I read indicates that Affleck apparently was ready to go after Harris from the first, so it may not have mattered much to him what the topic was. (Sam Rayburn once observed that if two people agree on everything, only one was actually thinking. By the same token, when you reflexively disagree with someone, as Affleck did, you aren’t thinking. But who expects a Hollywood liberal to think?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *