This article is not an anti-religion rant; it is an anti-war message. For my purpose for hurting the feelings of religionists, especially the post-Christians, is to spill my figurative guts about the forever war started by Christendom against the Muslims with the First Crusades.
All the Western powers that be are doing are perpetuating this war, rather than peace because they are forcing Western democracy on the Muslim nations and the Jihadis are also complicit in all of this too.
When the West admits that the War on Terrorism is a religious war against secularist globalism by the jihadis such as ISIS, that will mark their willingness to confront the truth.
Indeed, the Catholic Church has to make amends to the Muslim nations, and put their support behind the West and their UN and NATO forces.
As seen through jihadi eyes, the UN and NATO peace-keeping forces are viewed as a secular Crusade that threatens the integrity of world's only believers of God Almighty, ISIS and their al Qaeda and Taliban allies.
I condemn the Catholic Church for the trouble in the Middle East since the First Crusades, which was a mad grab for land, fame and power as well as removing unwanted lesser nobility so that the regal elite of Europe could vie for the honor of being offered kingdoms for forcibly converting the Teutonic, Gothic, and savage barbarians such as the Huns and Mongols.
As well, the Church failed to stop its petty wars in the Holy Land where it implemented proxy wars which still play out today. Indeed, the Crusades is the reason of why the Muslims are divided between jihadis and its Salafi origins within Saudi Arabia and the rest of Islam, both Shi'ite and Sunni.
Why do you think Christians are being persecuted today? Because of the delusion called "a healthy ego" and the rise of narcissism that gives rise to the arrogance of individualism. Even the public education system in the West promotes the ideals that is seen by the jihadis as "decadent hedonism" e.g. abandoning overdressed tradition for nearly-naked modernism.
Back over a thousand years ago, the First Crusade was when the current war against jihadis began &madash; back when the Saracens were growing more civilized in their conquered lands, two hundred years after Mohammed's death circa mid -7th century and continuing until the modern era.
It is indeed the epitome of a forever war; not in 1947, though.
For the rise of the state of Israel is actually a continuation of the rivalry between the French and the English, which was started when the Normans conquered England so long ago that only legends of that time remain.
Thus the proxy war that Bashir Al-Assad of Syria mentioned in an interview recently originally began with the Frankish and the English nobles founding a handful of kingdoms in the Holy Land.
Today, both France and England continue their rivalry in the Middle East to this day through their dealings with the US, Russia and China.
As well, the jihadism, the Salafism and the Islamism are also not new: they began right after Mohammed's death and continue on to this day.
It is time for the Church to continue to make amends with the Muslim nations, and to admit its part in this abuse of power starting with Charlemagne circa 768 CE.
For it is the backing of the State by Religion that is truly an evil: for example, the current case of the Orthodox Church in Russia. In their arrogance, the Russian Orthodox Church shows signs of corruption. Putin's pogrom against homosexuality is no different from the anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpits of Christendom in the Byzantine Empire. By scapegoating the LGBT community, the world's religions are distracting us from the fact that nobody really cares if a person is gay except to exercise control over their private affairs.
Likewise, the Muslim nations exercise control over the lives of its community with a big obsession with cleanliness, as though washing the hands and feet is enough to truly be clean.
No religion's hands are truly clean when it comes to war if they cannot turn their swords into ploughshares.
Originally posted August 31, 2014 at 4:52 PM PDT
References:
Background for First Crusade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
Background for Charlemagne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne
Background for Jihadism, Islamism, Salafism, and Wahhabism:
Jihadism started circa early 19th century in the Fula Jihads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fula_jihads
Islamism begin in early 18th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
Salafism developed in the latter part of the 10th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
Wahhabism arose in the 18th Century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al-Wahhab
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
20131226
A Quasi-Political Analysis of Microsoft and the Social Activists (satire)
It's sad that Microsoft has no presence on the competition at Google+. They copied gmail just like Apple copied everyone else with the iPhone.
Just so you know, I don't use my Hotmail account much since 2006. I stopped using Hotmail because of the rise of email spam due to sloppy security.
I also stopped using Yahoo chat circa 2005 due to the increasing risk of being attacked by chatbots since 2001. Though this has been "fixed" by getting rid of chat rooms on Yahoo chat.
Much of this is due to the insecurity of Windows prior to XP and specially of older versions NT server software in general.
This is primarily a Microsoft problem due to their factional nature. They hired right-wing fascists circa early1990s but rarely hire socialists or left-wingers due to the New Left's anti-corporate stance.
You'd only get hired IF and only IF you were paid to infiltrate to do something like what happened to Windows ME (a hack by the left who were annoyed at the right-wing neo-conservative faction using Microsoft addresses to traffic in porn). Though the programmer that kluged ME was a hired gun.
However, the anarchists are canny, because they aren't left or right. Anarchists are known to call the Left fascist for using violence like the Black Bloc (BB) even though the evidence says that most BB are dissatisfied with the old Left and the New Left for not being radical enough. BB use the same tactics as animal activists and other saboteurs. They attack property, not people. Ergo they are non-violent to people.
Right-wing neocon elements in the military & police form attack almost everyone in the name of law. Ergo, the military and police are violent to people and are known to damage property to achieve their objectives.
For they, along with doctor, nurses, teachers, and anyone dealing with the State are usually agents of the State regardless of which side they root for.
Observed events of tactics show that the agents of the state's tactics are representative of patriarchal forms of government. Let's consider the military. Because large groups of military work together, they have a very large number of circles of influence. This is why there is oversight by a command of hierarchy i.e. a commanding officer and the troops in the case of the military.
It cannot be determined what the BB and the New Left are representative of, because the rule is no more than three people are supposed to decide on what to do. This is to limit the circles of influence.
Therefore the New Left does not work by command by hierarchy but by roughly anarchist methods, which is harmonious in very small groups, but in large groups, become chaotic with non-violent groups unintentionally working for the State by blocking BB and similar radicals.
However, anarchists who are pacifist and non-violent tend to use non-violent tactics against the State. Jaggie Singh was a prime example of this: at no time in the past 25 years has there been any evidence of Mr Singh using violence.
Though the Montreal police complained that shooting teddy bears with a jury-rigged sling shot was a form of passive violence i.e. non-violent. This is ridiculous because teddy bears are cute, while tear gas makes your eyes run tears.
Sadly though, there are few articulate pacifists like Singh amongst the New Left, who have gone radical due to their tendency to party a lot and live in denial of their alcoholism and drug addictions.
However, the previous paragraph is not an indictment against the New Left, as their problems with drugs make them aware of what the homeless people face daily.
As it stands now, politics is polarized between the left and the right for the traditional reason that with conflict comes change.
As for myself, as a Buddhist, I cannot be left or right; I'll always be in the middle, rolling and tucking.
Originally posted October 27, 2012 0311H
Just so you know, I don't use my Hotmail account much since 2006. I stopped using Hotmail because of the rise of email spam due to sloppy security.
I also stopped using Yahoo chat circa 2005 due to the increasing risk of being attacked by chatbots since 2001. Though this has been "fixed" by getting rid of chat rooms on Yahoo chat.
Much of this is due to the insecurity of Windows prior to XP and specially of older versions NT server software in general.
This is primarily a Microsoft problem due to their factional nature. They hired right-wing fascists circa early1990s but rarely hire socialists or left-wingers due to the New Left's anti-corporate stance.
You'd only get hired IF and only IF you were paid to infiltrate to do something like what happened to Windows ME (a hack by the left who were annoyed at the right-wing neo-conservative faction using Microsoft addresses to traffic in porn). Though the programmer that kluged ME was a hired gun.
However, the anarchists are canny, because they aren't left or right. Anarchists are known to call the Left fascist for using violence like the Black Bloc (BB) even though the evidence says that most BB are dissatisfied with the old Left and the New Left for not being radical enough. BB use the same tactics as animal activists and other saboteurs. They attack property, not people. Ergo they are non-violent to people.
Right-wing neocon elements in the military & police form attack almost everyone in the name of law. Ergo, the military and police are violent to people and are known to damage property to achieve their objectives.
For they, along with doctor, nurses, teachers, and anyone dealing with the State are usually agents of the State regardless of which side they root for.
Observed events of tactics show that the agents of the state's tactics are representative of patriarchal forms of government. Let's consider the military. Because large groups of military work together, they have a very large number of circles of influence. This is why there is oversight by a command of hierarchy i.e. a commanding officer and the troops in the case of the military.
It cannot be determined what the BB and the New Left are representative of, because the rule is no more than three people are supposed to decide on what to do. This is to limit the circles of influence.
Therefore the New Left does not work by command by hierarchy but by roughly anarchist methods, which is harmonious in very small groups, but in large groups, become chaotic with non-violent groups unintentionally working for the State by blocking BB and similar radicals.
However, anarchists who are pacifist and non-violent tend to use non-violent tactics against the State. Jaggie Singh was a prime example of this: at no time in the past 25 years has there been any evidence of Mr Singh using violence.
Though the Montreal police complained that shooting teddy bears with a jury-rigged sling shot was a form of passive violence i.e. non-violent. This is ridiculous because teddy bears are cute, while tear gas makes your eyes run tears.
Sadly though, there are few articulate pacifists like Singh amongst the New Left, who have gone radical due to their tendency to party a lot and live in denial of their alcoholism and drug addictions.
However, the previous paragraph is not an indictment against the New Left, as their problems with drugs make them aware of what the homeless people face daily.
As it stands now, politics is polarized between the left and the right for the traditional reason that with conflict comes change.
As for myself, as a Buddhist, I cannot be left or right; I'll always be in the middle, rolling and tucking.
Originally posted October 27, 2012 0311H
20121129
Attention Potential Blackmailers, Online Bullies, and Assorted Harassers
Legally, in doing any of the above (blackmail or on-line bullying and/or harassment), you are committing a hate crime, and if you get a bunch of your friends to participate, then that's criminal harassment.
As well, if what you write to me causes me distress, then that's assault. If the content of your letter or message is a death threat, then that's an indictable offense. Further more, should you follow through with a note tacked to my front door and continued until there is a physical confrontation, that too is criminal harassment.
If in the process of harassing me face to face, you then strike or push me, that's assault and battery, a misdemeanor.
Getting back to the potential blackmailers, using email to blackmail me won't work, because try as you might, you cannot block your original IP address. In addition, I will treat email using remailers which hide your IP address as spam.
You have been warned.
Oh, by the way: I am not a lazy welfare bum; I am a person with disabilities. Nor am I a sex addict; I'm a virgin (as in unmarried) who prefers masturbation.
You finding dirt on me will get responses like, "I wrote that in 1993 before I got hit on the head at work. I don't write like that anymore."
Have a nice day, my foes! >:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)