State of the World

[fschmidt]

I would like to briefly describe the state of the world, at least those parts of it that I understand. And that is primarily modern culture, Judaism, and Islam.

Modern culture is pure evil. Its members are morons and sociopaths. The intelligence sociopaths form the elite. Modern culture divides between the Left and Right, but in fact this division is fairly meaningless. The Left supports the status quo. The Right supports nationalism and racism. The sociopathic elite tends to prefer the Left because they don't care about nations or race, and they love the cheap labor that immigration provides. But the general membership of the Left and the Right is basically the same - evil morons.

It is worth mentioning what modern culture is not. Modern culture has nothing to with the Enlightenment which is dead. Modern culture has nothing to do with traditional Christianity which is dead. Modern culture has nothing to do with any form of good morality. Modern culture is simply degeneracy that is typically seen when a society is on the verge of collapse.

Talmudic Judaism is a parasitic religion that exploits its host country. So judaists (followers of judaism) are part of the intelligent sociopathic elite. But judaism has the advantage of not being sociopathic internally, meaning that judaists don't ruthlessly screw each other over, they just screw over everyone else. This gives judaism a huge advantage in the modern world where it faces no meaningful opposition.

Islam is the only major moral force in the world today. But it is very naive. Muslims have some sense that they are in culture war. But they completely fail to understand that they are in economic war. Unlike in the time of Muhammad when most war was military, today most war is economic. Muslims are economic pacifists, so they lose every economic battle. And this means that in Muslim countries, it is the intelligent sociopaths who form the elite just like everywhere else.

The best hope for the world would be if Islam would wake up and wage economic jihad against degeneracy. If this happened, Islam would quickly dominate the world, as it did in military warfare after Muhammad. But to do this, Muslims must understand that business is war, that one must be brutal and ruthless and exploit every weakness of one's enemy in order to win economic battles.

 

[azc]

A good thread on this topic:

https://www.islamicboard.com/world-...slim-world.html?_e_pi_=7,PAGE_ID10,5116671105

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD] The Current State of the Muslim World
The Current State of the Muslim World It has become apparent in our time that the Ummah is suffering from afflictions, which have caused it to lose it...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[anatolian]

Islam has laws for economy just as it has laws for jihad and everything else. So muslims cannot be brutal (whatever you mean with it) in the economic fight also. There is huququl ibad ( rights of people) and this includes non muslims too

 

[beleiver]

One economic weakness the empire of evil has is money, real money as in Silver, there are only roughly 3-4 billion ounces of physical silver stockpikles in the whole world, Silver is hopelessy undervalued as the banking cartell supress the price so to make fiat and debt look more valuable..
Silver is being consumed by industry faster that it is mined and the whole of industry and the techie civillization is dependant on it..


If every muslim in the world was to own just a few of ounces of physical silver it would be brutal for the evil empire and would give the Muslims the wealth to bring about positive change..And i think in keeping with islamic values?

 

[fschmidt]

One economic weakness the empire of evil has is money, real money as in Silver...

I agree with this and I have a substantial investment in physical silver. But this requires patience.

- - - Updated - - -

Islam has laws for economy just as it has laws for jihad and everything else. So muslims cannot be brutal (whatever you mean with it) in the economic fight also. There is huququl ibad ( rights of people) and this includes non muslims too

Of course this is the question. The question is whether this view is really from the Quran and Hadith, or whether it is a mistaken view of scholars. I had a long discussion about this at my mosque with the main teacher and the imam. I believe that I refuted their arguments.

My basic argument was that Muhammad raided caravans in his time, which would currently be called armed robbery. But at that time it was simply part of war and was justified because the Quraysh had robbed the Muslims. My argument is that the same applies to business today. I was given 2 arguments against my position. One was a passage in the Quran saying that Muslims should practice honest business unlike the Jews and Christians. My argument against this is that business at that time was not war because it was internal to a coherent community. The Old Testament has a similar requirement that foreigners in the land of Israel must be treated the same as the Israelites, and this requires honest business. There was very little global business at that time, so business was not really conducted between cultures that strongly opposed each other. Business today much more resembles war than it does the simple business of the past.

The other argument I was given is a story outside the Quran where it was decided that Muslims should not steal livestock from their enemy. I asked if this rule would apply if the enemy stole livestock from the Muslims, and the answer was no, the rule would no longer apply. So I explained that in business people cheat each other all the time. For example, I am charged for internet service even though it goes down all the time, and this is theft. Since modern culture constantly tries to cheat me, and since this culture is my enemy with whom I don't share any meaningful community, I simply don't see any valid Islamic argument for me not to cheat them.

I visit my mosque twice weekly, for Jumah and for prayer and conversation on Saturday evening. So I will continue this conversation there next Saturday.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

I would like to briefly describe the state of the world, at least those parts of it that I understand. And that is primarily modern culture, Judaism, and Islam.

Modern culture is pure evil. Its members are morons and sociopaths. The intelligence sociopaths form the elite. Modern culture divides between the Left and Right, but in fact this division is fairly meaningless. The Left supports the status quo. The Right supports nationalism and racism. The sociopathic elite tends to prefer the Left because they don't care about nations or race, and they love the cheap labor that immigration provides. But the general membership of the Left and the Right is basically the same - evil morons.

It is worth mentioning what modern culture is not. Modern culture has nothing to with the Enlightenment which is dead. Modern culture has nothing to do with traditional Christianity which is dead. Modern culture has nothing to do with any form of good morality. Modern culture is simply degeneracy that is typically seen when a society is on the verge of collapse.

Talmudic Judaism is a parasitic religion that exploits its host country. So judaists (followers of judaism) are part of the intelligent sociopathic elite. But judaism has the advantage of not being sociopathic internally, meaning that judaists don't ruthlessly screw each other over, they just screw over everyone else. This gives judaism a huge advantage in the modern world where it faces no meaningful opposition.

Islam is the only major moral force in the world today. But it is very naive. Muslims have some sense that they are in culture war. But they completely fail to understand that they are in economic war. Unlike in the time of Muhammad when most war was military, today most war is economic. Muslims are economic pacifists, so they lose every economic battle. And this means that in Muslim countries, it is the intelligent sociopaths who form the elite just like everywhere else.

The best hope for the world would be if Islam would wake up and wage economic jihad against degeneracy. If this happened, Islam would quickly dominate the world, as it did in military warfare after Muhammad. But to do this, Muslims must understand that business is war, that one must be brutal and ruthless and exploit every weakness of one's enemy in order to win economic battles.

Interesting, but didn't the Enlightenment pave the way for modern degeneracy by destroying much that was good about the old moral order?

Oh and this, when Jews were culturally influential in the 1920s.

Oh and now that the left/liberals have won, the mask has come off.

 

[fschmidt]

Salaam

Salaam/shalom

Interesting, but didn't the Enlightenment pave the way for modern degeneracy by destroying the old order?

That's complicated. All change harms the old order, even change for the better. And success produces failure because success makes members of society arrogant and lazy and they tend to forget God. So one could say that anything that produces success also therefore produces failure, and the Enlightenment fits this. But I would strongly deny that the Enlightenment directly caused degeneracy. There is a very important difference between the English Enlightenment and the Muʿtazila movement (which did directly cause degeneracy). That is that in the English Enlightenment empiricism dominated while in the Muʿtazila movement (and the French Enlightenment) rationalism dominated. Rationalism causes degeneracy because it puts reason above reality and God, while empiricism is always positive because it puts reality and God above reason.

Oh and this, when Jews were culturally influential in the 1920s.

Being racially jewish myself, I carefully distinguish between jews (the race) and followers of talmudic judaism (who I call "judaists"). But yes, I agree that judaists were extremely harmful to Western culture in the 1920s.

Oh and now that the left/liberals have won, the mask has come off.

I watched some of the video, but there is only so much liberal insanity that I can tolerate before becoming nauseous.

The question of what destroyed Western culture is interesting but we can only speculate. Many blame judaism but I think this is wrong because judaism has been a parasite for the last 2000 years, so it is not a new problem. Judaism destroys a culture when that culture's immune system becomes too weak to defend itself against judaism. So the real question is what destroyed Western culture's cultural/moral immune system. My speculation is here:

http://www.mikraite.org/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Christian-Culture-tp102.html

 

[M.I.A.]

I would like to briefly describe the state of the world, at least those parts of it that I understand. And that is primarily modern culture, Judaism, and Islam.

Modern culture is pure evil. Its members are morons and sociopaths. The intelligence sociopaths form the elite. Modern culture divides between the Left and Right, but in fact this division is fairly meaningless. The Left supports the status quo. The Right supports nationalism and racism. The sociopathic elite tends to prefer the Left because they don't care about nations or race, and they love the cheap labor that immigration provides. But the general membership of the Left and the Right is basically the same - evil morons.

It is worth mentioning what modern culture is not. Modern culture has nothing to with the Enlightenment which is dead. Modern culture has nothing to do with traditional Christianity which is dead. Modern culture has nothing to do with any form of good morality. Modern culture is simply degeneracy that is typically seen when a society is on the verge of collapse.

Talmudic Judaism is a parasitic religion that exploits its host country. So judaists (followers of judaism) are part of the intelligent sociopathic elite. But judaism has the advantage of not being sociopathic internally, meaning that judaists don't ruthlessly screw each other over, they just screw over everyone else. This gives judaism a huge advantage in the modern world where it faces no meaningful opposition.

Islam is the only major moral force in the world today. But it is very naive. Muslims have some sense that they are in culture war. But they completely fail to understand that they are in economic war. Unlike in the time of Muhammad when most war was military, today most war is economic. Muslims are economic pacifists, so they lose every economic battle. And this means that in Muslim countries, it is the intelligent sociopaths who form the elite just like everywhere else.

The best hope for the world would be if Islam would wake up and wage economic jihad against degeneracy. If this happened, Islam would quickly dominate the world, as it did in military warfare after Muhammad. But to do this, Muslims must understand that business is war, that one must be brutal and ruthless and exploit every weakness of one's enemy in order to win economic battles.

Lol I did come to the same conclusion a while ago.

Unfortunately its not exactly the way things work.

Lots to be learned in trying to earn and spend it with some intention.

Imo those that are truely poor are those that are restricted in movement..

And in ignorance the world is yours.

All credit to the sociopaths.


Allah swt raises and lowers as he wills..

Imo real money is in the tongue. It's how the future is written if you only say so yourself..

All credit to the sociopaths.

You would rather carry some weight in your words or you will just be trying to explain things you can't.

..sooner or later you just have to take it as it comes..

See who you have to help or keep down for your money.

Vicious circle,

But we are all slaves to something.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Thanks for that bro fschmidt, that's an interesting take on the enlightenment, Ive read many Christians who are deeply wary of this movement (particularly after what happened in France), Ill need to look into this period of history more. Maybe you should give E Michael Jones a try, see what you think his take on whats happening to western civilization.

Barren Metal; A history of capitalism as the conflict between labour and usury

Goy Guide To World History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBqJywsGkfA

Yes I have to be careful of blanketly labeling (or libeling? ) all Jews as a problem, there not (obviously), lifes much more complicated, didn't mean it that way, Ill try to be more precise in the future.

And on the video yes I should of put a warning on it, it was to offend it was just to show that now the left/liberals have completed their long march through the institutions they (along with the certain capitalist classes) are busy in the process of dragging the culture down to the gutter.

 

[fschmidt]

I watched some of the E Michael Jones videos and he seems to have a neoreactionary view. He is basically pro-Catholic which makes him against the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and against England. My sympathy is the opposite. I could give a long list of reasons why I don't like the Catholic Church, but I will just give one here. The Catholic church opposed having average people read the Bible and banned having the Bible translated into local languages. This would be like some Islamic movement that tried to prevent people from reading the Quran. I find it horrifying that any religion would try to prevent its own members from reading their own scripture.

E Michael Jones equates capitalism and usury. I think this is wrong. I support capitalism but oppose usury (interest).

I think that to judge history, one has to read a lot original source material. If you are interested, I can suggest some about the Reformation.

 

[Abz2000]

The other argument I was given is a story outside the Quran where it was decided that Muslims should not steal livestock from their enemy. I asked if this rule would apply if the enemy stole livestock from the Muslims, and the answer was no, the rule would no longer apply. So I explained that in business people cheat each other all the time. For example, I am charged for internet service even though it goes down all the time, and this is theft. Since modern culture constantly tries to cheat me, and since this culture is my enemy with whom I don't share any meaningful community, I simply don't see any valid Islamic argument for me not to cheat them.

I visit my mosque twice weekly, for Jumah and for prayer and conversation on Saturday evening. So I will continue this conversation there next Saturday.

Justice is a standard that each individual is held to account for and two wrongs do not make a right.
If an action of lawful retaliation is taken - it must be lawful and not unlawful and therefore such actions are touched upon in some detail in the Quran with multiple examples in the same breath.

Therefore, if an illegal action is made, and lawful retaliation is administered and explained - the first action despite it's illegality may have been rebalanced due to the lawful retaliation. The retaliator - if he/she has retaliated or retaliates to the full extent he/she was unjustly treated and not above that - is unlikely to expect much in redress on the day when every hopeless person and every hopeful person values rewards almost like how a capitalist on earth would value money.

So anyways - a lawful action is a lawful action and an unlawful action is an unlawful action - these are distinct in law and should not be confused. Claiming or implying that this is a "dog eat dog" world and that a continuous spiral of treachery is a relative virtue to be increaingly adopted is unwise since it completely confuses the line between the lawful and unlawful and injustice breaks loose - the laws of just retaliation are in place as crime prevention or reduction mechanisms - not as carte blanche to serve satan and commit injustice.

Helpful search : quran qisas qisaas


Point to keep in mind when dwelling on the topic is the verse from the opening of chapter 5 in context of the Quran, the mention of "without rebellion" - as this describes how the lawfulness or unlawfulness of action are sorted in any real world situation along with a confirmation that the very depths of the heart are searched no matter how cunningly a person attempts to deceive oneself.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

I watched some of the E Michael Jones videos and he seems to have a neoreactionary view. He is basically pro-Catholic which makes him against the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and against England. My sympathy is the opposite. I could give a long list of reasons why I don't like the Catholic Church, but I will just give one here. The Catholic church opposed having average people read the Bible and banned having the Bible translated into local languages. This would be like some Islamic movement that tried to prevent people from reading the Quran. I find it horrifying that any religion would try to prevent its own members from reading their own scripture.

E Michael Jones equates capitalism and usury. I think this is wrong. I support capitalism but oppose usury (interest).

I think that to judge history, one has to read a lot original source material. If you are interested, I can suggest some about the Reformation.

For me its rare to get these perspective, its only with the internet that I can get unvarnished (European) reactionary, traditionalist perspective on how the world works. I managed to get his two main tomes on the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Barren Metal, learnt a lot on the 'hidden' history of how Europe developed over the centuries. He comes from a Catholic perspective but I find him quite honest about the problems within the Catholic Church (your example, its behaviour during the reformation etc), but he corrects lots of slander said against it.

On capitalism, I don't think hes against business and trade, he wants a moral basis for it, treating business as some amoral enterprise where inevitably oligarchs (powerful) exploit the many (the weak) hes strongly opposed to.

I'm not inherently against change and new developments (if its for the better) but I'm ambivalent on the reformation and wary of the enlightenment and their legacies. Understanding the Reformation. Ill need to investigate this more.

And on the English well judging by their record its hardly surprising

Maybe I have a 'reactionary' side, who knows but I'm impressed with him.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

This is relevant, like to recommend.

Blurb


A dazzling examination of the politics of religion and the religion of politics by one of Europe's greatest modern historians.

From the french revolution to the First World War, the philosophes of the Enlightenment to the pseudo religious 'high priests' of Marxism, never before has the complicated interaction between the Church and the modern politcal state been so lucidly described.

As Michael Burleigh shows through the characters as diverse as Charles Fourier, a proto communist who denounced capitalism and looked forward to a day when the oceans would be filled with lemonade, to Voltaire and his fervent desire to stamp out fanaticism in revolutionary France, the champions of change in the modern world have often displayed a distinctly religious zeal in their quest, harnessing mankind spiritual longings to bolster their own vision of a secular society. the result has been the emergence of a new and often terrifying secularism which has replaced the idols of religion with the idols of nationalism.