You got upset because I stated facts. You banned me because I stated uncomfortable, but well-documented truths about the behavior of muslims.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/17tLFiSLjz/x/c/4ZCaGcS8Trj
Muslims aren't a "race". Nor are they an ethnic identity; they're a cartel of politically-connected international criminals that commit theft, drug trafficking, slave trading, terrorism and murder because their religious teachings glorifies the exploitation of "heathens". It's brazen to the point local government authorities have PSAs warning people not to go to muslim countries "because they were offered a high-paying job" because those muslims do indeed seize people's passports, then force their victims into indentured servitude.
https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2020/06/30/modern-day-indentured-servitude/
Your moral failing is that you refuse to acknowledge reality.
Your criticism of Islam has to focus on Islam, rather than Muslims particularly, especially how you worded it as an inherent moral failing among Muslims, rather than claims of over-representation.
Has to? HAS TO? Hahahahahahaha, I'll judge muslims by the content of their character.
After all, the invasive, criminal and exploitative behavior of muslims aligns with the instructions of their warmongering cult-leader. They don't see it as a 'moral failing'.
Thats how they have always been.
They continue to carry out their criminal, subversive and exploitative activities even in the modern day, with the blessing of their state powers and their religion.
And I can prove everything I said.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-09-02-0315
"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
It's in their 'holy book' and the laws of their religion - which muslims have always used to justify what they do. Stating such is not an 'identity attack'.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
This banditry, invasion, enslavement and even mass murder is what the muslims have been doing in the middle east - first to any other native peoples in the region, then outwards to other vulnerable peoples and nations over the centuries. It is part of their religion. And that has been a staple of their existence since then, and is - even now.
https://mondediplo.com/1998/04/02africa
https://archive.org/details/spain-history-volume-1/page/251/mode/1up
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9772719/
https://www.icct.nl/publication/isis-and-their-use-slavery
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-politics-darfur/
https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-trafficking-in-persons-report/somalia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_grooming_gang
https://www.cfr.org/article/ethnic-cleansing-happening-nagorno-karabakh-how-can-world-respond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxuwDWbYsMI
And as it has been said before, the sole purpose of these vile actions muslims commit has always been to propagate their violent religion, by either force, blackmail or simply ethnic cleansing if their victims refuse to submit.
Secondly, muslims are not above using narcotics, blackmail and sex trafficking to break their targets and poison the communities they infest, either. Then, and even now.
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/accrington-soldier-line-drug-gang-24041441
https://www.frontpagemag.com/first-muslim-senator-keeps-california-a-sexual-abuse-sanctuary-state/
https://www.godreports.com/2015/02/uk-hundreds-of-more-victims-in-muslim-rape-case/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
They're not above destroying their own children when it comes to sating their perverse lusts either. They don't even care to maintain the next generation in the nations they have conquered either.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/longform/2022/8/22/sex-trafficking-in-iraq
https://www.journeyman.tv/film/7677
After all, their religion mandates the conquest and enslavement from those they deem 'unbelievers'. This world, and the consequences of their vile actions and depraved ways does not matter to them - their religion has blinded them with lurid tales of an 'afterlife' that pander to their every perverse whim.
The fact that you had to label these facts I spoke of as 'claims' makes you no better than those criminals. You know what that makes you? At best, an ignorant idiot too frightened of offending those savage, slave-dependent mass murderers. At worst, an islamic apologist actively covering up their crimes because deceiving 'unbelievers' is part of your wretched religion.
Muslims and their pet apologists use every iota of their connections and position to label those facts I stated as "identity attacks", "claims" or "islamophobia" or whatever the fuck buzzword you lot cling on to silence all criticism of your so-called religion.
Which brings me to my second point: You tried to divert attention from the behavior of muslims by demanding that I criticize their so-called religion. You demanded that I take part in the lie of seperating islam from the muslims when their own "religious" doctrines specifically exhorts upon them to exploit, extort, enslave and exterminate anyone they deem 'infidels', which they have been doing for centuries.
To your duplicitous demand to "focus my criticism of islam rather than muslims" I say: I don't negotiate with terrorists.
I will never obey your decree to "taqqiya"-fy my criticism of muslims and their vile crimes. I will never take part in the insidious lie of seperating islam from the muslims because the muslims are following their religion, and see no problem with exploiting, enslaving and then exterminating anyone who does not submit to them.
Because without the criticism of muslims and their horrific actions, the criticism of islam simply allows muslim apologists to go "BUT THATS NOT TRUE COMMUNI-uh ISLAM!" and nothing changes. Criticizing the actions of muslims, analyzing their behaviors in enabling slave trading and exploitation of nations at the behest of their "religious" leaders, and the steps that must be taken to ending the global terror of islamic invasion is made clear.
PS: Also, stop using chatGPT. I didn't say anything about "overrepresentation".
PSS: If you're that determined to ban all criticism of your mohammedan leash-holders, then make it a clear law. At least then people will know who truly owns you.
Arabs and Islam are essentially one for one, so one's issues go with the other, but I digress, this is the same jannie who accused me of being a random dudes alt after I corrected myself lmao
maybe where you are, but we've got 250m asian ones just north of us
A decent chunk is asian.
Worldwide, yeah. In the US a small plurality of Arabs are Christian.
This is inaccurate. There are various racial groups that make up different islamic populations. The uighurs in China are asians. The chechens are slavic.
Then again, why am I wasting my time trying to explain to a conpro da joos shitposter? Are you able to recognize (or admit, if you're the fed forum slider type instead of a useful idiot) that evil ideologies are not inherently tied to singular ethnic groups?
The super-majority of Muslims are Arabs and they're where it spawned, Just like how you have Natsoc Japanese and Mexicans for example, yet you wouldn't say the ideation is tied to them and it's a White one, for an obvious example.
Indonesians and Indians are the 1st and 2nd largest portion of muslims worldwide.
Ie honestly consider Indians and other pajeets Arab adjacent. Semi darkies with lack of hygiene who aren't quite white but aren't quite Asiatic either and have scribble language.
Not even close! You could say that Islam is an inherently Arab religion (and I would say that, given the huge importance of Arabic and the Arabic words of the Qur'an), but today Arabs are a minority of Muslims.
Start with maybe 250 million Indonesian Muslims, almost the same in Pakistan alone (and tens of millions more if you include India/Sri Lanka/Afghanistan). Toss in maybe 100 million Turks, 100 million Persians and Kurds, etc. Nobody knows the number of Muslims in China, but tens of millions there. Millions in Malaysia, millions in sub-Saharan Africa, etc.
Comparatively, there are maybe 300 million Arab Muslims. A big chunk, and culturally a very important chunk, but not nearly a "super majority"
Neither nationalism or socialism are inherently tied to whites, either. Especially considering that if that idea had ANY merit whatsoever it would be tied to germanics, not the broad swath of different ethnic groups labeled as "white", you buffoon. It is not even a particularly unique ideology. Nationalism is a cultural element not inherently tied to socialism or any other pololitical ideology either.
Would you actually be foolish enough to deny that the chinese communists are nationalist? Or that the soviets were nationalist? Or the italians under mussolini?
The original Chinese communists were not nationalists because they destroyed Chinese culture and Chinese religion
The Soviet Union were also not nationalist. They hated the Russians, and constantly put them under the boot of minorities. You can read about it in the book called "the affirmative action empire"
Specific ethnonationalism is not the only form of nationalism.
Ethnonationalists that actually had any sense (not the leftists using it as a lever for power, and definitely not the larping wehraboos working for them) would not tolerate totalitarian government, because that always ends in mass deaths of their people.
The current chicom state heavily indoctrinates its people into nationalist mindsets. So did the soviets. Every strong nation cultivates nationalism. Some do it through brainwashing and force like the commies, some do it through actually being deserving of it like the original US.
Any state that lacks nationalist sentiments is weak. Any state that has anti-nationalist mindsets has a severe problem.
Sorry 'bout that. (english isn't my first language.)
If someone says that, I automatically assume they're a native English speaker with an IQ of 95 trying to excuse their mistakes.
Nice, promoted to native English speaker already!
What’s your secret?
If it makes you feel any better, a large majority of Americans can’t even read past a 5th grade level.
So you’re already better than most English speakers
Pretty sure if you filter out certain “Socio-Economic Factors” it goes up to around 10th grade. Still an indictment, but not as bad.
it's the same in most European languages too. latin post scriptum.
Islam is composed of Muslims. Can you really criticize one without criticizing the other?
If anything, I'd argue the opposite.
The religion is a vague idea with self-contradictory elements all over it that any barely-sober outsider could rip apart in minutes, just like most books written by fallible humans. It is an idea in a void penned by many collaborative fallible humans, with differing ideas as to what is "right".
Those who FOLLOW the self-contradictory idea, and CHOOSE, for themselves, which of those contradictions to follow, are far more at fault, at blame, at the point of criticism and condemnation, than an idea that can be stretched in any whichever direction.
Cognitive dissonance doesn't matter when you're dick deep in a warm corpses' wife. Baguette or no baguette.
But shhhh. We'ah huntin' wabbits.
"Don't hate the sinner, only the sin!"
Uh wait.
Wow, if Dom really said that, then this is our mod stating banalities like 'hate the crime not the criminal'.
Yeah, no.
You are absolutely on point with everything you've said. It's why Islam spread so quickly, because it is a perfect religion for a bandit army. Perfect, because it was perfected by a bandit army general, while leading said bandit army.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/17tLFiSLjz/x/c/4ZCaGh37ken
Big Oof.
Meanwhile, Sir this is a halal Wendy-stoning.
Just want to say, Muhammad was a pedophile.
Islam is a religion of death and chaos, they exist to conquer others. Entirely created to oppose Christ.
I'd say that judaism is closer to being created to oppose Christ, considering its the religion of the Pharisees who got Christ killed. At least Islam sees Christ as a prophet whereas jews reject Christ completely
The "he's a prophet" thing is a myth. Islam is entirely founded as lies and antithetical to Christ. There's a whole video series that explains it better than I ever could.
How is it a myth? You can hate islam but its literally a fact that they see Jesus as a prophet
And follow literally nothing of what he said and deny every other facet of his being.
"Jesus is a prophet in islam" is just a lie they tell to try and trick Christians into accepting or even joining them. They do the same to jews with the "we're an abrahamic faith and halal is the same as kosher". Mohammed just wanted more bandits in his tribe.
Lol Christians would never be tricked in to joining muslims. Christians ARE currently getting tricked in to joining jews by jews pretending that they worship the same god as Christians do, which couldn't be further from the truth
No it isn't, most of the adherents are lying to you. Mohammad is an anti-Christ figure. You are misinformed
Jesus is called a prophet in the Quran
Bullshit. The Quran isn't even a coherent book and was basically chosen at random with wild differences between possible marking styles of Arabic. The camel jockeys are lying to you. Islam is an anti- christ religion
And yet muslims have no qualms about slaughtering christians for things that would be deemed innocuous in civilized society.
dom needs to go.
It's the pedopajeet
This is also an element of forum slider subversion employed by other groups operating on this site. Deliberately seek conflict with mods, then astroturf a wave of shitposting with the goal of taking control or at least rendering useless a board.
This thread in particular I agree with most of the OP and find a ban to be quibbling and unjustified, but I've seen a lot of fed or at least sliding activity here lately so I'm inclined to give Dom a break for being heavy handed. Modding is a shit unpaid job. That, and it clearly wasn't a very long ban, just a comment deletion and a time out.
I've been banned twice. I let them go.
Trying to cover up the horror of islamic imperialism is inexcusable.
That's the Koran sorted. Now do the Talmud.
TL;DR
Dom's "identity attacks" rule is retarded lol
Most of the rules are retarded tbh.
And completely selectively enforced
OOTL.
Is Dom a goat fucker?
Worse, he's jew
Until he posts his nose, I'm not convinced. There are a lot of social engineered people these days that are vehemently "anti-stormfaggot". Jousting at imaginary neo-Nazis doesnt automatically make someone jewish.
really? that would explain everything
Post Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Post Approved: This is not an identity attack, and no I'm not a jew.
Lying kike.
Been hit with it. Only with another (((group))).
In defense of Dom, do we know what country/continent he lives in? If Europe or Canada, there is always the specter of the hate speech enforcement jackboots throwing you in jail. I prefer someone stand their ground, but I'm not going to hate on someone trying to keep their head low so the tyrant rulers don't lop it off.
They have no jurisdiction over this US website, if dom worries about getting in trouble he shouldn't have picked up the mod job, he's doing it because of his own ideological reasons
Dom doesn't run this place he's a mod IIRC, Antonio is the owner.
Owner as in setting up the forum initially? I only recall him being a mod for short period of time but I didn't see him performing the admin tasks
That's a ridiculous mod ruling. A Muslim is defined by their being a follower of Islam, which means a follower of a murderous, child-raping warlord. It is as valid to criticise all Muslims for the conduct that derives from believing Mohammad was the most morally perfect of men as it would be to criticise all members of the Adolf Hitler Fan Club for choosing to be members of an Adolf Hitler fan club.
I can safely say this tune meltdown is halal (All fish is).
I've not read it though, but man, those citations are worthy of a website of their own.
Let's just Set Up Kia3 and move en masse to there. With our own mods.
Been thinking this for a while, I just think none of us actually want to be a moderator and remove people like the pedopajeet and other rabble rousers.
I would if I had more time - but I can only get on for a couple of hours a day
The unfortunate aspect of making the internet available to more people is the necessity of mods to keep folks from ruining communities. This leads to the mods ruining them instead. Just slower.
youll have to get the domains from jester whos still squatting on them and a few others. kia5 however exists.
DoM...
Assuming this is what you said, I think you're setting the bar a little too high here. I know what you're wanting. You're wanting a nice clean KO against the faith rather than the people who practice it. To keep the fight above the belt, so to speak.
But the two can't be divorced.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/17tLFiSLjz/x/c/4ZCaGh37ken
Oh no, Then moved to ConPro to here. lol
Jew post identified, opinion laughed at and discarded
Sigh.
When I say "have to" I mean "have to in order to be in compliance of Rule 16". It's not an order, I'm just explaining to you what the rule is because I like to not hide what the rule means.
See, that's actually a criticism of the religion, that's why that's okay.
No, I just want you to be clear about the distinction. The reason a Muslim behaves in a morally inferior way is from the institution of the religion, and once outside of that religion, their behavior may return to normal.
I don't use chatGPT (I don't know how). I just sound like this.
So, what you're saying is that you can't claim I'm JIDF now? Hmmmm Intriguing offer, but I'll have to pass. You can criticize Islam all you want.
Get rid of rule 16.
But don’t you see? The arbitrary rules he put in place MUST be enforced!! He’s powerless against the bastard who established them. We all know that if DoM had his way, it would be a totally free speech place, but unfortunately his hands are tied.
Cries out in pain as he bans you
No.
The rule does not serve this community's interests.
I think it absolutely does.
Time and time again the vast majority are telling you it doesn't. Take the hint and fuck off.
You need to explain how, because it's only observable use is to deliberately suppress discussion of taboo subjects.
Then appoint someone else to be the head mod and resign.
You and like a handful of faggots are the only ones who want it. You're a subversive parasite.
You would make a rule banning anti-white hate speech on day 1.
I wouldn't need to, without your censorship, any anti-white subversive parasites wouldn't feel welcome. I personally just block the faggots anyway, if people want to engage the kikes they're welcome to.
And I refuse, because to do so would be simply playing into the game the muslim apologists have set up, as I have explained earlier.
See, not an 'identity attack'.
Incorrect. The reason muslims behave like that is because not just their religion - but also their society and cultural norms are built as that of an invading army. They even dehumanize and enslave their own children because they're replaceable with fresh slaves. They are convinced of the superiority of their doctrine, and in the belief that they are to rule over the world. Their greed, laziness and perverse urges binds them to constantly seek new slaves.
The few who dare break out of the islamic plantation are marked as 'apostates' and islamic law specifically states the death penalty for these people.
The gimmiegrants are not defectors from islam - but invaders that refuse to integrate with their host countries, then rot the unfortunate nation's society with a combination of crime, drug and sex trafficking, that rapidly shifts up to regulatory capture in order to enslave - then slowly destroy their host cultures.
If that's the case, stop adding random words like you did with "overrepresentation" and acting like I said anything about that.
I don't really care what you are, but if you cover up the atrocities committed by invading muslims - that makes you an enemy.
And I will criticize muslims too.
Right, based on cultural and societal doctrines. That's why none of this is a rule violation.
Muslims are people who adhere to Islam. They cannot be outside of their religion or they stop being Muslims.
If you doubt that - what is the Muslim religion called?
Are you mixing up Arabs and Muslims?
What moron downvoted this? It's an absolute tautology that Dom abused. "once outside of that religion, their behavior may return to normal" Yes then they aren't Muslims so the defense doesn't make sense.
Most people simply aren't aware of just how evil islam truly is. They tend to mark any criticism of it as 'sperging' and tune it out.
It's a twisted version of a self-preservation instinct.
No, and Arab would be more of a clear violation.
I agree that Muslims are not a race. The weird part is that there is a racialization of Muslims that make the attacks on them an identity attack. Where you could have lesser devout forms of Muslims reject certain aspects of Islam, and this isn't much of an issue.
Frankly, it's a similar problem with jews. Jews aren't a race; but most of the rule violating attacks on them treat them as a race.
Anything that attacks their behaviour would be an attack on their religion (which prescribes how they should act). That's what I mostly see.
Are people attacking their physical traights? If not, what consitutes an attack on race, rather than religion.
The specification of the speaker.
A moderate is at best, labeled an apostate by their religious peers, or at worst, a liar who puts on a facade of goodwill to groom their victims into complacency.
Or, additionally, a Useful Idiot.
I've literally had a muslim directly tell me that Islam has never been spread by war. It's kind of like living in a Leftist buble.
Okay, in the future: When I talk about Muslims, I talk about religeous Muslims, who follow Islam and all it entails.
I am able to differentiate them and Turks, Syrians, Iranians and other Arabs who are not Muslim. Don't push your wrong logic on other people.
Btw every follower of Islam will also say those people who don't follow Islam are not Muslims. So even they would agree with me.
This is part of an interesting point, because what we call "Jihadis" is what Saudi Arabians call "Takfirists". Basically, they kill Muslims by 'Takfiring" them and declaring them to be non-Muslims, and then kill them. It's why so many Islamic Terrorist attacks kill Muslims while Islam explicitly bans killing Muslims.
But yes, your first sentence is fine.
Religion, culture, and race were all so intertwined before the Age of Exploration that it hardly mattered.
You had movement, but, like, for any given point on the map you could pretty much tell what race, religion, and culture a person was going to be from. All this stuff about nature vs nurture is interesting, but it's only relevant recently.
That's because 'race' is a complete misnomer, and it was religion, culture, and ethnicity.
Race, in the way it is used in the American sense, is a purely abstract concept that pretends to have biological legitimacy. Race, even as used by Enoch Powell, wasn't used to describe everyone of a certain skin color, but was more nuanced than that. This is why the definition of "white" people's changed as much as it did. It didn't literally mean everyone from anywhere that fell along a certain color swatch. When he used it, it mostly meant British.
Biological race makes some sense as a form of human stratification; but is mostly disconnected from culture and religion.
Hard disagree on that last point. Biology has a heavy influence on behavior, and culture and behavior are pretty closely connected.
The issue is which biology. The biology of human stratification has very little, and has literally nothing to do with culture. Cultural variances are more likely to be influenced by geography than by race. Individual behavior is more directly influenced by parenting than by race or geography.
Race, in it's abstract form, is utterly worthless in determining culture and behavior.
Race, in it's biological form, is outweighed by other factors.
Guns germs and steel was retarded and gay and doesn’t actually explain why the world is the way it is
I think where biological race makes sense is at the grossest level: Caucasoid, Negroid, Australoid, and Mongoloid we should be able to distinguish.
You can't, though. That's part of the problem. Those definitions don't actually well define genetic human strata. That's why anyone talking about biological race resorts to phenotypes.
Hell, Caucasoid has never really made sense to apply that term to western Europeans.
I'd have to understand which angle you're coming at this from. Like, I don't imagine that you made this up, so you'd have to tell me who is right on race.
Man, I agree with you on the substance, but I wish you could have kept your spaghetti in your pockets. The fact is, if you bring it like this, you are very likely to just be dismissed as a crazy guy.
Muslims are adherents to a certain ideology. You should be able to call them out, same as conservatives, liberals, communists, progressives, white nationalists, etc. - even though none of these ideologies are as idiotic as Islam.
There's a reason so many criminals convert to Islam in prison, it engages in a sort of Nietzschean values-inversion wherein the most barbaric thug can become exalted as a righteous warrior for Allah. Same reason why criminals like Stalin gravitated to Bolshevism, gave them a way to reframe their savagery as noble.
Unfortunately I see Andrew Tate-style influencer Islam becoming popular in the US since American men are largely already mutilated, low-church Prots already operate a lot like Muslims, and chivalry is so dead it's fossilized. Meanwhile Christianity is mocked and suppressed with impunity because Christians don't fight back. It's disturbing to think about but Western culture, like any civilized culture, has traditionally regarded rape as one of the most heinous crimes anyone could ever commit.
However, Islam provides a moral framework in which a man can be virtuous and a rapist at the same time. Meanwhile the present status quo tells men that if they end up alone then they're a subhuman who deserves the humiliation (and should probably just seek Canadian healthcare), because a woman's approval is their sole source of validation but they're also not allowed to seek it out IRL. So if you can't prove your value as a man by convincing women to open their legs, you can at least assert your worth by taking it and reversing the humiliation.
It wouldn't have been as successful as it is if it weren't brilliantly insidious.
You can enter the religion easily but never leave? Brilliant. You can marry infidel women as long as the children are raised into that religion? Brilliant.
Hotel California?
This explains californication.
Literally every single man with a libido. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.
Well, it works...
Once you agree to place your dick in the hands of someone else and scarify yourself, you will cut the heads off anyone and rape their women. Sometimes rape them in front of the severed heads of their father and husband. In the image of Profit Mo.
Insta hos will all be stoned though, so I suppose that must be a temptation.
I have no need to be diplomatic with a muslim apologist.
And what if you are mistaken about someone being a Muslim apologist?
Only a muslim apologist would silence criticism of muslims.
Also, why do you expect me to bow and scrape and debase myself in the name of this spaghetti of yours? That's the sort of loser attitude that got Europe conquered by a pack of WEF psychopaths and their hordes of welfare leeches.
I dunno, at least Islam has relatively functional societies. Communism can't even claim that. Not that Islamic societies are good, just that Communism sucks even more.
But by the standard of 'functional society', the USSR would do better than San Francisco.