Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Racism: A Sorites Paradox

A Sorites Paradox. Race is a Sorites Paradox. Everyone knows what race is. We know that Laplanders are ... well, bad example. We all know that Armenians are Asians. No. OK, we all know Basques are Europeans. Uh, we know that Mexicans are Mongolians. We know that my folks from the north of Scotland are displaced Highlanders mixed with Danes, Swedes and Norwegians and Dutch, Flemish and French and my odd man out grandfather who was English; that my red-blond, blue-grey eyed, tall family, and then me looking like the milkman, are all Scottish, "cleared" from the Highlands to make room for sheep, exiled from Iceland and the Faroes and the Shetlands and the Orkneys to the eastern cities before fleeing to America where family members changed their names more often that they changed their socks, I'm Scottish. Clear? It is to me: I see my relatives in nearly every person I see in the north, mom here, dad there, uncle around the corner, gramma in the shop, aunt on the bus, and there staring me in the face is me, my own self looking right past me at others who look like me to the nose and brows. Race? Well, I know only what I'm not. Sort of. (There've been whispers and sometimes loud accusations of my great-grandmother being -- don't say this aloud, [German]). I don't have a UK passport, so I don't know how to make a good legal case for being Scottish, and I really haven't pursued it to make it legal because I really don't care. To me it ain't meaningful outside my own self. It's not an interesting way for me to divide up my reality in ways I can deal with. Protestant? Well, no, thought the family are, sort of but not really. Middle class? Well, yeah, within reason, if one splits my vagabondage and the high success of others with their bourgeois tendencies and economic class standing. So, in fact, it's all kind of very much unclear who I am and what anyone is if I look closely enough to see any of the details. One I do that I find myself looking at everyman as a Hooded Man. All I see is a Sorites paradox, reality dissolving into something I thought I understood but now certainly do not. No, I'm not African, I suspect. And I doubt I'm Asian, probably. It's a matter of a Sorites Paradox: to say that a man is bald because he has so little hair, but we don't know just which lost hair it is that makes him bald and which one we could replace to make him not bald; which grain of sand makes it a heap and which grain lost makes it not a heap. In fact, when I look at race,I am stumped and just don't know a thing anymore about it. I know what I'm not, and I suspect that's all most people can lay claim to. Thousands of years of Northerners? Yeah, that's about it. I'm not a southerner.

The far north of Scotland has claim to the barren wasteland of Sutherland. That's the Viking sense of humor at work. Norwegians? They're easterners. For me as a boy, North Dakota was as far east as I imagined anyone could ever go without falling off the Earth into the spoiled land of New York, somewhere adjacent to Hell. It's all a Sorites Paradox. To the average man none of the discussion of race makes any real sense once one looks at it. It all falls apart, built on nothing at all. But it is real in that one is not something else. One makes a choice, deciding that one is of ones own, and the collective definition counts, even if it's ephemeral. Language, location, ethnicity, religion. That makes me Scottish. Sort of.

So, being originally from the far North, I look at Milton worrying himself sick over his fear that the English in London, being so far north of Italy, were subject to stupidity because, as the Italians let everyone know, the climate and conditions of the north make people there stupid; and Milton suffered. To him and to many others, it was obvious that Italians were the most enlightened and brilliant people on Earth, those to the North degenerate and incapable of much, certainly not of greatness themselves. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton himself-- all stupid because they came from England. Obvious, and Milton believed it and suffered from it. That makes me particularly stupid, and Beowulf moreso.

Race? Yes. Ethnicity? Yes. Meaningful? Sort of. My Polish Jewish girlfriend from Texas? Uh, let me get back to you on that one.

We can see America as a racist empire if we choose to. We can see the extermination of Indians and the slavery of Africans as the greatest crimes in Human history if we choose to. We can see America as a racist nation, built on racism, imbued with racism, nothing but a racist entity from beginning to end. We can look at taking space from Indians and enslaving Negroes as racism. We can say Indians and we can say Negroes so long as they are not us, so long as we can say we are not those though we can't say exactly what we are. And we can call this racism, if we choose to. Is it? Obviously, Negroes and Indians are not Europeans. Sort of. Let's pass over the occasional Greenlander who was caught up in a current in his kayak who then drifted to the north Islands of Scotland, and let's forget those who came with Columbus and others as curiosities from the Caribbean. Let's not speak then of Moors like Othello. Let's forget Napoleon's wife, let's forget de Gobineau's mother. Let's not talk ever of Dumas and so many others. Because if we do, then our idea of who we are not is so ephemeral that we are really left with not much. We won't be able to talk of race. Let's not talk about America at all because we would have to talk then about New Orleans' population of people who we can't say anything racially and ethnically sensible. New York City? This is impossible. And Israel? Falashas? Ashkenazim? Arabs? Suddenly, when we try to discuss ethnicity we find there is nothing to discuss in real terms, only there is remaining the idea of "Well, not this, not that, maybe." It's a Sorites Paradox.

There is something obvious about race and ethnicity, but to claim we can define it easily by looking at someone,by pointing in the dark, by guessing, by wishing, by being happy or angry, that is to give in to stupidity, to bigotry, to worthless discrimination for no purpose other than to satisfy some lack in ourselves that has nothing to do with others. To look for, as Truepeers writes, for the one final scapegoat who will free us of our resentments and usher in utopia, that is the failure of the person. It says nothing about race or ethnicity. It speaks only of a deluded epistemology and a small personality. But there is something to speak of, if only we can get it right.

If we can begin to clear up this Sorites Paradox of race we might begin to address the issue of Nativism in Europe. That's our problem of the time.

Muslims in the West are making themselves so deeply hated by the majority of people, non-Muslims of all sorts, that only the most hate-filled Leftists and most hate-filled Rightists can stomach them. Most Westerners don't hate anyone they don't actually know, restricting their hatreds to husbands, wives, children, neighbors, bosses, co-workers,and so on. Most Westerners have other things on their minds that abstract hates of people from other racial or ethnic groups. We live mostly in cities where our privacy is our own and our publicities are shared by millions of anonymous strangers we don't even look at if we see them. Race and religion mean mostly nothing to most of us. But Islam, but Muslims generally, they make themselves an issue of concern to the majority, and we are beginning to openly hate them, more and more private people who have no concern or regard for those outside their small circles of acquaintances, they begin to hate Muslims.

Why do the majority populations of the West hate Muslims? I can't count so high as that. The reasons are daily expanded and compounded. Muslims seem to have a suicidal urge they can't fulfill without the West acting for them by exterminating them. And our hatred? Is it "racist." Not hardly. It's common sense and common Humanness to get fed up with bullshit, to lash out at hostility, and to kill the outrageously dangerous. 'Hello Muslims.' Yes, 'Hello Left dhimmi fascists and Right wing racists/anti-Semites.' Provocation? You bet. So, what do we do with the accusation of "racism?"

It's disingenuous to claim that Islam is not a race. No, Islam is not a race, it's a poligion. But to claim it's not a race is to claim it's not racial. Obviously most Muslims are not European ethnically. It matters. It matters when Muslims provoke a hatred of themselves in the West if not everywhere on Earth, which they do. In Europe we see Muslims enraging the locals more and more daily,and the Muslims are not European ethnically, ethnically even though all we might be able to say of that is that we don't know exactly what we mean but we know we mean not them. No, theoretically,Islam is not ethnic. In practice, very much so and obviously so. Most Arabs are Muslims, and few Swedes so far are Muslim. But many blond Albanians are living in Sweden, and one might find it difficult to tell them apart from any short distance. It's not obvious and it's not simple. Often we know that a Muslim is likely to be an ethnic type not like us if we are European and not something else. But who can tell a Sikh from a Muslim in a dark tunnel? Or a Swede? We go with what we see, and the Sorites Paradox tells us we don't know what we see. We might well be homicidally enraged by Muslims, and we might not know who they are and we might not see who we see. Seeing race and ethnicity isn't going to help us much in determining who is who and who we are pissed off at. When it comes to telling whose bald and who isn't where do we draw the line? We don't have a clue. There is no answer unless there in an answer, and then we still won't know if it's real or imagined. What if a bald man wears a wig? What if a hirsute man shaves his head? What is a Muslim is a woman bound? A boy? A slave? Mentally incompetent. A convert? A liar?

Let me admit that I see that Northern Europeans are not the same as Arabs, though i might be hard-pressed at times to say why they are different, and sometimes I might mistake them for the other. I might assume a Swede is a northern Protestant and an Arab is a Muslim, and I might well be totally wring, finding out later that the Swede is a Muslim convert and the Arab is a Chaldean. How would I know just by looking? I wouldn't. And I might be fouled up by assuming that a Swede is a European and an Arab is a primitive only to find the Swede is a Communist and the Arab is an American Republican exchange student. Again and again, we face a Sorties Paradox. Any time we assume we know we will very likely find out we don't in fact know a damned thing about what we're on about. And so it is with "racism."

Let's look for now at "nativism." Let's unravel a bit of the idea of racism as it's directed at those of us who wish for and work for an Islam free Western world, if not for a world free of Islam. Is a "Nativist" a "racist"?

The following excerpt from No Dhimmitude is on Nativism, "Nativism and Power,is an essential point of our discussion here.

In politics "nativist" refers to the socio-political positions taken up by those who identify themselves as "native-born".

Nativism is a hostile and defensive reaction to the flux of immigration. Though it surfaced first, gained a name and affected politics in mid-19th century United States, recognizably nativist movements have since arisen among the Boers of South Africa, and in the 20th century in Australia and Britain. In American history, nativism was always associated with fears that certain new immigrants might inject political and cultural values at odds with the American way of life.

The term "nativism" is normally applied only to nativists of European stock, and accused by some of being a nationalist element of racism. Similar ideologies espoused by non-Europeans are given other labels and are rarely connected to nativism in public discourse. For instance, while Mexican President Vicente Fox faults the US for not opening its borders, Mexico simultaneously cracks down harshly on "undocumented migrants" who breach her southern borders from other Central American countries. Yet no public discussion accuses Mexico of being nativist in immigration policies. Modern contention over ancient ethnic occupation of areas in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus, sometimes based on tenuous linguistic and place-name hints, is given added urgency by assumptions that an urrecht of the earliest local population can justify nativist stances towards more recent arrivals. These issues are rarely assessed in terms of "nativism".

One such example that has succeeded in asserting their nativist rights, is Zionism. They have based their claim on the territory of Palestine on the Bible and created the state of Israel.

U.S. nativism appeared in the late 1790s in reaction to the political refugees from France and Ireland. After passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 it receded. Nativist outbursts occurred in the Northeast from the 1830s to the 1850s, primarily in response to a surge of Irish Catholic immigration. In 1836, Samuel F. B. Morse ran unsuccessfully for Mayor of New York on a Nativist ticket, receiving 1,496 votes. In New York City, an Order of United Americans (OUA) was founded as a nativist fraternity, following the Philadelphia Nativist Riots of the preceding spring and summer, in December, 1844.

In 1849–50 Charles B. Allen founded a secret nativist society called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner in New York as a result of the fear of immigrants. In order to join the Order a man had to be twenty-one, a Protestant, a believer in God, and willing to obey without question the dictates of the order. Members of the Order became known as the Know-Nothings (a label applied to them by newspaper editor Horace Greeley, because no one would admit to knowing anything about the secret society). The Nativists went public in 1854 when they formed the 'American Party', which was anti-Irish Catholic and campaigned for laws to require longer wait time between immigration and naturalization. It is at this time that the term "nativist" first appears, opponents of Americanists denounced them as "biggoted nativists." Former President Millard Fillmore would run on the American Party ticket for the Presidency in 1856. The American Party included many ex-Whigs who rejected nativism, and included (in the South) some Catholics. Conversely, much of the opposition to Catholic and Chinese immigrants came from other immigrants, who can hardly be called "nativists."

This form of nationalism often identified with xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment (anti-papism). In the 1840s, small scale riots between Catholics and nativists took place in several American cities. In California, Irish immigrants vented their resentment against the Chinese. Nativist sentiment experienced a revival in the 1880s, led by Protestant Irish immigrants hostile to Catholic immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first of many nativist acts of congress to limit the flow of immigrants into the U.S. The Orange Order was the center of nativism in Canada from the 1860s to 1950s. The second Ku Klux Klan, which flourished in the U.S. and Canada in the 1920s, used strong nativist rhetoric. In 1928, nativist bias was an important feature of the defeat of Presidential candidate, Alfred E. Smith, a Catholic. During World War II, 'nativist' undercurrents fueled the Japanese American Internment.

American nativist sentiment experienced a resurgence in the late 20th century, this time directed at 'illegal aliens,' largely Mexican resulting in the passage of new penalties against illegal immigration in 1996. After terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001, nativist feeling and islamophobia were amplified and directed increasingly toward individuals perceived to be either Arab and/or Muslim; these found themselves the target of rhetoric and a request by nativists to tighten border controls. The early 21st-century American movement that is self-characterized as "Immigration reduction" attempts to distance itself from any suggestion of Nativist motivations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism/
****
It likely strikes many as obvious that there is a conflation of nativism and racism. I beg to spit on such a thought. Such reductionism is typical of the stupidity of many on our so-called intellectuals. The KKK is not America; the BNP is not Britain; the FN is not France. The IRA is not Muslim. Should the Irish, as one example, make concessions to Muslims in Ireland by way of sharia in Ireland? Are the Irish, if they do not concede sharia privilege to the Muslim community in Ireland, nativist and racist? And if one argues such, does it really make any difference?

The only argument for or against sharia privilege in Ireland is who has power. Any other argument is naive and sentimental. There is one rule: "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The Islamic umma is at war against the world at large. It is between the natives and the Muslims. No, Islam is not monolithic, and no, not every Muslim is violent; but yes, it only takes a small number of dedicated people to rule. We are for ourselves in opposition to Islam or we are on our way to Islam and dhimmitude. It's not fair. We should all just get along and live in peace and harmony. In the real world there are real people who are our enemies. They might win. It is a matter of power.
****

The above excerpt is from a long piece on practical power and nativist privilege. The short version is that those who came first and made things as they are have a great say in how things should be therefore, those new-comers not liking it having the option of leaving. It's perhaps bigoted but not "racist" to fight for ones privileged state in the order of things. In the final analysis, guns rule the day. So it will always be. Our question is who will have the guns and who will they aim them at and why. Is it a question of "racism"? Is it a question of natural right? What can we support? We won't likely support "racism" which isn't a real thing in the minds of many if even few. It does have to do with "race." But mostly it has to do with "what is to be done?" in a practical sense of not knowing exactly what we face and how we live within our moral means. We can't rightly over-spend our alloted fund of morality. We have to be careful about what we do and why. If we accept nativism to an extent,and if we don't accept "racism" because we just don't know what the Hell we're discussing if we discuss it, then where do we go? Can we even accept Nativism? If not, then how much cultural relativism and multiculturalism will we put up with in the face of Islamic jihad and demographic catastrophe? Should we even care in a world of such impersonal cites and alienation so long as we can live our lives in some quiet for the course of our own lives and to Hell with the future?

But even after all this length we still haven't gotten to "racism." It ain't what you might think it is. It's a paradox of a whole nother kind. It's important that we understand things as they are so we can think them through and deal with our problem effectively and sanely if it comes to hard bargaining with "others."

Racism? If we don't kow what we mean by it, let's not say we do just yet.

3 comments:

truepeers said...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the idea that power grows out of a gun is something we need to overcome. It's the logic of the basically powerless street thug who points a gun at a guy he wants to mug. It's not the logic of the powerful general who knows he has the stronger army, on paper, but who fears he is up against a band with much stronger morale, like the Scots at Sterling Bridge. (Did I ever mention that I'm kind of named after William Wallace? - that's a sign of his power across the centuries!)

As best I can tell, Chairman Mao was a conceited fool. He may have believed power grew out of a gun, but then he probably never had to sit in on any of the revolutionary struggle sessions where the Chinese true believers would pick some poor bugger with a touch of class out of their ranks and interrogate him for weeks until everyone was convinced he was a reactionary counter-revolutionary. Religion. Opinion. That's what moves men.

I'm not saying military power doesn't play a fundamental role in human history; I'm just raising the question of what military power ultimately is based on: for both technological and morale reasons, it is based on ethical superiority. And that's why it's so important to us to work through these "race" questions. If we believe that power comes from the gun, then it's really simple, isn't it: we just need to build the biggest baddest gang of skin heads to kick butt. But that's not really going to work, is it?

I agree that it useful to see race as a sorites paradox. But that surely has something to do with the fact that race is not simply or even largely a biological category, but also an ethical one. Or, one might say race is really the marriage of, well, marriage (the historical groupings of people determined by who they do and don't usually marry - and by the kinds of people within the group who are favored as sex partners - and hence groupings being somewhat genetically-personality trait distinctive) with ethics, with cultural history. And it is this marriage of marriage and culture that gives us the paradox (of which, by the way, if it is really a paradox, you can't expect us to ever get to the bottom; we can at best peel back a layer or two on the infinitely big onion...) And it is the consciousnes of the English race/nation as an ethical cagetory that gets simplified by the skinhead "racist". If we are to put the BNP aside, maybe we have to rescue the ethical content of Englishness in a way that splits the difference between the racists and the anti-racist multiculti totalitarians. I think that's what you're getting at.

See you later,

dag said...

The idea that all power grows out of the barrel of a gun is directly from chairman Mao, but it comes also in a revolting package by Eldrich Cleaver, not relation to Wally and Beaver, who writes of the police and the military in his ugly srceed Soul On Ice. But the concept isn't limited to those towo: it also is at the base of writings and thoughts from Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Jefferson. Power is based on enforcement, in the case of Mao, dictatorial power forcing the unwilling into a Procrustean Bed of Communism a la Mao's Chinese utopian pseudo-Marxism; Cleaver ranting about misanthropic resentments of his own poisonality; Hobbes wiping his forehead proclaiming people are outright savages who must concede such in order to give away their power to kill each other and to be randomly killed; and Jefferson arguing that the people armed will maintain a peoples' democracy in the face of armed authority anyway. Reason without the armed might of a peoples' government such as that of America is not a democracy but a fluke waiting for disappearance. We must have armed might to save us from chaos, regardless of how reasonable most people truly are in practice if not in rhetoric. We need the police, we need the army, we need the man next door to be armed and ready to defend our democracy against chaos and terror. That's not the end of the story, only the beginning. But without such a beginning there is no more to the story than slavery and anarchy, the tyranny of the Big Man. In our beautiful Modernity the government must fear the armed people, not the opposite. And because the military and the police of our democracy are of the people and for the people by the people our government is afraid not of our armed might at its base but is afraid of our voices, of our votes, of our displeasure. We have a civilian controlled armed base. Our power rests on that, and because of that we do not rely on that force at all.

Peers and I have discussed the idea of ethnicity due to attractiveness of features and qualities in the best of the group continuing the traits of ethnicity, Peers' idea entirely. I like it. However, what is attractive today and what is ruled by force are not the same. Invasion and state repression are not valid standards to base our lives on; nor is coercion short of violence and force. The coercion of 'anti-racism' is not force per se, but it is not democracy. And in nominally democratic states such as in Western Europe we find coercion as the ruling mode of government. People will not tolerate it indefinitely. Then comes the problem of "ethnic cleansing" as a reactive correction. Who ends up suffering? Any random guy who looks different. "Him! That one. Let's get him." Enraged mob rule is not our democracy, but it might well be if we don't understand the nature of our struggle. We must discuss this rationally before there is no discussion at all other than the relative merits of calibre.

personalrep1 said...

GOD VERSUS ALLAH (THE ANTI – GOD)

ISLAM IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY BOGUS – A SHAM AND A FRAUD

THE KORAN IS NOT THE WORD/TEACHINGS OF GOD. THE KORAN IS A BOOK OF EVIL WHICH BLASPHEMES AND IS A VERY GREAT SIN AGAINST GOD.

By:
Larry Houle
www.godofreason.com
intermedusa@yahoo.com

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT ISLAM IS TOTALLY BOGUS

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT ISLAM IS A TOTAL SHAM AND FRAUD

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT ALLAH NEVER EXISTED

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT MUHAMMAD NEVER RECEIVED ANY REVELATIONS FROM ALLAH

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT ISLAM WAS CREATED BY MUHAMMAD

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE KORAN IS NOT THE WORD/TEACHINGS OF ALLAH

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE TEACHINGS OF THE KORAN ARE THE TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD NOT ALLAH

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT MUHAMMAD WAS ALLAH (THE ANTI – GOD)

A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF EVIL IN THE NAME OF GOD

ISLAM IS THE TEACHINGS OF THE EVIL MUHAMMAD NOT OF ANY GOD. BEING THE CREATION OF A MAN, ISLAM IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY BOGUS – A SHAM AND A FRAUD

ONE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE BUT TWO DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS

The universe is a huge entity stretching 14 billion years x 2 trillion miles (distance light travels in one year). Just in the Milky Way alone, there is an estimated 1 billion planets. In this immensity, there must be many life forms who like Homo Sapiens - exercise Free Will. While there is only one God of the universe, there is for mankind (homo sapiens) two dramatically different conceptions of God – there is God and then there is ALLAH (THE ANTI – GOD).

CONCEPTION OF GOD

For most of mankind - there is God - the Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Glorious Exalted Creator of the Universe, a God of All Peace, Love, Goodness and Mercy - an All Wise, All Loving God for all mankind.

ALLAH (THE ANTI – GOD)

For Muslims - there is Allah – the ANTI – GOD.

Allah is the ANTI - GOD worshiped by 1.2 billion Muslims. Allah is the ANTI – GOD of war, murder, killing, death and destruction, violence, rape, slavery, torture, hate, terror, brutality, savagery, maiming, stoning, cutting off limbs, mutilations, looting and pillaging, extortion, sexual depravity, child molestation, intolerance, bigotry, sharia law, oppression and subordination of women, inferiority of woman, women as instruments of sexual pleasure in paradise, wife beating, honor killings, inequality of infidels, inequality of any human being, that infidels can be murdered and their property stolen as a holy duty, that Muslims who renounce Islam can be killed, that Muslims (or anyone) who challenge the teachings of Islam can be murdered, that believers who slay and are slain in the service of God will ascend to a sexual Paradise of big eyed, big breasted virgins who they can sexually molest for all eternity

All Muslims believe the Koran is the Eternal divine word of God – the laws of God - that God authored the Koran and a copy of the Koran is in heaven. The Koran remains for all Muslims, not just "fundamentalists," the uncreated word of God Himself. It is valid for all times and places FOREVER; its ideas are absolutely true and beyond all criticism. To question it is to question the very word of God, and hence blasphemous. A Muslim's duty is to believe it and obey its divine commands without question.

Muslims can be killed for doing any of the following:


(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'

THE KORAN IS NOT THE WORD/TEACHINGS OF GOD. THE KORAN IS A BOOK OF EVIL WHICH BLASPHEMES AND IS A VERY GREAT SIN AGAINST GOD.

Muslim’s who follow the evil teachings of the Koran are not going to Allah’s sexually, depraved Paradise but will lose their eternal souls and join Muhammad and his master Satan in the fires of hell.

The greatest evil that anyone can commit is acts of violence against human beings in the name of and to the greater glory of God. The second greatest evil that can be committed is to preach evil in the name of God inciting violence against human beings.

ALL TEACHINGS OF GOD - A PERFECT GOD - MUST BE PERFECT. ANY WRITINGS IN ANY RELIGIOUS TEXT THAT ARE NOT PERFECT – ARE NOT PERFECTION - ARE NOT THE TEACHINGS OF GOD BUT THE TEACHINGS OF MAN

In order for the Koran to be the divine word of God - every word, every teaching must be PERFECT. Since God is PERFECT every word, every teaching of God – A PERFECT GOD must be PERFECT. If only one word, one teaching is not PERFECTION then the entire Koran is not a work of PERFECTION and therefore not the word/teachings of God. God cannot have some PERFECT teachings and other teachings that are IMPERFECT. In order to be the divine word of God, the entire Koran must be a work of PERFECTION – the PERFECT word/teachings of a PERFECT God. All teachings in the Koran and all Islamic texts (written or verbal) that are not PERFECT – that are not PERFECTION are not the teachings of God - A PERFECT GOD but the teachings of man – the teachings of Muhammad (ALLAH) – The Anti God

This means that all teachings recorded in the Koran and all other Islamic texts, revelations, writings, sayings, fatwa’s of war, murder, killing, death and destruction, violence, terror, rape, hate, violent jihad, terrorism, torture, brutality, savagery, maiming, wife beating, inferiority of woman, women as instruments of sexual pleasure in paradise, honor killings, stoning, cutting off limbs, child sex, sharia law, bigotry, intolerance, extortion, slavery, mutilations, looting, pillaging, sexual depravity, child molestation, oppression and subordination of women, inferiority of woman, women as instruments of sexual pleasure in paradise, wife beating, honor killings, inequality of infidels, inequality of any human being, that infidels can be murdered and their property stolen as a holy duty, that Muslims who renounce Islam can be killed, that Muslims (or anyone) who challenge the teachings of Islam can be murdered, that believers who slay and are slain in the service of God will ascend to a sexual Paradise of big eyed, big breasted virgins who they can sexually molest for all eternity etc are evil and irrational AND NOT THE PERFECT TEACHINGS OF GOD – A PERFECT GOD – A GOD OF ALL PURE LOVE AND PEACE, GOODNESS AND MERCY – BUT THE TEACHINGS OF ALLAH – THE ANTI GOD – THE TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD

GOD IS NOT AN IRRATIONAL, IMMORAL, EVIL BEING. IF GOD IS IRRATIONAL, IMMORAL, EVIL THEN GOD IS NOT PERFECT AND THEREFORE SINCE GOD CANNOT BE IMPERFECT AN IRRATIONAL, IMMORAL, EVIL GOD IS NOT GOD


No God who is God would ever preach that killing and murdering of any human being in His name will be rewarded by accession to Paradise. You cannot climb to heaven on the corpses of the murdered. Infidels can be murdered by Muslims as an ETERNAL LAW OF GOD. Not only can they all be murdered but the wives and daughters of the murdered infidels can be taken as booty, raped, and then sold as slaves. That’s right - God permits the raping of female slaves. Indeed in Islam - rape is not a only a sexual weapon – it is a weapon of war. Having murdered the woman’s man, Muslims can now - sanctioned by the law of God complete their final humiliation and domination of her body. Her sons can be sold into slavery. If there is any doubt as to the boy’s age of puberty - Muslims can pull down their pants and inspect their genital area for hairs. Even the slightest sign of hair growth means that these young men can be taken and beheaded. These infidel women can then be bred like cattle and their off spring sold for profit.

As an ETERNAL LAW OF GOD, Muslims can then loot and pillage the property of the murdered infidels, and must share 1/5 of the booty obtained from the sale of boys and women and the proceeds of looting with God. If no violence was involved then Muhammad was allowed by an ETERNAL LAW OF GOD to keep 100% of the looted booty for himself.

Muslims can own slaves as an ETERNAL LAW OF GOD. Slavery has been an integral institutionalized part of Islam since it’s creation by Muhammad. Muhammad owned 40 slaves.

Muhammad was allowed by a ETERNAL LAW OF God to rape his slaves ALL THIS EVIL ARE THE LAWS OF GOD AS SET DOWN IN THE KORAN. Not only that but righteous Muslims who slay and are slain in the service of God can ascend as martyrs to the evil sexually depraved Islamic Paradise of eternal hard - ons and virgins who re - generate as virgins after each sex act. THIS IS THEIR ETERNAL REWARD FOR OBEYING THESE EVIL LAWS OF GOD.

No God who is God would ever create a depraved Paradise full of big breasted, big eyed, sexual nymphs for suicide bombers, terrorists, murderers to molest for all eternity. If God commanded that infidels (or any other human being) be killed then he would be irrational and evil and no longer PERFECT - no longer God. If any teaching of God incites violence that leads to the killing of any human being then God is an accomplice to murder and therefore no longer God.

No God who is God would ever teach His believers to rape unbelievers, loot their property, sell them in to slavery and then share 1/5 of the proceeds with God. To have God go to war on behalf of His religion and believers is an obscenity and a very great sin against God. To have God send angels into battle as instruments of war, death and destruction is an obscenity against God.

To record in a so called Holy Book – the Koran - teachings of the rules of war, slavery, looting, pillaging, hate, terror, etc is a very great evil. Just declaring that such evil teachings in the Koran are the ETERNAL divine word of God is evil incarnate and an obscenity against everything God stands for – a blasphemy and a very great evil against God himself. KILLING, MURDER, SLAUGHTER, RAPE, LOOTING ARE ALL CRIMES TO ALL NORMAL RATIONAL HUMAN BEINGS. MURDER IS NOT A MULTI CULTURAL DIFFERENCE. RELIGION IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE BEST OF MANKIND NOT THE WORST.

Therefore the Koran is not the word/teachings of God.

NOT ONE WORD IN THE KORAN OR ANY OTHER ISLAMIC TEXT IS FROM GOD.

AGAIN AS STATED ABOVE - NO GOD WHO IS TRULY GOD WOULD EVER SPEW SUCH PURE HATRED AND INTOLERANCE. NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER CREATE A RELIGION OF WAR, DEATH AND DESTRUCTION. NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER PREACH TEACHINGS OF MURDER, TORTURE, AND CRUELTY. NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER SANCTION MURDERING PEOPLE AND THEN STEALING THEIR PROPERTY.

NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER ALLOW ANY HUMAN BEING TO BE THE SLAVE OF ANOTHER. NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER TEACH THAT WOMEN AND CHILDREN CAN BE SOLD INTO SLAVERY AS PROCEEDS OF WAR BOOTY. NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER DEMAND THE PROCEEDS OF WAR BOOTY, LOOTING AND PILLAGING. NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER TEACH THE RAPE OF SLAVE WOMEN.

NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER TEACH THAT INFIDELS CAN BE MURDERED AS A HOLY DUTY, THAT MUSLIMS WHO RENOUNCE ISLAM CAN BE KILLED, THAT MUSLIMS (OR ANYONE) WHO CHALLENGE THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM CAN BE MURDERED. NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER PREACH THAT KILLING AND MURDERING OF ANY HUMAN BEING IN HIS NAME WILL BE REWARDED BY ACCESSION TO PARADISE.

NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER CREATE A SEXUAL PARADISE OF BIG BREASTED, BIG EYED VIRGIN NYMPHS FOR SUICIDE BOMBERS, TERRORISTS, MURDERERS TO MOLEST FOR ALL ETERNITY. NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER DEMONIZE, OPPRESS AND SUBORDINATE WOMEN MAKEING THEM TOTALLY INFERIOR TO MEN – WORTH ½ A HUMAN BEING.

NO GOD WHO IS GOD WOULD EVER SEND AN EVIL, CRIMINAL LIKE MUHAMMAD AS HIS PROPHET TO CREATE A RELIGION TO TERRORIZE MANKIND. THE ALLAH OF THE KORAN NEVER EXISTED EXCEPT IN THE MIND OF MUHAMMAD. THERE NEVER WERE ANY REVELATIONS FROM ALLAH TO MUHAMMAD. THE KORAN IS THE TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD - THE TEACHINGS OF ALLAH - THE ANTI-GOD. BEING THE TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD AND NOT GOD - ISLAM IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY BOGUS - A SHAM AND A FRAUD

The above LAWS OF ALLAH destroys Islam's religious credentials, Muhammad's authority, and Allah's credibility. ALLAH justifying violent criminal acts to satisfy a prophet's lust for sex and power is unfathomable. If we are to believe Muhammad, ALLAH approved murder, terror, thievery, and kidnapping for ransom. This is immoral. An immoral god cannot be trusted. An immoral deity isn't worthy of a religion, devotion, sacrifice, or martyrdom. Since God is PERFECTION – He cannot be immoral and still be God. As stated previously, Allah never existed. The immoral, irrational, evil Allah of the Koran was the creation of Muhammad. He created Allah. He created Islam. He created the evil LAWS OF ALLAH. MUHAMMAD WAS ALLAH AND ALLAH WAS MUHAMMAD.

The same is true for an immoral prophet. The only thing more devastating than a man professing situational scriptures to legitimize terror, murder, robbery, and kidnapping for ransom is to lure billions to their doom by implying these words were inspired by God. Islam was nothing more than a cover for immoral financial gain. Muhammad was a murderous con man.

There have been millions of murderers, millions of kidnappers, millions of terrorists. There have been millions of sexual predators. Thieves are a dime a dozen. And there have been a score of men who have done these things while claiming to be anointed by God. Yet only one invented a "religion" and falsified "scripture" to satiate his demonic cravings. This is why Muhammad, Islam's lone prophet, qualifies as the most evil man to have ever lived.