New years eve sexual assaults in Cologne - a psyop?

[Keit]

I am also saying that westerners are rather hypocritic in their condemnations. Lately people have been quite quick to condemn Muslims for their attitudes towards women and sex, but how I wish we had seen such zeal at condemning all those pedophiles and pig-lovers in the UK government. No one dared to say that there might be something fundamentally wrong with UK, Christian or western culture that would allow for our very leaders to behave like that. But Muslims? Oh they're all evil alright. Just compare how the media treated the pedophile scandals in the UK and how they are treating what happened in Cologne.

Yes, one just need to remember all the perverts, pedophiles and other scum that were uncovered in Europe, or imagine how many of them still hide behind the "clean image" of being a reserved and law-abiding European.

 

[Joe]

Is this acceptable behaviour for SotT editors, now?

You should first ask if your behavior is acceptable for someone in your position, or someone in any position who also makes claims to having a passing understanding of the big picture.

Seriously though: to comment, one must give an email address. It is implicit that this personal information won't be used for anything but e.g. verifying the account.

To threaten to use this to attack someone is profoundly unethical. Regardless of your opinion of that person's politics.

I am being serious. And a prudent person who was even vaguely aware that his "politics" were potentially discriminatory or even 'racist', or could be construed that way, would NOT use his work email address to sign up to a forum where he intended to express such opinions. So it suggests more than a bit of Dunning Kruger on your part, which goes a long way to explaining your "politics", which appear to be not so much opinions as an exercise in the ancient art of being impressively obtuse.

 

[Keit]

Seriously though: to comment, one must give an email address. It is implicit that this personal information won't be used for anything but e.g. verifying the account.

To threaten to use this to attack someone is profoundly unethical. Regardless of your opinion of that person's politics.

Funny, how a person, who was banned once, but then created a new account to continue with his racist statements and pathological persistence, complains that something unethical was done to him. Knowing how academia works, I do believe that it is incredibly stupid to express such "intolerant" opinions from such computer networks.

 

[Oxajil]

I grew up among Muslims all my life psychegram, I can tell you haven't. In any case, you don't need 'extensive experience of Muslims' to understand that there is a difference between 'Muslim' terrorists (low percentage; most of them, if not all, are Western-backed), and Muslims who practice their religion in a peaceful way (high percentage). Peaceful means that they don't threaten to kill or harm you, they go about their lives pretty much like everyone else does.

 

[psychegram]

Is this acceptable behaviour for SotT editors, now?

You should first ask if your behavior is acceptable for someone in your position, or someone in any position who also makes claims to having a passing understanding of the big picture.

Seriously though: to comment, one must give an email address. It is implicit that this personal information won't be used for anything but e.g. verifying the account.

To threaten to use this to attack someone is profoundly unethical. Regardless of your opinion of that person's politics.

I am being serious. And a prudent person who was even vaguely aware that his "politics" were potentially discriminatory or even 'racist', or could be construed that way, would NOT use his work email address to sign up to a forum where he intended to express such opinions. So it suggests more than a bit of Dunning Kruger on your part, which goes a long way to explaining your "politics", which appear to be not so much opinions as an exercise in the ancient art of being impressively obtuse.

Ah, so now we're engaging in ad hominem insults. Interesting how, rather than addressing the ethical issues here, the response has been to call me stupid.

(and, 'racist'? I didn't mention race anywhere....)

I've used the 'work' address for numerous things unrelated to my academic work. Hasn't been a problem before. First time for everything.

But, yes, I certainly agree it was less than wise for me to do so. Then again, given that SotT editors are supposed to be, generally, good people, it honestly never occurred to me that I was in any particular danger on SotT, of all places. I've been commenting there for years with no issues, and had considered it to be one of my home bases on the Internet. It REALLY never occurred to me that an editor would threaten to use my personal information to attack me.

 

[Keit]

I grew up among Muslims all my life psychegram, I can tell you haven't. In any case, you don't need 'extensive experience of Muslims' to understand that there is a difference between 'Muslim' terrorists (low percentage; most of them, if not all, are Western-backed), and Muslims who practice their religion in a peaceful way (high percentage). Peaceful means that they don't threaten to kill or harm you, they go about their lives pretty much like everyone else does.

Yes, I have a similar experience. It is actually from supposedly my "Jewish culture" people, particularly religious settler types, that I heard similar racists declarations that are assigned to "Muslims".

 

[psychegram]

Seriously though: to comment, one must give an email address. It is implicit that this personal information won't be used for anything but e.g. verifying the account.

To threaten to use this to attack someone is profoundly unethical. Regardless of your opinion of that person's politics.

Funny, how a person, who was banned once, but then created a new account to continue with his racist statements and pathological persistence, complains that something unethical was done to him. Knowing how academia works, I do believe that it is incredibly stupid to express such "intolerant" opinions from such computer networks.

Yeah, like, I said: not the smartest thing I've ever done. And I've done plenty stupid in my time. Keeps me humble.

 

[Windmill knight]

Reading through this thread, it seems to me that those who have actual, extensive experience of Muslims, tend to have the most realistic (which is to say negative) opinions of their culture. Those of you bending over backwards to say, oh, all the bad stuff, that's just made up or exaggerated ... mostly seem to be operating from biases rather than experience. You might want to think about who it is that's engaging in emotional thinking, suffering from cognitive biases, utilizing fact substitution, and ultimately falling victim to paramoralism.

Now. Is all of this part of a plan by the 'paths to destabilize our countries? Sure, of course it is.

Does it follow from this that Islam is a good or even a neutral thing? Not even slightly. The Quran is full of quite hideous and barbaric directives, mixed in with all the poetry. Mohammed himself was an awful human being: a lying, cheating, murdering, greedy, licentious, self-aggrandizing, pedophile. Read his life story, if you don't already know it, and tell me I'm wrong.

Most people on this forum accept the idea of 4D STO/STS forces, which guide/manipulate human behaviour either indirectly or, in rare cases, directly, via various forms of channelling. Looking at the fruit of Mohamed's tree, can any of you honestly say that this man was being guided by 4D STO? Seems to me rather that it is quite the opposite. His followers emulate him insofar as they can ... the results have been quite awful.

You're building a strawman argument. Nobody said that Islam was a good thing or better than Christianity or Judaism, nor that there was no evil in the Muslim world, nor that Mohammed was an STO guy. In fact, I think most of us (or all?) are in agreement that all the big religions on this planet are based on lies and fairytales and they only include the occasional kernels of truth. To that I would add that in spite of these religions and the errors they inspire, many people who follow them seem to retain a basic sense of decency and morality, while a smaller percentage within every group do not, and the latter range from being more or less self-centered to full blown criminal psychos.

The point is that, given that we are all human, and we are all more or less immersed in different versions of the same traps, then it's an obvious double standard in favor of a certain political agenda to demonize and target one particular group above the others. We've seen it happen before in history and we know where it leads. And every time someone comes here and argues that "it's because they're Muslims that they do such things", as if they were not people like us, and miss all the subtleties and complexities, and forget in what ways westerners are similar or even worse, then they are falling for it and helping that particular agenda, which in the end will be used against that majority of Muslims who are basically decent people.

By the way, I have been to Muslim countries and I have met many Muslims, some of which I consider good friends. I can therefore confirm that they are people.

 

[psychegram]

Reading through this thread, it seems to me that those who have actual, extensive experience of Muslims, tend to have the most realistic (which is to say negative) opinions of their culture. Those of you bending over backwards to say, oh, all the bad stuff, that's just made up or exaggerated ... mostly seem to be operating from biases rather than experience. You might want to think about who it is that's engaging in emotional thinking, suffering from cognitive biases, utilizing fact substitution, and ultimately falling victim to paramoralism.

Now. Is all of this part of a plan by the 'paths to destabilize our countries? Sure, of course it is.

Does it follow from this that Islam is a good or even a neutral thing? Not even slightly. The Quran is full of quite hideous and barbaric directives, mixed in with all the poetry. Mohammed himself was an awful human being: a lying, cheating, murdering, greedy, licentious, self-aggrandizing, pedophile. Read his life story, if you don't already know it, and tell me I'm wrong.

Most people on this forum accept the idea of 4D STO/STS forces, which guide/manipulate human behaviour either indirectly or, in rare cases, directly, via various forms of channelling. Looking at the fruit of Mohamed's tree, can any of you honestly say that this man was being guided by 4D STO? Seems to me rather that it is quite the opposite. His followers emulate him insofar as they can ... the results have been quite awful.

You're building a strawman argument. Nobody said that Islam was a good thing or better than Christianity or Judaism, nor that there was no evil in the Muslim world, nor that Mohammed was an STO guy. In fact, I think most of us (or all?) are in agreement that all the big religions on this planet are based on lies and fairytales and they only include the occasional kernels of truth. To that I would add that in spite of these religions and the errors they inspire, many people who follow them seem to retain a basic sense of decency and morality, while a smaller percentage within every group do not, and the latter range from being more or less self-centered to full blown criminal psychos.

The point is that, given that we are all human, and we are all more or less immersed in different versions of the same traps, then it's an obvious double standard in favor of a certain political agenda to demonize and target one particular group above the others. We've seen it happen before in history and we know where it leads. And every time someone comes here and argues that "it's because they're Muslims that they do such things", as if they were not people like us, and miss all the subtleties and complexities, and forget in what ways westerners are similar or even worse, then they are falling for it and helping that particular agenda, which in the end will be used against that majority of Muslims who are basically decent people.

By the way, I have been to Muslim countries and I have met many Muslims, some of which I consider good friends. I can therefore confirm that they are people.

Perhaps both sides here are projecting onto the other, to a degree.

I have, myself, several friends from a Muslim cultural background. Like me, they do not take their religious background particularly seriously. I'm certainly not blind to the complexities and nuances. I'm not trying to say 'all Muslims are evil'. I'm saying Islam is. There's a huge difference there, I think. And while Christianity has its share of problems, I don't think it is nearly as awful as Islam. I think it's a matter of one being an inherently sound and humane philosopho-religious system, which has since been (very) corrupted, while the other was never good to begin with.

Yes, of course, there are good Muslims. People are basically good, and religion can only screw with that so much. But, ideology can certainly have an affect, and its role has to be acknowledged to have a full accounting of things. Saying 'they do that because they're Muslims' is just as much an over-simplification as 'well of course Islam had nothing to do with it.'

edit: Also, WM: thank you for responding, politely and calmly. I can be more aggressive than is called for at times (and yes, the stress of finishing a PhD and the massive uncertainty that comes with that, may play a role). Your response felt measured and patient and I appreciate that quite a bit.

 

[luke wilson]

I'm not trying to say 'all Muslims are evil'. I'm saying Islam is. There's a huge difference there, I think. And while Christianity has its share of problems, I don't think it is nearly as awful as Islam. I think it's a matter of one being an inherently sound and humane philosopho-religious system, which has since been (very) corrupted, while the other was never good to begin with.

Psychegram.... by any chance, do you identify as belonging to the dominant group?

I ask as the above shows the psychology of such a person. You are aware that from your position your passing judgement on the beliefs of approximately 1.5 billion people? Essentially, you are saying, "Guys, ditch what you believe", why?, "Because it's 'evil' and I can tell you that for a fact from my standpoint".... then the religion that you identify with or that your group identifies with, you proclaim to be better...

Maybe if the PHD doesn't work out, you could apply to be a Missionary? Just sayin....

I repeat appx 1.5 billion. They aren't going anywhere... they take their religion seriously... can you be ok with that? Can you accept that? Look, reality won't change. Islam will outlive you... they will not adopt christianity or atheism... 1.5 billion. Let the number sink in. These are a lot of people.

Btw, maybe your friends keep their views under wraps around you because they know you have right wing views on their system of belief... maybe they are externally considering you... hmm... ever thought of that? Maybe they don't want to deal with that vitriol of hate that you would unleash so they choose to play along...

Also what you said about their prophet, holy macaroni, straight out of charlie hebdo... you are aware these people take that stuff seriously? Just cuz you don't doesn't mean that they shouldn't... maybe your current institution runs lessons in building bridges between different systems of belief & cultures? You should probably attend so as to learn how to be a better person... I'm really sorry to let you know but one of the side effects of the dominant group psychology is that you think you are always right and everyone else wrong and are thus justified in your actions. You my friend are under a psychological spell, one that is the master of you rather than the other way around.

 

[psychegram]

I'm not trying to say 'all Muslims are evil'. I'm saying Islam is. There's a huge difference there, I think. And while Christianity has its share of problems, I don't think it is nearly as awful as Islam. I think it's a matter of one being an inherently sound and humane philosopho-religious system, which has since been (very) corrupted, while the other was never good to begin with.

Psychegram.... by any chance, do you identify as belonging to the dominant group?

I ask as the above shows the psychology of such a person. You are aware that from your position your passing judgement on the beliefs of approximately 1.5 billion people? Essentially, you are saying, "Guys, ditch what you believe", why?, "Because it's 'evil' and I can tell you that for a fact from my standpoint".... then the religion that you identify with or that your group identifies with, you proclaim to be better...

Maybe if the PHD doesn't work out, you could apply to be a Missionary? Just sayin....

I repeat appx 1.5 billion. They aren't going anywhere... they take their religion seriously... can you be ok with that? Can you accept that? Look, reality won't change. Islam will outlive you... they will not adopt christianity or atheism... 1.5 billion. Let the number sink in. These are a lot of people.

Btw, maybe your friends keep their views under wraps around you because they know you have right wing views on their system of belief... maybe they are externally considering you... hmm... ever thought of that? Maybe they don't want to deal with that vitriol of hate that you would unleash so they choose to play along...

Also what you said about their prophet, holy macaroni, straight out of charlie hebdo... you are aware these people take that stuff seriously? Just cuz you don't doesn't mean that they shouldn't... maybe your current institution runs lessons in building bridges between different systems of belief & cultures? You should probably attend so as to learn how to be a better person... I'm really sorry to let you know but one of the side effects of the dominant group psychology is that you think you are always right and everyone else wrong and are thus justified in your actions. You my friend are under a psychological spell, one that is the master of you rather than the other way around.

Not likely. My 'right wing views' are pretty recent actually. Up until, oh, six or seven months ago, I was about as left-wing as it got. Then I started re-examining some things, because frankly, I don't think left or right have a lock on truth, and I realized I was just thinking reflexively (i.e., not thinking): just, whatever the obvious left-wing position was, I would adopt.

What I said about their prophet could, yes, get me killed were I to say it under my own name, loudly, in public. They do take such things seriously. That's just one reason why anonymity is important (and I really thought SotT would respect that, and am still appalled that it wasn't respected). That has no bearing on whether or not it was an accurate characterization: if I'd said similar things about Ghengis Khan, Attila the Hun, or Joesf Stalin, I doubt a single eyebrow would have been raised. Muhammad was similarly ruthless ... yet we're supposed to say, oh, he was a holy man, not a conqueror.

I'm quite aware that the world's Muslims aren't going to stop being Muslim any time soon. I'm totally OK with that. I think we should let them be, and not invade their countries, bombing and killing them so a few rich psychopaths in our countries can get rich from oil and arms sales. Just because I don't much like Islam doesn't mean I want to go to war with them over it. But I also am not a huge fan of letting huge numbers of them into our own countries, precisely because I don't want my country to become like their countries. That's basically a live and let live philosophy. It's also predicated on precisely the expectation that, if large numbers come, it will precipitate an ultranationalist counter-reaction which will suck in all sorts of ways for them and us. I would like to avoid that, please.

 

[John G]

I'm quite aware that the world's Muslims aren't going to stop being Muslim any time soon. I'm totally OK with that. I think we should let them be, and not invade their countries, bombing and killing them so a few rich psychopaths in our countries can get rich from oil and arms sales. Just because I don't much like Islam doesn't mean I want to go to war with them over it. But I also am not a huge fan of letting huge numbers of them into our own countries, precisely because I don't want my country to become like their countries. That's basically a live and let live philosophy. It's also predicated on precisely the expectation that, if large numbers come, it will precipitate an ultranationalist counter-reaction which will suck in all sorts of ways for them and us. I would like to avoid that, please.

A psychopathic agenda can use any religion. Christianity had the crusades and the U.S. and its Christian God given manifest destiny wiped out the natives, had slaves, did witch hunts and is brutal overseas cause it's good for business. The good old Christian USA has its own us against them revolutions building today too. If overall this planet of human beings is better with people moved to our countries then that's OK even if our countries aren't specifically made "better". It's our planet not our countries.

Yes some like psychopaths have to be labeled for what they are but the label "Islam" or "Christian" isn't a label that tells you much. Ibn Arabi was rather OK in the Paul/Valentinus/Gurdjieff/Laura sense so I wouldn't even pick on Islam in the being able to trace it back to some interesting truths sense.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= psychegram]But I also am not a huge fan of letting huge numbers of them into our own countries, precisely because I don't want my country to become like their countries.[/quote]

[quote author= psychegram]Reading through this thread, it seems to me that those who have actual, extensive experience of Muslims, tend to have the most realistic (which is to say negative) opinions of their culture.[/quote]

I lived in the most diverse city on the planet. (Rotterdam) Over half of the population are immigrants and the majority of those are Muslims. Even the major is a Muslim. According to you and the estimations/scaremongering of Wilders/ Le Pen/ Pegida and and the like the city should have already been conquered. Now comes the shocker. They didn’t started to molest, force their ways, chanced the landscape or started a war. And they have been here for decades.

They just most surprisely, wanted to provide for their families.

The city has been ranked several times in the top 10 places to visit. Including the New York Times. It has been in a construction boom from quite some time now. Progress is dominant and the skyline is changing each year. If anything is getting build. It are skyscrapers, not minarets or mosques.

Amsterdam is comparable by immigration standards. And has been ranked as the world fifth safest city of 2015.

Sorry that my personal experience doesn’t add up to the Islamo fascist invaders some try to warn me of. But here it is.



[quote author= psychegram]Forum-members might want to take a much closer look at Islam, with the blinders off.[/quote]

You mean like Hitler did, great example btw. Hitler was indeed known for his sanity. Putin recently called Donald Trump bright and talented. You think Putin was sincere or just being diplomatic ?



[quote author= psychegram]This forum is supposed to be all about the pursuit of truth[/quote]

Truth of the matter is that psy-ops and false flags rule our world. Seems you still don’t realize that far enough.



[quote author= psychegram]Is it possible that your strong beliefs regarding multiculturalism might, just might, be paramoralisms inculcated in you by the psychopathic elite? Where'd those beliefs come from, anyhow? Who, ultimately, do they serve?[/quote]

Hysterical thoughts serve the Elite very well. Like believing that multiculturalism is a cover for an invading mass sleeper cell party. Good thing we can depend on the extreme-right to save us all.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

A psychopathic agenda can use any religion. Christianity had the crusades and the U.S. and its Christian God given manifest destiny wiped out the natives, had slaves, did witch hunts and is brutal overseas cause it's good for business. The good old Christian USA has its own us against them revolutions building today too. If overall this planet of human beings is better with people moved to our countries then that's OK even if our countries aren't specifically made "better". It's our planet not our countries.

Yes some like psychopaths have to be labeled for what they are but the label "Islam" or "Christian" isn't a label that tells you much. Ibn Arabi was rather OK in the Paul/Valentinus/Gurdjieff/Laura sense so I wouldn't even pick on Islam in the being able to trace it back to some interesting truths sense.

Thank you for this, Bluelamp. It's such a simple concept, but it seems that it's still very difficult for many people to grok. Lobaczewski laid it all out there in Ponerology, in clinical detail, and we've been promoting his work for 10 years now because it is so important. But Lobaczewski also described how certain people will never get it, because deep down, they identify with the pathological worldview of psychopaths and characteropaths. Ironically, it'll be many of those who currently crusade against Islam because of its 'barbarism' who will end up in the next fascist/pathocratic order. And they will justify equal levels of barbarism to combat Islam.

It's maddening and frustrating, but it's just the way things are. If there's ANY hope, it is that the majority of humanity is at least potentially receptive to this message. It's just a matter of WHEN they will grasp it. Chances are it will be only when it's too late.

Lobaczewski said it repeatedly, you just said it now: the problem is not the ideology. It never is. The ideology is disposable, and only used when convenient. But if we try to 'cure' the disease of ponerogenesis by focusing on the ideology, we will fail. It's that simple. Nazism wasn't the problem. Nor was Marxism, or Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam. The problem is the pathological minority that uses that ideology.

Ironically, Muslim populations are learning more about how to immunize themselves to ponerogenesis because of groups like ISIS. There are lines being drawn in the sand. Many Muslims around the world are being forced to identify which elements and interpretations are pathological, and which they will collectively pursue and embody. Meanwhile, Western nations are following the path of least resistance, demonizing the chosen 'enemy' group, and facilitating ponerogenesis in their own nations. Very sad...

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=psychegram]
I'm certainly not blind to the complexities and nuances. I'm not trying to say 'all Muslims are evil'. I'm saying Islam is. There's a huge difference there, I think.
[/quote]

Apparently, in the context of your latest posts, you started saying that "Islam is evil" in response to an article and discussion on the recent events at Cologne. The incidents at Cologne were perpetrated by perverts and criminal elements. The acts are to be deplored and the guilty brought to justice according to the law of the land.That is how it is and how it should be read, interpreted and discussed, unless there are hidden agendas to be served, which obviously there are among the MSM and the PTB, or biases to cater to, which obviously exist among readers and commenters.

Now consider what you are writing in the above context. You are using the incident to grind your axe on Islam. Ideologies are not constructs independent of people. So anytime you grind your axe on any ideology, you necessarily implicate people who follow that ideology. Even George Bush Jr at least publicly made the distinction between terrorists and the vast majority of Muslims after 9-11 and warned against demonizing the religion. It is indeed surprising to see that a long term forum member here would have an opinion like yours.

[quote author=psychegram]
To threaten to use this to attack someone is profoundly unethical. Regardless of your opinion of that person's politics.
[/quote]

To put the SOTT incident in context, here is what you wrote in one of your comments

[quote author=moonwulf]
You are entirely correct that if/when fascists come to power, it will not just be Muslims who feel their wrath. Prominent members of the left will be rounded up as well. The wages of treason can be harsh during existential wars.
[/quote]

In the discussion over the SOTT article, it was quite clear that objectors to the article considered SOTT/Harrison to be "left wing". So your comment above constitutes a threat of what awaits a "leftist" person. Think about that.