Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/16/2005 7:00:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 9:38:12 AM EDT by NYPatriot]
From an ongoing series of great thinkers & statesmen who need to be banned from ARFCOM because of their intolerance...


Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French revolution with those of the rise of Islam.

Marx has tought that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet.

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world



-"Theory and Practice of Bolshevism," 1921
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 7:12:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 7:17:33 AM EDT by NYPatriot]
... and an unabashed plug for a book that every Infidel needs to read:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 7:46:20 AM EDT
What's the matter? Is Russell too obscure a figure, or do we all have hurricanes on the mind?

Or maybe, just maybe, everyone has finally seen Islam for the threat that it is.

Here's to hoping...
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 7:50:27 AM EDT
So what is the best way to deal with Islam as a world-wide threat?
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:10:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
So what is the best way to deal with Islam as a world-wide threat?



I don't think that you're allowed to answer that question on Arfcom.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:25:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
So what is the best way to deal with Islam as a world-wide threat?



I don't think that you're allowed to answer that question on Arfcom.



True enough, but at least we could identify the real enemy & expose what he truly stands for.

Then we could finally start to demonize & dehumanize him in the minds of the American people.

That would be a start...
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:35:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 8:36:30 AM EDT by Zarathustra1]


True enough, but at least we could identify the real enemy & expose what he truly stands for.

Then we could finally start to demonize & dehumanize him in the minds of the American people.

That would be a start...




You need to take back control of your media to accomplish that. How do you think we could do that?
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:38:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:


True enough, but at least we could identify the real enemy & expose what he truly stands for.

Then we could finally start to demonize & dehumanize him in the minds of the American people.

That would be a start...




You need to take back control of your media to accomplish that. How do you think we could do that?



I don't know? I try to do my part in the realm of the "new media." How bout you???
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:42:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
From an ongoing series of great thinkers & statesmen who need to be banned from ARFCOM because of their intolerance...


Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French revolution with those of the rise of Islam.

Marx has tought that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet.

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world



-"Theory and Practice of Bolshevism," 1921



NYPatriot: Great quote. It's been over thirty years since I've read Russell (college). The comparison is certainly enlightening and correct. Until we wake up and recognize the grave danger we are facing and take appropriate steps to defend our way of life we will all continue to suffer at the hands of the ROP. I am not advocating a Crusade, but I am saying recognize Islam for what it is: Tyranny wrapped in the robes of religion.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:47:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:


True enough, but at least we could identify the real enemy & expose what he truly stands for.

Then we could finally start to demonize & dehumanize him in the minds of the American people.

That would be a start...




You need to take back control of your media to accomplish that. How do you think we could do that?



I don't know? I try to do my part in the realm of the "new media." How bout you???




I agree. The Internet is a very valuable tool for information dissemination. Unfortunately I do not see a viable, nonviolent solution. I think a belief that we can vote our way out of our current mess is naive to say the least.

Its not that we are simply lost as a Nation, its that we have lost our compass entirely.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 9:36:54 AM EDT
Russell wasn't too fond of Christianity, either.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 9:45:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 9:46:33 AM EDT by NYPatriot]

Originally Posted By raven:
Russell wasn't too fond of Christianity, either.



Correct... Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell, but this fact should not discredit or distract from his spot on analysis of Mohammedanism.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 9:47:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 9:50:58 AM EDT by roboman]

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
What's the matter? Is Russell too obscure a figure, or do we all have hurricanes on the mind?

Or maybe, just maybe, everyone has finally seen Islam for the threat that it is.

Here's to hoping...



Bertrand Russell is a famous logician, right? Came up with the "Barber's Puzzle Paradox" of sets and discrete math.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 9:49:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 9:51:04 AM EDT by NYPatriot]

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
What's the matter? Is Russell too obscure a figure, or do we all have hurricanes on the mind?

Or maybe, just maybe, everyone has finally seen Islam for the threat that it is.

Here's to hoping...



Bertrand Russell is a famous logician, right? Came up with the "Barber's Puzzle" of sets and discrete math.



Yes... the "Barber's Paradox"... plus.maths.org/issue20/xfile/
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 9:50:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 9:51:16 AM EDT by roboman]

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
What's the matter? Is Russell too obscure a figure, or do we all have hurricanes on the mind?

Or maybe, just maybe, everyone has finally seen Islam for the threat that it is.

Here's to hoping...



Bertrand Russell is a famous logician, right? Came up with the "Barber's Puzzle Paradox" of sets and discrete math.



Yes... the "Barber's Paradox"... plus.maths.org/issue20/xfile/] Mathematical mysteries: The Barber's Paradox/url]



We just learned about him a few weeks ago in CSC301
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 9:58:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 11:52:51 AM EDT by Mike_Mills]
His argument against "First Cause" is one of the weakest arguments on a philosophical/religous points I have ever come across in the printed media. Basically, his argument sucks.

Scientists have made absolutely ZERO progress in defining First Cause.

That someone made me, therefore, someone had to have made God shows the heights of human arrogance. No one "made God" nor had to make God and that fact is part of what God is, I Am That Is.

I quote:



The First-cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be.

The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have;

but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence:


"My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'"


That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:12:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mike_Mills:
His argument against "First Cause" is one of the weakest arguments on a philosophical/religous points I have ever come across in the printed media. Basically, his argument sucks.

Scientists have made absolutely ZERO progress in defining First Cause.

That someone made me, therefore, someone had to have made God shows the heights of human arrogance. No one "made God" nor had to make God and that fact is part of what God is, I Am That Is.

I quote:



The First-cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be.

The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have;

but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence:

"My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'"


That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.




seems perfectly fine to me, what problem do you have with it.

He's presented it clearly and succinctly, which is unusual for a philosopher
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:21:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
So what is the best way to deal with Islam as a world-wide threat?



I don't think that you're allowed to answer that question on Arfcom.



Sad, but true. You might hurt somebody's feewings.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:00:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 11:01:25 AM EDT by sgtstinger]
I've been here in Kuwait for four months...

And I have yet to see a single act of kindness or compassion on the part of ANY Muslim since I got over here. Is the word "Love" even in the Koran?

The Muslims I've dealt with have been generally rude, arrogant, pushy, and self-centered. And very intolerant of any other religion.

I hope we(the U.S.) are doing the right thing over here in the Middle East and our efforts aren't being wasted...
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:04:24 AM EDT
Russel said that? Interesting

BTW I love the quote at the top of that book.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:07:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 11:11:18 AM EDT by Max_Mike]
Another bad boy... Or Prophet as the case may be.


How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Winston Churchill

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:08:30 AM EDT
Please, whatever you do, do not offend the muslim cockroaches.
We certainly don't want to hurt their feelings here.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:22:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

seems perfectly fine to me, what problem do you have with it.




I promise I won't hijack this thread anymore!

I think Mike's problem with it is that science has concluded that the world did have a beginning. That rather than the idea that the world being a finite thing is a moribund idea, the idea the the world is eternal is outdated.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:54:35 AM EDT
Come now NYPatriot, you know you shouldn't be posting anything negative about our RoPer friends, even if it is true.

We shan't want to offend them....lest they chop off our heads...

Oh, wait, sorry, they would just as soon do that anyway if you are an infidel....

All I can say is your preaching to the choir with me, Brother!
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:00:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 2:02:47 PM EDT by Mike_Mills]
Sort of,...

I have a problem with people who say science concludes anything. Science in general, and cosmology in particular, is a collection of theories and little more. Science is pursuing the theory of the Big Bang as the beginning of our universe as we know it and see it today.

One could (incorrectly) think this Big Bang was the begining. One would be / could be wrong. What came before the Big Bang?

We humans know so very little yet we individually and collectively and ARROGANTLY believe we have the answers. We have only observed something like 1%, perhaps 10%, of the total mass of the universe. How could we know very much about the universe when we cannot see 90+% of it? We know it's out there, we can detect the effects of its gravity. Every step we take out into space shows us things we never knew existed before.

Don't kid yourself or try to kid me that you know the answers. Humble yourself, you do not know it all.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:13:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
So what is the best way to deal with Islam as a world-wide threat?



I don't think that you're allowed to answer that question on Arfcom.




if you start down that road...
Top Top