Malala and Terrorism

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
User avatar
LoneDreamer
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jul 2017 07:41

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby LoneDreamer » 17 Sep 2017 06:46

Summerlander wrote:The source is quite reliable: The Independent. Boris Johnson is quite right in saying it is a free country and symbols should not be banned. In Germany, the swastika is banned because many people take offence; but the symbol is just an innocuous form of expression---often used in art and historical cinematography.

That aside, what does the aforementioned Islamic flag tell you? That everyone who carries it subscribes to the pernicious religion of Islam. Exegesis doesn't matter: the Qur'an profoundly influences certain individuals in various ways and if taken literally they have themselves a recipe for civilisational incompatibility and disaster.

Nobody from the Left will dare to ban the flag---even though enough have died by the hands of said Muslim flag-wavers since before and after 9/11. If you support banning the flag, Geert Wilders is the man in Europe you'll want to elect. But he may be a little too Right for my liking. I agree with Wilders's criticism of Islam and that 'enough is enough' from the regressive Left who continue to safeguard Muhammadan fascism against its critics, but the politician is wrong in thinking that the ban will be effective in precluding terrorism at home.

The enemy is already among us. He already holds a native passport. ISIS adherents are already born all over the world because that's how far the ideology has spread. There are mosques all over the world save for a very few nations. And a decision to ban Islamic symbolism is a little too late, and now, especially with the advent of cultural relativism, could prove to be socially harmful to freedom of expression.

Let's face it: you only cross the line if you kill or seriously injure others. If we ban a simple flag, people might call into question what else requires censoring lest someone out there cries offence. We are all well aware that it is possible for people to feign umbrage to their personal advantage and plaintiffs bare false witness in court every day. Muslims don't have to pretend to be offended. They express offence (often with violence) and they want their religion to conquer the world. Jihad is one of the central tenets of Islam.

Yes, Jihadists brought down the World Trade Center. Enough journalists and investigators indentified the culprits and witnessed how their families rejoiced at the news because their beloved martyrs succeeded. Any other claim lies in the realm of conspiracy theory. :mrgreen:

It seems the effect of WW2 is already faded, hence the current rise in extreme rightwing ideologies. It seems the clash of civilizations is inevitable. We may witness more events like the one happening in Burma all around the world.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4210
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 17 Sep 2017 16:58

That's very true. That's why intellectual revolutionaries, at least in the initial stages of subversive activity, encourage individuals to think for themselves and break free from the state-engineered vox populi.

Most people just want to fit in, follow the norm and thus fear breaking the rules or the perceived established order. The masses can be easily manipulated when they are told what to think (or in some cases to refrain from thinking) and what is acceptable behaviour. Mavericks and rebels are rare so they have to be extra strong; the courage of their rhetoric can push for change and progress.

Men like Marx devised sociopolitical theories to be tested against the collective psychological state of mankind. Some say communism failed because it was flawed; I'd say it is possible that the recipe is incompatible with human nature to begin with, and arguably, it never had a fair trial. Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism was not what Marx had in mind.

The theory, according to Marxist literature, was to be tested on a capitalist nation like the United States---not serfdom templates like czarist Russia or the landlord dynasties of an underdeveloped China before its socialist revolution. But, as history had it, America perceived the communist manifesto as a threat to its capitalist empire---propaganda from Washington successfully exerted its influence and figures like Eugene Debs were vilified.

Just look at the great revolutionary minds in history: Thomas Paine, Che Guevarra, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky etc.---all of them knew they needed cogency in order to create ripples, and they were also well aware of the risks. And men like George Orwell warned us of the slipery slope where revolutions often lead to the establishment of new dictatorships.

Remember how hard Trotsky, who took part in at least two revolutions, tried. Bear in mind how much he wanted mankind to progress---like a true Marxist minus Stalin's greed and egotism. And also consider the fact that not all intellectuals care about freedom or progress. Now consider this quote:

'Two images have been with me throughout the writing of this essay. Between them they seem to show the alternative paths for the intellectual. The one is of J. M. Keynes, the other of Leon Trotsky. Both were obviously men of attractive personality and great natural gifts. The one the intellectual guardian of the established order, providing new policies and theories of manipulation to keep our society in what he took to be economic trim, and making a personal fortune in the process. The other, outcast as a revolutionary from Russia both under the Tsar and under Stalin, providing throughout his life a defense of human activity, of the powers of conscious and rational human effort. I think of them at the end, Keynes with his peerage, Trotsky with an icepick in his skull. They are the twin lives between which intellectual choice in our society lies.'

~Alasdair MacIntyre, 'Breaking the Chains of Reason', in Out of Apathy

As most governments will have you imbibe, sedition is a sin and to be avoided. This is the antithesis of the revolutionary. But we also don't want a government to continuously welcome the enemy by legitimising their dissent on the basis that all cultures and ideologies are equally valid and respectful---some ways of living are just noxious and hamper human flourishing ... like Islam.

Another terrorist attack in London, Parson Green tube station, and one of the suspects was based in Hounslow, just down the road from where I live. When is the next one? :|
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
LoneDreamer
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jul 2017 07:41

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby LoneDreamer » 19 Sep 2017 03:07

Summerlander wrote: Another terrorist attack in London, Parson Green tube station, and one of the suspects was based in Hounslow, just down the road from where I live. When is the next one? :|

Be on the look out for any bearded Allah hu akbaring guy. :lol: It seems BBC may have to tune down the Buddhist terrorism propaganda and tune up the terror has no religion propaganda. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4210
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 19 Sep 2017 13:40

Even Myanmar has Muslims involved. Everywhere Islam is there is trouble. In here, they still say it has nothing to do with Islam because Muslims can't possibly behave that way. :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
LoneDreamer
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jul 2017 07:41

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby LoneDreamer » 20 Sep 2017 03:34

Summerlander wrote:Even Myanmar has Muslims involved. Everywhere Islam is there is trouble. In here, they still say it has nothing to do with Islam because Muslims can't possibly behave that way. :mrgreen:

From what I have read the rohingyas were on a rampage against the natives doing rapes, killing people, love jihad etc. After that they started demanding separate country and sharia. They had asked Jinnah to help them in creating a separate country out of rakhine. Now, they are paying for it.

User avatar
LoneDreamer
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jul 2017 07:41

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby LoneDreamer » 23 Sep 2017 06:15

Even though we think of Islam as barbaric and backwards but what explanation would you give for the golden age of Islam, since it had Islamic influence?

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4210
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 23 Sep 2017 16:06

Here's something about the so-called 'Golden Age of Islam':

https://youtu.be/qQbZNSEbYFk

It doesn't seem so golden now, does it? Islam, as an ideology, has only served to divide and stultify human progress. :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
LoneDreamer
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jul 2017 07:41

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby LoneDreamer » 24 Sep 2017 11:30

Thanks, I will check it out. :D

DreamerMan99
Posts: 324
Joined: 27 Mar 2013 23:53
Location: In a world where nothing matters

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby DreamerMan99 » 09 Nov 2017 21:13

I like your points on Marxism Summerlander. I think many fail to realize how much social engineering and thought-policing goes on behind closed doors. Especially during the eras that communism was being to spread throughout eastern europe. The people in power in the US held their power through capitalism and democracy. They would go to whatever extent necessary to maintain their power, even if the current system wasn't the most beneficial to society. Am I trying to say that those iterations of communism caused a better quality of life than early 1900's USA? No, but I am trying to say, that those in power will go to any means necessary to maintain their power and influence, through the use of social engineering, propaganda, war and demonization of the conflicting ism.

Many of the previous iterations of communism have failed because they were spear headed by the wrong types, during revolutions where regions were unstable and people were unhappy enough to try anything, especially those that said to empower the lowest common denominator, the uneducated farmers and factory workers, the dirt poor. There living situation and quality of life was already so low under the previous rulers. It's similar to how Hitler rose to power. It was a nation that only knew dictatorships, they were broken economically and socially, people were angry and people wanted change. He was a man who knew how to take advantage of the destabilization. He too used socialism and nationalism as many of his talking points to gain admiration!

And you could argue, yes marxism it may just be against human nature. I believe it is. Greed is inherent in humanity, it's seen everywhere. Never has a society existed without materialistic greed or a desire for power over others. Someone is always willing to take advantage and rise to the top, whether it be maliciously or not. And the product of all that power behind one person often causes them to do whatever it takes to maintain that. Because morality doesn't exist, it all boils down to opinion, and when one person dictates what is wrong and right, acceptable and not, and good for that nation's people, then that is the truth. Government is always "right", because they write the laws, they engineer the next generation, they run the schools that teach history, and they are in charge of the police that hold physical power over you.

Personally, I don't see any system ever working forever. Nothing is ever "right" since morality and societal values are constantly changing. For the rest of human history, we will cycle through small periods of peace, then destabilization, then a long period of changes, then something new, and over and over again this will continue. Systems of control are not natural, they are something we have created. Humans were not meant to live in such complex societies peacefully it would seem. Even in ancient man and other primates, we see small communities were one of the few ways it worked. The most free humanity has ever been was when we were tribal, wandering nomads. But every iteration of social control is a decision over freedom, or safety.

However, at the same time, tribalism is one of the biggest separators of our society! Identity, religion, and culture are cancers to our world. left leaning against right leaning, Blacks against white, christian against muslim, muslim against jews, USA against mexico, sunni against shia, pakistan against india, even small cultural differences that cause hatred for eachother when the original perpetrators of that problem between the two groups are long since dead, but you still hate those other people because they happen to be the same color as them. When we learn to abandon this and see others as simply human, I think a lot will change for our world.

The only way I could imagine this happening is authoritarian powers trying to kill off religion, ideology and culture, resulting in a dystopian society, or a serious threat to the planet that we all come together on. Maybe if aliens invaded, we could use tribalism to our advantage, and seperate into Earthlings and invaders, and finally have something to come together on. :lol:
Good luck,
Dream on.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4210
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 10 Nov 2017 19:29

Global socialism would solve the problem of labour and wealth distribution. This would be done with the aid of factual information---as Marxism originally intended---rather than sovereign propaganda. The theory is near perfect by itself, if not too idealist within a framework where, ultimately, society (the whole entity) comes first and the citizen second. The citizen comes second because it is assumed that once the social cogwheels are in motion, the communist terminus ad quem will evenhandedly make individuals valued and indispensable to the nation. A functional society then becomes our sole purpose.

The problem, as inferred, is that Marxist strategics only tell us what should be done to reach a classless society. It seems to assume that the socialist struggle will eradicate human greed by subverting capitalist systems. The economical equation, as it were, rightly demonstrates that capitalism is labile ground for the promised revolution, but ignores the resentment felt by dispossessed nobility and gentry---besides the insatiable dictator at heart!

Deutschland has always had a ruling imago in mind and any candidate who didn't fit its jingoistic criteria stood little chance. Adolf Hitler was well aware of this when his party deposed the Weimar Republic. He convinced the public that they had been victimised and stressed the need for ultra-nationalism. To a great extent, he was the ideal personification of the vox populi when Germany was down. That's how the führer exercised his charismatic persuasion from the offset. And he knew he had to deliver in order to render a whole nation beholden to his caprice. So the people would be emotionally tied: The Fuhrer helped us; he knows where we're coming from; his propositions must always be right; we owe him allegiance and must accomodate his beliefs; he's a godsend and his word is ample proof about who the enemy is. (And so it came to be that the blood libel against Jewry---which festered amongst Christian zealots prior to the Vatican's Second Council---along with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion canard, were taught as logical facts to German children.)

The difference between terrorists and dictators is that the former want to obtain fast results through fear and violence whereas the latter insidiously take advantage of the status quo. Nonetheless, morality is a useful concept which---in assuming everybody can be reasonable while acknowledging egoist clashes---panders to our wish for safety, wellbeing, mutual respect and dignity. So, nothwithstanding the objective nonexistence of universal ethics, a deontological ideal is still required to uplift justified mores in the community. Ultimately, the need for control is anthropically nascent and tied to the natural drive for survival.

Morality is a feature of human psychology and an ideal that still requires exploration and refinement on a scientific as well as philosophical level. We have hedonic propositions that recommend the immediate quenching of desires; we have utilitarian alternatives than can seem ethically counterintuitive short-term albeit beneficial to a majority in the long run. The literature on the subject is rich and progressive---ranging from Confucianism, to the ethics of Spinoza, Kant, Russell, and finally arriving at contemporary musings by the likes of Grayling, Harris and others in the realm of secular humanism.

Needless to say, religious scripture is outdated on the matter. The use of religion and the reasons behind it in humankind's infancy is allusively illustrated by the Ricky Gervais movie The Invention of Lying. This poignant comedy depicts examples of how religion and superstition are tools for control and comfort when reality is too painful to bear for the unprepared mind and fear of chaos is perpetual. You fear annihilation? No problem. There's an afterlife; you are immortal. Are you unhappy? Heaven awaits you provided that you follow certain rules of conduct in this life. Having an existential crisis? The Big Man in the sky made you for a divine purpose incomprehensible to all. This Guy is better Hitler! You have to love and fear Him. He is responsible for the good, the bad and the ugly. The lord does whatever the fuck He wants and you have to venerate Him because He knows everything and is the be all and end all. Everywhere and nowhere. The perfect dictator with an indisputable totalitarian recipe.

In atheistic circles, it is said that women have a higher proclivity for such beliefs (or that their wishful thinking is stronger), but religion is undoubtedly man-made! In scripture and gospel, women are utterly exploited by men: from a nefarious and egocentric male desire to silence, inculpate and objectify the opposite gender. Adam, it seems, is the real culprit for having attempted to dissuade Eve from the Tree of Knowledge. Men, we once were led to believe, aspire to the summum bonum and therefore could never reach a depth of psychopathy whereby profound lies are told. Women have always tried very hard to see the putative sanctity of manhood which was, after all, made in the image of the Creator.

It is no wonder that wives tend to penalise mistresses more than their two-timing husbands. It is a wonder, however, how feminists have not rebelled against the main offender in the Levant and the world beyond! I still chortle when I recall this excerpt from Gervais's satirical fantasy: 'The world's gonna end unless we have sex right now!' How many men would use this line in a world where every statement is taken to be true? :mrgreen:

Yes, an alien invasion would bring us closer together ... :geek:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests