Translate

Tuesday, 26 March 2019

LIBEL: Friend and follower of Church of Entropy accuses me of supporting the murder of British holidaymakers by Muslims



https://www.facebook.com/countcordeaux/posts/10218945269928442?comment_id=10218947893874039&notif_id=1553610763595202&notif_t=mentions_comment

PREVIOUS TWEETS FROM ANDREW TO ME WITH THEIR BARELY DISGUISED ANTISEMITISM AND ISLAMOPHOBIA


THE MAN WHO LIBELLED ME

I am trying to be fair to Andrew and have included relevant tweets and they have not all been hostile. But I cannot see the point of having the fickle support of someone who does not know his own mind and changes it capriciously.

Westerners ignorant of their own history think that everything was fine with their idolatrous and inferior religion of Christianity until Jews and Muslims came along. Every failure of their religion was caused by Jews, many of them think. Some of them even believe that Christianity and Islam was created by Jews with the intention of making gentiles stupid and weak. It is for this reason that they reject all the Abrahamic faiths and run into the arms of Hinduism and Buddhism as well as paganism, which is even more aien to Western traditions as well as being less successful.

His patron Church of Entropy laughs it all off as a joke that I am overreacting to, but really, what kind of a person makes this sort of joke about a political activist in our highly-charged times of hysterical antisemitism and galloping Islamophobia? The fact that she made her threat and then blocked me on Twitter before I had a chance to respond is a measure of her moral courage and leadership skills.

As for Andrew who made his accusation apropos out of nothing I have ever said, what could explain this? Was it malice, stupidity or mental illness? What does it say about you if your male supporters are malicious, stupid, mentally ill or in lust with you, whose views are as capricious as women, alternating between crawling sycophancy and acts of sudden and inexplicable treachery? 

The worst of it it as that Andrew even admits that Christianity is kaput, but refuses to acknowledge the supremacy of Judaism in the sense that it is the parent of all the Abrahamic faiths nor the superior scripture of the Koran, because he despises the brown Muslim immigrants in his country and cannot bring himself to accept that their religion is better than Christianity. He would rather adopt some obviously inferior scripture than the obviously superior Koran because of his chauvinism and hatred.

If you have made a mistake it is for your own benefit that you acknowledge it and vow not to repeat it again because unacknowledged mistakes are liable to be repeated. For this Jews have the process of teshuvah while Christians practise 2000 years of idolatry while denying they are practising it.  https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-teshuvah-2076801 If Jews are smarter than Christians, it is because their religion makes a point of not repeating a mistake, while Christianity is all about denying that worshipping an executed revolutionary as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God is indeed idolatrous. They seem to think that doing it for 2000 years means God is now OK with idolatry. But haven't they noticed that their religion, political system and civilisation are now failing? There are none so blind as those who will not see. 

Why would anyone unaware of the concept of Lashon Hara consider himself or his religion superior to Judaism?  http://www.jewfaq.org/speech.htm  Only an ignorant and chauvinistic antisemite and Islamophobe with no moral authority, infirm in mind, irresolute and capricious, thinking of leaving his country to become some kind of parasitic Buddhist monk, presumably.

Andrew says the Manu Samhita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti is enough, heedless or ignorant of its inconsistencies, praising it as long as it is neither Jewish nor Muslim, shamelessly showing his irrational hatred.

Patrick Olivelle, credited with a 2005 translation of Manusmriti published by the Oxford University Press, states the concerns in postmodern scholarship about the presumed authenticity and reliability of Manusmriti manuscripts. He writes (abridged),

The MDh [Manusmriti] was the first Indian legal text introduced to the western world through the translation of Sir William Jones in 1794. (...) All the editions of the MDh, except for Jolly's, reproduce the text as found in the [Calcutta] manuscript containing the commentary of Kulluka. I have called this as the "vulgate version". It was Kulluka's version that has been translated repeatedly: Jones (1794), Burnell (1884), Buhler (1886) and Doniger (1991). (...)

The belief in the authenticity of Kulluka's text was openly articulated by Burnell (1884, xxix): "There is then no doubt that the textus receptus, viz., that of Kulluka Bhatta, as adopted in India and by European scholars, is very near on the whole to the original text." This is far from the truth. Indeed, one of the great surprises of my editorial work has been to discover how few of the over fifty manuscripts that I collated actually follow the vulgate in key readings.
— Patrick Olivelle, Manu's Code of Law (2005) 
Other scholars point to the inconsistencies and have questioned the authenticity of verses, and the extent to which verses were changed, inserted or interpolated into the original, at a later date. Sinha, for example, states that less than half, or only 1,214 of the 2,685 verses in Manusmriti, may be authentic. Further, the verses are internally inconsistent. Verses such as 3.55-3.62 of Manusmriti, for example, glorify the position of women, while verse such as 9.3 and 9.17 do the opposite. Other passages found in Manusmriti, such as those relating to Ganesha, are modern era insertions and forgeries.

Nelson in 1887, in a legal brief before the Madras High Court of British India, had stated, "there are various contradictions and inconsistencies in the Manu Smriti itself, and that these contradictions would lead one to conclude that such a commentary did not lay down legal principles to be followed but were merely recommendatory in nature." Mahatma Gandhi remarked on the observed inconsistencies within Manusmriti as follows,

I hold Manusmriti as part of Shastras. But that does not mean that I swear by every verse that is printed in the book described as Manusmriti. There are so many contradictions in the printed volume that, if you accept one part, you are bound to reject those parts that are wholly inconsistent with it. (...) Nobody is in possession of the original text.
— Mahatma Gandhi, An Adi-Dravida's Difficulties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti#Authenticity_and_inconsistencies_in_various_manuscripts












19:30  Reference is made about a "Claire Khaw intervention hour".

23:00  My name is mentioned again by Church of Entropy who says I am stupid because I don't agree with her.

36:00  I didn't say we didn't need stories. I said Secular Koranism is not interested in the stories because it is rule based and not story based. This means Secular Koranism does not require you to believe in any particular story the way Christianity requires you to believe that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of God, geddit?

49:00  What is your tradition? You cannot explain. Tradition implies some long and established practice. No one acknowledges your tradition. You cannot have a tradition because you have no followers and no known history of its practice. What you call your tradition does not even have a name. Conveniently, you claim that you only use an Oral Tradition, which means that you can change your principles as and when expedient, when I adhere to the Koran whose content is both universally known and universally available.

56:00  58:00  1:00:00  1:02:00 1:05:00 1:11:00 1:12:00 1:20:00 My name is mentioned.

1:12:00  I am accused of idolatry but the accusation is incoherent.
1:24:00  Secular Koranism
1:26:00  Jay my streaming partner is mentioned. Church of Entropy says I make him happy.
1:28:00  Church of Entropy sings a hymn to Secular Koranism.
1:34:00  Secular Koranism is secular because a legally qualified non-Muslim can interpret it.
1:35:00  Will giggles at quran.com/2/256 which is the basis of the First Amendment.  https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-first-amendment-was-derived-from.html
1:35:30  Church of Entropy refers to her Oral Tradition, which no one knows about and which she can change when expedient.
1:53:00  "We are all Secular Koranists."
1:58:00  I am accused of cherry picking and being immune to logic. Church of Entropy is of course indulging in projection.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
1:58:30  Will admits to having been in need of the professional services of a psychiatrist.
2:00:00  False beliefs eventually lead to insanity.
2:01:00  Subjective Absolutism
2:05:00  Measuring emotions
2:08:00  "morality is essentially meta analysis of emotions"
2:09:00  I am "purposefully deceptive and immoral" because I do not accept the arguments of Will and Church of Entropy.
2:10:00  My moral authority is greater because I have a history of political activism, can make myself understood and have not ever been in need of the professional services of a psychiatrist or psychologist.
2:13:00  The duty of care of a mental health professional
2:14:00  "They [mental health professionals] don't even teach that the mind is a quantum computer!"
2:17:00  Will tells Jenn to have children and is "an attention-seeking virtual signalling maternal person who seeks authority so she can enact her own theocratic dictatorship".
2:18:00  Thirstiness for Brundlefly is mentioned.
2:20:00  The Big Bang, the masses and the elite.
2:21:00  Italian Fascism
2:22:00  An oligarchy
2:23:00  Conservatives and Liberals
2:25:00  OV's political solution to a spiritual problem.
2:26:00  We must have faith in the moral authority of our laws.
2:27:00  A benevolent theocracy must have legitimacy. (Secular Koranism does not care what you believe , Jenn, and quran.com/2/256 guarantees freedom of belief. OMG. How many times?!)
2:29:00  The broken arm analogy. Yes, the arm ie religion of the West is broken and so is its leg ie political system.
2:33:00  Stories and the unfolding narrative
2:33:30  Game of Thrones
2:35:00  I am described as being a "nuisance" to Church of Entropy including being"desperate and pathetic"because I do not agree with her
2:36:00  Will disagrees with me while refusing to debate with me and then says he is not interested in my ideas. He is basically saying he wants to win the debate without entering the arena of debate, which is completely infantile.
2:39:00  "There are probably a lot of people who would support [Claire Khaw's] views."
2:39:30  "Goodness is ... doing the right thing without worrying about the consequences."
2:41:00  "Even Claire isn't pure evil."



SUMMARY: 


"I have my feelings which are only opinions whose correctness I cannot prove. I will still hold them even if no one agrees with me and I will call this brilliant idea of mine SUBJECTIVE ABSOLUTISM."


One of my ideas is Aryan Hebrewism because I can no longer believe in Christianity but cannot bring myself to worship the Abrahamic God as a Muslim. Because Jews were the first people with the idea of the Abrahamic God and are known for being cleverer than Christians, I would rather be Jewish than Muslim because I associate Islam with despised immigrant culture and people from low-status countries whose people I hate for being in my country.


I need to believe in God because I cannot cope with uncertainty but my pride makes it hard for me to be Muslim even though I have given up on Christianity.


Though I was Muslim for six months, I subsequently apostasised, because I prefer the company of my Aryan brothers."


A young man claiming to be seeking the objective truth is in fact avoiding it
at
Labels: ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Can theocracy regulate technocracy?

Space https://t.co/DtnwWGGSC5 — Cyborg of Secular Koranism (@Book_of_Rules) November 26, 2024 1:00  KNIGHT joins. 2:00  Salafists 3:00  Hadi...