Why Confront Islam?

[ding]

Just their toes.

I'm right again.

That would be a first.

So you agree that I'm right, good for you.

That would be a first too.

Just don't forget that I'm right and you agree.

What part of that would be a first did you not understand?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Delineating Lost Causes "

* Fantasy And Existentialism *

[The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin

Apparently you will continue to misconstrue that religion and principles of political policy are one in the same , as the precept is rooted in " inalienable rites " and " natural law " , which are wholly absurd within naturalism , but apparently the premise allows individuals to invoke absolution for their beliefs against others offering their own forms of absolute solutions .

Issue is that any number of absolute solutions for authoritarianism are hostile to individual liberty , especially and in particular the psychosis of fictional ishmaelism .

While fictional ishmaelism adherents protect their #I_SLAM_A_PHOBIA , through tactical measures of deflection and fake fear , why is it that , other than by fictional adherents themselves , other sects other not subject to the same rebuke , such as buddhist or hindus ; is it perhaps because tenets of creed for hindus or buddhists do not include pretenses for unprovoked illegitimate aggression by doctrine ?


* Individualism And Collectivism *

The video relates that generalization is the first step in over throwing a society , whereby despite the number of facts presented the facts are not believed ; and , the liberal versus conservative paradigm is an example of such a generalization .

The term liberal policy is no longer limited to negative and positive wrights that establish non aggression principles and negative liberties , as the contemporary regressive liberal supposition is extended to positive wrights for positive liberty - a conservative policy , since conservative policy is synonymous with authoritarian actions of government .

Egalitarianism is conservative policy , but those claiming it is a liberal policy do so in the context of " liberating " the individual by means of positive liberties , most often under a gluttonous guise of humanism , by creating authoritarian bureaucratic collectives on par with private despots against individual liberty .

The only thing consistent about the liberal versus conservative paradigm is that it lacks consistency of terminology capable of distinguishing between a liberal and conservative policy , whereby fools are allowed to promote an undue acquisition and ownership of the term liberal while denying that their motivations and actions are authoritarian .

 

[NathanCross]

Islam must be confronted, and decisively, by Western Christian Man. If this means the latter has to abandon democracy, so be it. Islam is a "minion-force" of Cultural Marxism, the single greatest threat today to Christian Civilization. Pray for the emergence of a Western Christian insurgency.

 

[ding]

" Delineating Lost Causes "

* Fantasy And Existentialism *

[The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin

Apparently you will continue to misconstrue that religion and principles of political policy are one in the same , as the precept is rooted in " inalienable rites " and " natural law " , which are wholly absurd within naturalism , but apparently the premise allows individuals to invoke absolution for their beliefs against others offering their own forms of absolute solutions .

Issue is that any number of absolute solutions for authoritarianism are hostile to individual liberty , especially and in particular the psychosis of fictional ishmaelism .

While fictional ishmaelism adherents protect their #I_SLAM_A_PHOBIA , through tactical measures of deflection and fake fear , why is it that , other than by fictional adherents themselves , other sects other not subject to the same rebuke , such as buddhist or hindus ; is it perhaps because tenets of creed for hindus or buddhists do not include pretenses for unprovoked illegitimate aggression by doctrine ?


* Individualism And Collectivism *

The video relates that generalization is the first step in over throwing a society , whereby despite the number of facts presented the facts are not believed ; and , the liberal versus conservative paradigm is an example of such a generalization .

The term liberal policy is no longer limited to negative and positive wrights that establish non aggression principles and negative liberties , as the contemporary regressive liberal supposition is extended to positive wrights for positive liberty - a conservative policy , since conservative policy is synonymous with authoritarian actions of government .

Egalitarianism is conservative policy , but those claiming it is a liberal policy do so in the context of " liberating " the individual by means of positive liberties , most often under a gluttonous guise of humanism , by creating authoritarian bureaucratic collectives on par with private despots against individual liberty .

The only thing consistent about the liberal versus conservative paradigm is that it lacks consistency of terminology capable of distinguishing between a liberal and conservative policy , whereby fools are allowed to promote an undue acquisition and ownership of the term liberal while denying that their motivations and actions are authoritarian .

Yep, as long as socialists behave like it is.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Individualism Within The Social Civil Contract Versus Bureaucratic Collectivism "

* Rejecting Foolish Contradictions Against Individualism *

Islam must be confronted, and decisively, by Western Christian Man. If this means the latter has to abandon democracy, so be it. Islam is a "minion-force" of Cultural Marxism, the single greatest threat today to Christian Civilization. Pray for the emergence of a Western Christian insurgency.

It is antithetical to fight a war of aggression in the name of christianity , in the name of antinomianism .

The theory of anti-nomianism represents a paradox where by no name will one invoke a law , that includes a utopian expectation where issuance of law is removed from social constructs , even though in the interim its realistic consequences are dystopian .

Lauding democracy for its tyranny by majority , while rejecting non aggression principles , in betrayal of individualism , is invalid , irrespective of its underlying ideology , whether that ideology be private despots , or bureaucratic collectives , or antinomian heretics , or the psychopathy of fictional ishmaelism hisbah .

The principles of non aggression entitle one to self defense and there is not a religious exception for tenets of creed to violate non aggression principles in us constitution , which may be evaluated apatheistically , such that adherents of fictional ishmaelism should not be extended an opportunity for us citizenship with its privilege to vote , while cultural exchange is of value .

 

[ding]

^ cuu cuu

 

[NathanCross]

" Individualism Within The Social Civil Contract Versus Bureaucratic Collectivism "

* Rejecting Foolish Contradictions Against Individualism *

Islam must be confronted, and decisively, by Western Christian Man. If this means the latter has to abandon democracy, so be it. Islam is a "minion-force" of Cultural Marxism, the single greatest threat today to Christian Civilization. Pray for the emergence of a Western Christian insurgency.

It is antithetical to fight a war of aggression in the name of christianity , in the name of antinomianism .

The theory of anti-nomianism represents a paradox where by no name will one invoke a law , that includes a utopian expectation where issuance of law is removed from social constructs , even though in the interim its realistic consequences are dystopian .

Lauding democracy for its tyranny by majority , while rejecting non aggression principles , in betrayal of individualism , is invalid , irrespective of its underlying ideology , whether that ideology be private despots , or bureaucratic collectives , or antinomian heretics , or the psychopathy of fictional ishmaelism hisbah .

The principles of non aggression entitle one to self defense and there is not a religious exception for tenets of creed to violate non aggression principles in us constitution , which may be evaluated apatheistically , such that adherents of fictional ishmaelism should not be extended an opportunity for us citizenship with its privilege to vote , while cultural exchange is of value .

WTH are you trying to say????? You damned right the White Christian Nation has fought for its ethnicity and religion before. Check out the European Middle Ages, the Crusades, the Reconquest of Spain, the Age of Religious Warfare, ET AL. Is a thousand years long enough for you? WAKE UP. Pull your head out of whatever nonsense you're reading.

 

[ding]

It is antithetical to fight a war of aggression in the name of christianity , in the name of antinomianism .

Yes, but some wars are fought because they are perceived to be the lesser of two evils. But they should never be rationalized as just and moral.

The theory of anti-nomianism represents a paradox where by no name will one invoke a law , that includes a utopian expectation where issuance of law is removed from social constructs , even though in the interim its realistic consequences are dystopian .

Yes, the Cathars were a good example of this. The ends do not justify the means. Especially if one rationalizes they are doing right when they are doing wrong.

Lauding democracy for its tyranny by majority , while rejecting non aggression principles , in betrayal of individualism , is invalid , irrespective of its underlying ideology , whether that ideology be private despots , or bureaucratic collectives , or antinomian heretics , or the psychopathy of fictional ishmaelism hisbah .

Yes. Again, the ends do not justify the means. Especially if one rationalizes they are doing right when they are doing wrong. Numbers do not matter. The many cannot rob the few even if it has been codified into a law. We are not obligated to follow an unjust law.

The principles of non aggression entitle one to self defense and there is not a religious exception for tenets of creed to violate non aggression principles in us constitution , which may be evaluated apatheistically , such that adherents of fictional ishmaelism should not be extended an opportunity for us citizenship with its privilege to vote , while cultural exchange is of value .

Agreed. But you are still cuu cuu.

 

[longknife]

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Misunderstanding The Grain "

* At The Foot Stool Of Blasphemy *

WTH are you trying to say????? You damned right the White Christian Nation has fought for its ethnicity and religion before. Check out the European Middle Ages, the Crusades, the Reconquest of Spain, the Age of Religious Warfare, ET AL. Is a thousand years long enough for you? WAKE UP. Pull your head out of whatever nonsense you're reading.

How is being a neophyte of heresy to christianity , to antiomianism , the problem of any other than those misconstrued who exemplify it ?

Mt 5 - BIBLIJA.net - the Bible on the Internet
38 You know that you have been taught, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you. When someone slaps your right cheek, turn and let that person slap your other cheek. 40 If someone sues you for your shirt, give up your coat as well. 41 If a soldier forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it two miles. 42 When people ask you for something, give it to them. When they want to borrow money, lend it to them.

43 You have heard people say, “Love your neighbors and hate your enemies.” 44 But I tell you to love your enemies and pray for anyone who mistreats you. 45 Then you will be acting like your Father in heaven. He makes the sun rise on both good and bad people. And he sends rain for the ones who do right and for the ones who do wrong. 46 If you love only those people who love you, will God reward you for that? Even tax collectors

love their friends. 47 If you greet only your friends, what's so great about that? Don't even unbelievers do that? 48 But you must always act like your Father in heaven.

On War Against the Turk - Wikipedia
He also argued that the fight against the Turks should not be a holy war, but only a secular one, made in self-defense (thus a war not to gain territory but to protect neighbors' lives and property as taught in the Ten Commandments[9]), and led by the secular authorities of the Emperor and the Princes, and strongly warned against leading it as a religious war:
"...as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name"
— Excerpt from On war against the Turk, 1529.[10]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Stop that.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Shuffled Deck "

* Faith Points At Issue *

^ cuu cuu

Consider that antinomianism expects to remove laws from social constructs , which is contrary in direction of bureaucratic collectives who seek to apply authoritarianism of government in an abundance of laws that deprive mammon of individualism , including its opportunities and obligations to behave consistent with new law , as a law unto themselves .

 

[NathanCross]

" Misunderstanding The Grain "

* At The Foot Stool Of Blasphemy *

WTH are you trying to say????? You damned right the White Christian Nation has fought for its ethnicity and religion before. Check out the European Middle Ages, the Crusades, the Reconquest of Spain, the Age of Religious Warfare, ET AL. Is a thousand years long enough for you? WAKE UP. Pull your head out of whatever nonsense you're reading.

How is being a neophyte of heresy to christianity , to antiomianism , the problem of any other than those misconstrued who exemplify it ?

Mt 5 - BIBLIJA.net - the Bible on the Internet
38 You know that you have been taught, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you. When someone slaps your right cheek, turn and let that person slap your other cheek. 40 If someone sues you for your shirt, give up your coat as well. 41 If a soldier forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it two miles. 42 When people ask you for something, give it to them. When they want to borrow money, lend it to them.

43 You have heard people say, “Love your neighbors and hate your enemies.” 44 But I tell you to love your enemies and pray for anyone who mistreats you. 45 Then you will be acting like your Father in heaven. He makes the sun rise on both good and bad people. And he sends rain for the ones who do right and for the ones who do wrong. 46 If you love only those people who love you, will God reward you for that? Even tax collectors

love their friends. 47 If you greet only your friends, what's so great about that? Don't even unbelievers do that? 48 But you must always act like your Father in heaven.

On War Against the Turk - Wikipedia
He also argued that the fight against the Turks should not be a holy war, but only a secular one, made in self-defense (thus a war not to gain territory but to protect neighbors' lives and property as taught in the Ten Commandments[9]), and led by the secular authorities of the Emperor and the Princes, and strongly warned against leading it as a religious war:
"...as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name"
— Excerpt from On war against the Turk, 1529.[10]

You're interpreting the Bible literally. BAD idea..... Btw, don't ever call an old, bald man, "bald". You'll cause a wild bear to appear and eat the nearest 40 children. Yeah, it's in the Bible. Watch out.

 

[NathanCross]

" Shuffled Deck "

* Faith Points At Issue *

^ cuu cuu

Consider that antinomianism expects to remove laws from social constructs , which is contrary in direction of bureaucratic collectives who seek to apply authoritarianism of government in an abundance of laws that deprive mammon of individualism , including its opportunities and obligations to behave consistent with new law , as a law unto themselves .

Listen to this guy. Somebody tie him to a paper-weight, to keep him from floating away.

 

[NathanCross]

I loathe Islam.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I loathe Islam.

I don't blame you.

 

[BreezeWood]

I loathe Islam.

they at least rely on their own means for their enrichment's, christian.

 

[LilOlLady]

In spite of what the Left claims, ignoring Islam only opens the door wide for Muslims to expand their influence in America.

Because if we don’t, it will continue to get more extreme. This is not Islamophobia, as many Muslims and their leftist apologists claim. A phobia is a baseless irrational fear. Abomination of Islam is based on irrefutable facts and it is not only rational, it is ethically imperative. Until the Western world understands the threat of Islamic ideology to their society and culture, people will continue to die. We simply cannot ignore this assault to our way of life.

A telling essay on what America is confronted by the presence of Islam.

Much more @ Why Confront Islam?

America has more extremists and homegrown terrorist and they are called the fundamental radical right and they do more harm to America than radical islam.

 

[LilOlLady]

Christianity is, by far, the deadliest religion in history. Not only in outright persecution but in the negative ancillary effects it has had on so many cultures all over the world. Effects that lead to immense social disruption and far higher mortality rates. Especially among the numerous Native American cultures all across the two Western Hemisphere continents. Christians introduced advanced weapons to these cultures that lead to further deaths along the way.
Religion is a problem in modern society. But it's not deadly. People who twist religion to their own ideology are deadly. While most of those doing this today are doing so under the guise of Islam, this religion is no more "deadly" or "violent" than Christianity or Judaism, or any other common religion. The Christian God killed millions of humans and animals in the flood and promise to burn millions more forever and for all eternity.

 

[ding]

" Shuffled Deck "

* Faith Points At Issue *

^ cuu cuu

Consider that antinomianism expects to remove laws from social constructs , which is contrary in direction of bureaucratic collectives who seek to apply authoritarianism of government in an abundance of laws that deprive mammon of individualism , including its opportunities and obligations to behave consistent with new law , as a law unto themselves .

It depends if you are using the Greek or Christian definition of antinomianism. Cathars believed they were above the moral law. They didn't seek to remove the law.

With civil governments it's a fine line. It is not always as you say.

The only thing you cannot have too much of is balance. Seek more of that. You will be happier and live longer.