Or about the rise of Islam in Europe. Or the decline of a willingness to fight for freedom.
Courtesy of Kim.
Scary lines from the article. About a European feminist:
â€œThe dominant ethos,â€ he told De Volkskrant, â€œis perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.â€
And from a secularist:
“I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.â€
There is a discussion of how the attitude of the secularist – really read atheist – mindset leads to this.
Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.
I had never thought of this. I’ve been thinking a lot about what the logical outcomes of naturalism is. I had never thought that submission for survival was one of them.
This is also the root cause of nannyism, I think. They have nothing to look forward to, so they try their hardest to turn this world into their version of “paradise.”
Also happiness and pleasure are the primary goal, and the biggest thing that stops that is other people. So if we can control them and their actions…
Course it doesn’t really work. And they don’t want it done to them.
You know, I have to admit that I had never really thought about human secularism in that way before either… However, it makes perfect sense for someone who does not believe in an afterlife to do everything he or she can to continue this current one. However, the thought of a woman being willing to allow herself to be raped in order to avoid the chance of serious injury… That implies such a distinct separation from reality, I cannot even begin to describe it… What of the emotional injuries? What of the injuries incurred in the rape? And, of course, if you take that mentality and apply it to other situations around the world, things start to make a lot more sense…
The USSR was an athiest state, but played a central role in defeating Nazi Germany. Being an athiest does not make one necessarily unable to fight or out to avoid death at all costs. This analysis is very, very simplistic.
I think there is a difference between an athiestic state, and an individual athiest. There is a point where an individual might have to decide if it is better to die than endure some outrage. If you have no life after death and survival is important, then giving in is the correct choice.
Comments are closed.