Showing posts with label islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label islam. Show all posts

Thursday, December 27, 2018



Descent into Hell: Identity Politics as the Gateway to Islamic Theocracy


The Left has conveniently forgotten the incident: they knew exactly what Zahalka meant by that. Genuine ideological racism transformed long ago into their worldview and their prerogative, concurrently.
Democratic ideals, social justice and tolerance don’t rule the world anymore. A new ideology – a successor of the failed totalitarian ideologies of the past century — governs the soul of the West, and it’s called Identity Politics.
The product of a vicious love of Red and Brown dogmas, it is pseudo-scientific, and is dividing people into racial-class categories with a rigid hierarchy. White Christians and Jews — exploiters a priori, the embodiment of financial manipulation and conspiracy – are at the lower level of the social pyramid. The second level of this hierarchy is occupied by people with various pathologies (homosexuals, transgenders, disabled) and women, who by default belong to the oppressed class. They resemble the gigantic peasant masses in the writings of Marxists: deprived, but hardly aware of their own unhappiness due to the absence of “class consciousness.” “Proletarian masses” represented by the Third World (from Venezuela to Bangladesh) and suppressed by white imperialism are positioned in the third level.
The top of the social pyramid is occupied by the vanguard of the “global progressive forces” (such as the Communist party or National Socialist German Workers’ party) – embodied by Black American organizations, Palestinians and various Islamic groups.
A human being, as a thinker who is responsible for his own destiny and the fate of others, has no place in this scheme. Instead, there are faceless groups of “beneficial insects” and “harmful insects” (a precise copy of Marxist theory). The former deserve all the support; the latter should be expelled and persecuted in every possible way. Like sheep, a man is born with a stigma which determines his fate.
A Black transgender Muslim will a priori have a more privileged position than a white man, regardless of intelligence and moral qualities. As in Bolshevik Russia, the weaver was a priori better than a former nobleman, and in Nazi Germany, the Aryan criminal was above the “subhuman” — a Jew or Slav.
It is assumed that each group of “insects” must sacrifice itself in the name of universal progress. White heterosexual men should make space for socially oppressed groups: women and the LGBT community, who, in turn, ought to sacrifice themselves in the name of the “World Proletariat,” whereas the “Proletarian Masses” must put themselves on the altar for the benefit of the Labor aristocracy and “Progressive Vanguard.”
Linda Sarsour’s message about the “brave Black Muslim American woman” (Ilhan Omar) – a victim of “people with “dual loyalty” — has a hypnotic effect on the progressive public, and she is well aware of it. In the reflection of Houston Chamberlain’s racial theory, “people with dual loyalty” (“termites” in Farrakhan’s definition) don’t stand a chance…
The following examples will demonstrate how this ideology elucidates modern countless paradoxes of “liberal democracy”:
–    The Dead White European Males (DWEM) term in American campuses;

–    PinkNews’ headline that “US Muslims are more accepting of homosexuality than White evangelicals”;

–    Bullying all who disagree with the superiority of marginal groups over heterosexuals (after he dared to support heterosexual families, a cofounder of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, had to step down);

–    The physical destruction of “politically incorrect” books, including children’s literature. In 2007, for instance, the municipal library of Botkyrka (a suburb of Stockholm) burned the entire edition of “Pippi in the South Seas,” written by Astrid Lindgren in 1948, because of “racist” expressions;

–    The total onslaught against the origins of Western civilization and its history. For instance: a publication such as “Mummies, Cannibals and Vampires” by Richard Sugg claims that 18th century British nobility practiced cannibalism;
Ralph Ellis’ research tries to prove that King Solomon was an Egyptian Pharaoh (“Solomon, Pharaoh of Egypt”); and Jesus was the fourth king of Manu, ruler of Edessa in Mesopotamia (“Jesus, King of Edessa”).
Or a “discovery” by Annika Larsson from Uppsala University that the word “Allah” was embroidered on Vikings’ funeral clothes (compared to all this the Soviet agitprop is a kids’ game).
Alan Ereira and Terry Jones (in “Barbarians against Rome”) claim that the Romans were bloodthirsty and evil savages, whereas the ancient Germans and Celts were peaceful, highly civilized communities.
In “Battlefield-1” — a Swedish computer game based on World War I motifs — British, American and even German soldiers appear as black.
USA Today columnist Brian Truitt criticized a lack of diversity in “Dunkirk” — a movie about the British Expeditionary Force in World War II. Could it be that Bernard Montgomery, Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton were black transgender lesbians? Why not?
–    The statement of Prince Charles that gangs of pirates were “fantastic” for aquatic life because the fishermen were too scared to fish in coastal Somalia waters.
Only by understanding the nature of modern synthesis of Marxist and racial ideologies one can explain the inexplicable. The self-forgetful vilification of Israel and complete disregard of the scourge of the Palestinians in the refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon.
Total indifference to the fate of Ukrainians in war zones and moving concern for migrants from peaceful areas of Africa and Asia.
The willingness to accept ISIS militants and the apathy to the fate of their victims: Christians and Yezidis.
Compassion for jihadists in Guantanamo and mobsters from “Black Life Matters,” while cynically ignoring the genocides in Sudan and Rwanda.
The accusation of the “white man” for all mortal sins and the refusal to recognize poorly disguised slavery in the Muslim world.
The denial of Islamic terror side by side the hysterics about marginal “White Terror.”
Feminists’ violent attacks on Sir Tim Hunt, the Nobel prizewinner, because of his joke about girls in science labs, while the same feminists defended rapists from Afghanistan, Somalia and Morocco.
Drexel University (Philadelphia) associate professor of politics and global studies George Ciccariello-Maher’s wishes of “White Genocide for Christmas” and expressions of delight for the 9/11 terror attacks from famous intellectuals.
Adoration for all kinds of dictators of the Third World on the one hand, and contempt for the white descendants of the Boers, hunted by the South Africa’s regime on the other.
The adamant reluctance to release the names of Muslim gang rapists and a comparison of Viktor Orban to Hitler.
Claims on CNN that “Islam has always been a part of the American fabric” and “America has always had heroes who were Muslims.” The new heroes are Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (professional basketball player), left activist Malcolm X and the leader of notorious Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan. Surprised? Not at all. Farrakhan is the personification of a “progressive man of a new type”: he is a Black Islamist, a personal enemy of Jews and whites. If you disagree, than you don’t fully understand theories of race and class.
Only by understanding the pyramid’s structure of the modern totalitarian ideology, the game of leapfrog of absurd facts acquires its own clear logic.
–    Hounding Marine Le Pen for Twitter photos of ISIS’ atrocities and pogroms at the University of Berkeley in “Stormtroopers” style following Trump’s victory.
–    An assignment from a University of Iowa professor to describe the 9/11 terrorist attacks from the perspective of Al-Qaeda, and a UK textbook asking children to ask questions of terrorists.
–    A demand by students from a prestigious London University to eradicate Plato, Descartes and Immanuel Kant from the curriculum because they are white, and the replacing of Shakespeare’s portrait with the portrait of Audre Lorde, “black, lesbian, mother, warrior, poet,” at the University of Pennsylvania.
–    Havens for all but “Straight white students” on campuses and allegations (by FBI leaders as well) that “white nationalism” is a greater threat to the US than ISIS.
–    A letter from the French Professor Christian de Moliner in November 2017 asking Macron to create a Muslim state within France, Ken Livingstone’s sympathy for Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and Jeremy Corbyn’s empathy for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hizballah.
One will understand the Swedish feminists who wear burkas in Iran and the French court decision to remove the cross from the monument of Pope John Paul II, as well as the training of new migrants to be snipers in Sweden, and the efforts of British leftist groups to disrupt a demonstration against Muslim gangs of rapists.
The deportation from Sweden of Iranian actress and ex-Muslim Aideen Strandsson, who converted to Christianity (the explanation was “It’s not our problem if you decided to become a Christian”; she got asylum in Hungary, thanks to Orban) and the refusal of the British Home Office to give asylum to a 34-year-old Nigerian, Nneka Obazee, a lesbian, and her stepson.

Social benefits to ISIS militants by Great Britain, Sweden and France, and the allowing of Pakistani homophobic preacher Hamza Sodagar to enter Britain. He infamously claimed the following: “There are five punishments for homosexual men.
First, probably the easiest one, is to behead them.
The second, is to burn them to death.
Third, to throw them off a cliff.
Fourth, crash them to death with bricks.
And finally, a combination of all of the above, is the fifth.”
(Muslims are more accepting of homosexuality than White evangelicals, isn’t it? But let’s remember: each class must consciously sacrifice itself for the sake of the more progressive ones).
The comparing of Trump with ISIS (obviously not in Trump’s favor) by GQ columnist Julia Ioffe on CNN, and the words of Arizona Democrat Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema, that she doesn’t care if Americans enlist the Taliban and fight for it in Afghanistan.
A German police commissioner blaming girls who are victims for being raped by migrants, and the refusal of a left-wing German activist, 24-year-old  Selin Gören, to reveal the names of rapists, out of a fear of fueling racism against refugees.
The hosting and rewarding of a young Palestinian terrorist by Real Madrid, and the blocking of Facebook posts about retaliation for homosexuals by Muslims.
Mohamed Atta and Paris’ Bataclan jihad killer Ishmael Omar Mostfai as part of the exhibition in the “Martyr Museum” (along with Socrates and Martin Luther King) in Germany, and the celebration of the Ottoman conquest of the Hagia Sophia by the Florida Museum.
The assertion of the University of California that “only whites can be racist” and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ and Lord Chief Justice Phillips’ support of Sharia law in England.
A call by Georgetown Professor Jonathan Brown — an advocate of slavery in the Muslim world — that “Muslims in America should stand with Black Lives Matter” and the dropping of rape charges for migrant rapists and pedophiles. “Muslim Brothers” such as Obama’s and Macron’s entourage and a campaign of state-owned company Lernia to replace the “standard Swedish language” with a migrant-inclusive accent.
All of this can only be understandable if one knows the concepts of class struggle and scientific racism theory.
Nazism and Marxism of the 20th century cast mankind into hell. In the 21st century, their offspring welcomed a new Golem: Islam.[ideology] In my opinion, the followers of this new ideology are yearning for the triumph of a global caliphate, consciously and subconsciously. Subconsciously, because they need a doctrine robust enough to keep their superficial and feeble souls from self-destruction in a complex and incomprehensible world. Consciously, because due to public relations and apologetic abilities, only Islam, as a universal world system, will ensure their existence — albeit the miserable existence of the “capo,” but still an existence. Nobody needs them anymore.
A Red-Brown mutant inevitably becomes green in our eyes.
Alexander Maistrovoy is the author of “Agony of Hercules or a Farewell to Democracy (Notes of a Stranger),” available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

https://www.amazon.com/Agony-Hercules-Farewell-Democracy-Stranger/dp/151444402X/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pl_foot_top?ie=UTF8
---------------------------

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Repeativiy of Left Debate.

We are the United States of America bound by the ideals of liberty and justice for all - the fractal rightness of the American dream

The Fractal Wrongness of Leftist Ideology




http://canadafreepress.com/article/the-fractal-wrongness-of-leftist-ideology

What is fractal wrongness? Let’s begin with a fractal. A fractal is a geometric pattern that repeats itself at every level of magnification. Mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot introduced fractal geometry in 1975 and defined a fractal as “a geometric shape that can be separated into parts, each of which is a reduced-scale version of the whole.” This means that a fractal is a self-similar never-ending pattern that repeats itself at different scales.
The famous Menger sponge is a fractal in math. Fractals in nature are trees, rivers, lightning bolts, and crystals. Russian nesting dolls are fractals. In computer science fractals are images that are the same at any level of scale which means that it is impossible to determine how much the image is zoomed by simply looking at it.Leftism, like any orthodoxy, has embraced its tenets with religious zealotry and a tyrannical demand for conformity that ignores obvious contradictions in its own narrative. Leftists, who pride themselves on being tolerant, are hypocritically intolerant of anyone who embraces a world view that differs from their own. Leftist faux tolerance only tolerates those who look different - it does not tolerate those who think differently. This presents a philosophical inconsistency that Leftism solves with Leftist Newspeak, the official language of the Left.

[A comment bought up mathmatics not so applicable. 
Not so sure this should be mathmetized.Then again Snow flakes all have geometric mathmatical designs.
Does bring up other good points.]
Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution - the person’s entire worldview is wrong. The political Left has decided that anyone who disagrees with their platform of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism is fractally wrong. Fractal wrongness explains why the Left views the entire worldview of conservatives as wrong, deplorable, and contemptible.
Newspeak is the language of George Orwell’s dystopian city Oceania described in his classic novel 1984. Newspeak is the language of official propaganda in Oceania that was created to replace Oldspeak - standard English. Newspeak replaces the meaning of a familiar word with its unfamiliar opposite. The key to translating Newspeak is thinking in opposites.
Leftist Newspeak is the language of opposites that imitates taqiyyah - deliberately lying or obfuscating to further Islam. The Islamic world understands the word peace to mean when all the world is Islamic. The Western world understands the word peace to mean pluralism, tolerance, and the absence of conflict. Leftist Newspeak interprets peace as manifest when all the Western world embraces Leftism. Taqiyyah and Leftist Newspeak share an intentional replacement of one set of meanings for another. Leftist Newspeak is the language of contronyms.
A contronym is a word with two opposite meanings. The word sanction is a contronym that can mean to ratify or its opposite to penalize. The word oversight can mean to supervise or its opposite to overlook. Speaking the ambiguous language of opposites can be very misleasding politically because words matter.
Barack Obama deliberately transformed standard English from Oldspeak to Newspeak
Barack Obama deliberately transformed standard English from Oldspeak to Newspeak and made Leftist Newspeak the official language in America during his eight year anti-American, pro-Muslim, pro-socialist tenure. The years of Obama’s administration were the years of language ambiguity. Americans are still bewildered by the use of language that no longer means what it used to mean. Leftist “tolerance” means intolerance because it does not tolerate differing ideas. Leftist “free speech” means hate speech because it does not tolerate opposition speech.
The confusion, divisiveness, and chaos created by ambiguous Leftist Newspeak is itself a fractal.
Let’s review. Fractals are self-similar complex patterns that are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Self-similarity is the essence of fractals and the foundation of Ben Rhodes’ infamous echo chamber used to market Obama’s anti-American pro-Muslim Iran deal. The mainstream media deliberately advanced Obama’s deceitful deal in a never-ending pattern that repeated itself on television, radio and the Internet in an ongoing feedback loop. Obama’s Leftist echo chamber is a fractal in politics.
The divisiveness and bifurcation of America along political lines has been advocated by Obama’s fractal socialist politics and the insistence that any opposition to his Leftist narrative is fractally wrong. The irony, of course, is that acceptance of the Leftist narrative requires acceptance of the presuppositions of Leftist Newspeak - the language of opposites. This is how it works.
Obama’s campaign promise for hope and change was not spoken in the familiar language of Oldspeak understood to mean the American dream. Obama was speaking Leftist Newspeak - the language of opposites. Obama’s hope and change was Newspeak for the radical socialism codified in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Obama’s Leftist intention to destroy the capitalist infrastructure of American democracy and replace it with socialism requires acceptance of the Leftist assumption that the current capitalist infrastructure of the Constitution/democracy needs to be replaced.
If conservatives allow the Left to continue to frame the debate then conservatives are always playing defense
If conservatives allow the Left to continue to frame the debate then conservatives are always playing defense because they have been snared by Alinsky’s Rule #12: pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. President Donald Trump is the chosen target that Obama’s ongoing Resistance movement has taken collective action to mobilize against. Further, conservatives cannot allow Obama’s minions to frame the debate because the Leftist assumptions are fractally wrong.

Our Founding Fathers demanded the separation of Church and State to prevent religious discrimination. The Founding Fathers defined Church and State as distinctly separate entities. It was inconceivable in 1776 that a political ideology could ever or would ever be embraced as a religion.
Leftist socialism has rejected the authority of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and substituted its own political ideology as the new religion and source of authority for millennials in America.
Once Leftism was embraced as a religious ideology there was no longer any requirement for facts or objective reality because religion is faith based and not discredited by factual inconsistencies, glaring ambiguities, or the absence of verifiable proof. Leftism had freed itself from the confines of rational scrutiny and could unapologetically proselytize its tenets of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism.
Leftism is a religion disguised as a socio-political movement. Islam is a socio-political movement disguised as a religion. Both are tyrannical totalitarian movements demanding cultish conformity to their tenets. Both are using the language of contronyms to solidify their base and confuse the opposition. Both are determined to destroy America from within and take control of the country.
Leftism and Islamism are both supremacist ideologies that will necessarily battle each other for control
The pluralism envisioned by our Founding Fathers embraced differing thoughts, ideas, and behaviors within the legal confines and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. American pluralism did not embrace the fractal wrongness of Leftist socialism, Islamic supremacism, or any other competing ideology designed to destroy America from within.
Leftist Newspeak and Islamic taqiyyah are political attempts to disguise the seditious Leftist/Islamist goal of overthrowing Constitutionally elected President Donald Trump. President Trump is very aware of both deceitful languages and intentionally uses his Twitter account to bypass the mainstream media and speak directly to America in the clarity of Oldspeak. President Trump is the target of vicious personal attacks for using Twitter because the frantic Leftist mainstream media is no longer able to control the political narrative using its preferred Leftist Newspeak.
Even if the combined efforts and attacks of the Leftist/Islamist axis succeed, Leftism and Islamism are both supremacist ideologies that will necessarily battle each other for control. So, here are the choices facing America today. Do Americans want to live as slaves in a secular Orwellian society ruled by the Leftist political elite? Do Americans want to live in a religious Islamic theocracy ruled by imams and Islamic supremacist sharia law? Do Americans want to preserve and protect their individual freedoms and liberty guaranteed by the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in our Constitution? 
America rejected the fractal wrongness of supremacist ideologies 241 years ago. We are the United States of America bound by the ideals of liberty and justice for all - the fractal rightness of the American dream. We must recommit ourselves to the ideology of one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We must reject the languages of contronyms and recommit ourselves to Oldspeak so that we can understand each other and openly debate any and all ideas freely and without fear of reprisal particularly on college campuses. Let us remember our roots and remain the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Linda Goudsmit -- Bio and Archives | 1 Comments
Linda Goudsmit (Goudsmit.pundicity.com),  is a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother. She and her husband, Rob owned and operated a girls clothing store in Michigan for 40 years and are now retired on the beach in sunny Florida. Linda graduated from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, earning a B.A. in English literature. Having a lifelong commitment to learning, she is an avid reader and observer of life. She has shared her thoughts, observations, and philosophy of behavior in her book DEAR AMERICA Who’s Driving the Bus? Linda is currently working on a children’s book series titled Mimi’s STRATEGY that offers helpful problem solving techniques encouraging resourcefulness and critical thinking skills for kids.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Cologne and few prosecutions?

So the police and prosecutors for whatever reason just close the case.
Die Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg stellte die Ermittlungen ein, schrieb dem Opfer: „Es ist durchaus denkbar, dass der junge Mann Ihnen auf diese Weise sein Interesse an Ihnen mitteilen wollte.”
The Oldenburg prosecutor discontinued the investigation, wrote the victim: “It is quite possible that the young man wanted to be notified in this way be interested in you.” 
http://www.bild.de/regional/bremen/sexueller-missbrauch/staatsanwalt-verhoehnt-grabsch-opfer-49300650.bild.html
One may have to use google translate.
And another reason why these crimes are not investigated, by the head of police.
Holger Munch, president of Germany’s Federal Police, said: “There is a connection between the emergence of this phenomenon and the rapid migration in 2015.”
He added many of those responsible for the sex attacks would probably escape justice because of limited CCTV footage and the fact many were masked.
He said: “We have to presume that many of these crimes will never be fully investigated.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/688767/German-police-revise-up-number-of-victims-of-Cologne-migrant-sex-attacks
The prosecutor Ulrich Bremer says you are wrong
Cologne’s public prosecutor Ulrich Bremer said only three of the suspects had recently arrived in Germany. The rest were of Algerian, Tunisian or Moroccan origin, while three were German citizens. According to the report, he also said that of 1,054 complaints received 600 were connected to theft rather than a sexual offence.
However, Bremen denied the reports the following day as “total nonsense,” telling Associated Press that “the overwhelming majority of persons fall into the general category of refugees.” According to AP, Bremer said 73 suspects have been identified so far that include 30 Moroccan nationals, 27 Algerians, four Iraqis, three Germans, three Syrians, three Tunisians, and one each from Libya, Iran, and Montenegro. A total of 1,075 criminal complaints have been filed, including 467 alleging crimes of a sexual nature ranging from harassment to rape. Twelve of the 73 suspects are linked to sexual crimes, though only one of those—a Moroccan asylum-seeker who entered Germany in November—is in custody, he said.
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/rape-was-a-problem-in-germany-long-before-the-refugees-arrived
Doubtlessly there is an example of a “native” German raping, but the sheer numbers are totally opposite in fact on the Cologne situation, besides the politicized police, and keeping things quiet.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Just one lone jihadi

"It's Just One Lone Jihadi. Perfectly Politically Correct Political Music. NOT! "
2 minutes 49 secs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXKHR1sC1qw
from Elsa's Emporium.

It is just one
You must not generalize it, you must not advertise it;
For the one who is islamphobic, a right wing lynch generator; it is all your fault.

Great for a laugh

Monday, November 16, 2015

Just flowers at a funeral, Paris

These tears, tweets and tributes will not stop the terrorists

Many of the gestures are well meaning. Grieving is necessary. Solidarity is important.
But can I respectfully point out the following:
Lighting up buildings in red, white and blue will not stop the terrorists.
Singing La Marseillaise will not stop the terrorists.
Tweeting #IStandWithParis will not stop the terrorists.
Tweeting the Eiffel Tower peace sign will not stop the terrorists.
Saying you condemn the killings will not stop the terrorists.
Showing you stand in solidarity with Paris will not stop the terrorists.
Saying you are ”shoulder to shoulder” with Paris will not stop the terrorists.
Saying we will not be cowed by terrorism will not stop the terrorists.
Saying the terrorism is an attack on all humanity will not stop the terrorists.
Tears, candles, hymns, vigils, prayers, speeches, condolence books, hashtags, poems, meetings - none of that will stop the terrorists.
A challenge to our leaders: tell us precisely what you plan to do that really will stop the terrorists.
Spare us tears and tributes. Spare us platitudes and sentiment.  Give us plans. Action.
Tell us about reforming Islam, controlling immigration, shutting down hate-preachers and destroying the Islamic State and al Qaeda.
The rest is just flowers at a funeral. It will not stop the next one

Saturday, September 26, 2015

The old approach to joint dialogue for RC

Quoted below are the three paragraphs (of sixteen total) which discuss Islam in Pope Benedict's lecture: Pope Benedict XVI said this on September 12, 2006 at the University of Regensburg in Germany: 
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (MĂĽnster) of part of the dialogue carried on — perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara — by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between — as they were called — three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point — itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole — which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that sura 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.[then abrogated] But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.[5]  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture

An interesting contrast of the 2 popes, Is it shutting the door on a dark history? or is now covering even the modern happenings.under the guise of modernizing.

Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, November 24, 2013:
In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.
From Pope Francis’ address to Congress, September 24, 2015:
Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism.
It would seem the cardinals that voted for the Argentinian cardinal to be Pope wanted these modern changes., as they would have well known the politics
          A 2013 report from The Telegraph shows that Cardinal Bergoglio took precisely the wrong stand with regard to Pope Benedict’s 2005 famous lecture at Regensburg that caused worlwide Islamic rage:
Reacting within days to [Pope Benedict’s lecture], speaking through a spokesman to Newsweek Argentina, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio declared his “unhappiness” with the statements, made at the University of Regensburg in Germany, and encouraged many of his subordinates with the Church to do the same.


“Pope Benedict’s statement don’t reflect my own opinions”, the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires declared. “These statements will serve to destroy in 20 seconds the careful construction of a relationship with Islam that Pope John Paul II built over the last twenty years”.

[Not only that, but at the time, the Papacy threatened Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) with punishment for his disobedience:]

The Vatican reacted quickly, removing one subordinate, Joaquín Piña the Archbishop of Puerto Iguazú from his post within four days of his making similar statements to the Argentine national media, sending a clear statement to Cardinal Bergoglio that he would be next should he choose to persist.

Reacting to the threats from Rome, Cardinal Bergoglio cancelled his plans to fly to Rome, choosing to boycott the second synod that Pope Benedict had called during his tenure as pontiff.

Monday, August 31, 2015

will truth out?; the trouble with truth

If you like your truth, you can keep it…
by MC

From City Journal:

Madison wrote in 1800 that it is to free speech and a free press, despite all their abuses, that “the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity, over error and oppression.” Only out of freewheeling discussion, the unbridled clash of opinion and assertion—including false, disagreeable, and unpopular opinions, Madison believed no less than Mill—can truth ultimately emerge.

Freedom has three fulcrums of rotation: good government, a free press, and reasonable literacy. If any one of those pivot points breaks down, then the apparatus of freedom begins to crumble.

In this day and age all three are under attack, but the free press node is now dysfunctional. The media are now bound and enslaved to a particular polemic and are incapable of self-correction. The cause lies in the innate polarity imparted by modern (socialist) education.

Most people under fifty have never experienced any meme which does not harp upon the tenets of the cultural Marxist religion. Thus to step out from under the red umbrella of fixed ideas into the hailstorm of free thought is just not a feasible option to most people; it is incomprehensible — and very threatening.

I am a racist. I am a racist because I judge people, not by skin colour, but by their actions, and by the extent to which I feel threatened or comfortable with them. Diversity is truly fascinating as long as my wellbeing is not threatened.

I embrace my racism because the cultural Marxists have made it a rite of their religious devotion, and I hate Marxism in all its forms. Otherwise racism would be of no consequence to me, or to anybody else. Little things please little minds. It is very important to cultural Marxists that they should be able to point a finger: to accuse; to condemn the infidel. Racism is a superb verbal hammer with which to beat people into ‘their’ shape. The Marxist definition of racism is multi-dimensional and many faceted, and very difficult to counter. It is easier for me to accept that by Marxist definition I — and just about everybody else with a white skin — am a racist. No matter what I do, will always be a racist.

The idea of racism is actually inconsequential. Before the Holocaust it had no real meaning in the English language. It is an idea that was first established by Nazi propaganda, but only in German. However, its translation into English lies to the credit (or otherwise) of the left, who adopted the fascist idea of ‘racism’ as a politico-religious bulldozer, harping always upon its links to Nazi atrocities whilst ignoring the gross racism of the leftist Holodomor and the purges of Jews in the “Doctors’ Plot”.

Racism is a natural human process, whereby one mixes freely in one’s own cultural group, but is wary in the company of strangers. It has nothing to do with skin colour, and everything to do with polite behaviour. The stranger in the community is obliged to behave politely in the community into which he/she enters voluntarily, especially if said person wishes to become part of that community.


Slaves, too, must eventually adapt, or, on obtaining freedom, return to a community to which they do not feel hostile. Feelings of hostility, whether justified or not, cannot be tolerated within the community without creating instability and resulting in the weakening and the eventual demise of the said community. But this is, of course, the desired outcome for adherents of the Marxist religions.

By submitting to the creed and diktats of racism, we render our community obsolete, and enter into a spiral of increasing submission to an irrelevant abstraction with religious overtones. A free press should be informing us of the subversive nature of the creed of racism. It should be constantly correcting the inconsistent uses of the charge of racism made by religious adherents of the religions of Marxism. An adequate education system would be isolating Marxism because of its historical brutality, instead of evangelizing its gospel of divisiveness and mayhem.

So too with the evils of Islam. It too has a history of mayhem and murder, of intolerance and bestiality, all neatly hidden behind a smile and a lie. A free press would expose the smile as an evil grin, and demonstrate the untruths to be a deceitful façade. But that never happens. And the education system polishes the image to render it beyond the questioning of the curious. Islam has two faces, the Mecca face of peace, and the Medina face of violence. Like the god Janus, the one face is as an innocuous gatekeeper, but unwittingly enter the gate, and it is the hell prison of Bifrons that one enters.

…in demonology Bifrons was a demon, Earl of Hell with six legions of demons (twenty-six for other authors) under his command. He teaches sciences and arts, the virtues of the gems and woods, herbs, and changes corpses from their original grave into other places, sometimes putting magick lights on the graves that seem candles. He appears as a monster, but then changes his shape into that of a man.

The origin of the name is, without any doubt, the Roman god Bifrons (Janus).”

JanusIslam is a snare, a trap for the unwary. Muslims are very quick to show the Mecca mask, the face of the “Religion of Peace” but that is koranically abrogated by its ugly Medina mug. The Medina face is the face of slavery, torture and death to apostates and unbelievers. Moderates are those who show the face of Mecca. The fanatics are more honest — they show the face of Medina, but they are both the faces of Janus, faces made to deceive, and deceit is at the very heart of Islam.

It is Medina that should be taught in schools, but no, it is the Mecca deceit that most people assimilate, and then wonder what they did wrong. They did nothing wrong, but they have been betrayed in the worst possible way.

Truth is a curious and elusive thing. Free speech leaves me free to tell the truth, but also to tell lies, and it is in the discerning of lies that education is pivotal. The free press is free to tell both truth and lies; it is up to me to parse the lies from the truths, and to take responsibility for that process in my life. If I get it wrong, then I apologise, but not for the lie (unless it is of my own making), but for getting it wrong.

As an adherent of Judeo-Christianity, I have an obligation to seek out truth and expose lies. As Eve confessed, “I was deceived by the serpent,” whilst Adam accused, “She did it, the woman that You gave me.” To those who leave Judeo-Christianity behind, and adopt a religion of moral relativity, then truth becomes whatever they want it to be.

Marx and Mohammed both abandoned truth as inessential to their cause, in so doing they institutionalized lying, mainly because the ends justify the means. Yahovah has no civic objective. He therefore has no ends that He needs to justify, so truth is as He created it. His objective is that I personally (along with everybody else) should seek and understand His truths. It is not by ‘works of (self) righteousness’ that I am justified; so He, and I, have nothing to prove by lying.

If I adopt Marxism or Islam, I then have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of my fellow men that I am a good disciple, for it is they who judge me in the here and now. If I deviate, I die. I am therefore no longer enabled to parse the truth from the lie. How do I demonstrate my fidelity? I kill, torture, violate and defame; I call people ‘racist’ or ‘kuffar’, and if conditions are right, I strike at their necks with a sword or rope. That I am living a lie is of no consequence. The Utopia to which my lies entitle me is enough.

Unfortunately, even if I am the best of disciples, I have no guarantee that this Utopia is not also a lie. Be it ‘equality and social justice’ (with a little bit more of each for me as a reward for my own lies), or more virgins and catamites and wine than I can handle. Each of these can be a delusion, because neither Marx nor Mohammed esteemed truth as of any consequence. But “Yahovah is not a man that He should lie.” (Numbers 23 v 19).

What do we do to restore our freedom of speech? We tell the truth to the best of our ability and likewise expose the lies and deceits. Truth has an uncanny ability to come to the forefront. It is after all the distillation of creation, and whoever or whatever is responsible for creation at the same time defined truth, because truth and creation are the same thing.

Only through freedom of speech can the truth be voiced, which is why those who want us to believe their lies hate free speech.

Free speech is our only safeguard against tyranny, and suppression of free speech is the prime object of all tyrants.

If you like your truth, you can keep it…

As Bill Moyers said:

A free press is one where it’s okay to state the conclusion you’re led to by the evidence. One reason I’m in hot water is because my colleagues and I at NOW didn’t play by the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats & Republicans, liberals & conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news.


-------------------------------
3 THOUGHTS ON “IF YOU LIKE YOUR TRUTH, YOU CAN KEEP IT”
Nimrod on August 29, 2015 at 11:36 pm said:
The term “racist” is now just a synonym for reactionary or counter-revolutionary. That is, anything that opposes Marxism. It no longer has anything at all to do with race.

I am anti-Marxist which means that I will get called “racist” by neo-Marxists because they know that terms like “reactionary” or “counter-revolutionary” will just get laughed at. Similarly, Muslims will call anyone who is anti-Islam a “racist” becaus they know that terms like “kafir” will just get laughed at as well.

Reply ↓
Nemesis on August 29, 2015 at 11:37 pm said:
A good article! “In the age of deceit the telling of Truth becomes revolutionary.” – George Orwell.

Reply ↓
acuara on August 30, 2015 at 12:44 am said:
and the Truth shall set you free, of all the lies, myths and deceptions that chain you. MC and I both know Who the Truth is and I will leave it at that.
BTW, What Nimrod and MC refer to is called “projection” in logic, which is the act of the person projecting themselves upon you so that you are now the scoundrel that they in fact are, and they are the good responsible person that you are. When called on this behavior, the projector’s response is what is often referred to as a “cop-out.”

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Christian Islam Fascism Atheism; Influences

Atheism is a False Hope (a dialogue).

michelangelo-da-caravaggio-st-jerome-1606-e1276798377947
Dramatis Personae : A – a fictional interrogator: DTMW – Myself.
A: “Is there a God?”
DTMW: “Possibly.”
A: “The God of conventional religion?”
DTMW: “No.”
A: “So you’re an atheist in that regard?”
DTMW: “Not really. Atheism has become a positive concept. While once it was simply an absence of belief, it is now a very politicised label and suggests a specific worldview built around materialism, liberalism and a forced veneration of science. The New Atheists I find especially dangerous. They do not understand the function religion plays in the maintenance of a civil society, and what would necessarily occur were it removed.”
A: “Which is…”
DTMW: “It protects society from the full consequences of scientific truth. We’ve gotten too used to the idea that the ‘truth will set us free’ – that truth, being a positive value, can only have a positive effect. We forget that it can be beneficial or harmful only depending on its interpretation. Human beings are not naturally good, I’m afraid. Hobbes had this almost correct, except that religion and not government is the most effective Leviathan. Without it, the less evolved among the world population would feel they had no reason to stay within moral boundaries. Without the fear of hellfire, morality becomes a matter of consent. That’s all well and good for intelligent people with their evolved sense of empathy and social nuance. But most people are not intelligent.
And even among the intelligent, atheism allows for an icy, almost mathematical form of ethics that can be used to rationalise just about anything. Abortion, murder in all by name, can very easily be made logical by atheist thinking, but less so by the slightly fuzzy sentimentalism of the religious mind. That fuzzy sentimentalism, even if ridiculed by the petri dish and microscope, protects us from a lot of evil ‘common-sense’. The ‘New Atheists’ are greasing the wheels towards a very cold and dangerous void, the eventual filling of which they shan’t themselves be around to influence.
A: “Richard Dawkins says we can be good without God.”
DTMW: “As well he might. He is the product of a charmed life and first-class education. He belongs the upper-middle class and has never truly experienced hardship of the kind the poor must contend with. Solace of an earthly, material kind was at his side come what may. When the poor are faced with a reality that is horrid in every rational interpretation, they must look beyond reality for comfort. Peace between the classes depends in no small way on this function of religion. The concept of a human ‘equality’ before God; of a levelling after death; of a divine reward measured to match the hardship endured in life – all of these concepts prevent the fires of revolution bursting into life. There is a good reason that Communists went for the churches with as much venom as the banks and corporations.”
A: “What about Islam?”
DTMW: “Not all religions are equal. Some are more moral than others. It’s important to remember that a living religion is more than its foundational text. It is the product of elaborations and philosophies inspired by that text over hundreds of years. This is why Judaism and Christianity evolve and Islam doesn’t. The Qur’an, unlike the Bible, is a book that cannot be re-interpreted without fear of death.
A: “So you’d rather the Arabs and Persians and others converted to Christianity?”
DTMW: “I think that would be transformative. A Christianised Islamic world would solve so many of the worlds anxieties that it is difficult to describe how highly I favour the idea. I also expect the second generation growing up in a forcibly Christianised Pakistan (say) would be thankful to those who dominated and converted their elders. Islam makes life hell. Even Islamists are desperate to escape the fruits of their own labours. They are too proud to admit otherwise of course.”
A: “Are atheists evil?”
DTMW: “No. But many are certainly elitist. Elitism hides behind atheism rather well. You might say ‘No, I don’t hate poor White Americans; I just enjoy ridiculing their belief in Noah’s Ark. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that I went to University and they didn’t.’ I’m not convinced by that sort of thing I’m afraid.
As both Nietzsche and the Nazis understood, Christianity has always opposed elitism and made it politically impossible. This is the case today in America. The anti-intellectual instinct of Southern Baptism for example is something I sympathise with. The elite of America would love nothing more than to re-order society based on IQ or erudition. Christianity demands that other qualities are taken into account; unscientific qualities – like modesty, friendliness and warmth.
On a social level, mass atheism (as opposed to scattered, disorganised disbelief) would open Pandora’s Box. Many sleeping ideologies would awaken and moral values would be re-examined. It isn’t enough to say that ‘reason’ would take the place of religion. Whose reason? Can you not make a reasonable case for unreasonable things?
A: “Do you prefer Catholic or Protestant culture?”
DTMW: “My father is a retired C-of-E minister and so Protestantism is more familiar to me. I don’t like the hierarchicalism of the Catholic church, but I like the aesthetics of Catholic communion. Protestantism is more earthly. The West would fare well with either.
A: “Should children be raised with religion?”
DTMW: “I couldn’t be insincere in that regard, so instead I would make them understand that this is historically a Christian culture and that Islam, Hinduism and the like, are foreign to it. We reserve the right to uphold traditions and to maintain a unifying sense of identity. A religious core strengthens a nation by giving it a point of focus. It is terribly short-sighted to recommend the removal of religion from public life entirely.
D, LDN.
further good comments below the break

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Does not matter;- as understanding the BASIC situation is never done ! !

tom hunter (4,225 comments) says: 

Since Cha decided to be a smart-ass and put the following quote into yesterday’s GD, I thought I’d repeat it, together with my own addition:
Who said it?
If you’re going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
Here’s fun. Take part of that answer:
It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or ….. one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists?
Then wonder as to whether this question ever crossed the minds of the trio of Obama, Clinton, and Power when they decided to destroy Gaddafi in Libya, throw Mubarak to the wolves in Egypt, and wander around for a couple of years saying that Assad had to go. And that’s before we get to the whole “Redline” farce.
What did they call it again? R2P? No, that’s the UN, but we’ve not heard much about that since Libya.
Oh I know – SMART POWER – with added Leftism for increased smarts.
The failures are now coming so rapidly that even the godforsaken WaPo is starting to notice:
FOR YEARS, President Obama has been claiming credit for “ending wars,” when, in fact, he was pulling the United States out of wars that were far from over. Now the pretense is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.
And before we start with the diversionary whine about how this is just about opposition to Obama at home and abroad., let’s note the almost unhinged attacks on Bush that occurred here on KB a few years ago about what he was doing wrong in the ME. Most of those commentators have vanished of course – probably out of embarrassment as The Smartest President Ever checks out.

SPC (5,219 comments) says: 

tom hunter, the premise of the Bush regime change policy was that in principle it was not unique to Iraq but was part of US foreign policy to support democracy emerging from dictatorship.
The USA has always paid lip service to supporting democracy (though tolerated anti-communist tyrants), but rarely via troops on the ground to impose a regime change. A substantial difference that was put down to replacing the Taleban for hosting al Qaeda and replacing the Baath regime in Iraq “for having WMD” and breaching UN cease-fire terms to allow inspections.
The problem the US had after Iraq, was that if they could not pre judge what democracy would emerge when supporting the overthrow of tyranny – was that the same applied in any other ME nation, where Islamists would become active in the aftermath.
The alternative is a policy to support the overthrow of tyranny and support democracy except in Moslem nations, because working with tyrants that ruled over Moslems was more convenient. That would be discriminatory. The alternative was/is to then work with any and all tyrants and give up support for democracy.
SPC (5,219 comments) says: 
And the US did not decide the fate of the Mubarak regime, its unpopularity did. The military chose to pose as facilitating the peoples will in removing him enabling an election the MB would win – all to use any subsequent unpopularity with the people to return to power. Sisi was Suleiman’s (intelligence chief under Mubarak) former boss in the military.
As for Syria, that began when unarmed protestors were shot in Damascus. And the West was a minor player in supporting challenge to that regimes continuance – it was more the example of Libya that inspired the Free Syria Army than actual western support for the FSA. Most of the support came from Islamist volunteers and Gulf funding (part of a Sunni vs Shia sectarian divide).
flash2846 (145 comments) says: 
To quote my father “Its Wog on Wog so why do you care? And if you do care ask yourself why the other Wogs don’t”
Dad (former military) has a point. In every global conflict people of European decent risk and lay down their lives to help the week and innocent. Occasionally they are assisted by African’s, Asians, Pakistani etc. but never the Arab. He’ll take money for use of his airspace though. “Scum of the Earth” Again quoting Dad.
SPC (5,219 comments) says: 
I.S.I.S. is not a long term threat.
Syria will reclaim the north off them. Iran will work to ensure Baghdad is held. The Kurds could take Mosul now if given back Kirkuk if they did.
But the problems in Iraq will not go away unless Sunni (and Kurds – Kirkuk as a capital) have autonomy, Sunni once before dismissed an al Qaeda presence from amongst them and would do so again if given autonomy.
The Sunni in Iraq are validly concerned about a Hezbollah type force being built up in Iraq – this speaks to the regime becoming a tyranny or itself being destabilised from within its own Shia ranks.