The obvious theological answer for the learned: Islam is far too egalitarian. The practical answer is that this strategy doesn't work. Discard these useless, Tommy Robinson-tier answers that rely on false 'Islamofascist' narratives. They want you to believe that Islam is totalitarian, 'Nazi-ish', and committed to destroying everything incompatible with itself.

First things first, there is no reason to adopt Abrahamic religion v3.0 when Abrahamic religion v2.0 has failed to stop, and possibly has a causal link to, today's problems. Glenn Beck flew Christians out of Afghanistan to America; a Muslim Glenn Beck would do the same thing but for Muslims instead. Indeed, v3.0 has many of the same problems as v2.0. If one considers Bahai'ism as a yet later version rather than as a false religion, Abrahamic religion becomes even worse still.

Oddly, Abrahamic religion v1.0, viz. what we now call 'Judaism', is actually the least egalitarian, for instance, since miscegenation between Israelites and non-Israelites is punishable by death. Stuff like this from the Jewish scriptures, viz. most of today's Bible, is ironically what White Nationalist 'Christians' cherish most about Christianity. But since they are repulsed by Jews, they rely on dubious narratives in which the descendants of the Israelites are today's Europeans. Now having conceptually eliminated today's Jews from Judaism and othered them as imposters who have hijacked Judaism, they call White Israelism the true Christianity. What they really want is to be the people with whom God made a covenant, so that they can then say that these laws against homosexuality, incest, miscegenation, &c. apply to them rather than to today's Jews or to some extinct peoples.

I suspect that there is a common mistake in thinking that because God told these laws to the Israelites, therefore that these laws are only for them. That if you aren't an Israelite, then none of them apply to you, perhaps that nothing that you do will ever be virtuous, and that you're condemned to Hell no matter what. I need to study this more, but I suspect that most of these laws apply to all peoples and that God merely reminded the Israelites of what all peoples should be doing, and that God favours whichever groups sufficiently please Him.

One might say, for instance, that He abandoned the Jews and embraced the Arabs somewhere in between the time of Jesus and Muhammad, but God also indicates in the Quran that He possibly has hostility to the Arabs. (However, other translations use terms such as 'Bedouins' and 'nomads', terms which do not rule out the possibility of the Arabs once having been God's Chosen.)

[Quran 9:97] The desert Arabs are more tenacious in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the ordinances which God has revealed to His Messenger. But God is All-knowing, Wise. (tr. Sayyid Qutb)

The sheer weakness of Israel in the face of the impoverished Hamas strikes me as a potential example of this playing out in the world in the here and now. By all indications, Israel should have destroyed Hamas a long time ago already. Why not? God may favour Hamas, perhaps not so much because they are virtuous, but merely as a means of punishing the Israelis, who are indubitably vicious.

Departing from theology, and as for the strategy part of it, don't you think that White Israelites would have done the same thing that you advocate but with non-white Christians already? They could hold up all of these Christian Nigerians as shields against accusations of racism, but they don't bother with it. So why opt for the vastly more difficult option of doing the same thing but with Islam?

Obviously, you think that it will allow Whites to deploy the twin shields of Islamophobia and racism against liberals and 'Leftists'. Surely these two weapons are stronger than one. But do you think, then, that some Bosnian immigrant can wield Islamophobia in that same manner? Doubtful. You have to be non-white to wield that weapon. They aren't so stupid as to believe that the Whites are X, Y, and Z but only on the condition that they aren't Muslim. If enough Whites became Muslim, the term 'Islamophobia' would disappear from public discourse and those non-white Muslims that you may hope will lead the way in remoralizing our societies would suddenly come under the same attacks that non-white Christians already do.

I suspect that I am better able to answer this question because a) I've actually studied Islam, though nowhere near to the level of any scholar, and b) My mind isn't warped by anti-Muslim narratives: indeed, I have discovered a compelling but as of yet unpublished reason to accept that the Quran is a true scripture of God, which puts me in a highly unusual position, viz. someone who accepts the Quran without identifying in the least bit with Islam and Muslims.

The reason why this is so is because I believe that all organized religions are false and that God's Religion no longer exists: man-made rubbish permeates all religions, and the task of discerning truths from falsehoods so that the latter can be eliminated is practically impossible. Indeed, one would need a time machine to even begin to figure out what Religion looked like before it became religions: jumbled messes of innovations and traditions that have effectively replaced the original content. We can see this in real time with how fast 'progressive Christianity' is developing: now consider the fact that these same developments have been going on to varying extents for thousands of years. It is clear that whomever claims that he has the 'true Hinduism' or 'true Judaism' or 'true Christianity' or 'true Islam' in fact does not have it: at best, his version has only eliminated some falsehoods. Likely, its attempts at purification have introduced new falsehoods. This is how I perceive, for instance, the Ahmadiyya in Islam. Their effort to eliminate falsehoods has led to the introduction of new falsehoods. We can't even trust that true scriptures remain unaltered, especially those written further back in time.

The obvious theological answer for the learned: Islam is far too egalitarian. The practical answer is that this strategy doesn't work. Discard these useless, Tommy Robinson-tier answers that rely on false 'Islamofascist' narratives. They want you to believe that Islam is totalitarian, 'Nazi-ish', and committed to destroying everything incompatible with itself.

First things first, there is no reason to adopt Abrahamic religion v3.0 when Abrahamic religion v2.0 has failed to stop, and possibly has a causal link to, today's problems. Glenn Beck flew Christians out of Afghanistan to America; a Muslim Glenn Beck would do the same thing but for Muslims instead. Indeed, v3.0 has many of the same problems as v2.0. If one considers Bahai'ism as a yet later version rather than as a false religion, Abrahamic religion becomes even worse still.

Oddly, Abrahamic religion v1.0, viz. what we now call 'Judaism', is actually the least egalitarian, for instance, since miscegenation between Israelites and non-Israelites is punishable by death. Stuff like this from the Jewish scriptures, viz. most of today's Bible, is ironically what White Nationalist 'Christians' cherish most about Christianity. But since they are repulsed by Jews, they rely on dubious narratives in which the descendants of the Israelites are today's Europeans. Now having conceptually eliminated today's Jews from Judaism and othered them as imposters who have hijacked Judaism, they call White Israelism the true Christianity. What they really want is to be the people with whom God made a covenant, so that they can then say that these laws against homosexuality, incest, miscegenation, &c. apply to them rather than to today's Jews or to some extinct peoples.

I suspect that there is a common mistake in thinking that because God told these laws to the Israelites, therefore that these laws are only for them. That if you aren't an Israelite, then none of them apply to you, perhaps that nothing that you do will ever be virtuous, and that you're condemned to Hell no matter what. I need to study this more, but I suspect that most of these laws apply to all peoples and that God merely reminded the Israelites of what all peoples should be doing, and that God favours whichever groups sufficiently please Him.

One might say, for instance, that He abandoned the Jews and embraced the Arabs somewhere in between the time of Jesus and Muhammad, but God also indicates in the Quran that He possibly has hostility to the Arabs. (However, other translations use terms such as 'Bedouins' and 'nomads', terms which do not rule out the possibility of the Arabs once having been God's Chosen.)

[Quran 9:97] The desert Arabs are more tenacious in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the ordinances which God has revealed to His Messenger. But God is All-knowing, Wise. (tr. Sayyid Qutb)

The sheer weakness of Israel in the face of the impoverished Hamas strikes me as a potential example of this playing out in the world in the here and now. By all indications, Israel should have destroyed Hamas a long time ago already. Why not? God may favour Hamas, perhaps not so much because they are virtuous, but merely as a means of punishing the Israelis, who are indubitably vicious.

Departing from theology, and as for the strategy part of it, don't you think that White Israelites would have done the same thing that you advocate but with non-white Christians already? They could hold up all of these Christian Nigerians as shields against accusations of racism, but they don't bother with it. So why opt for the vastly more difficult option of doing the same thing but with Islam?

Obviously, you think that it will allow Whites to deploy the twin shields of Islamophobia and racism against liberals and 'Leftists'. Surely these two weapons are stronger than one. But do you think, then, that some Bosnian immigrant can wield Islamophobia in that same manner? Doubtful. You have to be non-white to wield that weapon. They aren't so stupid as to believe that the Whites are X, Y, and Z but only on the condition that they aren't Muslim. If enough Whites became Muslim, the term 'Islamophobia' would disappear from public discourse and those non-white Muslims that you may hope will lead the way in remoralizing our societies would suddenly come under the same attacks that non-white Christians already do.

I suspect that I am better able to answer this question because a) I've actually studied Islam, though nowhere near to the level of any scholar, and b) My mind isn't warped by anti-Muslim narratives: indeed, I have discovered a compelling but as of yet unpublished reason to accept that the Quran is a true scripture of God, which puts me in a highly unusual position, viz. someone who accepts the Quran without identifying in the least bit with Islam and Muslims.

The reason why this is so is because I believe that all organized religions are false and that God's Religion no longer exists: man-made rubbish permeates all religions, and the task of discerning truths from falsehoods so that the latter can be eliminated is practically impossible. Indeed, one would need a time machine to even begin to figure out what Religion looked like before it became religions: jumbled messes of innovations and traditions that have effectively replaced the original content. We can see this in real time with how fast 'progressive Christianity' is developing: now consider the fact that these same developments have been going on to varying extents for thousands of years. It is clear that whomever claims that he has the 'true Hinduism' or 'true Judaism' or 'true Christianity' or 'true Islam' in fact does not have it: at best, his version has only eliminated some falsehoods. Likely, its attempts at purification have introduced new falsehoods. This is how I perceive, for instance, the Ahmadiyya in Islam. Their effort to eliminate falsehoods has led to the introduction of new falsehoods.

The obvious theological answer for the learned: Islam is far too egalitarian. The practical answer is that this strategy doesn't work. Discard these useless, Tommy Robinson-tier answers that rely on false 'Islamofascist' narratives. They want you to believe that Islam is totalitarian, 'Nazi-ish', and committed to destroying everything incompatible with itself.

In more detail, there is no reason to adopt Abrahamic religion v3.0 when Abrahamic religion v2.0 has failed to stop, and possibly has a causal link to, today's problems. Glenn Beck flew Christians out of Afghanistan to America; a Muslim Glenn Beck would do the same thing but for Muslims instead. Indeed, v3.0 has many of the same problems as v2.0. If one considers Bahai'ism as a yet later version rather than as a false religion, Abrahamic religion becomes even worse still.

Oddly, Abrahamic religion v1.0, viz. what we now call 'Judaism', is actually the least egalitarian, for instance, since miscegenation between Israelites and non-Israelites is punishable by death. Stuff like this from the Jewish scriptures, viz. most of today's Bible, is ironically what White Nationalist 'Christians' cherish most about Christianity. But since they are repulsed by Jews, they rely on dubious narratives in which the descendants of the Israelites are today's Europeans. Now having conceptually eliminated today's Jews from Judaism and othered them as imposters who have hijacked Judaism, they call White Israelism the true Christianity. What they really want is to be the people with whom God made a covenant, so that they can then say that these laws against homosexuality, incest, miscegenation, &c. apply to them rather than to today's Jews or to some extinct peoples.

I suspect that there is a common mistake in thinking that because God told these laws to the Israelites, therefore that these laws are only for them. That if you aren't an Israelite, then none of them apply to you, perhaps that nothing that you do will ever be virtuous, and that you're condemned to Hell no matter what. I need to study this more, but I suspect that most of these laws apply to all peoples and that God merely reminded the Israelites of what all peoples should be doing, and that God favours whichever groups sufficiently please Him.

One might say, for instance, that He abandoned the Jews and embraced the Arabs somewhere in between the time of Jesus and Muhammad, but God also indicates in the Quran that He possibly has hostility to the Arabs. (However, other translations use terms such as 'Bedouins' and 'nomads', terms which do not rule out the possibility of the Arabs once having been God's Chosen.)

[Quran 9:97] The desert Arabs are more tenacious in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the ordinances which God has revealed to His Messenger. But God is All-knowing, Wise. (tr. Sayyid Qutb)

The sheer weakness of Israel in the face of the impoverished Hamas strikes me as a potential example of this playing out in the world in the here and now. By all indications, Israel should have destroyed Hamas a long time ago already. Why not? God may favour Hamas, perhaps not so much because they are virtuous, but merely as a means of punishing the Israelis, who are indubitably vicious.

Departing from theology, and as for the strategy part of it, don't you think that White Israelites would have done the same thing that you advocate but with non-white Christians already? They could hold up all of these Christian Nigerians as shields against accusations of racism, but they don't bother with it. So why opt for the vastly more difficult option of doing the same thing but with Islam?

Obviously, you think that it will allow Whites to deploy the twin shields of Islamophobia and racism against liberals and 'Leftists'. Surely these two weapons are stronger than one. But do you think, then, that some Bosnian immigrant can wield Islamophobia in that same manner? Doubtful. You have to be non-white to wield that weapon. They aren't so stupid as to believe that the Whites are X, Y, and Z but only on the condition that they aren't Muslim. If enough Whites became Muslim, the term 'Islamophobia' would disappear from public discourse and those non-white Muslims that you may hope will lead the way in remoralizing our societies would suddenly come under the same attacks that non-white Christians already do.

I suspect that I am better able to answer this question because a) I've actually studied Islam, though nowhere near to the level of any scholar, and b) My mind isn't warped by anti-Muslim narratives: indeed, I have discovered a compelling but as of yet unpublished reason to accept that the Quran is a true scripture of God, which puts me in a highly unusual position, viz. someone who accepts the Quran without identifying in the least bit with Islam and Muslims.

The reason why this is so is because I believe that all organized religions are false and that God's Religion no longer exists: man-made rubbish permeates all religions, and the task of discerning truths from falsehoods so that the latter can be eliminated is practically impossible. Indeed, one would need a time machine to even begin to figure out what Religion looked like before it became religions: jumbled messes of innovations and traditions that have effectively replaced the original content. We can see this in real time with how fast 'progressive Christianity' is developing: now consider the fact that these same developments have been going on to varying extents for thousands of years. It is clear that whomever claims that he has the 'true Hinduism' or 'true Judaism' or 'true Christianity' or 'true Islam' in fact does not have it: at best, his version has only eliminated some falsehoods. Likely, its attempts at purification have introduced new falsehoods. This is how I perceive, for instance, the Ahmadiyya in Islam. Their effort to eliminate falsehoods has led to the introduction of new falsehoods.

The obvious theological answer for the learned: Islam is far too egalitarian. The practical answer is that this strategy doesn't work. Discard these useless, Tommy Robinson-tier answers that rely on false 'Islamofascist' narratives. They want you to believe that Islam is totalitarian, 'Nazi-ish', and committed to destroying everything incompatible with itself.

In more detail, there is no reason to adopt Abrahamic religion v3.0 when Abrahamic religion v2.0 has failed to stop, and possibly has a causal link to, today's problems. Glenn Beck flew Christians out of Afghanistan to America; a Muslim Glenn Beck would do the same thing but for Muslims instead. Indeed, v3.0 has many of the same problems as v2.0. If one considers Bahai'ism as a yet later version rather than as a false religion, Abrahamic religion becomes even worse still.

Oddly, Abrahamic religion v1.0, viz. what we now call 'Judaism', is actually the least egalitarian, for instance, since miscegenation between Israelites and non-Israelites is punishable by death. Stuff like this from the Jewish scriptures, viz. most of today's Bible, is ironically what White Nationalist 'Christians' cherish most about Christianity. But since they are repulsed by Jews, they rely on dubious narratives in which the descendants of the Israelites are today's Europeans. Now having conceptually eliminated today's Jews from Judaism and othered them as imposters who have hijacked Judaism, they call White Israelism the true Christianity. What they really want is to be the people with whom God made a covenant, so that they can then say that these laws against homosexuality, incest, miscegenation, &c. apply to them rather than to today's Jews or to some extinct peoples.

I suspect that there is a common mistake in thinking that because God told these laws to the Israelites, therefore that these laws are only for them. That if you aren't an Israelite, then none of them apply to you, perhaps that nothing that you do will ever be virtuous, and that you're condemned to Hell no matter what. I need to study this more, but I suspect that most of these laws apply to all peoples and that God merely reminded the Israelites of what all peoples should be doing, and that God favours whichever groups sufficiently please Him.

One might say, for instance, that He abandoned the Jews and embraced the Arabs somewhere in between the time of Jesus and Muhammad, but God also indicates in the Quran that He possibly has hostility to the Arabs. (However, other translations use terms such as 'Bedouins' and 'nomads', terms which do not rule out the possibility of the Arabs once having been God's Chosen.)

[Quran 9:97] The desert Arabs are more tenacious in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the ordinances which God has revealed to His Messenger. But God is All-knowing, Wise. (tr. Sayyid Qutb)

The sheer weakness of Israel in the face of the impoverished Hamas strikes me as a potential example of this playing out in the world in the here and now: God favours Hamas, perhaps not so much because they are virtuous, but merely as a means of punishing the Israelis, who are indubitably vicious.

Departing from theology, and as for the strategy part of it, don't you think that White Israelites would have done the same thing that you advocate but with non-white Christians already? They could hold up all of these Christian Nigerians as shields against accusations of racism, but they don't bother with it. So why opt for the vastly more difficult option of doing the same thing but with Islam?

Obviously, you think that it will allow Whites to deploy the twin shields of Islamophobia and racism against liberals and 'Leftists'. Surely these two weapons are stronger than one. But do you think, then, that some Bosnian immigrant can wield Islamophobia in that same manner? Doubtful. You have to be non-white to wield that weapon. They aren't so stupid as to believe that the Whites are X, Y, and Z but only on the condition that they aren't Muslim. If enough Whites became Muslim, the term 'Islamophobia' would disappear from public discourse and those non-white Muslims that you may hope will lead the way in remoralizing our societies would suddenly come under the same attacks that non-white Christians already do.

I suspect that I am better able to answer this question because a) I've actually studied Islam, though nowhere near to the level of any scholar, and b) My mind isn't warped by anti-Muslim narratives: indeed, I have discovered a compelling but as of yet unpublished reason to accept that the Quran is a true scripture of God, which puts me in a highly unusual position, viz. someone who accepts the Quran without identifying in the least bit with Islam and Muslims.

The reason why this is so is because I believe that all organized religions are false and that God's Religion no longer exists: man-made rubbish permeates all religions, and the task of discerning truths from falsehoods so that the latter can be eliminated is practically impossible. Indeed, one would need a time machine to even begin to figure out what Religion looked like before it became religions: jumbled messes of innovations and traditions that have effectively replaced the original content. We can see this in real time with how fast 'progressive Christianity' is developing: now consider the fact that these same developments have been going on to varying extents for thousands of years. It is clear that whomever claims that he has the 'true Hinduism' or 'true Judaism' or 'true Christianity' or 'true Islam' in fact does not have it: at best, his version has only eliminated some falsehoods. Likely, its attempts at purification have introduced new falsehoods. This is how I perceive, for instance, the Ahmadiyya in Islam. Their effort to eliminate falsehoods has led to the introduction of new falsehoods.