The Muslim Problem

[shaberon]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
And I'll add, there's a lot about the Muslim religion I hate. I also don't like cousin marriage and their intolerance of homosexuality, but, I don't want to see them killed either. Not supporting killing other religions, isn't the same as just loving the heck out of them!

That's sort of how I see it. It's Arabian Judaism of an indeterminate rabbinical tradition. What they share is opposition to religions of the stars. The notable difference is not any kind of identifiable theology, but that, unlike Judaism or Christianity, Islam heavily focuses on the Afterlife.

That means with respect to judgment for your deeds.

And with respect to its origins, it is a system of jurisprudence.


It is just like Kievan Rus. Both cases were the invitation of foreign rulers. This was because they had no connections and therefor no favoritism. Both regions were tribal in the sense that law was a matter of contention. Sons would quarrel over inheritance; feuds would go on for various reasons. Over time, people decided it was to their detriment, and of course made them vulnerable to attack.

Russia and Islam started under very similar conditions.


What is interesting is that it refers to Jews as different tribes, who just use a different ritual for the same "client or patron". It specifically gives them equal rights to the converted Islamic tribes. Aside from assigning these rights, the first principle of goodness and justice given in the Constitution of Medina is:

And the believers shall not leave any one, hard-pressed with debts, without affording him some relief, in order that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.

What does that mean? It definitely means Heaven and Hell are established in this context. Whenever we see "good" or "it would be better" then failure is Hell. But the first scriptural teaching of Jesus is the same thing. I can turn to either one of these, and look around and I am in a Fascist system which grinds the poor like livestock.

And so this first treaty-like agreement started in Medina and the Jewish tribes backed out and betrayed and attacked the Muslims.

To be taken seriously, it is helpful to have a basic grasp on things and be willing to talk as equals non-denominationally. I say this because I do not believe what any of them believe, except I agree that moment-to-moment choices create Heaven and Hell, and so the social order is important. In most aspects about the material world, we are in a close enough agreement that we can share the planet. Anyone can make a Westphalian Peace with Islam if they can do it inside themselves. The opposite of having it inside is to cease caring about the pain of other beings.

[sdv]

Hate speech in South Africa: most transgressions are committed by whites against blacks. There have also been horrific race motivated beatings and murders, commited by whites against blacks. But, it is a mixed bag: an ambassador (black) published an op ed that was a rant against gay people (methinks he protests a bit too much!) and he was prosecuted for hate speech. He defended humself vigorously and I think he got away with it. Basically, it is only hate speech if someone is inciting violence or harmful discrimination. As you can imagine, judgment on that can be coloured by prejudice of a judge or how clever a person can be in legal arguments.

The formenting of hate and demonization of all Muslims seems to fit the category of hate speech. Perhaps I am being simplistic, but the solution is to focus on the act and not the person commiting the act. Murder is murder, no matter who does the murdering or who is murdered, and why. Who benefits from stirring up Islamaphobia? Most criticsm of Israel is not anti-Semetic, but there are a few stirring up anti-Semitism (notably Netanyahu himself). Who benefits, or are the people doing this just stupid?

[Agape]

I have observed innate difference between "Jewish mentality" vs "Arabic muslim mentality" in tackling everyday problems. Generally speaking of course.

Typical "Jewish" response when confronted with controversial type of situation is to "lie oneself out" best and fast as possible. Every traditional religion forbids violence , especially violence on innocent people. So this is not a problem of "religion" rather a problem of human mentality who got accustomed to creating many "white lies" as form of defense, as means of achievement and many other "decent" walks of life.
Where "decency" requires many artificial enhancements as means of survival,
survival among or in the mirror of vital human force , turns to "narcissistic argument" that can not be well explained to either party ( because "we all" suffer from similar maladies no matter the advancements in medical research ).

Typical "Muslim mentality" in conflict resolution is straight, openly inquisitive, opposed to "hide and seek" and agressive towards "deceit".

So here we have two human characteristics clashing together , mercilessly.

Pathological lies on one side of the plot and short tempered "truthers" on the other side, both "extremely" hurt by the world's injustice towards them.


I don't see how this could flip even in course of next thousand years.

Orthodox Judaism nearly outlived its Time yet it will always be preserved as "religious relic".

1.6 billion Islam is part of "liberal Judaism" since they all share the same Abrahamic roots.

Since they can not "blend" and remaining Jewish populace is predictable on way of steeper decline the rest is a matter of psychological, lawful, and religious Respect and Self Respect.


Trying to "fight by the same means" without giving each other "space to breath" eventually results and will result in mass extinction of religion and many people will comit legally medical suicide of one or another kind.


It's obvious that no one on this planet knows "how to stop it" from happening.


🪔

[norman]

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by norman (here)


I know at best I'll get no thanks for saying this, but I think Mohamedism was a crock religion from the get go because they were clandestinely conjured up to do the dirty work of slaughtering the people who knew what Jesus was really all about, so a snake cult could get away with launching a fake Christian religion. That was the Roman snake cult's brilliant idea to ward off the encroaching true Christian threat to their crumbling high maintenance empire, convert it to a soft power stealth empire of religiosity and other mind control tricks. They killed two birds with one stone. Pure evil genius.

I've heard two different versions of how Mohamed popped up. One version included him having a child wife. That smells like a useful red herring but could be based on a later mistress/plaything. The other version is that he married a rich Roman trader woman who set him up as the Roman's perfect solution to their "Jesus" problem. That's the version that makes a lot of sense to me nowadays as I've gathered together a lot of information into which it fits perfectly.


Here's the version that makes sense to me.

The founding and possible purpose of Mohammedism.mp3
https://app.box.com/s/8z3gn2lil76u3f5e0iwef6q9en1fci8l


If this story is the real one it tells me that they are still performing the same function 15 hundred years later but with extra higher ranks of co conspirators with the satanic brotherhood.


Should I now see myself out. I've just slagged off two religions in one go I haven't even started on the other varieties.

Well norm, you've got a thanks from me.

In terms of whether Islam is a crock religion, I watched several videos earlier this year where Jay Smith dismantles the keystones of Islam on a more science based approach.

I went through the comparative study of religions in stages. In my 20's I was curious as to who the 'Mahdi' was because I had read Dune and it got me thinking...

One of the things I noticed is that each of the three Abrahamic religions told essentially the same "end times" story with the twist that they end up being the "chosen" people.

The Messiah for Judiasm
The Mahdi for Islam
and the Second Coming of Jesus for Christians.

In the Dune books, the Bene Gesserit pre-seed myths into the cultures of planets that can be used to their advantage, if needed. To me, this looked like the "end times" narrative was like someone pre-seeding a myth across and embedded within the Abrahamic religions for some future potential purpose. Sort of like someone hedging their bets.

I don't really see them as prophetic, but more as social engineering.

I also noticed a shift in Muhammed's messaging when he traveled in the desert from Medina to Mecca. It became less focused on peace, and more focused on war and fighting. At the time, I wondered if his original messaging had been high-jacked with the encounter of a being at that time. There is a long history of Djinn in that region.

Earlier this year, I watched a few talks given by Jay Smith, he discusses the modern research into the Quran, Mecca, and Muhammed that essentially dismantles the main tenets of Islam. And complements the information you shared in your audio. For all intents and purposes, it looks like the timelines don't add up, geography doesn't support the Muhammad story, and that it was actually written centuries later than claimed.

I'll leave a link here for people who would like to take a closer, hopefully more neutral, look at the research he shares. Fair warning, Jay Smith is a Christian missionary, some people may be offended by that. But the research presented is religion neutral. And I think would be quite useful to have in one's knowledge bank.

It may not immediately address the concern of what Mike described as the Muslim problem. The first step is have genuine authentic conversations. If the conversation gets shut down via social judgement and pressures, people cannot move forward.

Also, I think to address the overarching concern, it's helpful to understand how FOG, affects people, (Fear, Obligation, Guilt).

FOG has always played a role in religious control of peoples. But as I'm learning more and more about it's role in the current iteration of jihadi thinking, I can see how it's been amplified, almost like a psyop on the Muslim peoples, making support of jihad an obligation and so on.

Thanks for that link. I won't get into a full report of my own takeaway from it, yet. As you say, it all goes into the mixer.

William Fink has done a lot of digging around in the historic details about Hebrews, Judaeans(so called Jews) and Muslims. The whole of this interview with William is a very high value listen, in my opinion. He pulls apart a few very common mistaken assumptions about, mainly, 'Jews'. His take on the origin of the Muslims seems very credible and not much of a misfit from that audio version I posted. If I join up the origins of the Roman cult with the origins of the Babylonian corruption to the Talmudic version of Hebrew/Abrahamic law they actually fit perfectly and I think Lee Merritt did a decent convincing job of actually doing that a couple years ago.

The interview starts off unpromising but it soon becomes a gripping listen. I suggest to not miss a minute of it but if your time is very tight and you only want to hear the Muslim origin part go straight to around 50 minutes into it.

If you listen to the whole thing the main shocker is that Jesus wasn't a Jew at all. and he explains that very well. He also explains a good case for why John The Baptist had his ministry at the river, which is tightly connected to the reason why Jesus wasn't a Jew.

I know I will do my best not to miss any new interviews with William Fink. He's straightened my own understanding and thinking about this stuff enormously.


The biblical history of the Jews - William Finck

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=chxkKz70cn4

[Mike]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
I've been misinformed I guess. I thought Buddhists were all about compassion and sh!t.

You are misinforming yourself by the use of labels.

The most compassionate act I could render is to stop the United States and to blot out this mentality.

The actual payback of justice just for Korea would be to carpet bomb 30% of the population. Then you could take another amount with napalm for Vietnam. And so on. That form is not likely to happen, so I am under a moral obligation to at the very least say something.

I'm going to try to do this nicely, one more time. I'm not going through a thing where we pretend history didn't happen and that humans can be reduced to some categories and checkboxes.

I've tried asking what the motivation is for this, and it is just an "area", or, maybe, an amorphous "culture", but there are serious issues with it.

First of all there is a normal reaction to this same news simply posted as Bondi Massacre 2025. Well, it is from a person in the area. Everything is fine. No panic. As in, no reactionary conversations are being raised, because there isn't really any issue to talk about.



Now first of all for this "area" to exist, the politics are Saudi. As explained, this is a British trick after getting the Arabs (Muslims) to attack the Ottomans (Muslims) from the south. Saud is the House of removing Al Quds from Arabia.

As British -- Zionist as that may be, it is just a facet on synarchy or oligarchy.


The thing you have posted here -- until we can figure out any difference -- is the strategy of modern Fascism.


Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre (26 March 1842 – 5 February 1909)

Saint Yves is not ambiguous at all on the question of Islam. In the
{Mission des souverains} he warned about the necessity of its exclusion. He
wrote: "I have indicated the measures to be taken with respect to Islam:" said
Saint Yves," there are very different other ones that the Council of Churches
would have to adopt vis-à-vis Israel. This last one, entangled, but not
regularly associated with all of the works of Christianity, having no armed
political body in opposition to it, like Islam has, should not, without
dangerous iniquity, be treated like the Social State of the Muslims." Saint
Yves argues that there must absolutely be a new alliance between the
Christian nations of Europe and Israel against Islam, even if people object
that it was "the people of Jerusalem who crucified Jesus." (p. 449)

Saint-Yves wrote: "In summation: Israel is a major (player) rallied in
fact to the Empire of Civilization; Islam in a minor (player) armed against
that Empire. We must open to the first the assurance and regular enjoyment
of its right; we must tie the second, willingly or by force, to the Christian
peace everywhere across Africa and Asia."



It's pure Fascism 100%.

It's verbally against the Peace of Westphalia, which it knows was the thinking of early America, which means America's knowledge and values have changed, if no one knows anything about this, and and apparently they don't.

Rockefeller, Fiat, Franco's Spain and the Condor Legion...and so on...and it leaves me curious how many are truly in favor of Fascism.

Threatening me and providing a solution is Fascism. That's what looks like happened here.

It's the doctrine of One World Empire:

...a diatribe against the Treaty of Westphalia. His animosity and
venom were directed against the Westphalia gathering because it had introduced a
principle of the {Advantage of the other, agape}, and failed to establish a Synarchy of
Empire based on {taking advantage of the other}.


Support of the west plus Palestine to the exclusion of the Arabs is Fascism. If this is what anyone thinks, you are a Fascist. Just say so. Things will be simpler that way.

I don't know what you mean by "area" or "culture" or why you insist on using air quotes all the time. It's confusing. I don't know what any of this means really. Sometimes you're readable for a few sentences before going off to the stars. I feel like I'm reading a first or second gen A.I. that hasn't worked out all the kinks yet. Saint Yves? Peace of Westphalia? You're overshooting the mark by miles man. This is all very straightforward.

Muslims are being forced into western cultures in large numbers. It's causing chaos and violence, and it's eroding western culture. It's a problem. Thus the thread title name: The Muslim Problem. The goal, led by the WEF and the UN in particular (tho we could surely abstract upwards even further if we knew who the deep state globalists were behind the veil) is to establish a one world communist government (woke and ESG and so called degrowth are obvious efforts in this direction. They're all just different names for communism). They've married woke Marxism temporarily to Muslim extremism as a 1-2 punch. What they have in common is a seething hatred of the west. The most obvious impediment to a one world communist government is the west, the U.S. in particular.

Muslims have a disturbing history of aggressive conquest, and we're witnessing its latest iteration right now. It's an obvious and deliberate attempt to destroy and conquer western culture. If desiring an end to this madness makes me a fascist, then I'm a fascist.

You say you don't know what the west is until you wish to criticize it, then suddenly you know all about it. You choose to define the west by it's failures. I think it's a cynical and ungrateful mentality. All cultures have shameful histories to some degree or other, but none boast the remarkable successes of the west, which you and our current crop of oikophobes choose to ignore for reasons I can only speculate about.

[AutumnW]

The US itself, to take it back to early 2000's began the slaughter (Yes, slaughter) of innocents in Iraq in 2003. That war was expanded under Obama (Oh yes, dear, dear Obama) in massive waves of drone strikes throughout Iraq, Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFt6vfL9dL4

Under Obama and more to the point, Hillary (Hildebeast) Clinton, Libya was destroyed.

And Syria, ffs, Obama was agitating for regime change and backed it with weapons, again, using unproveable narratives.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BHD_NXIo69g

You could argue that a lot of this was motivated by oil. You could equally argue that it was in the interests of Israel to keep Arab countries weak through constant bombardment.

This is the main reason there are huge waves of immigrants to Western countries in the last few years.

So, don't anybody DARE to hate on Muslim immigrants who are trying to escape war torn countries in the Middle East.

[rgray222]

Some countries have a strong policy towards illegal immigrants, and in particular Muslims. It is estimated that approximately 70%+ of the illegal immigrants entering Russia are Muslim.

Putin has a strong track record of taking action against illegal immigration. His focus has been on targeting criminal activities associated with illegal migrants, and he enjoys solid support from the majority of the Russian people. He has implemented laws that require undocumented workers to either become legal residents (if possible) or leave the country. Additionally, Russia conducts frequent mass raids on migrant workers from Central Asia, these raids span from one end of the country to the other. This happens almost daily at construction sites, markets, and mosques, often involving violence.

The only time that Putin allows an exception is when undocumented immigrants are willing to serve in Russia’s military in exchange for legal status. Unlike Trump, Putin enjoys the backing of approximately 95% of his citizens and faces minimal opposition, as there is no significant political party challenging his authority. Russia has not entirely avoided the issues related to Muslim migration, but they do have it under control (for the time being) with firm, consistent, long-standing policies and laws.

The West struggles to consistently enforce immigration policies due to frequent leadership changes and the dominance of a single political party that strongly advocates for immigration as a way to gain political power.

[rgray222]

John Hilton posted this on the breaking news thread, post #3893

Ten European countries have started to return Muslims to their home countries

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GOuWw9wxEnA

[Jaak]

Russia and India made deal to bring one million Indians to Russia

Posted by rgray222 (here)
Some countries have a strong policy towards illegal immigrants, and in particular Muslims. It is estimated that approximately 70%+ of the illegal immigrants entering Russia are Muslim.

Putin has a strong track record of taking action against illegal immigration. His focus has been on targeting criminal activities associated with illegal migrants, and he enjoys solid support from the majority of the Russian people. He has implemented laws that require undocumented workers to either become legal residents (if possible) or leave the country. Additionally, Russia conducts frequent mass raids on migrant workers from Central Asia, these raids span from one end of the country to the other. This happens almost daily at construction sites, markets, and mosques, often involving violence.

The only time that Putin allows an exception is when undocumented immigrants are willing to serve in Russia’s military in exchange for legal status. Unlike Trump, Putin enjoys the backing of approximately 95% of his citizens and faces minimal opposition, as there is no significant political party challenging his authority. Russia has not entirely avoided the issues related to Muslim migration, but they do have it under control (for the time being) with firm, consistent, long-standing policies and laws.

The West struggles to consistently enforce immigration policies due to frequent leadership changes and the dominance of a single political party that strongly advocates for immigration as a way to gain political power.

Russia is actively recruiting Indian workers to address a severe labour shortage in its industrial sectors, particularly in the Sverdlovsk region, with plans to bring in up to one million skilled workers by the end of 2025.
This initiative, driven by the war in Ukraine and demographic decline, has led to a significant increase in Indian migration to Russia, with some professionals taking up roles in construction, manufacturing, and even street cleaning in cities like St. Petersburg.

Slavic people aint happy about that .

Kapotnya Oil Refinery, Moscow.

Hundreds of Indian, Vietnamese, Afghan, and Central Asian men in a endless queue for jobs that used to be done by local Russians. The cameraman says it outright: “No local men left.”

Official casualty figures are classified by the Kremlin, but Moscow cannot hide the fact that thousands of Russian men are no longer showing up to work. In a city that is 90+% ethnic ("white") Russian and famously hostile to visible migrant labor, mass replacement by foreigners at a strategic refinery is the loudest possible admission that the male workforce has been bled dry at the front.

[rgray222]

A very close friend of mine is Russian, and she tells me many of the small villages around Russia are devoid of "youngish" men due to the war. These small villages have a hard time bringing foreign labor in because they can't compete with the wages being paid in the cities.

[Mike]

Brit Tommy Robinson breaks it all down in this powerful interview. He's got all the stats, all the receipts, and all the experience to speak on this Muslim disaster authoritatively. He's been on the front lines for years now, and has paid the price for it. A remarkable man, a patriot, courageous, scrappy, highly determined, and on fire with the truth and his current mission. I get goose bumps listening to him speak.

1 hr 15 mins:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kM6hqIGWgd4

[Losus4]

I'm working for Amazon right now as a seasonal temp, and I'm literally the only white Englishman on the floor. Everyone else is Indian, with a few east Africans. English is rarely spoken, many of my workmates don't even speak English, and have the audacity to speak to me in Indian expecting me to understand it, in Birmingham the UKs second largest city. I've worked there every Christmas for 10 years and this demographic trend—in migrants making up the workforce—has always been the case, but there has been a general shift. 10 years ago it was a mix of whites, eastern Europeans, and British-born Muslims and blacks. Then it shifted to mostly sudanese, Eritreans and Somalis. But today it is all Indian. On a long enough timeline Indians will dominate all. And tbh I think this is preferable to a Muslim/African majority. Indians are fairly affable and decent people, and don't carry the chip on their shoulder that lots of Muslims and blacks do. But yeah the future is definitely Indian in regard to mass immigration to Western nations.

[SilentFeathers]

No matter how you look at it or what your opinions are about about this, it will not end well.

https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/

[lunaflare]

Katie Hopkins lived in South Africa to produce a documentary (2018)about criminal black gangs systematically murdering white farmers. I have not watched it, but I have listened to Katie being interviewed about the TOTAL media blackout surrounding this issue. She has subsequently been banned from re-entering South Africa and has written a book with the same title.

Here is her take on Amazon:

Plaasmoorde: The Killing Fields is a world-first — it started as a documentary that goes well beyond polite interviews in safe places and deep into uncomfortable places, where the heart of the truth lives. I have now chronicled my personal experience while making this groundbreaking film. It includes first-hand interviews with active farm attackers and serving police officers who confirm that corrupt police are complicit in the mass slaughter of South Africa’s whites.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Plaasmoord...ew,Read%20more

Plaasmoorde: The Killing Fields. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjBu6VZWE7k

[Agape]

More I think about it , it's because they try to "cancel" God ( Infinity ) in the equation and limit natural evolution of human potential.

The natural course of human evolution on Earth no matter how diverse we are is to co-educate, that is learn from each other and in better case, co-operate , help each other instead just "exploiting, ignoring, criticising and condemning".

Centuries of indoctrination by powerful ideologies and empires seems to have left most people nearly soul-less. The rest could have been engineered in Yale and impressed on average man without force.
The remaining "soul power" is granted or taken from man by a blueprinted stamped paper. Or even a long number in today's digital terms.

In natural evolution process , the US could turn out (as good as) religious state, perhaps the most advanced spiritual experiment of humanity. The Temple of Humanity rather than the Triumph over the rest.

If natural process of human evolution is allowed poorly developed and former colonial countries would be on par technologically and socially , simply because "we all have potential".

If you "cancel God" you have cancelled every religion and belief in Earth , in the heads and hearts of believers.

Billions of people believe in...multiple dimensions, ancestral realms, sacred worlds above and below and them and their ancestors used to "talk to them" every day , now and then as a part of their life.

And vice versa.

Facing this new turmulous era of human trans-formation , transformation from tribal primitive consciousness through various "national" and other "higher pact" and "blog" consciousnesses we may eventually arrive at the real and realised "planetary human" , Citizen of the Universe , some day.


So far we have failed .

Even the smartest humans wanted to be the King and the First in the vast scopes of Galaxy which isn't really possible , instead being just Citizen.

So you better have well dressed assemblies of monarchs and patriarchs competing "for the One".

Everyone else , following the faux pas on the top left to grandma and "back to country".

[SilentFeathers]

How ironic, and very symbolic; New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani being sworn in by Letitia James using a Quran in an abandoned tunnel. (A preview of things to come).

[shaberon]

Posted by Mike (here)
Sometimes you're readable for a few sentences before going off to the stars. I feel like I'm reading a first or second gen A.I. that hasn't worked out all the kinks yet. Saint Yves? Peace of Westphalia? You're overshooting the mark by miles man. This is all very straightforward.

Muslims are being forced into western cultures in large numbers. It's causing chaos and violence, and it's eroding western culture. It's a problem. Thus the thread title name: The Muslim Problem. The goal, led by the WEF and the UN in particular (tho we could surely abstract upwards even further if we knew who the deep state globalists were behind the veil) is to establish a one world communist government (woke and ESG and so called degrowth are obvious efforts in this direction. They're all just different names for communism). They've married woke Marxism temporarily to Muslim extremism as a 1-2 punch. What they have in common is a seething hatred of the west. The most obvious impediment to a one world communist government is the west, the U.S. in particular.

Okay. This is a slightly different explanation. Your peeve or major complaint is:


One World Communist Government


This is recognizable; the potential strategy and reaction against it follow a definite track of development.

Part of that, for example, is Lyndon LaRouche; he took some essentially true and useful information, and re-branded it in a type of pyramid scheme that could be summarized as:


Everybody against the Communists.


This is of course subsequent to McCarthyism, which comes on the heels of many early 1900s Americans being livid about Bolshevism.

Coming from that time frame, I personally have handled a FRN from the 1920s, when they were printed with the bank of issuance:


Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago


above which, someone wrote in penmanship of the time:


Bolshevik



The Federal Reserve System is or is not what is being decried now?

Muslims have a disturbing history of aggressive conquest, and we're witnessing its latest iteration right now. It's an obvious and deliberate attempt to destroy and conquer western culture. If desiring an end to this madness makes me a fascist, then I'm a fascist.

Culture and religion are not politics. The "western culture" so far lacks identification or definition.

You say you don't know what the west is until you wish to criticize it, then suddenly you know all about it. You choose to define the west by it's failures. I think it's a cynical and ungrateful mentality. All cultures have shameful histories to some degree or other, but none boast the remarkable successes of the west, which you and our current crop of oikophobes choose to ignore for reasons I can only speculate about.

I don't know what your version of "western culture" is.

From the objective view, the "western area" was violently overtaken by Rome and Catholicism and went into basically a one-book dark age for about a thousand years.

Only from around the 1500s do you get a slow, delicate trickle of any other ideas.

Then Catholics and Protestants kill each other for what they think; then there is a witch hunt to kill anyone for thinking outside this box.

I thought we were temporarily successful in early America about getting away from those situations, and then we warned that the Constitution would create a consolidated government which would lead to new abuses of power, which it has.

How am I supposed to complain about Muslims fleeing war-torn regions when that is exactly the reason I live on this continent?

I have no problem objecting to "One World Government" communist or otherwise, it's just not with an existential fear of Islam or by preserving a "culture" that I either cannot identify or would probably rather avoid. If I had been raised in an Orthodox domain, I might have turned out differently, but this seems to be excluded from "the west", or it at least is a completely different system from the Roman one. I had to find it for myself, as if it were being shunned from the human knowledge base.

I understand it may be a little weird that from around the 1990s, there are a lot of Asians and Africans appearing in Scandinavia instead of being confined to France. These are complex issues. It does not seem to me that this lump-sum labeling thing is the way to handle it. But, yes, that's exactly what St-Yves said: Islam is inferior and the Judeo-Christian west must evict them from Palestine. I don't see why it is irrelevant that French and British governments pursued exactly this strategy, that merely leads to this Muslim diaspora of later days. We have gotten him quoted verbatim as if it just tumbled out of the sky on its own, as some new discovery. This idea caused those results, and the complaint is communism?

[Matthew]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
...

So, don't anybody DARE to hate on Muslim immigrants who are trying to escape war torn countries in the Middle East.

Hate on them? Why would I hate on them? My eyes are wide open, I see things you're sheltered from and I adapt my bias. You make it sound like it's a paranoid emotionally driven thing.

If they're fleeing war-torn countries why don't the women and children come en-mass? Why don't they arrive on a plane with a passport and declare refugee status? Instead it's a whole bunch of young men paying serious money to avoid passport checks, and women and children are so very rare.

Don't forget I'm not going on press reports, I've seen inside migrant hotels. I've seen the nice migrants and the nasty ones. It's not exceptional to find really nice people there but let me burst your bubble: it's not exceptional to find murderous ones. What would you know? It wouldn't be an issue if it were women and children were fleeing war torn countries. That's not what's going on. What I love to see is Christian migrants coming to church, fired up on Jesus. Sometimes it makes the terrible situation worthwhile.

You haven't seen the problem up close and personal like I have. Sorry to put it like this but you don't know what you're talking about.

[norman]

Posted by Agape (here)
More I think about it , it's because they try to "cancel" God ( Infinity ) in the equation and limit natural evolution of human potential.

The natural course of human evolution on Earth no matter how diverse we are is to co-educate, that is learn from each other and in better case, co-operate , help each other instead just "exploiting, ignoring, criticising and condemning".

Centuries of indoctrination by powerful ideologies and empires seems to have left most people nearly soul-less. The rest could have been engineered in Yale and impressed on average man without force.
The remaining "soul power" is granted or taken from man by a blueprinted stamped paper. Or even a long number in today's digital terms.

In natural evolution process , the US could turn out (as good as) religious state, perhaps the most advanced spiritual experiment of humanity. The Temple of Humanity rather than the Triumph over the rest.

If natural process of human evolution is allowed poorly developed and former colonial countries would be on par technologically and socially , simply because "we all have potential".

If you "cancel God" you have cancelled every religion and belief in Earth , in the heads and hearts of believers.

Billions of people believe in...multiple dimensions, ancestral realms, sacred worlds above and below and them and their ancestors used to "talk to them" every day , now and then as a part of their life.

And vice versa.

Facing this new turmulous era of human trans-formation , transformation from tribal primitive consciousness through various "national" and other "higher pact" and "blog" consciousnesses we may eventually arrive at the real and realised "planetary human" , Citizen of the Universe , some day.


So far we have failed .

Even the smartest humans wanted to be the King and the First in the vast scopes of Galaxy which isn't really possible , instead being just Citizen.

So you better have well dressed assemblies of monarchs and patriarchs competing "for the One".

Everyone else , following the faux pas on the top left to grandma and "back to country".

Yes, we will always fail as long as we dig our ego heels in and insist that we can get it right all on our ownsome by "Learning From Each Other", yea that's a bright idea . . . . . not.

Our intelligent adversary very much wants us to think we can though. Cancelling god, in this context, is the intellect assuming that a more perfectly polished turd can pass itself off as the source of the light it sparkles with.

Not gonna happen, no way, never. A turd is a turd.

[shaberon]

I'm going to respond to this again, because, despite it being triggered by a Muslim incident, and people, I guess, not liking the religion, the view being presented renders them as useful idiots rather than the actual culprits.


I see today the Australians are spitting on Muslim women. I'm glad that they didn't "9/11" it, but, it may not be perfectly tranquil either.


If we don't focus on the bias issues, it appears to me the main thing Mike is saying is:

The goal, led by the WEF and the UN in particular (tho we could surely abstract upwards even further if we knew who the deep state globalists were behind the veil) is to establish a one world communist government...

Okay. World Economic Forum is a relatively recent private think tank. He can have a goal. He's allowed to do that. I don't have to like it; he can do whatever he wants.

I'm not sure you can say the United Nations has a goal, other than what is in its charter, because it is made of disparate groups. The meaning could apply to long-standing vested interests that attempt to maintain pressure on it, such as even the agencies that formulated it. It happens to be in the eleventh hour before the die was cast, maneuvers were done to bring Nazi Argentina into the fold and invent the phrase "collective security agreement", which is grandfathered straight in to the basis of NATO.

Mike did not actually say it was a communist government operating through the UN, which was in the process of becoming this "world communist government", in fact this part has been left rather blank.

This is a case where I would suggest both views are correct.

The underlying architecture of the UN is built of literal Nazis and directly inspirational to the Fascist NATO. Fascism is present and included, but no one has said we're going to broadly spread Nazism or use someone similarly violent as a role model. It's not. It's above and beyond you.

Therefore, not the United Nations itself -- as in everyone in the world -- but, vested interests influential and informative to it, have effectively and already created a system of two laws:



Fascism and Capitalism for the Patricians

Communism for everyone else



I used to have a lot of people tell me "I like capitalism, I'm glad we have it," but actually you are not a capitalist. You can't be. It means your primary mode of engagement is the investment of capital. It includes banking categorically, and large industries -- if you took a loan to start a small business, you are not a capitalist, you have probably just been exploited by one. Laws about capital gains or inheritance or offshore regulations have nothing to do with you.

The main difference with eastern governments that bear the name "Communism" is that this is the Hard Kill variety. You go with the program, or you're taken out. The sublimated form in the US and UK is a form of Soft Kill Communism. We'll keep you sick and generally prevent you from achieving a full flowering of anything.


Sometimes it's been said the Jesuits invented all the "-isms". These are just ways of talking; they're not really anything real; malleable words. I am using them broadly, and not according to what Marx said in which appendix, or any of that kind of technical fleecing which will exhaust itself trying to explain how Democratic Nepal is run by Communists. The term "Communism" doesn't literally apply to America, and you would say Britain is "Socialist", but once you realize you never will be a capitalist, you are just labor, where does that leave you.



Despite the fact that the OP does not like excessive historical allusions, we are re-living the issues of the French Revolution.

We haven't worked it out, because, by shelving Westphalia, treaties and geo-politics never addressed and resolved conflicts, they deal with the fallout and consequences.



Alright. I wouldn't say the consequence that sparked this thread does not exist. There is such a thing as Muslim migration, and, I can believe there are packs of dangerous looking guys, but you should see the Americans. We have plenty of this in our own natural citizens. In one of those nice neighborhoods, you won't see it, but for example Kensington Park where one of our members apparently used to live. That's not even what I would call "bad" because it was mostly a bunch of derelicts. Where I'm from, the teachers used to stand around in fence cages, because that was a really dangerous job.


A major issue when we look at rushes of sudden migrants, how much of that was due to a US attack or similar interference.


For "internally displaced persons", according to statistics:

Since 2000, the forcibly displaced population has tripled from approximately 38 million (see Figure 4).






That's not really true is it? It tripled since 2011.



Well, it's a big world, we've greatly modified forms of travel since my ancestors were such emigrants on sailboats. And so the thing is, the UN does not determine America's immigration policy. America does. When it was a new country, it was completely standard at the time for Europeans to assume that white Christians were superior to anyone, such as the Native Americans. Without addressing this grievance, overall, this was the decision of the WASP predecessors:

Congress restricted naturalized citizenship to "white persons" in 1790

They've formed this legislative body on the east coast (not including Florida).

This means they had no authority on the west coast for quite some time.


The American continent was already "pioneered" by India:

South Asians [like Mirrha Catarina de San Juan, previously profiled in Tides] traveled to the colonial New Spain (Mexico) as early as the 1500s and began to arrive in the United States as early as 1820. Although their numbers were small, as historian Vivek Bald has shown, there were South Asian communities scattered across the United States by the early 20th century. Mass migration to Canada in the early 1900s led to a southward movement to the United States. South Asians, mostly Punjabi Sikh male laborers, worked in the lumber mills, railroads, and farms up and down the Pacific Coasts of Canada and the United States. They joined other immigrants from China, Japan, and Korea, and like these groups, were targeted by anti-Asian xenophobes who were convinced that Asian immigrants were a threat to the U.S.


The 1911 U.S. Immigration Commission identified South Asians as the “least desirable race of immigrants thus far admitted to the United States."

Currently:

The Indian diaspora, for example—numbering 3.8 million—is significantly higher educated, more likely to be employed, and has a higher household income compared to the U.S. population as a whole.

It was a very long time before they were considered actually human.


From the run-up to the Act of 1965:

There was a large influx of immigration from Asia in the Western region—especially from China, whose workers provided cheap labor.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 stanched the inflow of Chinese immigrants, and the Immigration Act of 1917 imposed a language proficiency requirement for new immigrants, which greatly reduced immigration from outside of northwest Europe.

It's an understatement. The livelihood of our westward-expanding settlements depended on the Chinese to make the railroads. They were technically not slaves since they were paid fifty cents a month.

I, personally, owe my existence to these China-built railroads, despite not much thanks being given.


Strangely, before immigration law becomes more liberal, it gets more restrictive.

The turn of the twentieth century unleashed the doctrine of Eugenics, and:

...the national origins quotas, which had been enacted during the 1920s in a deliberate attempt to limit the entry of Southern and Eastern European immigrants—or more specifically Jews from the Russian Pale and Catholics from Poland and Italy, groups at the time deemed “unassimilable.”.

Racism at the time was fervent enough that the British had called the Dutch and Germans "animals" to promote the Boer War.

But that policy is also what -- it's a sort of proto-Communist ban. Why?


Visibly, there was a conflict where the Jews of New York boycotted goods from Germany.

The National Socialist Handbook for Law and Legislation of 1934–35, edited by the lawyer Hans Frank, contains a pivotal essay by Herbert Kier on the recommendations for race legislation which devoted a quarter of its pages to U.S. legislation, including race-based citizenship laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and immigration laws. Adolf Hitler wrote of his admiration of America's immigration laws in Mein Kampf, saying:

The American Union categorically refuses the immigration of physically unhealthy elements, and simply excludes the immigration of certain races.

By this point, many if not most Americans already associated Jews with Bolshevism and/or communist ideology. There was awareness that maybe not *all* of them are so, which is why American Fascists rejected the "antisemitic" tag. But as much as some could be excused, others were viewed with suspicion, and boycotting Germany in New York was probably one of the biggest levers paving the way for Hitler and for the anti-Communist platform.




"Communism" is a specialized "Socialism" which is primarily British in origin, and was pushed to Russia and China and East Asia; a premise of this doctrine is the elimination of monarchy. Most religions are about endorsing monarchs. Removing them is not a necessary feature of "revolution". This is recognizable in the world's first suicide bombing of Tsar Alexander II, which had preparations reaching as far back as the 1870s. Although it did not yet have the name, Communism, it is the same trend of foreign interference that ran for about forty years until the fate of the Romanovs.



There in New York around the 1930s comes some of the most dangerous material ever printed.


I'm not sure if anyone notices how close Alice Bailey is the the UN. She is like St-Yves on steroids. Notable as the spine of the whole thing is Ecumenical Papistry. However it is cloaked in phrases like One World Government and One World Religion.

Over the course of some nineteen massive tomes, this is garbled in one of the worst presentations of pseudo-theosophy culminating in 1949 Externalization of the Hierarchy which proclaims no less than the coming regent of all the one-ness is Jesus as Pope.

By this time, of course, all sorts of fantasies have been published by all sorts of weirdos, none of whom can claim to the the bedrock of the UN. This is actually a big deal. It may have been somewhat "behind the scenes" but this is really a virulent dispute within the American populace; for example, the John Birch Society hates it. It's closer to the Council on Foreign Relations, which they also hate.


But this is developing an image of America as prejudiced.


Voices against immigration restrictions came, naturally, through the United Nations. It can't enforce anything, but, it conveys some degree of influence.

Kennedy gave his support:

after being convinced to do so by the Anti-Defamation League.

As usual, the questions of "equal rights" are boisterously answered by the Jews, essentially upon whose coattails ride American blacks, and then every type of minority. Martin Luther King was a firm Zionist. So it is a primarily Jewish suggestion that America relax its policies. That's 1965. If you don't like opening the borders, you would blame the Jews and be a fervent anti-semite or at least not a Zionist. It's a very Hitlerian view. But this is very normal, and outnumbered American Communism by 4 : 1 or more.

The bill received wide support from both northern Democratic and Republican members of Congress, but strong opposition mostly from Southern Democrats.

...many lobbyists and organizations, such as the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Baltimore Anti-Communistic League, came to the hearing to explain their opposition. Many of the opposition believed that this bill would be against American welfare. The common argument that they used was that if the government allowed more immigrants into the United States, more employment opportunities would be taken away from the American workforce.

So, there is a vociferous Anti-Communist League, but what happened to the noise about financial swindles like the Federal Reserve and Social Security? The pills seem to have been swallowed.


Around this time, the "Communist threat" caused the United States to commit atrocities in Korea and Vietnam. We're trying to open the door to immigration by an alleged communist scheme, while actually devastating entire populations. I find it unforgivable.



Soon after the "gooks" or "reds", the "migratory problem" was Mexico, and the reaction had inverted consequences:

The increase in illegal migration from 1965 through the late 1970s is critically important to understanding the dynamics of policy responses in the years that followed, however, for it was this development that enabled political activists and bureaucratic entrepreneurs to frame Latino immigration as a grave threat to the nation.

The hypothesized causal chain begins with rising undocumented entries, which generate more apprehensions, which are then transformed into a conservative anti-immigrant reaction through the activities of entrepreneurial politicians, ambitious bureaucrats, and elements of the media, and this reaction, in turn, generates more restrictive immigration laws and border operations, which increase the number of Border Patrol agents and the size of the Border Patrol budget, which ultimately produce more linewatch hours, which generates more apprehensions. The effect of the feedback—what might be termed the “enforcement loop”—is to increase the conservative reaction independently of the actual number of illegal entries.


...the associated rise in apprehensions offered aspiring politicians an opportunity to mobilize voters and entrepreneurial bureaucrats a chance to obtain status and resources by framing illegal migration as a grave threat to the United States. These actors portrayed the undocumented inflow as a crisis, framing it as a “tidal wave” threatening to “flood” the country and “drown” its society, or as an “alien invasion” that threatened national security, defined with reference first to the Cold War and then to the war on terrorism.

The "legal" ratio went way up, but, so did the total number. That's just because of eliminating the racism and allowing "non-whites". If the intent was to dampen the flow, it went backwards, and in the meantime, fostered sensationalized journalism, so we reinforce thinking in these hyper-reactive ways. By now the country is of about 20% recent Mexican origin, but somehow the "threat" is gone, and/or there has not been a "Hispanization" of the helpless WASPS.



Around then, when the U. S. funds Islamic extremism, there is Islamic extremism.

We couldn't develop a natural historical relationship because they were not allowed, like most everyone else.


It leaves us in a bind. We're still trying to figure out what is "fair" between "different" groups of people, but we have actually committed the most heinous violence the world has ever seen. In a moral sense, the federal entity deserves what it dished out. That would be fair. Despite all the "threats" raised every so often, we are the threat. I will never support a large standing army, let alone any kind of force projection which seems to be our raison d'etre. This place was not militarized until World War One, we were looking at why we were outgunned by the Chilean Navy. It has attempted to rig the world on dollar dependency by placing all these foreign bases. At this top level, this is pretty much a Fascist country.


On the other hand, the "Communist alternative" we have been given is based on Ecumenical Papism.

That is practically from St-Yves to the Pope, re-iterated by Bailey in the ruckus and formation of the UN. I would say it is Jesuitical, or, the Jesuits are the "globalists", and this is a modified strategy for the twentieth century. It looks or has a communistic effect, but, is a tool of Fascists. I'm trying to explain this because I certainly had a phase where I was a devotee of the One World stuff. I personally renounced it because I figured out the underlying political problems with it; actually un-learning the intellectual esoterism was more difficult.


That's why I'm not on either side of it, and conclude the western-manufactured "-isms" are inadequate and unnecessary, if not unreal. They will remain real enough as long as someone keeps turning to them.

The "threat" idea has been pulled too many times, and it won't affect me or I am not concerned about Islam, and, I'm out of sympathy for our "Federal" entity, which isn't federal at all but nationalistic.

I will avidly hack at the "One World" anything, which would in turn lambast most western political systems, or the financial system of the BIS and petro-dollar. That did not come from Islam or any external source.


Finally, though, the concern of "One" is no longer credible either. Main reason is that the actions of the United States has gotten it to be rejected in very many places it was once desired. So, rather than a UN world government with the US either leading or subordinate to it, what is forming is a broad coalition of independent Islamic and communist countries that actually are the future of development, with everything Zionist shunned and avoided. This has already happened. The time of some kind of influence running through the United Nations so that anyone would surrender their sovereignty to it is over.


One of the main points of contention in all of these arguments is private property. It's absolutely vital for Capitalism, and is diminished or eliminated in other systems. The Patrician law has it so that you can transmit this to ensure your grandchildren's future, and you have no need to care if this form of hoarding caused hardship to other people.

As I see it, the only and necessary function of government is to protect the masses from this kind of exploitation. But the duty could be performed by an absolute monarch. The only kind of social contract I would want to enter into, is based on this principle, which in itself does not require any particular form of government.