Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


I was mildly surprised to see that I was getting hits from the Inthenews subreddit. Apparently a very nice reader posted a link to my recent post on how Islam in the West creates perverse incentives for the Establishment to double down on feminism and other progressive articles of faith, knowing that the native white population will back them as a convenient Schelling point against the tribal enemy, Islam. He says my post predicted exactly the sort of psycho who killed 84 people in Nice in July 15th, and I must say that I did.

Let's take a look at the murderer, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel. Apparently he drunk alcohol like a sponge, smoked pot, went to nightclubs, ate pork, and didn't give a shit about Ramadan. He was a classic low IQ hoodlum who was more than happy to enjoy the hedonism that French culture offers to all men. His close acquaintances called him a "piece of shit". And yeah, that's a piece of shit if I ever saw one. And I've seen a lot.

As tends to happen with low IQ hoodlums he did have some luck with the ladies, and was married. With three daughters. I expect having three daughters, no sons, didn't exactly please him. Having a wife also can't have been very fun, given his penchant for booze and nightclubs. So again, as tends to happen with low IQ hoodlums, he often beat his wife. He also couldn't hold a job, so his wife recently divorced him.

So now you have this low IQ hedonistic hoodlum who finds himself divorced by his wife, with three daughters, who will take a large part of whatever meager income he can make as a truck driver or whatever job a low IQ hoodlum is capable of doing. Which isn't a lot. If you're into having fun, and Mr. Lahouaiej (French spelling really is retarded) seems to be very much into having fun, seeing yourself in debt bondage for at least two decades to a family which you can't even enjoy; well that sucks. That sucks very much. So he went postal.

Is Islam to blame? Well, yeah. The guy did shout Allahu Akbar while running over and shooting 84 people in Nice. The equivalent low IQ hoodlum, were he a white Frenchmen, which does happen, would have probably just shot himself, in extreme cases maybe shoot his wife and then himself. Were he a Christian he most certainly wouldn't go kill innocent people shouting Christ is Great, or Richard Dawkins is my Hero, if he were an atheist.

But low IQ hoodlums who happen to be Muslim have a different way out. They can get to the mosque, meet some of their buddies, get an intensive jihad session by some 105 IQ Arab nerd, and suddenly realize that indeed his life sucks, that he's fucked for life, that it's all the fault of those damn infidels, and that Allah is merciful and provides him a way to die like a hero. Just get a weapon of some sort and kill a big bunch of people. Allahu Akbar.

So yeah, Islam is to blame. Islam is a necessary condition. Is it a sufficient condition, though? Certainly not. You need to be a low-life good for nothing kind of asshole to get yourself in that sort of situation in the first place. The trick is that, as it happens, Muslims tend to come from low IQ, high-impulsiveness populations who are way more likely than native Europeans to become a low IQ hoodlum. And modern European culture produces huge amounts of low IQ hoodlums. It provides them easy sex, cheap booze, drugs of all sorts, and an individualistic and hedonistic culture that pretty much dares you to not be a hedonistic fuck. Especially France, if I may say so.

So yes, it's complicated. But not that complicated. At any rate having Muslims around in our culture just makes it inevitable for these things to happen. And blaming Islam is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.


Leave a Reply
  • That's a key thing that I wish the "he wasn't really Muslim" crowd would get (vain hope I know). Thugs and former thugs gravitate to Islamic terrorism and always have, it's a quick way to get right with God without having to give up thuggery just redirect it to the right people.

    • Do you really think you can blame Islam for the entirety of this?

      Spandrell's "loser dude" narrative is a common story in Western culture -- an endpoint of feminism, modernism, hedonism, globalism and all the other isms I cannot recall at this time. But instead of hanging with his buds who would tell him, "I hear you, man, let me tell me what my old lady is doing to me!", he goes to his local mosque where some hot head tells him to feed his anger, cross over to the Dark Side, and run over a bunch of people with his truck. Were he Christian, we would be encouraged to join his church "singles support group" without being given the same direction as to where to channel his frustration?

      Were you to purge France (or the U.S.) of Muslims or at least close down their places of worship, you would still have this type of loser dude? Once people have seen how this is done, it would be some other political/cultural/religious group taking a guy like this under their wing and turning him into a terror weapon?

      Or is the argument that loser dudes are as much a part of the landscape as trucks and civilian aircraft and handheld weapons and Radical Islam is "weaponizing" loser dudes in the way that it has weaponized those mentioned objects?

      Is there any way to cut down on the number of loser dudes? Consider, say, the CIA, and they have some guy working for them sliding into loser-dude territory. Let's say the guy has a secret gambling addiction and in enough financial trouble that he is ripe for the Other Side to give him a bunch of money to betray his trusts and secrets.

      I guess the blame for the CIA loser dude in my hypothetical-not-that-far-from-actual-cases rests, say, with the KGB offering the guy money to betray the CIA, but like in that Geico Insurance commercial, "that's what KGB agents do." Or the blame is squarely on the loser dude by getting a well-paying government job with health insurance and retirement and he can't control his impulses not to slip down the slippery slope?

      But what if the CIA would fire him on the spot if they learned of this gambling addiction, where if they had an "open door" policy, the CIA could get the guy financial and addiction counseling and turn his life around before the Russians got to him? Isn't the CIA contributing to this situation by running a zero-defects zero-tolerance workplace, where their agents are just ripe for the picking by The Other Side if they slip, just a little?

      The FAA has this thing that if a pilot has an "incident", that pilot can report this to the FAA, confess to the FAA if you will what they had done wrong, and there is some kind of promise that this is treated as "safety analysis" without lowering an enforcement boom.

      Do you think they could have billboards that say (in French, but we may get to needing them in the U.S.), "Life let you down? Old Lady about to take you to the cleaners? At your wit's end? Contemplating an act of jihad to redeem yourself? Come talk to us, and we can help!"

      • "Were he Christian, would he be encouraged to join his church “singles support group” without being given the same direction as to where to channel his frustration?"

        Low-status males exist everywhere, what matters is how many and how they are dealt with. Therapeutic responses still have to compete against alternatives, too. In your example, going to therapy isn't going to eliminate your gambling debts, but that KGB payoff sure will.

        • Heck, you telling me that the CIA cannot pay off their own employee gambling debts before sending them to the shrink when the Russians were lining up to help a person service their gambling debt?

          Yeah, yeah, moral hazard and if the CIA paid money to every employee with a spot of financial difficulty then the CIA would become a conduit for big payouts to loser dudes with the excuse that they would get money from the Russians. I understand where that road leads.

          But part of the rationale behind the "social safety net" is that yes, you are paying out money to society's losers, but rather that than to have them desperate enough to cut your throat? C'mon, admit it, there is a "better pay them off than having them rob you" motivation to supporting welfare payments, not everyone who supports such government programs does so out of "moral" reasons or liberal guilt. Unfortunately and in real life, welfare is paid out and you get robbed anyway, but the belief is that it could be a whole lot worse in its absence.

          I mean, does feminism have to grind men into the dust to the point that they are open to jihad? To the feminists this guy was, well, a guy along with all that entails, and to the Alt-Right, this guy is a "thug" or "low IQ hoodlum" or "low-status" male? So we abandon our brothers on the left-side of the Bell Curve to whatever the feminists want to dole out to them? And then wring our hands when they fall into the arms of those promising them redemption in Islamic martyrdom? We can't offer them a thing let alone worry about them, so they cross over to people who use them as weapons against us?

          • We do not abandon our Brothers on the left side of the Bell curve, but a Muslim from Tunsia is not my brother. He might be yours, but only if you are an Arab.

            Oh, and we can and will have to worry about them Muslims. That does not necessarily imply that we care about them. It just means that we will be forced to recognise and eventually address a Problem.

            • And so the spiral of balkanization begins, and what is primarily an illness rooted in sexual strategy metastasizes into a plague involving race, religion, ideology and a million other extraneous afflictions.

              Make no mistake, all of this is based on the unnatural sexual strategies of the modern west. If patriarchal societies of classical Western Civilization had remained in place, there would be no cracks in the wall for feminism and the other "isms" to establish a foothold.

              When men relinquish control of civilization, it crumbles. This is because it was men who built civilization, men who run civilization, and men who defend civilization. Civilization cannot function in any other mode.

              The irrelevant pursuit of auxiliary concerns, such as racial composition and flavor of religion are testament to the fact that men, even those learned ones who gather here, do not understand the problem.

              It is simple: females cannot participate in roles outside of a narrow feminine scope, else civilization fails due to their inherent irrationality. The more we avoid and dance around this central cause, the further we spread confusion and lose hope of correcting the ship before its inevitable crash.

              • I agree that if patriarchal societies of classical Western Civilization had remained in place, there would be no cracks in the wall for feminism and the other “isms” to establish a foothold. Progressivism is our primary problem. Mass immigration wouldn't happen in Europe if it were not for progressive rule. Yes, as you said, civilization cannot function in any other mode but the patriarchal.

                However, racial composition and flavour of religion are releveant. Racial composition is because men are not created equal. Genes matter. Also any man will care more for his sons than for a stranger, will care more for his nephews, even distant nephews, that for a stranger. If you are part of a people and a race how can you not love them? Or said differently, how can you advocate a patriarchal society without giving a damn about the children and grandchaildren of the patriarch. Family matters a lot in a patriarchal society. Race is simply your extended familiy.

                Flavour of religion matters even by your own word. Patriarchal societies are the result of a specific religious flavour. Feminism is a different religious flavour.

      • @Inquiring Mind Mate, there is no radical Islam. There is no moderate Islam. There is only Islam.

        • Well in terms of potential to go postal and pull an Allahu Akbar, past moderation indeed doesn't matter much. So it's not a very useful distinction.

          • You are making a point from a practical point of view and it is valid. What I am trying to say that even in theoretical doctrinal matters, there is only Islam. There is no radical or moderate interpretation for the sword verse which exhorts the faithful to murder kaffirs. The verse is unambiguous. Interpreting is differently is very much like Bill Clinton splitting hairs on the definition of "is". It is much like Humanities professors who change the meanings of words and garble up the language making it impossible to communicate.

              • Hahahahahaha! Spandrell, Now this is some fantastic DeadPan humor. Very Russian. Hahahaha! You can't possibly be of Anglo-Descent.

                You were joking .......... Right?


              • I feel the same way about Pilate asking Jesus "What is truth?" He got no answer, unless that is the answer.

    • "Thugs and former thugs gravitate to Islamic terrorism and always have, it’s a quick way to get right with God without having to give up thuggery just redirect it to the right people."

      This is obvious, low IQ thugs are atractted to Islam because justify their thuggery and criminal behavior, they're making war on the infidel by stealing, making vandalism and especially killing.

  • As someone who lived with peninsular Arabs for a few months, the stereotypes are true. They are literally wife-beating paedophile terrorists. Even if they're too cowardly to commit a terrorist act themselves, know that almost all of them support it: as anybody with any grasp of the obvious will realise, polls on attitudes towards criminal acts will tend to have a strong response bias towards pretending they're not in favour.

    I assume knuckledraggers from North Africa are similar, but I'm guessing.

    Mudslimes are too stupid to realise that this chimping out will provoke a backlash from the most powerful civilisation on Earth, that they could otherwise conquer had they the patience and intellect to just wait while they pump out a few more dolebabies and lube up the spiritually disaffected Whites. I speak not of the truck-driving druggies, but their haji handlers. The slightly-less-stupid in the Muslim ranks should be violently policing the radicals to keep the ship on course and assure the Western bydlo that there's nothing to see here move along now. I think the only political force capable of doing this, though, is Turkey: and look where they're headed.

    Good thing for us, hey.

      • That they are for now, but I'm still going with the "Singapore solution" of civic nationalism and strictly policed multiculturalism as the most likely outcome in the West. Backlash, no: but after the last case of #NotAllMuslims, the anger is palpable. Won't be long before we have another, and another...

  • In relation to the wastrel-turned-jihadi thing, there's a crucial fact about Islam that factors into this in a very important way. With Christianity and many other religions, there's some kind of formula of living, or some ritual, that can guarantee you salvation, IOW God or whoever, PROMISES that if you do x and y you'll get to heaven.

    With Islam, it's quite different. The "pious Muslim" is not guaranteed heaven, it's totally up to the whim of Allah, and Allah makes no promises. There's a dialogue in the Hadith where even Mohammed himself admits that he doesn't know for sure whether Allah will be merciful and let him in.

    But there is one, single, solitary exception to this: Allah promises that the Muslim who dies in the course of jihad IS guaranteed entry to heaven.

    This is bound to be a big draw for someone who's had a religious epiphany and feels like they've wasted their life and wants to atone.

  • "Especially France"? If any nation is to blame for turning Europe's youths into uncultured, illiterate savages, it's our lovely American cousins with their trash TV, puritanical Monotheism, and hyper masculinity.

  • 8 pingbacks