[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

02699: Re: [WDDM] Chocolate minarets and Multikulti (for Joe)

From: Joseph Hammer <parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:40:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Chocolate minarets and Multikulti (for Joe)

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:13 AM, <Georges Metanomski> wrote:
wddm@world-wide-democracy.net


Joe:
Even if 90% of the people in a room want peace, we will not announce that desire if it puts us or our families at risk. The task is to remove that risk, to grant anonymity of opinion, so that opinion can confer no advantage or disadvantage on the answerer.
=================
G:
Well, you do it, dear.
=================
Do what? I am not at risk. I'm speaking of people that are at risk for announcing pacifistic intent... such as the example you gave with the Imam below. You stood up and did the right thing (sort of), when you "knocked out" your superior officer. This involves personal risk to state your views, which most people are only moderately willing to undertake. Many people in your situation would have just towed the line, and said that the brutalized individual you protected was "less human" or "deserved it" or "would have done the same to me".  You did not, but it cost you. Doing the right thing often has a dear price tag. The goal is to remove the price tag, the incentives, and to see where the chips fall. --- They almost always fall on the side of peace.

Joe:
Go to a mosque in Canada, the Western US or Australia... make some friends,
=================
G:
Your reading ability seems feeble. I clearly wrote about my hundreds
of Arab friends and more - collaborators.
My point was the location. In Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and even the Northeastern US, you will not get an unbiased reading on the preferences of a group of people. I understand you have experience, but the question must be introduced in a neutral forum, or the answers will be nearly useless.


=================
Joe:
Personal experience is a good guage, but it must be one component in our understanding. When we experience people acting in a certain way, we must dig down and figure out why.
================
G:
Well, I did it all my life, unlike you - at least judging by your
entirely abstract assertions.
Have a look at my
http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/POLITICS/israel_palestine_and_the_pigs.html

http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/POLITICS/palestinian_refugees.html
You can have all the experience in the world, and still get things wrong. Bill O'Reilley has an impressive resume, but on the basis of reason, he is no better than you or I... Age and experience are not the primary determinants of whether you are right... the primary determinant is, of course, the content of your rational analysis.
=================
Joe:
A majority of muslims do not want to kill you or subjugate you or convert you...
=================
G:
How do you know? Anyway, if the immam says, they will, or else, be
beheaded. Unless, of course, you eliminate that risk, following
your task assignment above.
Waves of millions Muslims were coming to kill me and my people.
I could have talked to them - as you suggest - about direct
democracy and how to be nice and friendly, but somehow preferred to
rely on my commando skills.
Exactly... you are surveying people in a place where the Imam has far more influence. There is no way for you to engage in a truly productive discussion with a person who fears retribution if they agree with you. It would not matter if you talked to them sincerely about "direct democracy"... or if you talked to a person in Berlin about whether the treatment of the Jews was "fair" in 1935. They are stuck in a system which is a classic prisoner's dillemma.

In general, wars are started and promoted by the elite. The common man contributes only blood to the cause, spilled for the causes of others. They buy into the doctrines and dogmas to escape the reality that they probably have no choice in the matter. You can't be a conscientious objector in many situations... they just kill you.

And how do I know they don't want to kill you? I ask. I also follow the trends of the Muslim community groups which exist in free nations. Almost without exception, they condemn terrorism and the killing of innocents. Almost without exception, they are fine living without dominance in a culture, without you or anyone else paying tribute or wearing a beard or head scarf.

... and IMPORTANTLY, almost without exception, they say they would never have expressed these views in a situation where they could have punished for expressing them. Many have friends and family who are still in that situation. Many have moved to America to escape this trap.

If you asked citizens in Rome about the Catholic religion until very recent times, they would have responded similarly, with equal fundamental zeal... because they were expected to, and violation could be punished. We must remember that Islamic libraries are the primary source of ancient Greek philosophy... the Catholics burned every copy they could get their hands on, and made it a crime under the inquisition to read or even own such heresy... but it is NOT about Catholics or Muslims, or even religion, per se... it is about the consolidation of power, and the use of any tool at men's disposal to control other men. The powerful few maintain that power by punishing dissent and by controlling memes. WE are free to study, examine, and reject those memes if they are not holistically beneficial to our species.

Direct Democracy + Islam + Catholicism + Atheism = Peace

Warmly




 


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]