http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/islam_what_the_west_needs_to_know
Utter crap.
Clayton -
I smell a crypto-fascist.
"Not Playing"
Do either of you have anything other than ad hominem?
"Do either of you have anything other than ad hominem?"
I dunno Monk-Eye. Maybe you could ask your friends at the Stormfront forums. Or shall I call you Gnomon?
"Castigation Of A Few Snide Remarks"
I have posted at stormfront as gnomon, but do not really like that every post is moderated with extensive delay; it is a poor forum for timely discourse.
I am not a supremacist if that is what you are worried about, although I do accept limited domains for distinct, autonomous, self governing, separatist cultures for the purpose of preserving individualism of clads as part of free association.
Such is the basis of the genetic religions of israelism and ishmaelism, where each is bound to the lands of israel and hejaz, respectively.
As for referring to the those at Stormfront as my friends, you may be confusing a common understanding of respect for the sanctity of other's identity for agreement with a means to an end or, as in the case of complete domination, to the end itself, which is not consistent with my biocentric views.
Indeed, how long does it take to remove recessive genes from an isolated gene pool?
If you cannot accept the premises of fictional ishmaelism and its history of anti-libertarian hegemony as directed in a text that a billion people comically assert to be dictation from an angel; that is simply your problem.
And that is the issue, the text and passages that can be invoked at any time are directly tied to a clear and continued history, even if the excerpts are temporarily, conveniently, mistakingly dismissed for political correctness as unintended sentiments.
I have cited the texts for years before viewing this video and the video revealed a good deal more to me - it is awesome, although it is very lengthy.
"Response to a Nutter"
I really can't tell if you are barmy but harmless, or a danger to yourself and others. It's one of them that's for sure. Just admit it, you're basically a Nazi aren't you?
This demonstrates exactly what we see out of Keith Preston and other right-wing nutjobs. If we don't accept that "free association" means that nazis can beat the shit out of whoever they want in order to keep their little society "pure," then we're anti-libertarian. If we can smell nazi bullshit from a mile away, then we're anti-freedom.
I do not consider this board a comfortable place for me, but if I did, I'd tell you to go back to stormfront.
"Ode To The Brain Washed"
** Free Radicalized **
I am not german, so the meaning behind my being a nazi does not make sense - to me; in addition, the term is an over used blanket cliche meant to villify those who find race mixing questionable.
A staunch reality of nature is that in order to preserve individualism distinctions must be maintained, which means that one must be selective (discriminate) if they wish to see themselves in their offspring and to perpetuate their kindred identity.
Verily, a version of the strong athropic principle states that "One exists because they are present to assert that they exist."; it is a tautology that does not quibble about its necessities.
A chance at eternal life and final judgement are metaphors for continuance of one's genetic identity through their offspring and a soul is a metaphor for a sole.
And yet, those who do not propose aggression, rather who seek to provide informed consent for elective choice, have their views quashed and shunned by faux libertarians who, as hypocrites, see free association as a crime.
** Convince Others To Fight Wars For Your Protection **
Here is one of my favorite anecdotes, as family lineage is a foundation for the region, just as patriarchy is the foundation of genetic religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate
"According to tradition, the Umayyad family (also known as the Banu Abd-Shams) and Muhammad both descended from a common ancestor, Abd Manaf ibn Qusai and they are originally from the city of Mecca.
...
Therefore they held to a less universalist conception of Islam than did many of their rivals. As G.R. Hawting has written, "Islam was in fact regarded as the property of the conquering aristocracy."[14]"
Is it not funny that the shia, such as the iranians, place emphasis that the caliphate must be a kindred male lineal descendant of muhammad while the persians are not lineal descendants of the quraysh for whom the qurayn was written?
The persians are humiliated and defeated clowns of arab cultural hegemony who have had the very exceptional religion of zoroastrianism, the identity of its peoples, stolen, literally and deceptively stripped from them!
** Self Preservation **
It is clear that many have been pawned into defending the historical vagrancy of fictional ishmaelism that is founded upon clear and descriptive text(s) which, without reservation, describe its political, cultural, and absolute intentions for hegemony.
It is strange how reference to the crusades always ignores the fact that non kindred clads were invading europe in order to dominate and control its peoples, while the clear provocation is dispatched as unjustified religious intolerance, especailly by adherents to fictional ishmaelism who have been versed that it was an audacious and irreputable offense against themselves.
** Diver Down **
Fictional ishmaelism has nothing to do with libertarianism and it is ridiculous that the accusations are directed at those who would point it out.
"Clear As Day"
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/26113.aspx
Ishmaelism (qurayshism) is a genetic religion for the preservation of the patriarchal lineage (Y-haploid) of ishmael, where the tenets cultural traditions and city state laws (sharia), as detailed in the qurayn, only apply within hejaz - Surah 106 "Quraysh".
Universalism of ishmaelism outside of hejaz upon non-lineal descendants of ishmael is debase and termed fictional ishmaelism.
Israelism is a genetic religion for the preservation of the patriarchal lineage (Y-haploid) of isaac, where the tenets cultural traditions and city state laws (613 mitzvah), as detailed in the torah, only apply within israel.
"Giving Each Of Your Posts A Title Does Not Make Them Profound"
You don't like Muslims. We get it. Now why can't you just speak plain English?
I agree that fascist or nazi is an over-used term. It detracts from when there are actual nazis, like the people who post long-winded nonsense on stormfront.
"Adept And Not Trivial About Definition"
** Been Using Titles For Years **
There are eleven posts from myself at stormfront.org, with the last one being in 2009, and my opinions were not well accepted - nothing new.
From myself there are: 2265 posts and 8 blogs at debatepolitics.com; 312 posts at politicalforum.com; several thousand posts at arguewitheveryone.com (deprecated website); several thousand posts at hardcorepolitics.com (deprecated website); and there may be other forums but yahoo comments are extensive.
** Midst of Confusion **
Now when one refers to muslims, a term which means "one who submits", one must specify the rule set or religion to which they submit, else one would have no idea as to the reference, however, out of consideration for the obvious lack of understand on your part, it will be assumed that the reference is to the tenets, cultural traditions, and city state laws of ishmaelism (qurayshism), for the term islam is not a religion.
** Reiteration **
The term islam is not a religion, rather it is orwellian double speak with an etymology that does not mean peace and includes an implicit demand "to submit!", which premises a master slave paradigm, representing an immature condition for mammon, whereby alternative reason and individualism are rejected in exchange for regimental capitulation to despotic authority under its pretentious moral absolutes.
Fictional ishmaelism asserts universalism for its own legalism; a rejection of similar premises was a provocation for jesus' antinomianism against israelism.
And whether one pretends that the legalism of fictional ishmaelism is compulsory or not, its proponents laude democracy with tounge in cheek, ambitious for majority implementation as an ulterior objective to establish its well known anti-libertarian and anti-individualism political system.
** Cautionary Tales**
Numbers mean votes and votes mean political policy.
On a personal level many are perhaps polite, congenial, and kind, however through politics many are impersonal, judgemental, and cruel.
One must be madd to expect my complacency for the concrete reality of authoritarianism inherent with the debase ideologies of fictional ishmaelism.
Everytime I come back on here I find less and less to keep me on here, but it's the random shit like this that I find curiously interesting. It's like when they bring the jester out when the court is bored.
"Bare Ring of Naked Kings"
You are mistaking the hanged man for the fool.
http://www.free-tarotcardreading.com/tarotcardthehangedman.php
"A simpler but deeper meaning resides in the journey of life. Consider how certain aspects of life - for example sex - are viewed one way by children and a different way by adults. The Hanged Man is the initiate into mysteries. He understands the truth because he sees it from a different angle. The most common interpretation of the card is of an outcast of society that appears to be a fool but is actually in complete alignment. The upside downness of the hanged man gives him an advantage that outsiders are unable to see or understand.
When Key 21 (The World) is placed above The Hanged Man, it makes an ankh, the Egyptian symbol of life, taking us back to The Empress. He represents the deal life made with death; that in return for reproduction, we are mortal."
No, the hanged man (you) is the fool (you). I could care less about your digital tarot cards. I'm not some Slavic gypsy.
The term islam is not a religion, rather it is orwellian double speak with an etymology that does not mean peace and includes an implicit demand "to submit!"
Every religion demands that you submit to God/whatever it is they believe in. That's the whole point of having a religion.
If you don't like religion, fine, but there's no reason to single out Muslims for being any crazier or more dishonest than the rest of you.
"Mockery of Non Reason For Fools Feigning Support for Libertarianism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-L-M
The word إسلام ʾIslām is a verbal noun derived from s-l-m, meaning "submission" (i.e. entrusting one's wholeness to another), which may be interpreted as humility. "One who submits" is signified by the participle مسلم, Muslim (fem. مسلمة, muslimah).[3]
"One may practice islam in a BDSM dungeon by being a muslim to a dominatrix." is a correct statement as the etymology of the terms muslim and islam are generic - idioms.
** Cultural Signature - Master Slave Paradigm **
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery
In 2003 a high-level Saudi jurist, Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.”[121]
Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri of Karbala expressed the view in 1993 that the enforcement of servitude can occur but is restricted to war captives and those born of slaves.[123]
Dr. Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, has said on the subject of justifications for Islamic permission of slavery:[124]
"Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each other - it is not acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner."
Oh just go away please!
Someone send a suicide bomber to this guy's house.
I think there should be legit debate about religions, but as someone who has studied Arabic the claim about Islam meaning submission is not true. It doesn't currently have any other meaning in Arabic except the religion.
Is-ta-sa-lam استسلام is the arabic word for surrender or submission to someone or some thing. And sa-la-m سلام means peace. They both have the same root, but are not really related except tangentially.
They are related by root, but that doesn't mean anything really. This tri-consonantal root existed within Hebrew and Aramaic as well. Shalom in Hebrew. And Salam in Aramaic.
Slave is usually 'abd in the religious sense or some other; which is another tri-consonantal root. عبد in Arabic and עבד in Hebrew.
One interesting hypothesis that I've seen is that the Quran is entirely written in Aramaic. This accounts for words which have no equivalent or which cannot be translated. Which I think is the case with Islam itself. In this view, the whole book is a work of Christian missionaries. And most of the meaning changes toward an actually better book. I don't know if it is any good. I don't have any but passing interest in religions, and focus only on languages. But it would be funny if it was true. And may very well be true.
"Limiting The Authoritative Realms Of Political Vectors"
** Nauseated by Institutions Demanding Conformance with Religious Legalism **
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism
Antinomianism (a term coined by Martin Luther, from the Greek ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, "law"), is defined as holding that under the gospel dispensation of grace, moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation.[1]
Although the concept is related to the foundational Protestant belief of Sola Fide where justification is through faith alone in Christ, it is taken to an extreme in antinomianism. It is seen by some as the opposite of the notion that obedience to a code of religious law earns salvation: legalism or works righteousness.
***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
According to religious Judaism, the 613 mitzvot or "commandments" given in the written Torah, as well as their reasonings in the oral Torah, were only issued to the Jews and are therefore binding only upon them, having inherited the obligation from their ancestors.
Ishmaelism, as israelism, maintains an orthodox emphasis on the written laws within its city state and that is acceptable within limits of a distinct bounded realm according to worthwhile mutual concessions from/with others for self governance and individual autonomy.
However, the limits of a distinct bounded realm according to worthwhile mutual concessions from/with others for self governance and individual autonomy does not exist within fictional ishmaelism by doctrine as it specificaly premises it sovereign totality over all realms outside of hejaz, as if it were ishmaelism within hejaz itself.
Thus, there is a clear provocation to reject and dismiss fictional ishmaelism.
** Submission Is Dimunitive, Derogatory, Demeaning - Orwellian Double Speak Catering to Authoritarian Despots**
An animal hops between cliff ledges avoiding falls to its death.
Did the animal submit to "God" or overcome the laws of nature?
Martin Luther also said that reason was Satan's whore. And he advocated beating children and anti-semitism.
“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.” —Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148. “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” —Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569. “Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their heads in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise.” —Martin Luther, Table Talks (as quoted in Religious History: An Inquiry by M. Searle Bates, p. 156). And why does he hate the Catholics: "“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the Popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other Go figure. Reason is the devil's whore, but he demands reason anyway. And then says THEY contradict themselves.
“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”
—Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.
“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
—Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.
“Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their heads in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise.”
—Martin Luther, Table Talks (as quoted in Religious History: An Inquiry by M. Searle Bates, p. 156).
And why does he hate the Catholics: "“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the Popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other
Go figure. Reason is the devil's whore, but he demands reason anyway. And then says THEY contradict themselves.
"Excentricities"
** Discredit by Association **
Martin Luther also seemed to believe that fighting a war in the name of christianity was contrary to its doctrine and that fighting the invading turks (more aggression laden humiliated psychopaths of fictional ishmaelism) should be fought for reasons of secular independence while christianity provided spiritual support for those suffering through the conflict.
** Lines of Rebuke **
A reference to antinomianism would include martin luther in its history, however the intent of my citation is to establish independence from the necessity of religious legalism.
It is ridiculous to assert that the qurayn was dictated by an angel, in fact such an assertion is analogous to children believing in santa claus.
Anxious over death, hysterical masses are coaxed into believing that a chance at eternal life means anything other than continuance of one's genetic idenity through procreation.
The abrahamic religions assert that by following certain patterns of behaviour one may improve their chances at biological survival.
And while the metaphors are consistent with reality, the promisory metaphor that any particular individual will wake up from a dirt nap is an illusion, an allusion, a delusion.
** Vague Associations **
My current inclination of reason may be consistent with spiritual naturalism although it is difficult to relate a concrete definition of it meaning.
An animal hops between cliff ledges avoiding falls to its death. Did the animal submit to "God" or overcome the laws of nature?
It's just an allusion to discipline. The purely selfish ego must subordinate itself to the all-knowing, all-powerful superego in order to get what it wants. Wild animals are pure ego.
Religion in general tends to concern itself with discipline and guilt quite a bit... It's not perculiar to Islam, and it's not a sinister conspiricy. It's just some evidence that people are self-conscious, unlike animals.
Bert: Someone send a suicide bomber to this guy's house.
Out you go.
I'm seriously getting banned for this shit? This isn't even a serious thread and I get permanently banned for that comment? Have you said anything to the guy who started this ridiculous thread? Did you take this upon your self without asking the other mods? This is a nice welcome back to someone who's looking to discuss things.
"Ostracism"
Your comments constitute a terroristic threat and with more than seventeen thousand posts you should have been mature enough to understand the gravity of the comments.
I did not report your comments to the moderator whose response is greatly appreciated, however I am considering a report to the FBI since I do not know your affiliations.
One expects such anti-libertarian motivations from fictional ishmaelism which continues to lack any legitimate jurisprudence or respect for the autonomy of entities extrinsic to its myopic self endowed absolution.
Clearly, providing the mature criteria of genetic exclusion as a highly valid reason to walk away from a debase invitation to inanity may be too much for its egocentric fanatics.
I'm actually lost for words now.
Would be nice if the mods locked these kinds of threads, obvious trolling by the same user posing as multiple users and trying to race-bait on the forums in the hopes they can turn up a racist, supremacist nutter and then paint the LvMI with this brush... I don't think the LvMI should tolerate such baiting tactics.
The logical consistency of the moderation policy rears its head once again!
Actually, I'd say that Monk-Eye is probably legitimately a racist. Who else do you think their posting as, Clayton?
Anyway, it's funny that Bert is banned while Monk-Eye gets to continue posting nonesense. By legitimizing the position of moderator, they've taken it upon themselves to control the discussion here, and by banning Bert for a very obviously not serious comment, but letting Monk-Eye bleed their heart out about why they hate Muslims is just as good as condoning their racist position in my eyes.
To not act is to still make a choice. And when you're in control of the discussion, you're expected to do just that. No matter how principaled its supposed to be, they've enabled the crypto-fascist and blocked their critic.
Your comments constitute a terroristic threat and with more than seventeen thousand posts you should have been mature enough to understand the gravity of the comments. I did not report your comments to the moderator whose response is greatly appreciated, however I am considering a report to the FBI since I do not know your affiliations.
Your comments constitute ignorance, the end.
You wouldn't have to report, it's obvious Daniel Sanchez took it upon himself to ban my account, but I still got no reason as to why my account was banned specifically.
BP: I've never met a racist and I'm not familiar with race politics so I really can't comment on it. What I do know is that there are individuals and organizations which would like to discredit the LvMI organization (in particular because of its associations with Ron Paul and other libertarians) and the fastest way to discredit any organization is to associate it with racism or sympathy for racism. LvMI is not concerned with the study of racism in itself. Instead, it is an organization devoted to the study of economics and sociology generally through the methods of the Austrian school of economics - Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, et. al. None of this has anything to do with Nazism, Zionism, social Darwinism or any of the other -isms concerned with race and race superiority. While enlightened discussion of race issues may be possible on these forums, I see no benefit to LvMI of permitting race-baiting like this thread from Monk-Eye, and this isn't the first such thread from him.
Clayton is right. Monk-Eye is gone too, permanently.
Bert, I quoted the post that I banned you for. Your ban is only for 3 days. The more you ban dodge, however, the longer it will be.
Well, a notice would be nice instead of being surprised when I can't log into my own account (how do I suppose to find out without making another account to ask?). I'll just wait my 3 days of no posting.