Mohammed Abed, a California State University, Los Angeles, professor of ethics, social and political philosophy, and classical Islamic philosophy, has genocide on the mind.
Abed teaches that genocide is not bad, and in fact a moral obligation, if waged against white people or any other future race as horrible as white people are today.
Abed reasons, it’s sometimes “morally required” to commit genocide, and he hasn’t been shy about advancing that argument in a series of lectures and essays that have somehow managed to stay under the radar of the media (especially the right-leaning media) over the past few years.
Abed lays out his central thesis in the paper’s abstract: “Genocide is not in any sense distinctively heinous. Nor is it necessarily immoral.”
Of course, any such objections by fellow academics were almost certainly silenced once Abed named the skin color of the targets of his “moral genocide”: Whites.
Abed is one of many academics working to further the regressive liberal progression of society. Part of that agenda is enforcing the removal of free speech from schools, and colleges. The other half is creating an academic culture and sufficient research to support the idea that genocide is moral. That depopulation is justified. And that minorities need to get on board if they ever want to throw off the psychological shackling’s of victimhood.
Here is more from Abed’s revolting liberal propaganda disguised as an academic paper,
One can certainly concoct a hypothetical scenario in which the deliberate annihilation of a group’s way of life is a “moral and political imperative.” And there may be a case for classifying as genocide campaigns of social destruction that are widely considered to be not only excusable but morally required. The institution of slavery in the American South was, arguably, a comprehensive way of life and worldview to which many whites were profoundly attached. It would not be wildly implausible to say that their investment in the culture and norms of the slave-owning community rivaled in its social meaning and significance an individual’s affiliation with a national or religious group. But because the kidnapping, enslavement, and lifelong exploitation of innocent human beings was a constitutive and thus ineliminable feature of the life led by many Southern whites, annihilating their way of life was a moral imperative. The right course of action was to strip them of an identity that gave meaning to their lives.
What about Abed’s religious affliction? He is a Muslim. Why doesn’t he write a paper on how the verse of the sword and Islam is causing a genocide to unfold today? And just to be clear, we are all aware that what Abed is teaching is lifted from the Qur’an, hypocrisy and all,
Abed makes a stupid circular argument. Okay, it’s morally justified to kill off a group shown to be murderous or negatively impact society. But, where does that cycle ever end? And how about we start with the Muslims? But, that’s considered to be a big NO-NO. I guarantee you 99% of students at a liberal university would label my previous statement morally wrong hate speech IF called on in class.
Can you imagine a professor writing a paper arguing it was morally justifiable to kill off every last Muslim and trace of the Qur’an from the planet? He might literally be lynched. At the very least he would loss his job and all hope of future academic employment.
Abed even gloats in his thesis and other lectures that white people are dying out and Europe soon to be a predominately Muslim country.
Interestingly and to no one’s shock, when Mohammad Abed was confronted about the Europeans facing extinction or at least an annihilation of their way of life after millions of Muslim migrants have flooded their countries, Abed argues that Muslims intend to adopt the customs of their host country rather than alter them. 1400 years of Islamic destruction is evidence to the contrary, but when have facts ever mattered to Islamic supremacists?
Someone better tell Linda Sarsour that Muslims are planning on assimilating… I don’t think she has ever received that memo. She seems to be laboring under the primitive jihadist delusion that Christians are attacking Muslims way of life and retaliation the only answer.
Abed is not saying genocide is morally justified. He is saying genocide is morally justified ONLY if it is against whites. And again just to be clear, academia in America is now officially preaching radical Islamic jihadist ideologies. America has been swiftly taken over, without more outcry.
Now you can never give blanket rationales as to why certain demographics choose to embrace certain ideologies. However, it is my personal opinion that many young people accept what is being taught because they see no other option. We are now the voiceless segment of society. I had professors who practically hated the U.S., and unable to let a class go by without bringing up the superiority of Islam or inviting me to Yemen. This all could happen because as we all know, Muslims are a protected commodity in this country, and above the laws of any instruction’s or government. What are you going to do about it? You want good grades, a career, good standing, you gotta play the games. And after awhile I think the patterns of thinking that may have once been adopted out of necessity become normal and unquestionably accepted. It numbs you. What else can you do? A lot! But, many people often don’t feel empowered or see the way to a path less traveled, to sound cliché. And consequently why these ideologies are so readily accepted at a higher education level.
Source: Gateway Pundit