Post: #51

The problem with definitions of Atheism is that it is similar to the definition of feminism.

Especially if you look at the current Youtube Atheists with hundreds of thousands of subscribers - you realize that they have a specific bent of thinking that is quasi-religious. It is literally the same for many others. The pure definition of feminism also does not describe what the fuck is happening with the feminists.

The pure academic definitions have almost no resemblance to the actual thing that is going on. But always interesting to see an early onset meltdown.

Post: #52

@Zelcorpion. What was the reality of Granada and Andalusia under Islamic rule? Was it a paradise for one and all or a hell hole?

Post: #53

(06-26-2017 07:44 AM)Stanfield Wrote:  @Zelcorpion. What was the reality of Granada and Andalusia under Islamic rule? Was it a paradise for one and all or a hell hole?

Here some easy listening - Real Crusades History is a historian who goes through all the real contemporary accounts - not the pretty lies told by current-day PC culture.

It was as one might have expected to be governed by a medieval shitty cult called Islam. And before anyone says that Christianity wasn't much better in the middle ages I would say - wrong. It was even back then better, since at least the Christian mindset is not an excuse for the outmost crimes. I recently visited a castle with a torture and execution dungeon. The punishments for theft, murder, robbery were similar to current-day sharia.

But alas women were even then treated better. When a man raped, then they did not stone the woman. They just gruesomely murdered the man. We should re-introduce those punishments for the current rapefugees and give them special sharia-conform executions for all their rapes, assaults, theft and murders.

When foreigners are caught with one joint that stuck itself to the boot of a shoe-sole in the Netherlands and went with him to Dubai, then they get severely punished as well. I think we should do the same. Also they usually treat their real locals very leniently and rather find a Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Somali man to take responsibility of the deed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-shoe.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatne...Dhabi.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ttack.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-shoe.html

Quote:Couple jailed for a year for kissing on Dubai beach... despite male defendant claim he was giving friend CPR when she suffered asthma attack

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z4l74zef9C
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

As for the Andalusian paradise - all bullshit. Even the scientists who seemingly were Arabic and came up from there were all converted Spaniards. They did the same with the Zoroastran Persians claiming that they came out of Islam.

Fuck them.

Post: #54

I was led astray by this documentary.

Post: #55

(06-26-2017 08:05 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 07:44 AM)Stanfield Wrote:  @Zelcorpion. What was the reality of Granada and Andalusia under Islamic rule? Was it a paradise for one and all or a hell hole?

Here some easy listening - Real Crusades History is a historian who goes through all the real contemporary accounts - not the pretty lies told by current-day PC culture.

It was as one might have expected to be governed by a medieval shitty cult called Islam. And before anyone says that Christianity wasn't much better in the middle ages I would say - wrong. It was even back then better, since at least the Christian mindset is not an excuse for the outmost crimes. I recently visited a castle with a torture and execution dungeon. The punishments for theft, murder, robbery were similar to current-day sharia.

But alas women were even then treated better. When a man raped, then they did not stone the woman. They just gruesomely murdered the man. We should re-introduce those punishments for the current rapefugees and give them special sharia-conform executions for all their rapes, assaults, theft and murders.

When foreigners are caught with one joint that stuck itself to the boot of a shoe-sole in the Netherlands and went with him to Dubai, then they get severely punished as well. I think we should do the same. Also they usually treat their real locals very leniently and rather find a Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Somali man to take responsibility of the deed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-shoe.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatne...Dhabi.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ttack.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-shoe.html

Quote:Couple jailed for a year for kissing on Dubai beach... despite male defendant claim he was giving friend CPR when she suffered asthma attack

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z4l74zef9C
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

As for the Andalusian paradise - all bullshit. Even the scientists who seemingly were Arabic and came up from there were all converted Spaniards. They did the same with the Zoroastran Persians claiming that they came out of Islam.

Fuck them.

Not much in terms of nuance there Zel, I think you have a bit of bias when it comes to this topic .

People like "Real Crusades History" aren't real historians, they have an agenda, and though their narrative runs counter a lot of the modern PC crap, it has its own set of biases.

I would look into real historians and political scientists for a more balanced perspective on the history of islamic Iberia, especially academics from the 19th or 20th century who aren't connected with neocons.

I'd start with these books for a more scholarly, less biased view:

- Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus
by Hugh Kennedy

- Tales of the Alhambra by Washington Irving - classic historical tale of daily life in medieval Granada by US ambassador to Spain and historian from the mid-19th century Washington Irving.

- The Alhambra (Wonders of the World) by Robert Irwin.

- A Vanished World: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Medieval Spain by Chris Lowney

When you look at works like the Alhambra, which is still to this day the finest building in Iberia, you know that there was more to that civilization than Dubai port-o-potties or Saudi stonings.

Post: #56

Once again 911 I see that you are not remiss in cucking for Islam.

Post: #57

(06-26-2017 12:22 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Once again 911 I see that you are not remiss in cucking for Islam.

Yeah, me and Washington Irving, total cucks for Islam.

Post: #58

(06-21-2017 08:47 AM)Mage Wrote:  Sufism exists to fill vacuum of Spirituality in Islamic world. But like water it has taken form of it's container and is unable to defeat it.

Islam despite being a religion has nothing spiritual about it - it's all politics, restrictions and prescriptions for daily life.
Islam has no deep insights about human nature, nature of God, nature of human interaction with divine. Islam has no meditation, no contemplation, no enlightenment, just observance. Islam doesn't preach any moral virtue aside from those borrowed from Jews, Christians and pagans that lived around Muhammad and from whom he borrowed influences. Islam has no personal prayer just recitation. Islam has no personal relationship with God, just a master-slave relationship. Islam has no intimacy with creator just social norms. Islam has no mysticism, no esoteric side, just plain literal interpretation of Quran. Like a famous Russian author Victor Pelevin has said: "In Islam there is no astral rainbow body, but there is the fragmentation-detonation body". Islam has no great questions of life, just commands and subjugation of all life.

But still people who live in Islamist countries are living humans with souls who are victims to this desert cult of boredom and death. They long for deep spirituality, for mystery, for intimacy with the divine. Sufism exists to fulfill this vacuum. Sufism is an esoteric teaching that has nothing to do with Islam and has origins older then Islam, but pretends to be Islam so its followers can consider themselves Muslims and not apostates and escape the death penalty for apostasy. It is a deeper, more meaningful religion that gives water to the thirsty in the spiritual desert of Islam hood.

Sufism has existed under Islamic dictatorship for centuries and has adapted to it. As much as I am sympathetic to them - they cannot defeat Islam because they have evolved to live under Islam. They hold many Islamic superstitions including some violent teachings just to convince both themselves and other Muslims, that they are true Muslims too, not apostates so that they could practice their occult faith. Are they better then common Muslims who interpret Quran directly? -Yes! Are they the solution to Islamic problem - No! Many of them could be allies in defeating more violent types of Islam, but eventually they would have to reform themselves and lose all that is Islamic and retain only that which is esoteric to survive in a post-Islamic world and can they do it? In a non Islamic world their hindrance to considering a Muhammad a prophet would be a dead relic from the past could they drop it?

I never really thought about this lack of spirituality side of Islam in this way. I was first exposed to Islam in college when I met quite a few Muslims from Africa. They were very devout but they never talked about anything spiritual. Thid was years before I became a Christian but when I asked them about "communing with God" they didn't really understand the question.

Post: #59

(06-26-2017 01:42 PM)911 Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 12:22 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Once again 911 I see that you are not remiss in cucking for Islam.

Yeah, me and Washington Irving, total cucks for Islam.

He actually was.

Quote:But very few of us know that Washington Irving was not only a great story-teller but was also a great biographer and historian -- the first American to discover Islam in its right kiln. The world-renowned Life of Mahomet by Washington Irving was the first sympathetic biography of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ever to appear in America.

It is true that the great essayist, lecturer, poet, philosopher, and transcendentalist, Ralph Waldo Emerson, eulogized the holy Prophet of Islam and Caliph Omar in his brilliant work entitled Man the Reformer, but Emerson did so long after Irving "discovered" the hitherto forgotten glories and ideals of Islam.

He also wrote A Chronicle of The Conquest of Granada. That is, the historical event of the last squashing out of Islam from Iberia in 1492. What was Irving's view of it?

Quote:Dr. Greenburg explains: "Until this time, the Arab-Christian wars had received no fair treatment in the Occident. The Muslims were invariably dismissed as pagans, the Christians portrayed as staunch upholders of the Cross and the holy faith. And Irving was at last to bridge the wide abyss between them, characterizing them all as heroic actors in the great tragic drama which was to bring the Age of Enlightenment to an end in Spain and darken the light of the Spanish Renaissance."

Good old postmodernism, everyone's a hero and all war is just icky.

And what did he make of Muhammed, an Arab who couldn't seem to write a consistent holy book?

Quote: "His intellectual qualities were undoubtedly of an extraordinary kind. He had quick apprehension, a retentive memory, a vivid imagination, and an inventive genius. Owing but little to education, he had quickened and informed his mind by close observation, and storied it with a great variety of knowledge concerning the systems of religion current in his day, or handed down by tradition from antiquity. His ordinary discourse was grave and sententious, abounding with those aphorisms and apologies so popular among the Arabs; at times he was excited and eloquent, and his eloquence was aided by a voice musical and sonorous.

"He was sober and abstemious in his diet, and a rigorous observer of fasts. He indulged in no magnificence of apparel, the ostentation of a petty mind; neither was his simplicity in dress affected, but the result of a real disregard to distinction from so trivial a source. His garments were sometimes of wool; sometimes of the striped cotton of Yemen; and were often patched.

"It is this perfect abnegation of self, connected with his heartfelt piety, running throughout the various phases of his fortune... The early aspirations of his spirit continually returned and bore him above all earthy things. Prayer, that vital duty of Islam, and that infallible purifier of the soul, was his constant practice."

When he wasn't out killing hordes of people who disagreed with what he said, that is. Or fucking nine year olds.

Washington Irving, like a lot of stupid Western writers, had fallen victim to what I call Enlightenment Fallacy: that a culture has all the answers so long as its participants are not white. Irving is well understood to have been influenced by Romanticism in all his works, and particularly Mohammed because the guy came from an entirely different culture and was therefore more mysterious. And even then Irving was very "uncomfortable" with Mohammed's later military career. That is, he started to have cognitive dissonance over the entire subject.

Who gives a fuck about how pretty Alhambra is? The architectural plans that Adolf Hitler had for Berlin should he have won World War Two are beautiful. Doesn't make Hitler or his regime any less monstrous. The ability to conceive beauty only makes you human, not good.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #60

Thanks Paracelsus - did not even have to research it to smell the Islamic apologist from a mile away.

Jesus fuck - I looked at it and the bloke Washington Irving wrote multiple praising books about MOhammed and Islam - that Muslims were the true bringers of enlightenment, while the Christians were the oppressive dark-age ones.

That you even dare to quote that fucker is amazing 911. I think you went full hilt the way of Henry Makow. That guy went so far against Israel and organized Jewry that he landed straight in the ass of Islam as support.

Though to be fair - I like plenty of your posts and I really wonder about this Islam fetish. Islam is the most evil big ideology in the world. It is more evil than Talmudism, because most Jews won't believe in Talmudism.

Post: #61

Has anyone been to Bosnia, Kosovo or Albania? How does their Islam differ from MIddle Eastern Islam?

Post: #62

(07-03-2017 02:49 AM)Stanfield Wrote:  Has anyone been to Bosnia, Kosovo or Albania? How does their Islam differ from MIddle Eastern Islam?

Yes.

Who do you think started the atrocities in the Balkan war? Hint - it wasn't the Croats and Serbs - the Serbs ended it. But the globalists bombed them for it.

Islam is Islam. There is no difference - the same shitty book, the same shitty prophet, the same shitty Hadiths and biography of Mahammed.

The interpretation is more moderate, but looking at how many ISIS fighters came from Bosnia and Albania, also looking how Albanians behave in Europe it is safe to assume that Islam colors their mindset way too much.

Besides - Saudis have been financing a lot in Bosnia and Albania - those countries will be Caliphates soon enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...m-malaysia

http://www.acpr.org.il/pp/pp109-Muhammad...sraeli.pdf

The only way to control Islam is by being a brutal secular shitlord. Anything else will make the dung of Islam grow.

Post: #63

Quote:Abraham Lincoln sent him a pair of inlaid pistols (now on display in the Algiers museum) and Great Britain a gold-inlaid shotgun.

Am I the only one who senses an incredibly opportune moment for shitlording by Emperor Trump here?

Can you imagine - he presents to an Islamic ally a matched set of inlaid Beretta (or soon, SigSauer) 9mm pistols as a gift of recognition, thanks and diplomacy?

The heads of of the globalhomo elitists would spin so fast they'd fly right off their confused shoulders.

Post: #64

(07-03-2017 03:58 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 02:49 AM)Stanfield Wrote:  Has anyone been to Bosnia, Kosovo or Albania? How does their Islam differ from MIddle Eastern Islam?

Yes.

Who do you think started the atrocities in the Balkan war? Hint - it wasn't the Croats and Serbs - the Serbs ended it. But the globalists bombed them for it.

Islam is Islam. There is no difference - the same shitty book, the same shitty prophet, the same shitty Hadiths and biography of Mahammed.

The interpretation is more moderate, but looking at how many ISIS fighters came from Bosnia and Albania, also looking how Albanians behave in Europe it is safe to assume that Islam colors their mindset way too much.

Besides - Saudis have been financing a lot in Bosnia and Albania - those countries will be Caliphates soon enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...m-malaysia

http://www.acpr.org.il/pp/pp109-Muhammad...sraeli.pdf

The only way to control Islam is by being a brutal secular shitlord. Anything else will make the dung of Islam grow.

I agree with the OP to some extent that the religion itself, on paper, isn't necessarily the problem since so many people are able to practice it harmlessly. The problem is, for whatever reason it tends to either attract or create legions of semi-retarded illiterate and unemployable pissed off men with no hope. From there it's a hop skip and a jump to terrorism. I don't know what the answer is, but Islam isn't going away anytime soon and this factor needs to be addressed one way or another.

As for the bit about the "Sufi's building Singapore and Malaysia," well.... I think they owe more than a bit of gratitude to the British for getting the ball rolling over there. Sufis existed for generations in the region and nothing beyond farms, fishing and very basic trade economies resulted. Love them or hate them, the Brits established functioning governments, financing and legal systems which made the growth witnessed today possible, not Sufi Islam.

Post: #65

Singapore and Malaysia without the Brits and later the Chinese would be nothing. They built those countries.

The religion itself is the problem. The religion is indeed far more negative - you only need to read their texts. The reason why most don't live it 100% is because it is a full-on shitshow. So they settle for 50-80% shitshow. ISIS is 100% shitshow. Saudi Arabia and Iran are 80% shitshows. But shit is shit - actually worse than shit. The Quran would soil shit.

Post: #66

(07-03-2017 02:49 AM)Stanfield Wrote:  Has anyone been to Bosnia, Kosovo or Albania? How does their Islam differ from MIddle Eastern Islam?

There is a difference. I will tell you regarding Bosnia. While the huge chunk of population is muslim, they are not what I would consider "proper" muslims. They drink, smoke, curse God and people, have sex before the marriage, don't cover their women, some older generations are die hard communists, etc.
At the same time there is a minority of true muslims, situated in some particular cantons and these are the ones that are sending people for the ISIS and these type of muslims are ones which attracted jihadis from the middle east to participate in the Yugoslav Wars. So we have two distinct polarities here.

Bosnians become muslims in the late 15th century after the death of their king at the hands of the Ottomans. Before that Bosnian ruling dynasty (Kotromanić) was in majority a Croatian one, which intermarried even with European ones.
After the Austrians captured Bosnia, Bosnia started to become more westernized. I think that is the reason why the Bosnians are not holding fully into islam. For them islam is remnant of old times and its just a sort of a tradition.

So what we have here is that when caliphate comes on Balkan, these majority of "muslims" will either become proper ones or they would die together with Croats and Serbs, which are constituent people of the Bosnia and Herzegovina.

P.S. It was Josip Broz Tito, an alpha psychopath that hold these true muslims in place during his reign and that is what Zel describes. These true muslims only know and respect iron hand and boot.

Post: #67

(07-03-2017 04:45 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 02:49 AM)Stanfield Wrote:  Has anyone been to Bosnia, Kosovo or Albania? How does their Islam differ from MIddle Eastern Islam?

There is a difference. I will tell you regarding Bosnia. While the huge chunk of population is muslim, they are not what I would consider "proper" muslims. They drink, smoke, curse God and people, have sex before the marriage, don't cover their women, some older generations are die hard communists, etc.
At the same time there is a minority of true muslims, situated in some particular cantons and these are the ones that are sending people for the ISIS and these type of muslims are ones which attracted jihadis from the middle east to participate in the Yugoslav Wars. So we have two distinct polarities here.

Bosnians become muslims in the late 15th century after the death of their king at the hands of the Ottomans. Before that Bosnian ruling dynasty (Kotromanić) was in majority a Croatian one, which intermarried even with European ones.
After the Austrians captured Bosnia, Bosnia started to become more westernized. I think that is the reason why the Bosnians are not holding fully into islam. For them islam is remnant of old times and its just a sort of a tradition.

So what we have here is that when caliphate comes on Balkan, these majority of "muslims" will either become proper ones or they would die together with Croats and Serbs, which are constituent people of the Bosnia and Herzegovina.

P.S. It was Josip Broz Tito, an alpha psychopath that hold these true muslims in place during his reign and that is what Zel describes. These true muslims only know and respect iron hand and boot.

Going by Wikipedia, the difference supposedly comes down to Sufist influence on the local Islamics. That said, apparently the number comes down to about 54% who call themselves "non-denominational" Muslims (i.e. not Muslims in practice), and 37% are from the petri dish of Sunni Islam. Sure enough, when the Bosnian/Serbian war got started up, foreign fighters from the Middle East showed up, stuck around afterwards, and tried to spread some good old Saudi Wahhabism. Wikipedia only says that it caused internal tensions in the Muslim population, i.e. Wahhabism is likely sprouting there like it does anywhere else you plant the weed in a Sunni place (pun intentional), it's just growing slower than it does in the Arabian sandtrap.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #68

Wahhabism is prevalent in mountainous villages, in the specific cantons. See Ošve.

Post: #69

(07-03-2017 02:49 AM)Stanfield Wrote:  Has anyone been to Bosnia, Kosovo or Albania? How does their Islam differ from MIddle Eastern Islam?

I am originally from there.



Originally, it did not really differ from the one that is practiced in Middle East, despite the popular belief. Women wore nikabs, drinking was forbidden etc. There are plenty of photos on the internet (from Austro Hungary, the Kingdom era etc...) in which that can be seen.



When the Communists came to power, the practice of religion was discouraged in various ways. Because of that, many Muslims (and non Muslims as well) became secular - which means eating non Halal food, drinking, etc. Same thing happened in Turkey (Ataturk was anti religion), Soviet Union, Iran, Afganistan etc.



When Communism started to lose power, many Islamist factions started to gain power. The most notorious one was SDA, which was led by Alija Izetbegović, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. During the first elections in 1991, his party won the majority of Muslim vote, and thus, the radicalization began.



During the war, he got support from Iran (who helped the Muslims establish some organizations such as AID, and transferred weapons through Croatia), despite the religious difference (Iranians are Shiites, local Muslims Sunnis). After the war, Iran had so much influence over the Muslims that the US was forced to react - some Iranian traning camps such as Pogorelica were raided by US forces.



Despite support from Shiite Iran, a lot of Sunni Islamist fanatics from the Arab countries came during the war as well, which committed horrible atrocities against the local Serbs and Croats (like in Syria and Iraq) The West did not care, and even supported them in some cases (central Bosnia). A lot of those bad hombres got permits to stay, or even citizenship (both courtesy of Izetbegović and SDA), which allowed them to spread their ideas, via petrodollars from various Arab states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait...). Some of them were involved in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks (Abu Hamza), and others joined Daesh or Al Nusrah.



Nowadays, the situation with the Muslims is getting worse due to several reasons. First, due to continuous flow of petrodollars, which is self explanatory. Second, due to poverty (Muslim majority areas of Bosnia are much poorer that Serbian and Croatian areas), a lot of people get radicalized. And third is due to anger towards the Croats and Serbs, whose populations are going slightly up, while theirs is going down (per 2013 census and other related data), due a variety of reasons.


How it will end, I do not know. All I know that some parts of Bosnia will look like the Gaza Strip in like 10 to 20 years.- and that ain't a compliment. Especially my now former town of Sarajevo, which, until 1991, was truly a cosmopolitan city -a wet dream of every leftie. Nowadays, it really is not (95% Muslim) despite all the propaganda, and all the RVF datasheets (which are good, but inaccurate). I am still not finished with mine, but it will be posted when it's done. Yes, I sound like a spokesman from ID software, but what can I do?

Quote:Besides - Saudis have been financing a lot in Bosnia and Albania - those countries will be Caliphates soon enough.

30% of Bosnia will. The rest will not, be rest assured.

Post: #70

(07-03-2017 02:04 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Thanks Paracelsus - did not even have to research it to smell the Islamic apologist from a mile away.

Jesus fuck - I looked at it and the bloke Washington Irving wrote multiple praising books about MOhammed and Islam - that Muslims were the true bringers of enlightenment, while the Christians were the oppressive dark-age ones.

That you even dare to quote that fucker is amazing 911. I think you went full hilt the way of Henry Makow. That guy went so far against Israel and organized Jewry that he landed straight in the ass of Islam as support.

Though to be fair - I like plenty of your posts and I really wonder about this Islam fetish. Islam is the most evil big ideology in the world. It is more evil than Talmudism, because most Jews won't believe in Talmudism.

Likewise, I like most of your posts, but I think you, Paracelsus and many others have a black and white view on the MQ that's built on the revisionist perspective of ((propagandists)) like Pam Geller, instead of that of historians like the four people I've cited above, or that of many analysts and intellectuals like E. Michael Jones, Patrick Henningsen or Henrik Palmgren, who are anything but apologists for Islam.

Jones in particular has a very good analysis on the real problems with Islam, which lie in its abandonment of logos. Are you familiar with his works?

Most of the stuff Henry Makow posts is very good as well, though he can be a bit clumsy in his presentation and his lack of nuance. If anything, he should be given a lot of credit for overcoming the biases he grew up with.

No, I don't think that "that Muslims were the true bringers of enlightenment, while the Christians were the oppressive dark-age ones", The Spanish Inquisition and medieval Christian civilizations in general get a bum rap by historians, but that's also true of muslim civilization, which gets reduced to Isis and Saudi salafism on the alt right blogosphere.

Basically anything that contradicts your world view of muzzies as violent goatfuckers living in tents is heresy. Never mind the fact that they've build some of the finest buildings in the world, like the Alhambra or the Taj Mahal, or they've had libraries stacked with scientific works, it's all about gays hanging from cranes and Cologne rapefugees as seen on The Rebel. If you get totally blinded by hate, you're no longer looking at the problem of Islam from a rational perspective, and that's exactly what the EDL or Wilders are there for.


The problem with talmudism lies more on a cultural level than a religious one. Talmudism permeates many aspects of Jewish culture, and it is reflected in the agenda of powerful people and organizations that are driving global culture and politics. Sarah Silverman is not religious at all and doesn't believe in the Talmud, but when she says "I hope the Jews did kill Jesus, I'd do it again in a second", she is fully on board that talmudist train.

Post: #71

I am not blinded by hate.

In fact I stand behind guys like that and hundreds of millions of others in the Muslim world:





Still - there is nothing in Islam that is good. It should be wiped out completely.

The Middle East and the world would be better for it. I am against ideologies which are negative - cultural marxism, post-modernism, feminism, Islam - does not matter to me whether they call it religion or "science" or equality or whether billions believe in it. Whatever the Muslim tribes did - they did not do it because of Islam, but in spite of Islam. They destroyed higher cultures, started inbreeding as soon as they entered, they burned down millions of books of the cultures they conquered - Egypt a glaring example, but also Persia. I give zero credence to their achievements except as a unifying doctrine of war - that is the single most important "contribution" they had.

Post: #72

(07-03-2017 12:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  ...

When he wasn't out killing hordes of people who disagreed with what he said, that is. Or fucking nine year olds.

Washington Irving, like a lot of stupid Western writers, had fallen victim to what I call Enlightenment Fallacy: that a culture has all the answers so long as its participants are not white. Irving is well understood to have been influenced by Romanticism in all his works, and particularly Mohammed because the guy came from an entirely different culture and was therefore more mysterious. And even then Irving was very "uncomfortable" with Mohammed's later military career. That is, he started to have cognitive dissonance over the entire subject.

Who gives a fuck about how pretty Alhambra is? The architectural plans that Adolf Hitler had for Berlin should he have won World War Two are beautiful. Doesn't make Hitler or his regime any less monstrous. The ability to conceive beauty only makes you human, not good.

So you believe that many western writers were irrationally sympathetic to Islam out of self hatred? More often than not, the orientalist bias went in the other direction. There are writers like Gustave le Bon who advocate a fairly colonialist European perspective that did write very measured works on Islamic civilization, that's the perspective I rely upon. Older historians like le Bon were less swayed by modern political agendas.

And how was Hitler's regime more monstrous than the Allies', who have incinerated more innocent civilians in two days at Dresden than the Nazis did in 6 years at Auschwitz?

Post: #73

(07-03-2017 03:30 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  I am not blinded by hate.

In fact I stand behind guys like that and hundreds of millions of others in the Muslim world:





Still - there is nothing in Islam that is good. It should be wiped out completely.

The Middle East and the world would be better for it. I am against ideologies which are negative - cultural marxism, post-modernism, feminism, Islam - does not matter to me whether they call it religion or "science" or equality or whether billions believe in it. Whatever the Muslim tribes did - they did not do it because of Islam, but in spite of Islam. They destroyed higher cultures, started inbreeding as soon as they entered, they burned down millions of books of the cultures they conquered - Egypt a glaring example, but also Persia. I give zero credence to their achievements except as a unifying doctrine of war - that is the single most important "contribution" they had.

I agree with the brown dude in this video. I'm not sure if he's advocating wiping out the entire religion off the earth though? Your solution to the problem of islamism sounds like the one the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution had for Christianity: kill all the devout people who refused to renounce Christ, massacre millions of those who sympathized. It's not only inhumane, but it's also unfeasible, even in the long term.

There are real solutions to the muslim problem, like Putin's approach, both at home and abroad. It's pretty simple, and effective: kill all the jihadis, crush their movement, cut off all salafi influence and support homegrown, moderate clergy members. They're winning in Syria and have the support of a majority of their people, muslims included.

The take of the brown muslim dude in the video is politically naive (probably not on purpose), because it ignores the nature of the modern islamist movement, from the Muslim Brotherhood, which was a masonic movement (founder al-Banna was a high-level mason -see the work of David Livingstone and many others-), to Wahhabism, which was satanic in inspiration, according to researchers like Jean-Michel Vernochet.

Those radical islamic movements were set up, funded and implemented to suit the anglo-zionist colonial agenda, so it's no surprise that they've brought about the destruction of many middle eastern and African nations. If it wasn't for foreign interference, you would still have regimes like Iran's Mossadegh's across the Middle East.

Post: #74

(07-03-2017 03:45 PM)911 Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 12:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  ...

When he wasn't out killing hordes of people who disagreed with what he said, that is. Or fucking nine year olds.

Washington Irving, like a lot of stupid Western writers, had fallen victim to what I call Enlightenment Fallacy: that a culture has all the answers so long as its participants are not white. Irving is well understood to have been influenced by Romanticism in all his works, and particularly Mohammed because the guy came from an entirely different culture and was therefore more mysterious. And even then Irving was very "uncomfortable" with Mohammed's later military career. That is, he started to have cognitive dissonance over the entire subject.

Who gives a fuck about how pretty Alhambra is? The architectural plans that Adolf Hitler had for Berlin should he have won World War Two are beautiful. Doesn't make Hitler or his regime any less monstrous. The ability to conceive beauty only makes you human, not good.

So you believe that many western writers were irrationally sympathetic to Islam out of self hatred?

Irving certainly was. He was heartily sick of Spanish politics by the time he started eulogising Islam. You quoted him as a source, not us.

(07-03-2017 03:45 PM)911 Wrote:  And how was Hitler's regime more monstrous than the Allies', who have incinerated more innocent civilians in two days at Dresden than the Nazis did in 6 years at Auschwitz?

I expect better than tu quoque out of you, especially a tu quoque that also attempts to change the subject.

You proposed Alhambra as some sort of metaphor that Islamic culture is worth keeping: I pointed out even genocidal maniacs can generate beauty, it's no reason to withhold judgment on a civilisation on that basis. Just because Hitler appreciated fine art does not excuse his killing.

As for whether I have a black and white view of Islam: hardly. I'll come back to the subject when I can be arsed, but for the present, I will summarise: Islam on balance given its 1400 year history does not have enough to recommend it as a civilising force or a religion worth tolerating or keeping around, any more than Scientology deserves to be tolerated just because it gives money to charity now and then and keeps Tom Cruise from running for political office.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #75

911 - again you are cucking for Islam.

It is the evil globalists who somehow financed Wahhabism and perverted the peaceful teachings of Islam. Fuck that - yes - the globalists may have funded the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood islamists, because they plan centuries ahead in some things.

But the truth is that Islam was very negative and war-driven long before anyone concentrated the money power under the central banks or even dreamed up such a thing. They almost fucking conqered Europe the last time in the 17th century with Vienna! The so-called moderate Ottomans had a medieval punishment system, they had fucking slaves up until the 1950s in Istanbul! The slave population was estimated to be around 30-40% and we are talking the 20th century here!

So don't give me this bullshit that Islam is worthy to be preserved.

I also don't say that Islam needs to be banned/phased out within one year by military force. There are a myriad ways of how to phase it out, ban it only in the countries where there are close to no Muslims. There are ways to teach the truth about Islam, quote the texts from top to bottom starting in school, close Islamic kindergartens and schools, support reformers and secular Muslim leaders, then over the decades and centuries see their numbers drop, maybe come up with a plan to change it slyly by focusing on Rumi. If that fails, then replace it with a reformed Islam that is based on Rumi's texts as the holy books. But you are talking her decades where tens of millions or hundreds of millions of Muslims would call themselves Ex-Muslims.

Though I think that it should be phased out for a simple reason and some ex-Salafis agree with me. The reason is simply that the core texts and Mohammed are way too violent. Why do prisoners not listen to the state-funded peaceful Imams sent to them? Because it takes one fucking prisoner to start reading the Quran and the Hadiths, listening to some Youtuber who has also done the same - it takes one to know that Islam is not about peace, but about war against the unbeliever.

Save yourself the Muslim apologism 911. You are on a wrong path. My Islamic reform would produce less terrorism and would allow the Muslims and Ex-Muslims to live. The globalists will wipe a solid portion of the 1.8 bio. Muslims out in WWIII. They know that the world cannot COEXIST with Islam or it will never become their end-goal of a Brave New World.

They use Islam for now and foster the endemic radicalism of Islam, but they will one day come down hard on them. And hundreds of millions of actual Ex-Muslims or secular ones who don't like Islam even now in the Middle East & the Islamic world - those people will burn with the radicals as well. Your apologetic view of Islam is exactly what the globalists want the West to believe of the religion until they turn the switch for war.