Islam has seen our weakness and acts according to its nature. Murder, supremacy, terror, instil fear, kill Jews for Allah. Destroy the West.
Your phenomenal writings explain this to perfection, and always adding new insights.
But they couldn't harm us without our consent. And ours is still the more powerful force. So then, how do we not rebel?
Douglas Murray's " The Strange Death of Europe", Gad Saad's " suicidal empathy", an already mainstreamed term, and others, see it as it is. The greater, deeper problem, is us.
Islam has been at it since they took their first breath. They are the enemy, but they are not the cause of our incompetence.
They were defeated twice, and this is their third round. Tribal primitive societies live for this. That is normal.
But how do we fix " us"? Our behaviour is the abnormal one. The West is mentally ill.
AI prognostics spell more confusion coming. What information equips AI? Can we access control of it?
I have found a huge Islamist slant whenever I request info or ask questions from various AI providers.
Wikipaedia is perverse and reaches hundreds of millions too.
The media is being discredited one lie at a time. It will soon become irrelevant altogether.
But the deeper, seemingly intractable Orwellian problem is that " truth" is no longer interesting in any realm but science. Pilate's " what is Truth?", so disturbing in its cynicism within a spiritual context, is in today's -by now old - fervent relativism a " truthful" doubting credo.
People hear lies, know them to be lies, and simply either don't care or ignore the madness of their choice. Some are ignorant enough to believe them.
Islam only succeeds because we are insane. So now, what do we do? Was the fall of a great civilisation ever averted?
I blame the media for glossing over the real terrorists and their real ideology more than I blame the governments. The so called journalists, the arbiters of truth, no longer exist. They and they alone have allowed this religious fanaticism to metastasized into the scourge and evil it actually is.
But let me push back, just to clarify. What’s the advantage to the West of making the distinction you present here? How will this help win the fight?
If I understand you correctly, Islamic terrorism wants its victims terrified of… Islam, Allah, Muslims?
So why accommodate them by pinning their terrorism to their theology, if that’s what they want?
And don’t we risk alienating not-so-fastidiously-observant adherents of this theology?
Realistically, many Muslim countries have come to similar conclusions to yours, and chosen Islamic nominalism—less-than-literal religion—as the practical solution. Aren’t you removing that possibility?
Islam's obvious weakness is it can't take or tolerate criticism. Ergo criticism, deconstruction, mocking. etc. is what's needed. Thru Flyers, drama, comedy, dance, Street Theatre. Especially in Free Speech America, where phony Islamophobia laws can't be enacted. On my Substack, I'm developing a Counter Jihad Lite approach. It's low cost, perfectly legal, DIY, and guaranteed to trigger the RGA. I'm looking to connect with others to help me test it out. https://allenz1.substack.com/
The West sees Islam through its own eyes where religion no longer rules the worst and any of its dominating tendencies has been defanged. So of course in the West religion is seen as peaceful, one aspect of institutional life among many others. Within that parameter and vision reinforced by daily life, religion is always a religion of peace and that outlook is extended to Islam, which is not a religion of peace. But western leaders since George W. Bush have been repeating the false mantra that Islam is a religion of peace when it clearly is not, not by doctrine and not by practice and not by historical record; and so any criticism of Islam is seen as Islamophobia, another canard foisted on the West by intellectuals and politicians.
Compelling historical framing on how anarchism and other movemnts were once treated as doctrinal threats not just tactical ones. The shift away from naming ideology happened pretty fast once geopolitical interests got involved. I remeber reading about early 20th century anarchist violence and it was always tied directly to the worldview. That precision seems to have vanished entirely.
Islam has seen our weakness and acts according to its nature. Murder, supremacy, terror, instil fear, kill Jews for Allah. Destroy the West.
Your phenomenal writings explain this to perfection, and always adding new insights.
But they couldn't harm us without our consent. And ours is still the more powerful force. So then, how do we not rebel?
Douglas Murray's " The Strange Death of Europe", Gad Saad's " suicidal empathy", an already mainstreamed term, and others, see it as it is. The greater, deeper problem, is us.
Islam has been at it since they took their first breath. They are the enemy, but they are not the cause of our incompetence.
They were defeated twice, and this is their third round. Tribal primitive societies live for this. That is normal.
But how do we fix " us"? Our behaviour is the abnormal one. The West is mentally ill.
AI prognostics spell more confusion coming. What information equips AI? Can we access control of it?
I have found a huge Islamist slant whenever I request info or ask questions from various AI providers.
Wikipaedia is perverse and reaches hundreds of millions too.
The media is being discredited one lie at a time. It will soon become irrelevant altogether.
But the deeper, seemingly intractable Orwellian problem is that " truth" is no longer interesting in any realm but science. Pilate's " what is Truth?", so disturbing in its cynicism within a spiritual context, is in today's -by now old - fervent relativism a " truthful" doubting credo.
People hear lies, know them to be lies, and simply either don't care or ignore the madness of their choice. Some are ignorant enough to believe them.
Islam only succeeds because we are insane. So now, what do we do? Was the fall of a great civilisation ever averted?
Is there an example we can learn from?
I blame the media for glossing over the real terrorists and their real ideology more than I blame the governments. The so called journalists, the arbiters of truth, no longer exist. They and they alone have allowed this religious fanaticism to metastasized into the scourge and evil it actually is.
My mind is exploding. So insightful.
But let me push back, just to clarify. What’s the advantage to the West of making the distinction you present here? How will this help win the fight?
If I understand you correctly, Islamic terrorism wants its victims terrified of… Islam, Allah, Muslims?
So why accommodate them by pinning their terrorism to their theology, if that’s what they want?
And don’t we risk alienating not-so-fastidiously-observant adherents of this theology?
Realistically, many Muslim countries have come to similar conclusions to yours, and chosen Islamic nominalism—less-than-literal religion—as the practical solution. Aren’t you removing that possibility?
Islam's obvious weakness is it can't take or tolerate criticism. Ergo criticism, deconstruction, mocking. etc. is what's needed. Thru Flyers, drama, comedy, dance, Street Theatre. Especially in Free Speech America, where phony Islamophobia laws can't be enacted. On my Substack, I'm developing a Counter Jihad Lite approach. It's low cost, perfectly legal, DIY, and guaranteed to trigger the RGA. I'm looking to connect with others to help me test it out. https://allenz1.substack.com/
The West sees Islam through its own eyes where religion no longer rules the worst and any of its dominating tendencies has been defanged. So of course in the West religion is seen as peaceful, one aspect of institutional life among many others. Within that parameter and vision reinforced by daily life, religion is always a religion of peace and that outlook is extended to Islam, which is not a religion of peace. But western leaders since George W. Bush have been repeating the false mantra that Islam is a religion of peace when it clearly is not, not by doctrine and not by practice and not by historical record; and so any criticism of Islam is seen as Islamophobia, another canard foisted on the West by intellectuals and politicians.
typo correction: rules the roost
Compelling historical framing on how anarchism and other movemnts were once treated as doctrinal threats not just tactical ones. The shift away from naming ideology happened pretty fast once geopolitical interests got involved. I remeber reading about early 20th century anarchist violence and it was always tied directly to the worldview. That precision seems to have vanished entirely.
All belief whose origin story began with Abraham fit this description