Friday, 19 October 2007

Amis condemns Islam, Muslim Nobel laureates stunned

The author Martin Amis has claimed he feels 'morally superior' to Muslim states which are not as 'evolved' as the Western world.

Responding to long-running accusations that he is Islamophobic, Amis launched a fresh invective against the Muslim faith and many of its followers.

He admitted his late father and grandfather had been racist but then claimed radical Muslims were the real racists, misogynists and homophobes.

Surely not! Everyone knows Muslims are the most tolerant people on Allah's green Earth, don't they?

In an interview with Jon Snow on Channel Four News, Amis declared: 'I feel morally superior to Islamists, by some distance. I feel an intellectual distance to Islam.

'There are great problems with Islam. The Koran recommends the beating of women.

'The anti-Semites, the psychotic misogynists and the homophobes are the Islamists.'

Well, what can you say? It's all true.

Days earlier, Amis shocked festivalgoers in Cheltenham with claims that Muslim states are less 'civilised' than Western society.
He "shocked festivalgoers"? I don't know about you, but I'm sure that I can think of a couple of revelations that might shock me rather more. The revelation that bears shit in woods, for example.

Ultimately, you'd have to be severely mentally ill, or, which is much the same thing, Muslim, to dispute the supremacy of Western Civilisation over Islam. What great technological, cultural, or social advances have come out of the Islamic world in the last century, for example? Or in the last five centuries, even? None that I can think of. And to pretend that Islamic states, almost all of which are impoverished third world despotisms, are not vastly more backward than any nation in Europe, is simply grossly dishonest.

But of course, if there is anyone out there who disagrees, anyone who believes in the great wonders of modern Islamic civilisation, then they are always welcome to pack their bags and move to such an Earthly paradise as Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.

5 comments:

Ultraviolents said...

"The author Martin Amis has claimed he feels 'morally superior' to Muslim states which are not as 'evolved' as the Western world."

I stopped reading right there. That view is barbaric. Much, much worse than criticising Islam as it gives you a licence to "civilize" those you deem to be unevolved.

Such as in the Iraq War for instance. A war for "Freedom and Democracy" as they are understood by the New-Cons. For they believe that people are products of society, and of course if you engineer a "good society", you get "good people".

It resembles Bolshevism.

Also, the Americans can't leave Iraq because it would scuttle their dreams of a united humanity under America, just like the UN, and just like the Communist Party.. How ironic. Didn't the NeoCon movement grow out of former Communists? How Ironic: People think the NeoCons are evil Capitalists. How ironic.

Now I know that you, Fulham Reactionary, rarely comments on these comments boxes but I hope you read what is written above because I think it comes the closest to explaining what the Iraq War really is/was.

Fulham Reactionary said...

I'm afraid that I can't agree that it is barbaric to believe that Western Civilisation is superior to Islam, and to Islamic states. I think that it is plain to see that what Amis said was correct. After all, the superiority of Western over Islamic culture is one of the major reasons why I believe that it is important to resist the Islamification of Europe and the UK.

As for civilising Islam: well, if I could do it, with no negative side effects, simply by clapping my hands, then I would do that immediately. The problem is that I can't, and, indeed, I do not believe that the Islamic world as a whole can be civilised by any means, at least not in the short term.

The problem with the Neo-Cons is not, I think, that they wanted to civilise people, but that they believed that the Islamic world could be civilised, and could be civilised purely by means of democracy. Of course it can't: to civilise the Islamic world would require a wholesale cultural revolution, which it would probably be impossible to impose from outside the Islamic world.

P.S. You are right that I don't comment on here very often: I keep meaning to do so more regularly. I do read all comments that are left here, though, and they are much appreciated.

Anonymous said...

pdate on this story at

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/10/19/martin-amis-neither-a-racist-nor-an-islamophobe-it-says-here.html

Ultraviolents said...

Firstly to 'anonymous' above who has linked to an artcile entitled "Martin Amis neither Islamophobe nor Racist", I would have to agree, Amis is none of those things. He much worse.

FR, I'm basically in agreement with you. It was Amis's use of the word "evolved", if I may re-emphasise that.

"The problem with the Neo-Cons is not, I think, that they wanted to civilise people, but that they believed that the Islamic world could be civilised [you contradicted yourself], and could be civilised purely by means of democracy. Of course it can't: to civilise the Islamic world would require a wholesale cultural revolution, which it would probably be impossible to impose from outside the Islamic world."

Alas, they still believe all this. Condoleeza Rice once stated (on a visit to Baghdad) that "America had a tough road to democracy as well". They think they're manipulating Socio-Historical forces, the laws of history. Like Bolsheviks.

That Islam shouldn't be here in the West in the first place is beside the point, what Amis suggested (which went beyond statement of fact) was pure progressivism, but with physical force, seeing as though 'evolution' is an entirely secular and materialist idea and warrants force - but in this case being prescribed for an idealist religious movement.

Therein lies the explanation for America's efforts to physically build the aparatus of democracy in the country that fundamentally doesn't want them.

How could it be possible though? How could 'progressivism' possibly have become the Iraq War? How could it have become.. Fascist? And fascist it is, seeing as though fascists worship strength, discipline, in a world where might and force make right. (Evolution you might say..)

And on a final point, Abu Ghraib was the truth about the Iraq War. Not because all American Soldiers are casually commiting atrocities, but why they are doing what they're doing.

Put it this way, it's a shame the Americans are not as homophobic as they once were because Abu Ghraib would never have happened.

Also, Lyndie England came from a broken home. Now in Freudo-Marxism, isn't it familial pressures that make people go fascist? Which partly explains Marxists oppostion to the nuclear family?

The way a country tortures reflects their highest ideals.

With the Arabs it's strong arm brutality, the Arabs value physical strength - they're not particularly sadistic..

The Nazis valued hygeine and efficiency. One of the things they used was dislocate shoulder joints - lots of pain with no blood. Very efficient.

The Americans value rock and roll spontaneity and sexual liberation. They singled out those Arab men for torture because:

a. Arab men are famously homophobic.

b. The Americans are sexually liberated.

"Make Love Not War" you could say.

I'm sorry to really lather my point, but I really think that's the truth of the Iraq War. It was a Rock 'n' Roll, Multiculturalist, Humanist war.

And millions of people are still thinking it was something else.. You know, they call Bush "Bushitler". How very post-modern.

Thanks for reading, I love your blog by the way.

The Gunslinger said...

Dude, how about you stop talking about us "Americans" and what we "value" like we're some sort of mindless monolith?

I am a libertarian neo-con. And I agree that "culture" has to come before democracy.

But, you see, we've already accomplished what you're suggesting can't be done.

We did it in Japan. (Also...the Philippines...even Germany and Italy, considering where they'd gone...)

We're good at it.

It may not work with the Moslems (we've never tried it on savages before) but attempting it was not foolish given our track record.

Of course, it took years, and a true American Occupation, which our anti-American Left won't tolerate today. Nothing could be worse for them than an America victorious and successful.

And can we please stop with the Abu Ghraib "torture" fantasy?

I think the gang at Abu Ghraib were stupid, unprofessional bullies. But, gosh, let's see...they humiliated a bunch of stone killer terrorists. My heart just friggin' bleeds.