Category Archives: religion

Muslim innocence in phases

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a pattern that I noticed in the news and it looks something like this:

Phase 1

“Series of unprecedented terror attacks rock Paris“

https://www.rt.com/in-vision/321955-paris-unprecedented-terror-attacks/

Summary: Muslims killed people and/or blew things up, yelling “Allahu Akbar”.

Phase 2

“Not in my name” – Muslims speak out against Paris attacks conducted in the name of Islam

Summary: Muslims are afraid of repercussions and claim NAMALT, “Not All Muslims Are Like That”. Interestingly, they didn’t report the jihadists before fact, and they are not reporting jihadists to the authorities now. They claim that Islam is the religion of peace and they honestly can’t think of a Muslim that would do something violent, other than those who just blew themselves up and shot people.

Phase 3

“Paris shootout: Female suicide bomber dead, several arrested as police, army hunt suspects in suburb”

 

Summary: Police combs a Muslim neighborhood, and finds jihadist cells. Jihadists start shooting them, or running away, or blowing themselves up.

Now, let me tell you something from ordinary human psychology. Let’s say you have a room full of kids. One of them is violent and abusive and hurts others. When there’s a huge commotion and noise in the room, an adult comes to check on them, and all other kids report on the abusive one, who then starts crying and says it’s not true, he’s the minority there and they are all picking on him because he’s different, he’s poor, he has abusive parents, he’s just defending himself. Even the other kids start feeling sorry for him, and the adult actually scolds other children. The adult leaves the room, and as soon as he’s gone, that abusive kid stabs another kid in the eye with scissors.

Clear enough?

So let me offer my interpretation of those three phases of Islamic innocence and victimhood.

Phase 1, the Muslims create their own communities in the West, surround themselves only with other Muslims, and brainfuck themselves into thinking they are destined to rule the world, they are the best, they are the righteous, and Allah is on their side. What can possibly go wrong? They attack their neighbours.

Phase 2, they understand that their neighbors are actually powerful and can destroy them all at will, and they are angry because they were just hurt and had their trust abused. The Muslims shit themselves and cry NAMALT. However, the sincerity of their claims can be fact-checked: they didn’t report the jihadists before, and they don’t report the remaining ones.

Phase 3, police doesn’t believe there are no more jihadists, and finds a shitload of them in the Muslim community, surrounded by their NAMALT neighbors. When all are cleared, there’s peace for a while, and after a while, and not a long while, there’s another attack, and here we go again.

So, you tell me, how credible are the NAMALT claims? Do you trust the innocent looking girls wearing hijab and “Islam is love, Islam is peace” notes, or the innocent looking girl wearing hijab who just blew herself up with a suicide vest? Whom do you trust? How do you know that the “Islam is peace” girls didn’t make coffee and cookies for the jihadists the day before, knowing fully well what they were doing and planning and not reporting them to authorities, and are now lying because they are afraid? I heard a story about a woman who ordered a hit on her husband in order to get his money, got suckered in a police sting operation, and was later crying how innocent she is, not because she’s innocent, because she’s obviously guilty as sin, but because she’s afraid of the consequences, pissed herself with fear and will say absolutely anything that she thinks others want to hear in order to save herself.

So you will understand why I don’t buy it. If Islam were indeed about peace, the terrorists would be simply unable to operate from within the Islamic neighborhoods, because they would be reported to authorities by all those peaceful Muslims who resent violence. The Muslims would reject violence and intolerance when they work from the position of strength, not when they work from the position of weakness. So, until Muslims start rejecting violence, intolerance and other disgusting traits when they are in power, in places where they are the majority, I simply refuse to believe their sincerity, because the measure of a man is how he treats those below him, not those above him. The measure of Islam is how non-Muslims are treated in Saudi Arabia, not what Muslims say about themselves.

And considering how deep a hole they dug for themselves by their actions, the burden of proof is on them.

Besides, the NA*ALT argument is not accepted when it is used to defend other groups. If someone says that not all Nazis killed Jews, what would be the response? Oh, they were mostly innocent, only the few evil ones were criminals, most Nazis were wonderful loving people and Nazism is a philosophy of peace? Of course not all adherents to a criminal philosophy are criminals. It’s usually not even technically possible. And of course there were suddenly no Nazis in Germany when it fell, and of course all the Nazis were suddenly innocent and either didn’t know anything about crimes when they were caught, or were just following orders. Of course you don’t judge people on what they say about themselves, especially when they say it when they are weak and afraid. You judge them on what they do, especially when they feel they are strong and invincible.

What is the measure of Christianity? How they behaved when they were persecuted in Rome, or what they did when they were in power, in the dark ages? What is the measure of atheism, what they say when they are a 5% minority, or what they did in Communist countries, when they were in power and could actually practice what they believe? What is the measure of the Hare Krishnas, how they behave when they are outnumbered million to one in the West, or how they treated children in Mayapur? What is the measure of Osho, the sugarcoated love-and-enlightenment books that he wrote, or the way he and his disciples lived their lives?

We need to judge people on what they actually do, not on the stuff they say, especially not on stuff they say in propagandistic material, or stuff they say when they attempt to escape the consequences of their actions. You don’t judge a husband on how he says he loves his wife when he’s on trial, you judge him on how he beats the shit out of her when nobody’s looking.

Why the Paris attack and what to do?

Posted on by
2

It is safe to say that Daesh (IS, ISIS, ISIL) took down the Russian airliner over Egypt.

Next, Daesh activated a domestic terrorist cell in Paris to perform a terrorist attack.

It seems logical to say that this is a display of strength and capability on behalf of Daesh, and that the West is vulnerable to its attacks. However, after thinking about it I concluded that it is in fact a sign of great weakness on their part, and of great desperation. You see, in order to succeed, they only needed to wait. They needed to wait for the “refugees” (in fact Muslim invaders who intend to collect European welfare in order to breed and produce more Muslims) to successfully integrate themselves into European countries, and for the already present Muslim communities to outbreed the natives, in order to attain their goal of Muslim supremacy in Europe. Instead, they tipped their hand: the result will be anger towards Muslims, rejection of the migrants and possibly even strong retribution against the non-integrated Muslim communities in Europe. So why would anyone who desires Muslim supremacy make moves that are certain to hinder this goal?

It’s quite simple, really. The Russian air strikes are really harming them, to the point of utmost desperation and panic. Staring into the jaws of certain doom, they activated their sleepers in order do at least some damage to those they hate; and being murderers at heart, nothing pleases them more than killing at least some of their perceived enemies.

So, now everyone asks what are we to do, and what is to be done. I say, doing something about Daesh is not an issue. You can’t really harm them more thoroughly than the Russians already are, other than by resorting to nuclear weapons, which is pointless considering the nature of the enemy – they don’t have any centralized infrastructure worth mentioning. What can be done is to wake up and smell the coffee, and understand that it’s not Daesh, or Al Qaida, or Jamaa Al Islamiya or any other group of Muslim murderers that is the problem. It’s not even Islam that is the problem. It is the attitude of the Western people towards primitive, savage peoples and cultures that is the problem. It’s the tolerance toward them that is the problem. If they want to live here they need to check their religion and its political aspirations at the door, and learn how to be Westerners. If they refuse, they can go back to whichever shithole they came from. It’s that simple. If they want to live here, they need to assimilate and learn to work for a living, not collect welfare. They can come here only if they are able to make a worthy contribution to our society, not if they intend to be a burden and if we need to finance them with tax money.

Islam can be as intolerant and murderous as it likes, as long as it’s somewhere in the Middle East. But here it should not be allowed, because it is in contradiction with the basic tenets of our society. The real problem is that our society doesn’t really know what it is or isn’t anymore; it doesn’t dare to make any sort of decisive statement about its right to exist out of fear it will offend some group or another. In the West, if you say you’re black and proud, it’s fine, you’re applauded. If you say you’re Muslim and proud, it’s fine, you’re applauded. But if you say you’re white and proud, you’re a Nazi. If you say you’re Christian and proud, you’re a primitive beast that needs to reform. But criticism of Christianity is socially perfectly OK in the West; in fact, it’s seen as a sign of open-mindedness and progressive attitudes. The problem is, the same form of criticism of Islam is completely out of bounds, it’s beyond the pale. This needs to change.

One would say, why don’t I criticize other religions, why only Islam. Well, the answer is quite simple, and it doesn’t have much to do with theology or philosophy. The reason why I criticize only Islam is because Islam attempts to intimidate people away from criticizing it, under threat of murder. That’s why I criticize it and think it’s worse than other religions, and needs to be treated with particular contempt and social ostracism, in exactly the same way Nazism is socially ostracized and treated with contempt. Islam doesn’t mean peace, it means submission, and it wants to beat us all into submission. Well, my opinion is that it needs to be kept in submission.

Differentiating between a practice and its practitioners

Posted on by
Reply

Almost every time I hear someone expressing some objection or another to Islam, they seem to feel obliged to add that they don’t dislike the Muslims, but Islam as an ideology.

I find something seriously wrong with that, and my opinion is the exact opposite. You see, there are many ideologies that sprouted during the course of history, and are now forgotten and irrelevant because nobody practices them. There were Mayan and Aztec ideologies that required human sacrifice and all sorts of cruelty and craziness, that now exist only as a sketchy historical recollection. I only theoretically disapprove of them, because I just can’t get all that worked up about an ideology that is not taken seriously by any living person.

The reason why I get worked up about Islam is exactly because I dislike Muslims. I dislike the way they think, I dislike the way they perceive the world and other humans, I dislike the way they perceive God, I dislike the way they treat their women, I dislike the way they think about non-Muslims, and I dislike the kind of world they try to create. Essentially, I dislike so many things about Muslims that I actually bothered to look into their beliefs in order to ascertain the source of all those things I find objectionable – it might be in the scripture, or it might be a fallacious interpretation that cropped up at a later point and was accepted as orthodoxy. I found out that the worst things about Muslims are actually the original scriptural decree, and the good things about them, such as their medieval achievements in science and literature, are heresy that was later destroyed and replaced with orthodoxy. Basically, the core is rotten, and it is inherently unreformable. It’s best to throw it away and accept something better than to attempt to reform Islam.

Also, I don’t understand how one could disapprove of Islam and like the Muslims. If the Muslims were all that likable, who in his right mind would disapprove of the thing that makes them so? For instance, I quite like the Sikhs. They have their own culture, dress code and customs, but they are very likable people who get along with other cultures just fine. I bothered to take a look at Guru Granth Sahib, their original scripture, and found that it’s something of a combination of Sufism with zikr/japa spiritual practice, a Vedantic interpretation of monotheism, and a very reasonable and emotionally acceptable superstructure. So basically it’s no wonder that likable people turned out to have a likable scripture. It’s like finding out that a smart person has good books in his library – hardly a surprise.

The thing is, an ideology without practitioners is a non-entity, like disease without actual sick people. The reason why people fear Ebola, for instance, is not that it exists in some test tube in a lab somewhere as a theoretical illness, but that there are actual sick people who suffer from it and are incredibly contagious. To say that you like the sick person and dislike his illness makes sense, because a person can be cured and thus separated from the problem. However, this doesn’t mean that you want to treat the sick person as you would treat anyone else, because the sick person is a serious problem. A sick person spreads the disease and thus increases the problem and threatens everyone else. You can love the sick person all you want, but that person needs to be quarantined unless you want the problem to become bigger. Also, you don’t cure the illness by accepting the sick person and treating him like anyone else. You do it by quarantining him and administering treatment until restoration of health.

Islam isn’t conducive to a normal state of consciousness or any kind of positive transformation or a lifestyle. It’s more like a zombie apocalypse virus that spreads in Mosques and turns otherwise normal people into limited hate-creatures that find the only pleasure in spreading Islam and establishing Islamic law as the only permissible civilization-template. To say that I hate the virus but love the zombies would be quite foolish of me. I hate the zombies, which is why I find the virus to be a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. If it didn’t produce hateful zombies, why would I even object to it in the first place?

Issues with Islam

Posted on by
Reply

I’d like to explain what I find objectionable about Islam, since I frequently comment news articles on the subject.

First of all, it is forever frozen in time, by decree of its fundamental scripture, at the time of its creation. The culture of Mohammed’s Arabia, its ethics, philosophical and political views, social interactions etc. are codified into it in such a way that a Muslim community will always feel compelled to try and replicate the “ideal society” of the seventh century Arabia. This means that it is a force that will always oppose evolution of human society. Unless you think that 7th century Arabia is the ideal template for human society, you will understand why that might be a problem.

Second, I observe that the mental processes of the Muslims seem to conform to the intellectual simplicity and “angular thinking” of Qur’an and the Hadith. To be quite frank, I don’t think Mohammed was anywhere near +3 sigma in his own time, and having him and his thought processes forever frozen as the ideal intellectual and emotional template for all past, present and future Muslims is immensely harmful to the intellectual, emotional and sociological health of any community that takes him or his works seriously. If anything, I would personally place him somewhere around -2 sigma, in his own original community, meaning that he was vastly outnumbered by people much smarter, progressive and advanced in every way. Not to mention the small issue of mental health. However, even if he were +3 sigma in his time, codifying it as a template for all future generations would be like taking a +3 sigma Homo heidelbergensis and codifying him as a template for all future generations. Not the brightest thing to do.

Third, Islam is as much a civilization as it is a religion. Those things are not really separate in Islam, nor is it permissible to separate them, by design. The decree of Qur’an is primarily to impose submission to Allah and a social order of Islam, which literally means submission to Allah and his commandments. This means that the fundamental intent of Islam as a religion is to form an Islamic type of civilization, which makes it inherently unable to integrate into the framework of any other type of civilization.

Fourth, I don’t like Allah. This entity is defined in a way that is consistent with my understanding of what Satan is, what he needs, and what he does. Satan desires submission to himself above all things, and couldn’t care less about anything else, such as spiritual understanding, evolution and quality of other souls. The way Allah is defined is completely contrary to the way I understand God. According to my understanding, God is the fundamental reality, far deeper than the material Universe, and this reality is the fullness of realization, being, knowledge and fulfillment, and is the true source of everything that is good in all good things everywhere. Essentially, we feel beauty in things because of a glimpse of God. We feel fulfillment in knowledge because there is a glimpse of God. We seek joy because it is a glimpse of God. God is not worshiped, nor can he be found if he is seen and sought as a separate entity to be worshiped. God is present in vague and dispersed form in this world and in human existence, and those dispersed glimpses are to be sought and cherished in order to follow the Ariadne’s thread that they represent out of the labyrinth of this form of existence, into the deeper reality that underlies it. To reduce life to submission to a separate entity and its totalitarian code is sheer idiocy, it’s the essence of everything that one can do wrong. Islam is simply wrong, it is stupid and it should be rejected as the wrong approach to spirituality. In fact, there are Muslims who recognized that and tried to reform Islam from a Satanic cult that it is into a sophisticated, deeply spiritual thing called Sufism, but those reformists were rejected and often outright murdered by the main stream, orthodox Muslims.

I hope this is clear enough. Sure, the Muslims might feel the urge to murder me for saying it, but that is in their nature and it’s one of the main reasons why I am right and they are wrong.