Saturday, June 18, 2016

The Spirit of Trullion: A Religious Dialogue within the Alastor Cluster



Paul Rhoads - Vocabuary didn't work out, nor Cadwal. What about Trullion?

What a beautifully ironic and Spenglerian creation is this story! Or, one could say, anti-spengerian, in the sense that Jack [Vance], though a fervent admirer of Spengler, toyed with ways of out-foxing spenglerian cultural decay.

So here we have a society, so amusingly modeled on the Califonian hippy ideal of the 60s (you callow yoots may know something about this via golden-oldy rock-n-roll, but some of us were there.... whatever : -). What happens? Two brothers come allong: one attuned to this society, the other dissatisfied. This is greatly amusing beacause Jack mixes everything up! The hippys were (in an extreemly mushy manner) revolutionarys against - let us say - a sober social order (no drugs and easy sex, plus hard work). In Trullion the revolutionary is Glay, the sober Fancher who disaproved of his slovenly society and dreamed of order, dicipline and self-improvement.

In the story the "consevative" Glinnes manages to defend his hippy-dippy slovenly "social order" against the revolutionary attempt of Glay to over-throw that order in favor of self-dicipline and so on.

Now, why take interest in this marvellous anatomy of social disequilibrum, this perhaps idealistic or even wistful recipie contre Spengler, at this moment?

The reason is in the _here_ and _now_ (or yesterday)!

See Muhammad Rasheed - and S. Brain in another way - as Glay: his ideals are opposed to the society in which he lives; like Glay he would over-turn all its values, and to this end - like Glay - he is ready to take radical and even "violent" (at least retorically) steps (such as gratuitus accusations of nescience and so on, or in the Brain mode more tricky and snarky tactics). Now the society in question is not the Fens, but American and western society, out of which Vance comes and of which - other things being equal - he defends. Here John Justin Green and - (Magnus Ridolph patted his chin with a hankerchif) - myself, represent Glinnes, driven to all sorts of desperate measures to preserve the world we love.

Then there are those who, like Acady the Mentor, set themslves up as arbitors, as mediator, while in fact, and dispite themselves, aiding and abetting the wrong side - which is beacuse they lack moral vssio and courage.

I commend a re-reading of Trullion; there are lessons for all!

Muhammad Rasheed - (i don't think it actually HAS values.  :P  )

Paul Rhoads - Exacty. This is the meaning of "totally oppose".

And yet, even in your rébellion, your effort to unmake and remake western society, you depend on and use that society: it's openess, it's forms of discourse. Your fundamental arguments are all of western origen. No such things as your anti-colonial, anti-rarcist, anti-establishment and religiously "tollerant" attitudes ever arose or have ever been effective in non-western society (muslim "tollerance" based on dhimmini is not "tollarence" in the western manner of actual and effective non-discrimination).

You have not examined yourself. You are a proud rebel, but it is the pride more than the rebellion which counts, for what do you really want - l mean appart from "winning"? 

It's so empty to accuse others of ignorance and hate and so on, people, who for all you know, may be better than you. 

What do you truly hope to accomplish? 

Perhaps you wish to legalise poligamy?

Muhammad Rasheed
 - Your opinions regarding the non-western world reflect the intense, and actually evil, lens of your idol Churchill that you see them through. With every line you typed you grew further and further away from any kind of pretend objectivity as you belittle and offend. This both from the effort to hold up fake Western world "values," as well as your verbal kicking of the non-western society, downed while it still flops around in the damage caused from colonialist conqueror abuses.

Does your foolishness ever come to an end? I ask only as an interested scholar collecting such data for science.

John Justin Green - Nonsense

John Justin Green - But clearly that is how you have decided to see it.

John Justin Green - The way you use the term science is as a cape of spendor. A status building symbol. Science would hold no admiration as a term if that was how it came about. Argument based on authority are anti scientific.

Paul Rhoads - l get it! western civilization and it's defenders are wrong and evil in all aspects and phases! No need to further beat that dead horse.

Now, Glay, what does your Fancherade look like, the good you will build on the ashes of the evil you heroicly destroy? 

ls poligamy on the menu?

Muhammad Rasheed
 - Well, the primary item needed is a serious and hearty reform, in which currently only weak band-aid efforts are placed to give the illusion that a system of balanced fairness is being achieved. This has been ineffective since the balance of power remains not only tilted in the hands of the descendants of the original offenders, but they are also falsely under the impression that nothing is wrong at all, believing that the disenfranchised victims only whine over fictional wrongs. The New Deal of the 20th century deliberately excluded Blacks while it enabled Whites to get ahead and build the Middle Class; this "affirmative action" policy has continued in many other ways ever since, when institutionalized efforts to prevent Blacks from an equal playing field. I resent being artificially held down -- as a group -- while another is artificially propped up to coddle a fake superiority complex that does NO ONE any good.

The bottom line is that I want only that the artificial barriers and artificial boosts be removed (or have the 'boosts' given to all!) in order for true fairness to reign. This is the nature of the Western society's evil in practice, and in a nutshell, how it can be fixed.

Muhammad Rasheed - As an aside, I do not long for polygamy. The Qur'an permits this during special circumstances, but it acknowledges it is not the best relationship, and advises against it, turning us towards a single spouse as marital best practice.

John Justin Green
 - Is that in both original mecca version and later redacted medina version? Membership sored after he fixed it up.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Paul Rhoads... My "fundamental arguments" come from my understanding of the Qur'an as sacred scripture; God wants only the best for mankind. You are unaware of this because of your limited "the gist" level of study into it.

John Justin Green - At one time you had a gist level as well. Did you have any concerns about anything at that point as I do or were you sll in even then?

Muhammad Rasheed - @Paul Rhoads... You're also trying to give the impression that only our society had the openness that enables our technological achievements, but this is far from the truth. The Islamic golden ages that made Spain and old Baghdad Meccas of learning and achievement for scholars around the globe held that same level of openness.

John Justin Green
 - Dhimi Zoastrian mathmaticians etc. It is amazing we saved as much as we did with all the burning.

Muhammad Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “and - (Magnus Ridolph patted his chin with a hankerchif) – myself”

Psh! You WISH! lol

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: "Argument based on authority are anti scientific."

Do you then think that arguments based on wishes & feelings should take their place instead? Because they make poor tools to anchor science upon.  Be reasonable!



Paul Rhoads
- ...thus?

M. Rasheed - Precisely so!

Paul Rhoads - ok...

so far here is what l have learned (continue to correct me), with further questions.

Poligamy will be allowed, subjet to financial criteria:

- How much (apoximately) for 4 wives?
- how much for 3 and 2?
- Will there be a financial criteria for 1 wife? Could indigents marry?
- Homo marriage?
- 3 homos?
- 2 heteros and 1 homo?
-Who will council married men, how often, and what powers will they have in case of abuse?
You will have - I presume - a universal minimum wage?
- How will the rulers of this universal social wellfare system be prevented from discrimination?

M. Rasheed - Paul, I was only answering your questions regarding polygamy in Islam, and the Qur'an's restrictions as a best practice. By no means would I care to force the religious law upon a secular government proud of its "separation of church & state." I'm not trying to instigate a civil war.

Paul Rhoads - Fine, but l am not asking about sharia (beacuse l already know). What interests me is your flavor of Fancherade!

You believe western society is integrally evil. You work to replace it with your conception of the good. This is what interests me.

Now, poligamy is utterly incompatable with western society. You, however, regard this as bad and would destroy this incompatibility. So, you impose poligamy. Good. What l want to know is how your new society - call it Fancher society - would be ordered.

So, in Fancherade, how would poligamy work?

Apparently you have a multiculturalist vission in which each group has a say. This does not seem take into account the profound incompatibilities of these groups, but we'll get into that - if you are willing. To start: how would poligamy work in Fancharade?

Financial limits?

M. Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “You believe western society is integrally evil. You work to replace it with your conception of the good. This is what interests me.”

One of the functioning components of Western society is White Supremacy that was there from the beginning. Efforts to soften it have been of the smoke & mirrors, “These are not the droids you are looking for” variety, leaving the exploited-conquered class embittered and resentful. The reason why slavery in America was abolished was because it caused a socio-political conflict with the paradoxical  “Land of the Free” doctrine this nation’s government was crafted around, and over time it erupted in a bitter war that threatened to destroy the great experiment for good. The laws and structure are now strong enough… because of those ‘freedom/fairness’ wordings in the source documents... that make it possible to excise the cancerous White Supremacy from American society with a great and focused effort, nullifying the need to replace the whole kit-n-kaboodle with another society altogether. I believe America is worth salvaging. All they have to do is be fair, provide consistent justice for all equally, and actively do the hard work to achieve it. The signatories of the Racial Contract naturally hate and fear this simple but difficult solution, as they lust for the “power over all non-whites” perk of their position above all else, and have sabotaged those efforts on every level (they blocked Lani Guinier from the appointed position President Clinton nominated her for because of her keenly-developed sense of fairness). In other words, my “Fancharade” would be remarkably similar to an ideal state America… with that ideal coming from the perspective of a fair-minded non-white who actually loves his country, as opposed to the 50 state, exclusivist Whitopia my ideological enemy prefers.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Now, poligamy is utterly incompatable with western society.”

It’s incompatible with any society, that’s why the omniscient One God advised against it except under unusual circumstances. But of course, predictably, those who are led by their lusts interpret the verses differently. lol

Paul Rhoads wrote: “You, however, regard this as bad and would destroy this incompatibility.”

Not so, unless you are actually just weaving a role playing scenario that you want me to be a sport and take part in. Is this the nature of your postings here? If so, then state it loudly with nerve and zeal! Otherwise you come across as if you are only half fluent in an obscure English dialect (which I already suspected).

Paul Rhoads wrote: “So, you impose poligamy. Good. What l want to know is how your new society - call it Fancher society - would be ordered. So, in Fancherade, how would poligamy work? To start: how would poligamy work in Fancharade? Financial limits?”

At this point, your fascination with the subject is revealing your own secret lusts for all the world to witness. It’s actually starting to make me uncomfortable. hahaha I DON'T own an escort/dating service, Rhoads, if that's what you're really probing into. All Black men aren't pimps. lol

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Apparently you have a multiculturalist vission in which each group has a say. This does not seem take into account the profound incompatibilities of these groups…”

I think each distinctive group having a representative present in the leadership role so that every voice is fairly heard for the final judgments/rulings to pull from is vital; there can be no ideal fairness-based system without knowing what everyone’s needs are. A single viewpoint to lead all others – particularly a viewpoint that believes it is inherently superior to everyone else and worships only its own lust for power – has already proven to be an irresponsible failure of a system.

Paul Rhoads -   ... ! so you approve the westen system (less racism) after all!!!!

What about lslam?

... really, l find a all this incoherant - unless what you are really into is complaining and smacking down straw men.
Separation of Church and state is fine with you... one wonder what Koran you're reading.

M. Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “ ... ! so you approve the westen system (less racism) after all!!!!”

I said I was a political Moderate with libertarian leanings. You didn't believe me? What did you think that meant? I’m a proud, patriotic American that wants his country to be the best it can be, and reach its highest ideals. The greatest, and most stubborn obstacle in the way of her achieving that, is its heinous enduring legacy of racism.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “What about lslam?”

As a Christian yourself I don’t even understand why you are asking me that. Islam is my religion. It is designed to enable me to live my life in such a way that I achieve paradise in the hereafter. That’s what it’s for, the same as Christianity is for you. I can practice my religion under a Muslim ruled government, or under a Christo-flavored secular one. It is all one to me, though I prefer to dwell within the land of my birth.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “... really, l find a all this incoherent”

That’s because you only hold a skim-off-the-top, inaccurate “the gist” understanding of my belief system (and barely speak English). The sensation you’re currently experiencing is called “cognitive dissonance.” You’ll get over it.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “- unless what you are really into is complaining and smacking down straw men.”

The oppressor class' denial of racism and its evil affects, so they can pretend to be history's white-hatted Good Guy, is part of what you’ve covenanted under the Racial Contract. I am unperturbed.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Separation of Church and state is fine with you... one wonder what Koran you're reading.”

The “separation of church & state” concept is only a big deal if I actually live under an Islamic theocracy where I expect the government to rule straight from the Word of Allah. I am under no obligation to conquer nations and force them to do anything, so if that’s what your “understanding” of the Qur’an’s message is supposed to be, you may discard it.

Paul Rhoads - l never saw you claiming to be a moderate or libertarian, and you constant agressive assumptions are tiersom and unfriendly.

M. Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: "l never saw you claiming to be a moderate or libertarian..."

You don't remember this part below from the Churchill thread?

My allegiances are ranked in order from most loyal at the top. I am a proud:

1.) Muslim
2.) Black American
3.) Cartoonist-Publisher-Graphic Novel Serialist
4.) Political Moderate with libertarian leanings


Paul Rhoads wrote: "...and you constant agressive assumptions are tiersom and unfriendly."

Again did you forget all of the foul and insulting things you said to me in the Churchill thread? You have a lot of nerve exposing your sensitive underbelly to me, Rhoads. If you feel offended, just go back and read the things you said to me the other day so that you may achieve a semblance of balance. If you can manage to apologize then I promise to tone it back and we can wipe the slate clean and begin anew as friends. It’s your call.

Paul Rhoads - ...demanding appologies? sheesh.

M. Rasheed - lol Technically it wasn't a 'demand.' I was just letting you know that your crying foul at harsh treatment was quite hypocritical. Naturally you don't have to apologize if you don't want to. It won't stop me from engaging in the discussion, but it may delay any true friendship bonding based on trust & mutual respect. :)

Paul Rhoads - who cried foul? l'm just complaining! Your constant kooky assumptions about what one knows or doesn't, and so on, are eventully repetitive. l made a bunch of posts asking questions but you don't change gears. A little of that can be... "fun",..

l called you what you are - or appear to by by everything you say (dispite many contradictory incoherances): a product of the left-islam alliance - which is incoherant enough. This is not insult. If l'm wrong good! lf l'm right you should assume the fact or change. l'm always open to learn, but so far l see nothing that suggests otherwise except that you turn out to be much more pro-western than your inital attack on Churchill allows one to suspect.

l grew up listening to WBAI in NYC in the 60s. l know about the ideals and vission of the black panthers, the honorable Elija Mohammed and so on, and later the admiration for Nasser, Saddam and Kadafi on the hard anti-colonial left. Your ideas are not new to me.

You seem blissfully unaware that your major attitudes depend totally on the very western things you attack so indiscriminantly. Your preoccupation with racism is out of proportion and distorts your historical understanding which seems extreemly doctrinaire and limited. What do you want me to say in reaction to this stuff when, as far as l can honestly tell, l know more about it than you? l don't hold that against you - we all must constantly learn - but you don't seem interested in learning! I, however, am gennuinly curious about what your positive (l mean technically: constuctive, practical) ideas might be.

l hope you understand the spirit in which l'm speaking...

M. Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “who cried foul? l'm just complaining!”

lol How is that NOT the same thing?

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Your constant kooky assumptions about what one knows or doesn't, and so on, are eventully repetitive.”

I feel the literal exact same about your own. Especially from this post. :P

Paul Rhoads wrote: “l made a bunch of posts asking questions but you don't change gears.”

I don’t know what that means. Explain, please.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “l called you what you are - or appear to by by everything you say”

And I did the exact same with you, yet here I find you whining & complaining about it. Curious.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “ (dispite many contradictory incoherances)”

The contradictions are in your mind, Paul.

M. Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “…a product of the left-islam alliance…”

You sound like a partisan political talking head. What am I supposed to do with that?

Paul Rhoads wrote: “…which is incoherant enough. This is not insult.”

I’m going to generously chalk that up to your weak English. No offense.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “If l'm wrong good! lf l'm right you should assume the fact or change.”

Considering you haven’t been right about anything yet, I can reasonably expect the trend to continue.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “l'm always open to learn…”

Apparently not. You’re the one that admitted he only had the shallow “gist” of the Qur’an, yet wants to tell me he knows more about Islam than I right? That’s the literal exact opposite of being “open to learn,” Paul.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “…but so far l see nothing that suggests otherwise except that you turn out to be much more pro-western than your inital attack on Churchill allows one to suspect.”

My attack on Churchill was composed of his racism and drivel regarding Islam. I hadn’t gotten into much else that he represented because of the limited time. He DOES represent certain negative items that the West represents, items that I actively hate. There are other items within Western society that are positive (particularly in America), and I support those. I’ve never condemned the entire West – throwing the baby out with the bathwater – because of the negative traits. That wouldn’t be a trait of critical thinking.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “l grew up listening to WBAI in NYC in the 60s. l know about the ideals and vission of the black panthers, the honorable Elija Mohammed and so on, and later the admiration for Nasser, Saddam and Kadafi on the hard anti-colonial left. Your ideas are not new to me.”

Did you just say you learned everything about my social-political interests from listening to the radio in the 1960s? lol

Paul Rhoads wrote: “You seem blissfully unaware that your major attitudes depend totally on the very western things you attack so indiscriminantly.”

“Indiscriminately” means something very different in your world I see. Considering you yourself pointed out that I have very specific philosophies and practices within Western society I want excised. That’s the literal opposite of “indiscriminately,” Paul.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Your preoccupation with racism is out of proportion and distorts your historical understanding which seems extreemly doctrinaire and limited.”

Your dismissal of racism and its affects are a self-imposed delusion, designed to give you an artificially clean conscious. The trait is actually a major hallmark of the modern institutionalized racism agreed upon by the Racial Contract signatory.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “What do you want me to say in reaction to this stuff when, as far as l can honestly tell, l know more about it than you?”

An odd thing to say when, thus far, you’ve only regurgitated a steady stream of stereotypes, denial, and hate speak from uncritical blogs and hate sites.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “l don't hold that against you - we all must constantly learn…”

Accept for you, of course. You seem to flinch away from it like a popped can of biscuits.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “…but you don't seem interested in learning!”

Well, I’ll admit I have zero interest in being brainwashed with White Supremacist Ideologies. That's a college credit I will never willingly purchase. That is all you have offered to date, and that body of doctrine is a lie from the pit of hell. You may keep it. Or do a better job in explaining how such evil could possibly benefit me.

See Also:

18 comments:

  1. ok...
    so far here is what l have learned (continue to correct me), with further questions.

    Poligamy will be allowed, subjet to financial criteria:

    - How much (apoximately) for 4 wives?

    - how much for 3 and 2?

    - Will there be a financial criteria for 1 wife? Could indigents marry?

    - Homo marriage?

    - 3 homos?

    - 2 heteros and 1 homo?

    -Who will council married men, how often, and what powers will they have in case of abuse?

    You will have - I presume - a universal minimum wage?

    - How will the rulers of this universal social wellfare system be prevented from discrimination?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul, I was only answering your questions regarding polygamy in Islam, and the Qur'an's restrictions as a best practice. By no means would I care to force the religious law upon a secular government proud of its "separation of church & state." I'm not trying to instigate a civil war.

      Delete
    2. I want the people to be free, and I want just and fair governing to reign where no one group is hurt or elevated above others because of biased favortism from leadership.

      The leadership would have to be representative councils with all different groups in the country present. Another outside checks & balances group should have the authority to track their work to make sure they aren't breaking the law with discriminatory practices.

      Delete
    3. Fine, but l am not asking about sharia (beacuse l already know). What interests me is your flavor of Fancherade!
      You believe western society is integrally evil. You work to replace it with your conception of the good. This is what interests me.
      Now, poligamy is utterly incompatable with western society. You, however, regard this as bad and would destroy this incompatibility. So, you impose poligamy. Good. What l want to know is how your new society - call it Fancher society - would be ordered.
      So, in Fancherade, how would poligamy work?

      Apparently you have a multiculturalist vission in which each group has a say. This does not seem take into account the profound incompatibilities of these groups, but we'll get into that - if you are willing. To start: how would poligamy work in Fancharade?
      Financial limits?

      Delete
    4. Paul Rhoads wrote: “You believe western society is integrally evil. You work to replace it with your conception of the good. This is what interests me.”

      One of the functioning components of Western society is White Supremacy that was there from the beginning. Efforts to soften it have been of the smoke & mirrors, “These are not the droids you are looking for” variety, leaving the exploited-conquered class embittered and resentful. The reason why slavery in America was abolished was because it caused a socio-political conflict with the paradoxical “Land of the Free” doctrine this nation’s government was crafted around, and over time it erupted in a bitter war that threatened to destroy the great experiment for good. The laws and structure are now strong enough… because of those ‘freedom/fairness’ wordings in the source documents... that make it possible to excise the cancerous White Supremacy from American society with a great and focused effort, nullifying the need to replace the whole kit-n-kaboodle with another society altogether. I believe America is worth salvaging. All they have to do is be fair, provide consistent justice for all equally, and actively do the hard work to achieve it. The signatories of the Racial Contract naturally hate and fear this simple but difficult solution, as they lust for the “power over all non-whites” perk of their position above all else, and have sabotaged those efforts on every level (they blocked Lani Guinier from the appointed position President Clinton nominated her for because of her keenly-developed sense of fairness). In other words, my “Fancharade” would be remarkably similar to an ideal state America… with that ideal coming from the perspective of a fair-minded non-white who actually loves his country, as opposed to the 50 state, exclusivist Whitopia my ideological enemy prefers.

      Paul Rhoads wrote: “Now, poligamy is utterly incompatable with western society.”

      It’s incompatible with any society, that’s why the omniscient One God advised against it except under unusual circumstances. But of course, predictably, those who are led by their lusts interpret the verses differently. lol

      Paul Rhoads wrote: “You, however, regard this as bad and would destroy this incompatibility.”

      Not so, unless you are actually just weaving a role playing scenario that you want me to be a sport and take part in. Is this the nature of your postings here? If so, then state it loudly with nerve and zeal! Otherwise you come across as if you are only half fluent in an obscure English dialect (which I already suspected).

      Paul Rhoads wrote: “So, you impose poligamy. Good. What l want to know is how your new society - call it Fancher society - would be ordered. So, in Fancherade, how would poligamy work? To start: how would poligamy work in Fancharade? Financial limits?”

      At this point, your fascination with the subject is revealing your own secret lusts for all the world to witness. It’s actually starting to make me uncomfortable. hahaha I DON'T own an escort/dating service, Rhoads, if that's what you're really probing into. All Black men aren't pimps. lol

      Paul Rhoads wrote: “Apparently you have a multiculturalist vission in which each group has a say. This does not seem take into account the profound incompatibilities of these groups…”

      I think each distinctive group having a representative present in the leadership role so that every voice is fairly heard for the final judgments/rulings to pull from is vital; there can be no ideal fairness-based system without knowing what everyone’s needs are. A single viewpoint to lead all others – particularly a viewpoint that believes it is inherently superior to everyone else and worships only its own lust for power – has already proven to be an irresponsible failure of a system.

      Delete
    5. It seems to me you settle on believing things based on how many times it is stated. No one can know anothers mind Rashid and yet you feel you know whole races minds, not to mention our individual minds. Motives through time even. This is insane. You then build your other beliefs on top of that! You are not alone. Apparently insanity is epidemic.

      Delete
    6. I'm less interested in your armchair psychology than I am in your well-thought out counter arguments. If you're going to contribute then bring your A-Game. I've already seen your Z-Game and found it wanting. bleh!

      Delete
  2. ... !
    so you approve the westen system (less racism) after all!!!!

    What about lslam?

    ... really, l find a all this incoherant - unless what you are really into is complaining and smacking down straw men.
    Separation of Church and state is fine with you... one wonder what Koran you're reading.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul Rhoads wrote: “ ... ! so you approve the westen system (less racism) after all!!!!”

    I said I was a political Moderate with libertarian leanings. You didn't believe me? What did you think that meant? I’m a proud, patriotic American that wants his country to be the best it can be, and reach its highest ideals. The greatest, and most stubborn obstacle in the way of her achieving that, is its heinous enduring legacy of racism.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “What about lslam?”

    As a Christian yourself I don’t even understand why you are asking me that. Islam is my religion. It is designed to enable me to live my life in such a way that I achieve paradise in the hereafter. That’s what it’s for, the same as Christianity is for you. I can practice my religion under a Muslim ruled government, or under a Christo-flavored secular one. It is all one to me, though I prefer to dwell within the land of my birth.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “... really, l find a all this incoherent”

    That’s because you only hold a skim-off-the-top, inaccurate “the gist” understanding of my belief system (and barely speak English). The sensation you’re currently experiencing is called “cognitive dissonance.” You’ll get over it.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “- unless what you are really into is complaining and smacking down straw men.”

    The oppressor class' denial of racism and its evil affects, so they can pretend to be history's white-hatted Good Guy, is part of what you’ve covenanted under the Racial Contract. I am unperturbed.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “Separation of Church and state is fine with you... one wonder what Koran you're reading.”

    The “separation of church & state” concept is only a big deal if I actually live under an Islamic theocracy where I expect the government to rule straight from the Word of Allah. I am under no obligation to conquer nations and force them to do anything, so if that’s what your “understanding” of the Qur’an’s message is supposed to be, you may discard it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. l never saw you claiming to be a moderate or libertarian, and you constant agressive assumptions are tiersom and unfriendly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul Rhoads wrote: "l never saw you claiming to be a moderate or libertarian..."

      You don't remember this part below from the Churchill thread?

      My allegiances are ranked in order from most loyal at the top. I am a proud:

      1.) Muslim
      2.) Black American
      3.) Cartoonist-Publisher-Graphic Novel Serialist
      4.) Political Moderate with libertarian leanings

      Paul Rhoads wrote: "...and you constant agressive assumptions are tiersom and unfriendly."

      Again did you forget all of the foul and insulting things you said to me in the Churchill thread? You have a lot of nerve exposing your sensitive underbelly to me, Rhoads. If you feel offended, just go back and read the things you said to me the other day so that you may achieve a semblance of balance. If you can manage to apologize then I promise to tone it back and we can wipe the slate clean and begin anew as friends. It’s your call.

      Delete
  5. ...demanding appologies? sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol Technically it wasn't a 'demand.' I was just letting you know that your crying foul at harsh treatment was quite hypocritical. Naturally you don't have to apologize if you don't want to. It won't stop me from engaging in the discussion, but it may delay any true friendship bonding based on trust & mutual respect. :)

      Delete
  6. who cried foul? l'm just complaining! Your constant kooky assumptions about what one knows or doesn't, and so on, are eventully repetitive. l made a bunch of posts asking questions but you don't change gears. A little of that can be... "fun",..

    l called you what you are - or appear to by by everything you say (dispite many contradictory incoherances): a product of the left-islam alliance - which is incoherant enough. This is not insult. If l'm wrong good! lf l'm right you should assume the fact or change. l'm always open to learn, but so far l see nothing that suggests otherwise except that you turn out to be much more pro-western than your inital attack on Churchill allows one to suspect.

    l grew up listening to WBAI in NYC in the 60s. l know about the ideals and vission of the black panthers, the honorable Elija Mohammed and so on, and later the admiration for Nasser, Saddam and Kadafi on the hard anti-colonial left. Your ideas are not new to me.
    You seem blissfully unaware that your major attitudes depend totally on the very western things you attack so indiscriminantly. Your preoccupation with racism is out of proportion and distorts your historical understanding which seems extreemly doctrinaire and limited. What do you want me to say in reaction to this stuff when, as far as l can honestly tell, l know more about it than you? l don't hold that against you - we all must constantly learn - but you don't seem interested in learning! I, however, am gennuinly curious about what your positive (l mean technically: constuctive, practical) ideas might be.

    l hope you understand the spirit in which l'm speaking...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul Rhoads wrote: “who cried foul? l'm just complaining!”

    lol How is that NOT the same thing?

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “Your constant kooky assumptions about what one knows or doesn't, and so on, are eventully repetitive.”

    I feel the literal exact same about your own. Especially from this post. :P

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “l made a bunch of posts asking questions but you don't change gears.”

    I don’t know what that means. Explain, please.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “l called you what you are - or appear to by by everything you say”

    And I did the exact same with you, yet here I find you whining & complaining about it. Curious.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “ (dispite many contradictory incoherances)”

    The contradictions are in your mind, Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul Rhoads wrote: “…a product of the left-islam alliance…”

    You sound like a partisan political talking head. What am I supposed to do with that?

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “…which is incoherant enough. This is not insult.”

    I’m going to generously chalk that up to your weak English. No offense.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “If l'm wrong good! lf l'm right you should assume the fact or change.”

    Considering you haven’t been right about anything yet, I can reasonably expect the trend to continue.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “l'm always open to learn…”

    Apparently not. You’re the one that admitted he only had the shallow “gist” of the Qur’an, yet wants to tell me he knows more about Islam than I right? That’s the literal exact opposite of being “open to learn,” Paul.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “…but so far l see nothing that suggests otherwise except that you turn out to be much more pro-western than your inital attack on Churchill allows one to suspect.”

    My attack on Churchill was composed of his racism and drivel regarding Islam. I hadn’t gotten into much else that he represented because of the limited time. He DOES represent certain negative items that the West represents, items that I actively hate. There are other items within Western society that are positive (particularly in America), and I support those. I’ve never condemned the entire West – throwing the baby out with the bathwater – because of the negative traits. That wouldn’t be a trait of critical thinking.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “l grew up listening to WBAI in NYC in the 60s. l know about the ideals and vission of the black panthers, the honorable Elija Mohammed and so on, and later the admiration for Nasser, Saddam and Kadafi on the hard anti-colonial left. Your ideas are not new to me.”

    Did you just say you learned everything about my social-political interests from listening to the radio in the 1960s? lol

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “You seem blissfully unaware that your major attitudes depend totally on the very western things you attack so indiscriminantly.”

    “Indiscriminately” means something very different in your world I see. Considering you yourself pointed out that I have very specific philosophies and practices within Western society I want excised. That’s the literal opposite of “indiscriminately,” Paul.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “Your preoccupation with racism is out of proportion and distorts your historical understanding which seems extreemly doctrinaire and limited.”

    Your dismissal of racism and its affects are a self-imposed delusion, designed to give you an artificially clean conscious. The trait is actually a major hallmark of the modern institutionalized racism agreed upon by the Racial Contract signatory.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “What do you want me to say in reaction to this stuff when, as far as l can honestly tell, l know more about it than you?”

    An odd thing to say when, thus far, you’ve only regurgitated a steady stream of stereotypes, denial, and hate speak from uncritical blogs and hate sites.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “l don't hold that against you - we all must constantly learn…”

    Accept for you, of course. You seem to flinch away from it like a popped can of biscuits.

    Paul Rhoads wrote: “…but you don't seem interested in learning!”

    Well, I’ll admit I have zero interest in being brainwashed with White Supremacist Ideologies. That's a college credit I will never willingly purchase. That is all you have offered to date, and that body of doctrine is a lie from the pit of hell. You may keep it. Or do a better job in explaining how such evil could possibly benefit me.

    ReplyDelete