See other Religion Articles
Title: Our Masters, Not Muslims, Are the Enemy
Source:
The New American
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 22, 2010
Author: Becky Akers
Post Date: 2010-10-22 11:06:50 by ghostdogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 1758
Comments: 96
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 56.
#17. To: ghostdogtxn, christine, HighLairEon, Lod, wudidiz, TwentyTwelve, James Deffenbach, CadetD, abraxas, farmfriend, Jethro Tull, all (#0)
I might also understand the abhorrence for Muslims were it directed against those who persecute our Christian brothers and sisters. But it isn’t: these emails never mention the Church militant; the authors seem neither to know nor to care that Christians under Islamic governments suffer horrendously. They are instead solely concerned for the neoconservative agenda — even if they have can’t get the story straight as to whether it’s Paris or New York that Moslem prayers endanger. This is not rocket science but it does require shedding a few illusions, and there are actually two causes although one is used to play on the other. 1. Xenophobia i.e., an irrational fear of others who do not belong to one's group, race, religion, or locale. It has been given some interesting justifications, all false, throughout history. 2. This is the created fear or irrational hatred which is brought about by government manipulation or by psychotics trying to get others to join them in a "good hate". The current wave of hatred directed at Muslims is best viewed as Propaganda, a Psychological Manipulation, to focus group and individual attention to a perceived "threat" thus inspiring fear, and hence hatred. It is a created scenario and it its intent would seem clear - to justify actions taken by the government which would otherwise be opposed by large numbers of people. Useful to know here is the "Third Party Law": "For a conflict to exist between two groups, or individuals", there must be a third party unknown to both who is agitating, encouraging, and creating the conflict." The other point here to the manipulation is to direct attention away from real enemies to "perceived enemies" and giving cover to those creating the conflict from covert reasoning i.e., a hidden agenda. At that point I think I'll pause the analysis rather than going in any depth as to what the agenda is, and whose it is, other than to say that it is a control agenda i.e., a means of exercising control and thus power over American Society.
deleted
What's interesting is the several different planes that exist in any thorough analysis of this general situation. As you said, the current boogeyman is the "muslim." Is it justified? Here's where it gets interesting. There's no question that Islam as outlined in the Koran/Quran and supporting documentation is indeed hostile and sociopathic/anti-social, not only towards demographic elements within its own system, but even more so to elements outside of its system. So the question then becomes, how many "muslims" indeed hold true to every sociopathic teaching within the pages of the Koran/Quran or which emanates from its leaders that push it all? I would suggest that in the same way Roman Catholics, for instance, by and large, as in vast majority, do not truly hold to every RCC teaching or the actual beliefs of the Pope, most muslims also are equally apostate in their adherence towards Islam. In fact, many adhere at all only due to fear of reprisal from "their own" for not living according to certain Islamic standards. As the article states, and has been my experiences as well, none of the muslims that I've met have been hostile in any way, shape, or form. Sure, there could be a latent hostility there, which is no doubt the case with some, but for the most part I believe, again, based on my not so limited experiences, that most muslims are not sociopathic in accordance with such teachings in their dogma. Which brings up the next point. If the dogma/teachings of Islam are sociopathic and hostile, then how is it that it can accurately be labeled "a religion of peace?" It obviously cannot be in any honest and objective conversation. Politically, the person that began the war against Islam essentially, in spite of the backtracking on it by his successor, has also claimed Islam a "religion of peace." He, Junior, has labeled the "terrorists," now more make-believe than real, "radical muslims." But who in fact are the "radical" muslims? "Radical" as defined in the dictionary means a departure from the usual or traditional and a movement towards the "extreme." Well the extreme in this case is not "sociopathic, antisocial, and hostile. "Extreme" in this case is non-sociopathic, non-antisocial, and non-hostile. So by embracing Islam and its fundamental Koranic origins, the sociopathic and hostile aspects of Islam are embraced, which is what Junior did. Taking the war to heart of muslim population centers is to attack the true radical muslims, those that pose no threat to anyone. So our tyrannical regime actually has our population fearful of people that they need not be fearful of generally speaking. Does this mean that no muslim is "dangerous" in this way? No, clearly not, but there is no justification for the creation of policy to arbitrarily wipe out entire groups of muslims en masse as we've done. There is certainly no legitimate Biblical or Christ taught justification for it. What this country has done however is ass-backwards. It has embraced the violent, sociopathic, and hostile elements and given them ground and even funding and encouragement to flourish within our own borders, while simultaneously wiping out enormous populations of muslims that have never meant us any harm. Unfortunately in their political zeal, most people are too busy running down the street with their hair on fire to take the time to think about the person that they're getting ready to impale with the proverbial bayonet that they're wielding. Just as with all of the make-believe "starving poor people" over the years that have been used to get us to cough up more of our hard-earned money for social programs for people that do not exist, so too our government had to make up a boogeyman that doesn't exist to get us to swap in our liberty, as well as our cash, for its justification to go to war and protect us from threats that do not exist. I'll end there now that I'm thoroughly confused as to what my original point was. Thanks. Not a bad little ditty yourself. A couple of particularly telling points you made: Particularly valid. While, some do retain the culture for a generation or two, eventually, as long as they are not brought in at a rate that supports the cultural divide, that like other groups they will adapt, adopt, and accept the existing culture. Outside of the common culture groups are only disruptive to the common culture if they are allowed in at a rate faster than the culture can absorb. This has been particularly annoying to culturally insular groups such as Gypsies and Jews as there is a tendency to marry outside "the group" and to adapt to the common culture. After a few generations the result of intermarriage is to promote affinity and loyalty to the common culture and not strictly to the insular group culture. This tendency has been particularly annoying to American Jews as there are increasing numbers of people with Jewish ancestry who no longer identify with the insular group, but because of threads of other groups in their heritage, and have in fact become part of the larger group culture identifying more as Americans than as Jews. The same will hold true for Muslim Immigrants who, as you say, are Muslim more as a matter of culture and familial ties than for any great religious fervor. Just as most Italians and Irish are Catholics, but do not particularly follow closely the dictates of the Vatican. I could cover that in more detail but I don't have the hour or two necessary to construct a larger coherent exposition. Exactly. The point is to create a diversion and a focus upon some designated group, in this case Muslims (just as Hitler focused on Jews, the Communists upon the Bourgeoisie, and the Fascists upon "the weak" who wanted peace), and thus to focus attention away from the predatory behavior of the government, and more importantly, those who are dictating the "tune" i.e., the "Third Party Law" again comes into play. To the extent people begin to recognize the "Third Party" that control the agitation and hatred it breaks down. With the recognition of the existence of a third party the attempt to identify it begins and the control mechanism loses its affect because the third party is no longer unknown. Again agreed. That is why we can identify that there is a third party in action because ignorance is being inflamed and fueled with disinformation and justifications for the unjustifiable. Only IF the generalized hatred of non-muslims was true could it even be remotely justified, but then the sane response would be to minimize their power and influence and the insane is to, as has been done, indiscriminately kill. One must sometimes act to protect others but there is no requirement that one must hate, or to insanely kill a multitude of wrong targets.
deleted
Thanks.
There are no replies to Comment # 56. End Trace Mode for Comment # 56.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnd again, I’m puzzled. Why does the threat of Islamic tyranny rile so many Americans? These are folks who shrug each time the Feds decree they’ll eavesdrop on more of our communications, who queue up at airport checkpoints despite the Transportation Security Administration’s strip-search X-ray machines, who condemn Social Security not for its communism but because its “benefits” aren’t munificent enough, who cheered as the government incinerated whole families at Waco and shot a mother holding her baby, a boy, and his dog at Ruby Ridge, who applaud the Warriors on Drug Users as they ruin life after life over a few joints or a gram of cocaine. Really, can Sharia law be any more dictatorial, merciless, or absurd?
A lot of terms have been invented simply to describe other people in terms of their "otherness". There is everything from the simple "them", "those people", or actual regional terms such as the Germanic "auslander" (outlander).
All governments that seek to control individual behavior both directly and indirectly have always found it "useful" to have someone other than themselves to have for people to focus on and attribute a threat to etc., ....
The current "bogeyman" is the Muslim. One can see the constant drumbeat of scare stories, fear mongering, intolerance, and open hatred echoing throughout the major media. If you begin watching for it you'll notice it cropping up everywhere in the major media. It is disguised and hidden as to what it is by terms such as "analysis", reports, etc., ..., but the common thread between all of them is that they encourage the emotion of fear. I would argue in fact that it is virtually impossible to hate someone unless you fear them. That fear does not require any basis in fact but simply the perception of fear, the sensation of fear.
So, we get the constant drumbeat of scare stories to inspire fear and then the subtle encouragements to hate - to focus on "the enemy". You know, "them", "those people", the "auslanders".
Annoyance and irritation over the invasion of one culture by another is not necessarily hate. It is the recognition that the "auslander" is simply different, possibly disruptive of the common culture, and may in fact have a different culture, language, and set of reactions to events in the environment, but it is not necessarily "hate". It is simply the recognition of a disruptive difference.
#23. To: Original_Intent (#17)
#42. To: Eric Stratton (#23)
Good post!
I would suggest that in the same way Roman Catholics, for instance, by and large, as in vast majority, do not truly hold to every RCC teaching or the actual beliefs of the Pope, most muslims also are equally apostate in their adherence towards Islam. In fact, many adhere at all only due to fear of reprisal from "their own" for not living according to certain Islamic standards. As the article states, and has been my experiences as well, none of the muslims that I've met have been hostile in any way, shape, or form. Sure, there could be a latent hostility there, which is no doubt the case with some, but for the most part I believe, again, based on my not so limited experiences, that most muslims are not sociopathic in accordance with such teachings in their dogma.
So our tyrannical regime actually has our population fearful of people that they need not be fearful of generally speaking.
Does this mean that no muslim is "dangerous" in this way? No, clearly not, but there is no justification for the creation of policy to arbitrarily wipe out entire groups of muslims en masse as we've done.
#54. To: Original_Intent (#42)
#56. To: Eric Stratton (#54)
Replies to Comment # 56.