[ExI] Making Rationalizations is Superior to the Alternative

painlord2k at libero.it painlord2k at libero.it
Mon Apr 13 16:30:00 UTC 2009

Il 13/04/2009 6.38, Rafal Smigrodzki ha scritto:
> Lee, I am disappointed with your argumentation. When I challenged
> you to provide me with the exact chain of reasoning leading you from
> "I live in France" to "let's destroy all Muslims in France", you
> didn't.

He wrote "expel" not "destroy".

Then I gave a few reasons because the Muslims as followers of Islam and
bound to imitate Mohammad by their religion are a problem that must be
dealt before and not after.

But, citing Bill Warner

>> Here is the problem. All of my arguments are based upon the actual
>> doctrine. When I talk about Islam I use the Koran, the Sira and the
>> Hadith. Their arguments are based upon hearsay and opinion. But
>> according to the media and university intellectuals I am a
>> hate[-]filled bigot and they are a beacon of goodness. Lies are good.
>> Truth is bigotry. Can we say Orwellian?

> When I challenged you to run the numbers and to explain how a 6%
> minority with marginally higher procreation levels could become a
> majority in 25 years, you didn't.

Well, I don't believe that they will become a majority in France or in 
Europe in the next 25 years. But they will become a larger fraction of 
the population, with a larger number of young people than the ethnic 
Europeans. The problems are the young, thy can become Medina Muslims 
where their fathers were Mecca Muslims.

But, for another side, where is the need of a majority of the 
population, when you have more young (soldiers) and can take the power 
with the force of the arms? If they believe that it is Allah's Will and 
don't believe in democracy, "Egalite", "Fraternite", "Liberte", why not 
take the power with the violence of the arms if the others are weak?

Why don't beat them, the kafir, in submission?

Just now, they are so powerful that they are able to prevent a dutch MP 
to speak to the House of the Lords in London with the threat of 10.000 
angry Muslims protesting and raising Hell in front of the House.

They already are asking for Shaaria in their neighbours in many places 
of Europe. And are a small minority.

It is too long and too much to argue all here in a single post.
As I wrote before, you can make your mind reading and researching by 
yourself using Google and staying away from the PC and misinforming MSM.

> "Kick'em all out, and shoot if they get uppity" is not a heresy, it's
> regular dude stuff.

So what are you protesting? If it is regular is not so wrong or are you 
saying the "regular dude" is a fascist, Nazi, violent, blah, blah, blah?

I think in the western societies we are grow over this type of thinking, 
to the "live and let live" approach. And we are arguing how the "live" 
part conflict over the "let live" part.

Can we "let live" someone that is a danger to our future "live"?
Can two opposite ways to live and organizing the society let the other 
live without endangering themselves?

Islam can not stand against Christianity and western societies, because 
without violence to impose the tenets of Islam the followers simply have 
no reasons to follow Islam. Christianity and western values prize 
freedom and personal responsibility, where Islam take away freedom 
(Islam translate in Submission literally) and negate personal 
responsibility (Inshalla - Allah Willing). Islam is insufferable, 
because try to regulate anything in the life of its followers, even the 
minute details, and the life of unbelievers too.

The western societies tried hard to ban violence from the society, with 
large success. The number of homicides, aggressions, robberies, rape and 
so on, is tiny compared with the majority of other societies.
But Islam can not work and last without active and violent suppression 
of the dissenters. It start to lose members and strength.
 From the other side, the successful of the western societies will not 
last long if there is too much violence and distrust inside their 
societies and they will fall-back to the old ways.

If we suppress the violence, we suppress the only way Islam can prevent 
people to leave in large numbers and publicly.

It is like the Cold War, Capitalists Vs. Communists.
The exact moment the Communists were unwilling or unable to suppress the 
freedom of the dissenters to leave or protest their power vanished and 
they were overthrow in a matter of days or weeks.

This is because they reacted so harshly to the Hijab ban in the French 
public schools. Without the possibility to force girls to wear the 
Hijab, they were deprived the possibility to easily mark the submitted 
(with Hijab) and the unsubmitted (without) and attack the unsubmitted 
ones. This is because the French government banned all religious 
apparels in public schools (Jews and Christians too). Because they were 
like the "war colors" of the gangs.

And this is because the Imam caught preaching hate and violence must be 
packed and sent back from where they came from. Mainly they are not born 
in France, have not the citizenship and too often they don't know the 
local language. So, there is no infringing on the rights of the 
citizens. But if they wait, there will be a generation of imams born in 
France, with citizenship with the same ideas of the aliens Imams, then 
things will be much more difficult to deal with and solutions much more 
costly in blood and wealth.


If you want argue to the fact that the memeset of the Muslims is not 
dangerous, we could argue specifically this in a specific thread.
Or we could argue some other specific issues in their specific thread.
It is not possible to argue coherently about them all together.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list