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: 1742
Comments: 96
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-37) not displayed.
.
.
.
#38. To: Eric Stratton (#33)
WELL, HELLO! And so do you think there shall be any "change?" Even a blood-curdling death-bath on the streets with hangings from the highest oak tree won't affect this apathetic nation. They will just watch the news and thank their respective gods that they weren't included in the lynchings ... and then off to work they go to pay their taxes... and vote the same old shit.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
May they take the heads of the younger, tolerant set first. The ones who live life wilfully disarmed. To see their heads, and those of their white kiddies held high, just might jolt some of their brethren out of their stupor. But don't hold your breath. Their conditioning runs deep.
Good idea. My ancestors set foot on this soil - legaly - in 1902. And yours?
Stone-age tribes wandering the woods and plains and continually feuding amongst themselves had to give it up. I believe they call it 'manifest destiny'.
__________________________________________________________ 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.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
The Indians were vicious savages who smashed out the brains of other tribe's babies on rocks and horribly tortured their enemies to death. That's why the Founding Fathers referred to them as "merciless Indian savages."
"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable." - Thomas Jefferson
That was harsh. You just need one of those Indian dream-catchers to hang from your rear-view mirror in your car and one of those fancy made-on-a-reservation turquoise necklaces to impress the ladies.
__________________________________________________________ Good idea. My ancestors set foot on this soil - legaly - in 1902. And yours? Depends upon which ones you look at. My Welsh ancestors, my last name is Norman-Welsh, arrived in 1626 - 1630 (the records are contradictory - some say one, some the other) from, most likely, Dorset, England. However, my Indian ancestors have been here a little longer. My Scots-Irish ancestors I'm not sure of, but I know they were here before the Potato Famine. My German ancestors were here long enough to have one Great Great Uncle in Lincoln's Secret Service (although most of my ancestors on the patronymic side were Southerners at the time of the Civil War).
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
The Indians were vicious savages who smashed out the brains of other tribe's babies on rocks and horribly tortured their enemies to death. That's why the Founding Fathers referred to them as "merciless Indian savages." Like all generalizations that is true for SOME, but not ALL. If you are speaking of the Algonquin Confederation, which had a strong central government, they were merciless in war and in conquering other tribes. However, the NW tribes were largely peaceful fishermen who lived in semi-permanent villages and traded with other tribes. The Apache were well known as fearless warriors, but the Crow had a code of chivalry which required that feuds be settled one on one. The Lakotah (Sioux), and Nakotah (Assiniboine) were somewhere in between and the Lakotah in particular were nomadic snowbirds who headed south in the winter. The problem with a lot of the history is that it was written by, and from the viewpoint of, the victors. And in the hands of a bigot seeking to justify genocide it becomes strangely distorted from the reality. Wouldn't you agree Turdle old buddy.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Sorry, mutts are disqualified for grandfather status. You'll have leave with the other Indian abusers.
Turtle, I'd like your take on the Aztec civilization. My knowledge base is limited to some limited reading and Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, which painted them as blood thirsty savages. I tend to agree w/Gibson's take as the PC crowd takes an opposite position.
No thanks.
Stone-age tribes wandering the woods and plains and continually feuding amongst themselves had to give it up. I believe they call it 'manifest destiny'. Stone age is a type of technology and is not a measure of culture or social development. The tribes were nomadic because they had no reason to settle. There were, depending upon whose estimates you use, somewhere between 3 and 8 million people on the entire continent at the time the first European Settlers arrived. Contrary to popular myth, and Hollywood Westerns where most people mis-learn history, a good many of the tribes were formed into sophisticated governmental organizations e.g., The Algonquin Confederation, and the Cherokee Nation (which was not "1" tribe but many). With the population so sparse the easy life of the hunter-gatherer was a comfortable and easy life. Food was readily available, and there were no Monarchs going to war to steal each others lands and people. Yes, some adjoining tribes engaged in intertribal warfare, but it was not as widespread as the Hollywood movies from which you get your history would suggest. The technology in use was adequate to meet survival needs and thus there was no survival need to develop anything else. Most tribes were monotheistic and contrary to popular myth trade was widespread. The Cahokia mounds, which are actually giant earthen Pyramids (the largest standing about 100 feet and having a base covering 14 acres), appears to have been a major trading center for a large part of the midwest and down into Mexico. So, contrary to Hollywood Epic, and stilted histories, the Native Tribes were not quite the "primitives" they are often misrepresented to have been. European experience in warfare and advanced weapons is not a recommendation for their culture. Music, Art, and other advancements are. However, development of cultures over time occurs largely by survival imperatives.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
So, since you want to play some sort of mesmeric soothsayer or prognosticator .. what will happen?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Sorry, mutts are disqualified for grandfather status. You'll have leave with the other Indian abusers. Drat! Of course you know that was not my point, but to simply underscore that most of the "natives" on this continent are not - natives that is, and that includes the Indian Tribes as much as they want to avoid admitting it. Kennewick Man and other finds suggest that there were caucasians on this continent at least as far back as ten thousand years ago and very likely earlier. The Mandan Tribe, before they were wiped out, had natural Redheads. Roman Coins and Nordic Runes are found as far west as Kansas and Oklahoma. As well is the mystery of the Great Lakes Open Pit Copper Mines on Isle Royal which is a mystery that the lamestream archaeologists are still trying to explain away. The problem they face is that while some tribes used copper they used chunks and whatnot that required no mining or smelting to speak of. The mine at Isle Royal is a sophisticated Open Pit Copper Mine that was in operation at least as far back as 2,000 B.C.. There is even a report, since suppressed, of a find of sophisticated Egyptian style artifacts in a cave in the Grand Canyon in the 1880's. Apparently the Smithsonian mounted an expedition and sent a Boxcar or two of relics back east where ala Indiana Jones they were buried and suppressed in the bowels of the Smithsonian. And the mysterious Olmec Heads of Central America have distinctively Negroid features - although lamestream archaeology tries to explain the similarities away. There are as well even more interesting rumors of finds of ancient advanced technology which the government has closed off to the public. I might note that the area of the Grand Canyon where the Egyptian find is located is closed off to both the general public AND National Park Service personnel to this day.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
Thanks. "One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
And that is a serious problem. You don't possess substance or character to answer much less show principle of conviction. Have you ever thought of joining a religious/political chit-chat channel? I think AKA Stone would welcome you under his cloak and associated mischief.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
Kennewick Man and other finds suggest that there were caucasians on this continent at least as far back as ten thousand years ago and very likely earlier. Solutrean theory suggests you're correct.
Where's Don Cornelius "Fear of death is form of stasis horrors. The dead weight of time." - William S Burroughs
I find your perspective curious at best. If the federal government collapses what makes you think that society (as a whole) can survive?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Mr Don still be in the process of evolvin'
You, me, all of us emerged from The Great Shutdown of '95 unscathed, didn't we?
"Fear of death is form of stasis horrors. The dead weight of time." - William S Burroughs
Not me. I am here in 2010 celebrating life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Ask anyone, that's what I meant by unscathed.
"Fear of death is form of stasis horrors. The dead weight of time." - William S Burroughs
What is so important about 1995 and why should I ask anyone about your perspective?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
1473 = ? Think about it, write down an answer before the robots come back!
"Fear of death is form of stasis horrors. The dead weight of time." - William S Burroughs
I just consulted my numerology professor whom also owns the Black Ball code of prediction. He sez: "we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
We all like caricatures of the president, but I have to tell you, that one is stretching the premise pretty thin.
"Fear of death is form of stasis horrors. The dead weight of time." - William S Burroughs
You don't seem to understand the conceptual basis of a PhD, accredited with ensuring your continuing capabilities within government understanding and the now obscure (minor) private sector markets in America. What happened to you along the way? Don't you see the light?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
"Fear of death is form of stasis horrors. The dead weight of time." - William S Burroughs
I see you every day, more and more, becoming like an A K A Stone or a Goldi-Locks, you have succumbed to the slippery slope, for sure.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
That's easily the most insane thing you've said in several days. I was starting to worry.
"Fear of death is form of stasis horrors. The dead weight of time." - William S Burroughs
You have become a "yukon" in your own mind. Then again, there is a far greater and scarier side of you: you are the recreation of TLBSHOW.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
I was riding a bicycle one time and tried to do a wheelie but the chain came off and I hit the pavement head first and when I woke up I thought I was Jimi Hendrix.
"Fear of death is form of stasis horrors. The dead weight of time." - William S Burroughs
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
Comments (79 - 96) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWell, this just in, but the FedGov seems to have taken advantage of the situation and bunkered itself in and given itself overwhelming superiority in terms of weaponry, at the citizens' expense, to be able to overcome a 2A armed citizenry now, hasn't it.
#39. To: X-15, 4, *Dopey White Folk* (#31)
When they are in sufficient numbers here they will make their true intentions obvious, and it won't be pretty. I don't cut them ANY slack and it's a fool's errand to think that a parley/truce can be obtained out of them.
#40. To: Original_Intent (#36)
Yeah, and ditto for those European Invaders who refuse to adopt the culture and live peacefully with their Indian neighbors - ship'em back to Europe.
#41. To: Original_Intent (#36)
Yeah, and ditto for those European Invaders who refuse to adopt the culture and live peacefully with their Indian neighbors - ship'em back to Europe.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#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.
#43. To: X-15, Original_Intent (#41)
Stone-age tribes wandering the woods and plains and continually feuding amongst themselves had to give it up. I believe they call it 'manifest destiny'.
#44. To: Turtle (#43)
(Edited)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#45. To: Jethro Tull (#40)
eah, and ditto for those European Invaders who refuse to adopt the culture and live peacefully with their Indian neighbors - ship'em back to Europe.
#46. To: Turtle, Turdle, X-15, all (#43)
Stone-age tribes wandering the woods and plains and continually feuding amongst themselves had to give it up. I believe they call it 'manifest destiny'.
#47. To: Original_Intent (#45)
Depends upon which ones you look at. My Welsh ancestors, my last name is Norman-Welsh, arrived in 1626 - 1630 (the records are contradictory - some say one, some the other) from, most likely, Dorset, England. However, my Indian ancestors have been here a little longer. My Scots-Irish ancestors I'm not sure of, but I know they were here before the Potato Famine. My German ancestors were here long enough to have one Great Great Uncle in Lincoln's Secret Service (although most of my ancestors on the patronymic side were Southerners at the time of the Civil War).
#48. To: Turtle, X-15, 4 (#43)
#49. To: X-15 (#31)
The day this
is considered normal in America,
this must also. 
#50. To: X-15 (#41)
Yeah, and ditto for those European Invaders who refuse to adopt the culture and live peacefully with their Indian neighbors - ship'em back to Europe.
#51. To: buckeroo (#38)
#52. To: Eric Stratton (#51)
for some unknown reason why precisely that won't happen.
#53. To: Jethro Tull (#47)
(Edited)
Depends upon which ones you look at. My Welsh ancestors, my last name is Norman-Welsh, arrived in 1626 - 1630 (the records are contradictory - some say one, some the other) from, most likely, Dorset, England. However, my Indian ancestors have been here a little longer. My Scots-Irish ancestors I'm not sure of, but I know they were here before the Potato Famine. My German ancestors were here long enough to have one Great Great Uncle in Lincoln's Secret Service (although most of my ancestors on the patronymic side were Southerners at the time of the Civil War).
#54. To: Original_Intent (#42)
#55. To: buckeroo (#52)
#56. To: Eric Stratton (#54)
#57. To: Eric Stratton (#55)
You miss my point, I have no idea
Just holding out hope for the possibility.
#58. To: buckeroo (#57)
#59. To: buckeroo (#57)
#60. To: Original_Intent, 4 (#53)
HERE
#61. To: Jethro Tull (#60)
Solutrean theory suggests you're correct.
now that we need him?
#62. To: Eric Stratton (#59)
And BTW, I guess my biggest hope, apart from any control that we have however, which is why I didn't mention it, is a collapsing economy that buries the FedGov before the FedGov buries us.
#63. To: Dakmar (#61)
Don Cornelius
#64. To: buckeroo (#62)
If the federal government collapses what makes you think that society (as a whole) can survive?
#65. To: Dakmar (#64)
You, me, all of us emerged from The Great Shutdown of '95 unscathed, didn't we?
#66. To: buckeroo (#65)
Not me. I am here in 2010 celebrating life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
#67. To: Dakmar (#66)
#68. To: buckeroo (#67)
#69. To: Dakmar (#68)
#70. To: buckeroo (#69)
#71. To: Dakmar (#70)
#72. To: buckeroo (#71)
#73. To: Dakmar (#72)
#74. To: buckeroo (#73)
I see you every day, more and more, becoming like an A K A Stone or a Goldi-Locks, you have succumbed to the slippery slope, for sure.
#75. To: Dakmar (#74)
#76. To: buckeroo (#75)
#77. To: Dakmar (#76)
#78. To: buckeroo (#62)
.
.
.