Muslims, terrorism and useful idiots

1

The recent terror attack in Brussels killed 34 people and injured at least 230. Understandably, people are scared. Even outside of Brussels. These terror attacks happened at the airport, subway and central station, public places with the highest amounts of people. Places that every citizen is guaranteed to visit at least once in their life.

And completely in accordance with the long-standing tradition of humanity,  fear turns people into complete fucking morons.

Either you have the regressive left being so afraid of racism and increasing ethnic tensions in society that they try way too hard not to be racist, or you get the bigots exploiting a horrible incident to build up anti-muslim sentiments amongst the terrified and easily manipulated public. (As was proven recently, quite hilariously, by Microsofts twitter robot – racist bullshit is norm on the internet)

Im sick of these extremes completely ruining the public debate and distracting from the conversational point that should be made the loudest in a time like this.

On one hand, we have the idiots refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem with the radical branches of Islam, and that the muslim world needs progressive reformation. Instead of acknowledging the tough nuances and facing the risk of offending some morons, they will go to any length to combat racism instead. When interviewed about the terror attack in Brussel, Sweden’s Prime Minister wanted to “remind everyone that one of the biggest terrorists we’ve had in Europe, Anders Behring Breivik, was anything but muslim.” 

Pathetic relativizations is not what people need to hear right now. In Sweden, the dominating debate narrative the past years has been to explain away terrorism as the result of Western societies being super-racist. Apparently that’s why Gothenburg has more IS-jihadists per capita than all of America. But I don’t buy it.

The research available to us shows that most terrorists come from stable middle class families. Engineers in particular are overrepresented as a profession amongst captured terrorists. It’s time we put down the myth that terrorists become terrorists because of class gaps, capitalism and white racism. It’s a matter of ideology, namely salafism/wahhabism. This should be obvious by the fact that the leader of ISIS has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies. Certain interpretations of Islam legitimize violence, plain and simple.

Other interpretations don’t. These reformists are not helped by the regressive left claiming that Islam is perfect, but they also aren’t helped by right-wingers adamantly claiming that Islam is evil and that a single muslim cannot be trusted. The mere existence of these reformists shows that there’s different ways to interpret religious scripture, and some are more compatable with Western civilization than others.

People also seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of islamist terror attacks occurs in muslim countries, specifically: Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. Ordinary muslims are the biggest victims when it comes to islamist terror.

And blaming refugees for the Brussels attack is absolutely fucking senseless. Do you not realize that what you saw in Brussels is exactly what most refugees are running away from? They’re trying to escape a world where seeing people blown up in front of you is run-of-the-mill everyday reality.

You’re trying to use a terror attack upon Europe to tell people that they shouldn’t be fleeing daily terror attacks on their homes. It’s preposterous. I know that Im against Sweden’s immigration policy but that’s because it’s been irresponsible for several years on end, not because I hate refugees as individuals.

As one black man delicately put it in a Youtube-comment: “Muslims don’t scare me. My black ass is more likely to get shot by the cops or by someone who looks like me.”

So Yes, there is a problem with the radical branches of Islam. And Yes, the muslim world absolutely needs a reformation. Misogynistic and homophobic views/legislations are far too widespread in those countries. We all know this, it’s widely talked about in the alternative media scene, and I myself have even dedicated an hour long video to this issue.

But why aren’t we talking about the larger political implications which caused these problems to begin with? I see stupid Americans who hate muslims and solely blame Islam for the terror attacks on the West, when it’s their own politicians who made ISIS into a serious threat to begin with:

Even here in Sweden, the past 10 years people have been voting for the same politicians who’ve turned this country into a ticking time-bomb, politicians who funded Al-aqaida allies in Syria and helped create the refugee crisis.

In the 80’s Ronald Reagan described Bin Ladin as a “freedom fighter”. Why? Because America thought they could use militant islamists as useful idiots against Russia. I don’t think I need to explain how that strategy backfired a couple of years later. They’ve essentially funded the rise of religious extremism in the Middle East and turned muslim terrorism into a bigger problem than it had to become.

The same people the West is fighting today, they once financed. The fact that Saudiarabia and Turkey love ISIS is hardly a secret by this point in time, and yet Western countries keep pampering with them and working together. I wonder why. Here’s an account from a Swedish soldier:

“When I talk to a man who’s currently deployed in Iraq and ask him why we suck up to Saudiarabia – a country governed by the worlds worst hate-ideology wahhabism, a country that finances ISIS, a country that decapitates and crucifies people in the town square as often as we chill out and watch movies – instead of invading them, and other allies in the Gulf states, with the purpose of antiterrorism and establishing democracy, the soldier replies: “They basically own the Stockholm stock market as I’ve understood it.”

When Saudiarabia, America and Israel all want the same thing, you know something fucked up is going on.

Killing ISIS and forbidding people to recruit for terrorist groups might solve the problem short-term, but not long-term. Because the political systems that create jihadists will still remain long after ISIS has disappeared. Countries are still going to be governed by greed and willing to invade someone else’s nation solely for the sake of juicy natural resources.

The real war on terror cannot occur out in the public with the rise of a police state surveillance society as a result, and citizens rights to privacy as sacrifice. The real war on terror needs to occur in the corridors of power, where the elite decide to create fertile ground for extremists solely because they want access to other countries wealth.

The “mass murderer” Assad has higher trust and confidence amongst his people than what the Prime Minister in Sweden has. Assad is running at little over 70% whereas Stefan Löfven is running at little below 20%. What does this tell you?

It’s time for the Western world to stop acting moral-police over the world. America has the highest prison population in the world and Sweden is importing rape, none of you are in the position to lecture others on how to run their shit politically.

The West’s humanitarian interest in the Middle East is solely about financial gain, and hadn’t it been for America and Sweden supporting “peaceful rebels” we wouldn’t be having a refugee crisis that’s trying to collapse the Swedish welfare state right about now.

The terror attacks we are seeing is simply the result of the power struggle between elites. And it’s us ordinary citizens who take the shit for it all.

If you’re gonna start hating muslims because of what extremists do then you’re simply a useful idiot, because that’s exactly what they want you to do. Divide and conquer. Keep people from uniting against the corrupt ruler by having them pointing fingers at each other.

Ordinary muslims don’t support ISIS, but instead of allying yourself with them against the hand that’s pulling the strings, you wanna point the finger in the wrong direction.

 

Advertisements

The importance in hearing people out

tolerance

This post touches upon something I pointed out in my previous post, namely that when Donald Trump went on the Alex Jones show for a long interview where he doesn’t get interrupted, and was given the chance to make his opinions heard, I realized that what Trump says simply doesn’t hold substance. He was talking and talking, yet it felt like nothing was coming out of his mouth.

Which sort of makes me think about how people tend to react to “controversial” figures in general. The reaction is often emotional, rather than saying: “Let’s listen to this crazy bouffoon and find out why he thinks like he does.” What Alex Jones chose to do was listen, and that’s how you extract more out of a “nutjob” to see if there’s any substance.

When you first hear something controversial it might appear like the statement has no merit nor substance, based on your preconcieved notions. And that’s why it’s important to ask questions and let the person reveal the reasoning behind their statements. If there really is no substance behind them then you’ll proven to the audience that the nutjob really does lack substance. But it could also turn out that they’ve thought about something that the rest hasn’t.

For this reason, tolerance and democratic discussion which focuses on the reasoning presented, rather than ad hominem, is a win-win situation. Either it’s proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person is a fucking moron, thus causing them to lose their mystifying appeal, or you learn something new that everyone could benefit from.

I see the American media making the same mistakes with Donald Trump, as the Swedish media has done with the Sweden Democrats. They think bullying and smear tactics are gonna make people dislike the ugly duckling. But that’s counterproductive.

When you only attack someones character and alleged intentions, the argument they presented is left un-refuted. This creates the illusion that they are in the right, even if their point could desperately need some well-deserved problematization and nuancing.

This is what we here in Sweden should have been doing with the Sweden Democrats years ago, when they were voted into parliament back in 2010. Back then they were small. Now they’re the biggest party in the opinion polls. Guess why?

The Sweden Democrats might have a shady background, but they occasionally make very sound points. And these are points no other party wants to make. Common sense statements like: “Immigrants should adapt to Sweden, not the other way around.”And “Sweden shouldn’t have more immigration than it can handle.”

Instead of refuting these points, politicians have been shouting “racist” instead. Even when the SD express common sense. What kind of effect do you think this is gonna have on the general public?

Politics is about making prioritizations. If you don’t know how to make uncomfortable yet necessary priorities, you should not be in parliament. If you choose to prioritize the citizens of other countries over Swedish citizens, you really shouldn’t represent the Swedish people. And you shouldn’t be surprised when the party who expresses peoples frustrations end up becoming bigger and bigger.

Let the scary boogeyman speak. The only reason you have to fear the words of someone, is if there’s actually some truth to it.

Donald Trump is the symptom, not the illness

483208412-real-estate-tycoon-donald-trump-flashes-the-thumbs-up-crop-promo-xlarge2

I definitely understand his appeal. In a politically correct society where you are judged by ”ugly thoughts” rather than just ugly actions, seeing someone break every taboo imaginable is incredibly liberating.

On a primal level it reminds you of what you as a human were put on Earth to do: You are here to express yourself. Be it your dreams in life, or everyday ponderings, you’re supposed to live for yourself. Yet existence for many is just 80 years spent worrying about stupid peoples shallow judgment of your character.

All society does is tell us to get in line with the rest of the drones who are ready to sacrifice their personality for the sake of fitting in. We’re taught to hide our prejudice, not to voice them and examine them. (And eventually, challenge them)

Thoughts deemed uncomfortable aren’t to be examined, they’re meant to be pushed under the carpet. Even though bottling things up can give you cancer. If that’s what suppression does on an individual level, imagine what it does on a national level in terms of society?

The dumbing down of society has gone so far we’ve forgotten the very fact that a human being can’t be reduced to a few ideas. One opinion doesn’t make an entire person, so if someone says something bigoted or stupid they don’t automatically become Hitler.

Yet people are exactly that judgmental. Nobody listens to each other anymore. They’re more interested in pushing you down so they can raise themselves up.People have forgotten to distinguish bad thoughts from bad behaviour. They act like defect thoughts will affect others the same way defect actions would. (Physical assault, robbery, rape)

We’re constantly told by society that we aren’t good enough, that we are defect somehow, finding flaws so they can offer fake solutions. Bad breath? Afraid someone won’t fuck you? Buy some mouthwash. Feel worthless and confused? Buy a religion.

Trumps appeal is that he is unapologetic about his percieved flaws. He’s doing what anybody wish they could be doing: Speaking their mind, with no restriction, and being applauded for it by those who are like-minded.

But at the end of the day, I suspect Donald Trump is just another crony capitalist who, if given the chance, would join the New World Order so fucking fast it would make your head spin. The guy isn’t even a good businessman, he’s just good at presenting himself like one. Google ”Donald Trump Scotland” and see how he fucked the entire country over with devious promises of profit. There’s absolutely no reason to assume he would stand up for the everyday common man. He sure didn’t do that in Scotland.

I watched his interview on the Alex Jones show, since that’s the only place you get to hear his thoughts unedited and uninterrupted, and I had to turn it off halfway through. Because despite many words gushing out of his mouth, the guy isn’t saying anything of substance. Like any other politician, it’s shallow and abstract, simply meant to attract.

This doesn’t mean that any of the other political candidates are better. They aren’t. And voting for Hillary just because she has a vagina doesn’t turn you into a greater moral example than a Trump supporter. Face the fact: American politics are severely fucked. And every year it’s the same shit.

There’s only two political parties you can vote for, and pretty much all their candidates are controlled by private banks and corporations. America needs to look into direct democracy and abandon the illusion of democracy they’ve been sold thus far. Choosing a puppet every 4 years is not freedom.