Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am
If you regard that as true, so? Being "matriarchal" certainly doesn't make something more true. What's the point?
I don't "regard" it as true, I
acknowledge it as true because it is true.
Abrahamism is firmly rooted in patriarchy, thus implies the problem:
men who depreciate women. This is embedded in/of Islam, as
the male central figure idol of Islam was a polygamist misogynist
(also: pedophile,
genocidal warlord) who saw women only as either
slaves to men, or currency such to use/sell for purposes of jihad against "unbelievers".
There is only one division: "believer vs. unbeliever" and this is reflected
in/of the Left vs. Right respectively (as it always has), hence...
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am
No, the Left. The Left's not Islam.
...yes, it is. It always has been, to the same degree Muhammadans have always divided the world
on the basis of "believer vs. unbeliever" because it is the same division. The rest is noise meant
to distract people from the real underlying problems as they relate to Islam being the root
of Nazism. Dividing the world into two and systemically persecuting/killing "unbelievers"
is exactly what Islam does. The whole purpose is to collapse the entire West and make Islam
the only "solution".
If it takes a "believer" to "believe" themselves superior to others and/or others are inferior to themselves,
on what side must all Nazis/supremacists be pinned on in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" situation?
Only the "believers", hence the root of Nazism is in/of the Left (Islam).
The global censorship of the Right by the Left is the same as
the abuse of "unbelievers" by the hands of the "believers".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am
Radical Neo-Marxists are now starting to destroy not just centrists but even mild leftists. As below.
I don't know exactly who you are referring to as "radical neo-marxists",
I do not play the 'ism' game outside of the important ones (ie. Nazism),
which is strictly a "belief"-based condition (of supremacy).
This condition underlies Islam, hence "believers".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am
Umm...no, I think that's a highly implausible theory, given that most of that bratty group is composed of middle-class whites.
"Whites"? Are you as racist as the House of Islam is?
They have an active jihad against "white people", too.
Supremacism is not a racial problem, it is an ideological one.
Referring to people as "whites" is nothing but racist.
A human being is not defined by/as the color of their skin.
Islam is not even a race, yet they try to accuse those
who know Islam is a problem rather than a solution
as being "racist". This is the abusive nature of Islam.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am
So...your idea is that Neo-Marxists and Anarchists are Islamists? You'll need to show evidence for that, for sure.
It is the other way around: the House of Islam manufactures these groups
for the purposes of using non-Muslims to fight their jihad against the West.
The non-Muslims don't know this because they simply "believe"
they are doing the right thing, just the like "believers" in/of Islam.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am
That's an uninformative distinction. It begs the question, "Believe WHAT?"
The particular belief itself doesn't matter.
The problem is belief ITSELF. This is easy to see.
All knowledge must negate all belief-based ignorance(s), thus
knowing all (ie. who, what, where, why, when, how and ultimately: if)
NOT to "believe" must approach any possible all-knowing 'state',
god-or-no-god.
One may
know all, (thus) not to believe, or
believe all, (thus) not to know
wherein it takes a "believer" to "believe"
the opposite of what is true.
This is how why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is wholly "belief"-based
and people who eat from it (ie. be "believers") never actually know from which tree
they are even eating. It doesn't matter what good and evil are (or are not):
it would take a "believer" to "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am
You could argue, for example, that an anti-science loony was an "unbeliever," and a scientist was a "believer" in the scientific method. What does saying either really tell you? Not a thing. "Believer/unbeliever" leaves untouched the question of whether or not the "belief" in view is warranted, rational or sane.
The scientific method is not "belief"-based - it is rooted in
falsification: to falsify a premise(s) ie. a negation of "belief" (and/or assumption).
Endeavoring to know all:
not to believe is the same endeavor - to avoid the adoption of assumptions/premises "known" to be false.
This is how/why knowledge and belief are antithetical: all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s)
ad infinitum.
Belief has nothing to do with knowledge until one knows a particular belief(s) is
not necessarily true.
They will know who/what/where/why/when/how etc. as all of this implies having underwent a conscious inquiry
which is what any science is: a faculty of inquiry, hence the word 'conscience' is one's own faculty.
"Belief" is not a conscious process, it is
unconscious stagnation.
Trying/testing/falsifying any/all "belief" is
certainly a conscious process
undertaken by a faculty of inquiry, individual and/or otherwise.