Muslim perverts and women’s fantasies

A very revealing post at OnePeterFive:  Pornography and the Prophet:  Islam, Feminism, and the Myth of the “Willing Whore”.  Excerpt:

One might think that, given the western provenance of most of this material, it is also being consumed by a predominantly western audience. This, however, is not the case. Some of the world’s top consumers of online pornographic material are, in fact, to be found in Muslim countries. According to Google – by far the most popular search engine used by consumers of online pornography (83.5%) – Pakistan tops the list of countries whose citizens perform pornography-related searches. Of the top 8 such countries, 6 of them are predominantly Muslim states, including Egypt, Iran, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. While many of these countries have strict laws prohibiting the production and consumption of pornographic material, the advent of the smartphone has made controlling porn-related internet traffic virtually impossible – something an increasing number of Muslim men regularly exploit.

Muslims in Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates also search for beastiality porn more than any other demographic worldwide, with particular interest in donkeys, dogs, horses, cows, goats, snakes, monkeys, elephants and – yes – bears. The deeper one digs into the Google data, the worse it gets: the search term “child porn” is the second most popular porn-related search in Turkey, being topped only by Pakistan, which leads the world in searching for the terms “children sex”, “sexy child”, “sexy children” and, unsurprisingly, “rape”. Other disturbing terms searched in connection with porn include “father daughter” and “bother sister” – ranked numbers 4 and 5 in Syria; “mom” appears in Egypt’s top 10 porn-related search terms. Equally revealing is the finding that the second most common language used to search for homosexual pornography is Arabic, with the terms “gay man”, “gay sex”, “gay girl” and “homo sex” topping the list. In fact, “homo sex” is the top porn-related search term in Indonesia, home to more than 200 million Muslims.

Sick bastards.

Then there’s this:

Despite the claims of Wendy McElroy, any normal person should have a hard time believing that there is anything close to a statistically significant number of women who secretly fantasize about being raped. While many “studies” were produced in the 70’s and 80’s which claimed to document precisely that, more recent analysis suggests that fantasies in which a woman is consensually overpowered by a desireable male are not and should not be referred to as “rape” fantasies at all, but are instead expressions of the natural relationship between the sexes, i.e. a woman’s healthy desire for an assertive and physically powerful male partner. When consent is removed from the scenario, the number of women who report erotic – as opposed to aversive – “rape fantasies” becomes negligible.

I guess this should be obvious, given the tendency to continually define rape down.  Probably no human being has ever had a sexual fantasy that conformed to California’s Affirmative Consent law.

The social fragility of Catholicism

Democracy and liberalism tend to erode Catholicism, but they invigorate Islam.  The record is clear.  One struggles to think of exceptions.  How to explain it, though?  Is it that Islam is more compatible with liberalism?  Perhaps it is less compatible and gives liberalism less of a foot in the door?  Is Islam simpler, and thus better suited to mass appeal, or is it more complicated, and thus better able to rebut modernist criticisms?

A liberal would frame the phenomenon as Catholicism’s inability to thrive under conditions of “freedom”, that is, in an “open society”.  Of course, we non-liberals know that neutrality at the top is impossible–to rule is to decide.  Catholicism does poorly when a hostile faith like liberalism is established.  That is certainly not surprising, although Islam seems to feed off the provocation of a secular establishment.  Catholicism also does poorly in situations where the dominant ideology is contested, uncertain, or disguised, as in vigorous democracies.  Muslims rally to a fight, while Catholics become demoralized and indifferent.

Tertullian said that the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.  This is true if it refers to the blood of heretic martyrs.  To paraphrase General Patton, the way to succeed over rival religions is to make the other dumb bastard die for his faith.

What have white people ever contributed, anyway?

“If you’re really optimistic, you can say this was the last time that old white people would command the Republican Party’s attention, its platform, its public face,” Charles P. Pierce, a writer at large at Esquire magazine, said during the panel discussion…

In response, Mr. King said: “This whole ‘old white people’ business does get a little tired, Charlie. I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?”

“Than white people?” Mr. Hayes asked.

Mr. King responded: “Than Western civilization itself that’s rooted in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the United States of America, and every place where the footprint of Christianity settled the world. That’s all of Western civilization.”

The claim is actually quite modest.  In response to a writer gloating over the demise of his race, Mr. King asks what other subgroup contributed more to civilization than Western civilization, rhetorically implying that no other group contributed more, and therefore none of them are in a position to demand that whites be singled out in not being allowed to dominate anything anywhere on Earth.  The assertion that no group has contributed more than the West is compatible with other civilizations having contributed equally and with other civilizations in aggregate having contributed more.  It simply means that the West is second to none.

King is right to connect the white race with Western civilization.  Race is a social construct, and today being white mostly means being identified with European civilization.  He is also right to be angered by Mr. Pierce’s zeal to replace white people as the “public face” of a Western nation’s political party.  If its participants can’t be socially dominant anywhere, Western culture will cease to exist as a culture.  No one objects to Chinese being the face of the Chinese Communist Party, of Indians being the face of the BJP, or of blacks running sub-Saharan Africa.  It’s a big planet, and a little bit of diversity isn’t a terrible thing.

Still, I think the lesson here is that even the claim that the West is second to none is still too strong.  It is certainly contestable, and it triggers an argument we don’t need to win.  Suppose it could be definitively shown that, say, Islam added more to civilization as a whole than did the West.  Would we all meekly accept that Europe should then be ruled or co-ruled by African Muslims?  I prefer to avoid comparisons.  Can we not strongly argue that the West–defined broadly as Mr. King does as all Classical, Christian, and European-Anglosphere civilization–has made some contributions to civilization as a whole, and that this is an indication of its inherent worth?  After all, the main contribution any given civilization makes to civilization as a whole is its very existence.  Simply to give birth to a distinctive way of life is a stupendous achievement.