Danger of Islam!

[JJJ]

In recent weeks, the European Commission and the UK have made apparent concessions to Islamic law

This sounds so frightening, but why does the author not come back to this in the article?

Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis made his famous prediction in 2004: "Current trends show that Europe will have a Muslim majority by the end of the 21st century at the latest […]. Europe will be part of the Arab West-the Maghreb."

I did some searching on these things, and I found that such projections are far, far from normal, accepted science. Projections generally estimate about 10-25% of European Muslim population in 2100. Why are in this article only these extreme projections shown? And well, what if? What if Europe has 51% Muslims before 2100? In most countries with a Muslim majoroty, there is no Sharia law and non-Muslims aren't suppressed, so what's so scary? Also, the underlying 'us and them' irritates me. 'Muslims have this birthrate, we have this birthrate, so they will eventually be with more and suppress us all'. How simplistic is that? It's like we're already in a civil war now, not with violence but with birthrates. :S .

The rest of this article consitst of similar 'facts'. It is not balanced, as only arguments for this one theory are shown, without any counterarguments. And it's not one, consistent story but more like a summing up of loose 'facts' that have something to do with the question mosty halfely. It makes you feel that somewhere there must be indeed this giant evil plan of Muslims that want to try to take over our society, without really speaking of this plan, because of course if you would really look, it's not there.

I think the whole 'Eurabia' hypothesis sounds nice and frightening, but it's just a weak theory based on loose arguments, and mostly pseudoscientific. It's interesting food for a talk in the pub, and if you believe in it it's nice because you are the one awake and the rest are all dumb and sleeping. Just like climate skepticism and most other conspiracy theories, really. It's also falsely culturally protectionistic I think. This article breaths the quiet assumption that a certain cultural influence becoming more important is always a bad thing. While really, standing cultures are dead cultures.

 

[JJJ]

Five prominent Jewish organisations in the United States have written to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan urging him to urgently address what they claim is a wave of anti-Semitism. A report the Turkish daily, Hurriyet, said on Friday the organisations had expressed concern over what they called "anti-Semitic manifestations" in Turkey."

Yeah, Jewish organisations did this in almost all Western countries, during the Januari attacks/genocide on Palestinians. The thing could also be that Jewish organizations tend to perceive any manifestations of criticism on Israël as antisemitic quite easily.

JJJ, I am asking you to be very aware of what may be being manipulated behind the scenes, as it were. I am sure you know about Divide and Rule? About how the ruling establishment will use so-called 'multiculturalism' so as to split community, and have peoples fighting each other, and in so doing divert attention away from puppet master, and make a profit from it.

So, the European establishment wants us to think that multiculturalism and Muslims are a good thing, because that would in the end make it easier for The Muslims to take over the power from them? Hmm, something not logical about this, although I can not put my finger on it...

You could just as easily say that, with the same Divide and Rule strategy, Geert Wilders, late Jörg Haider etc. want to make us believe that Muslims are bad people with bad intentions. Because the more polarized the situation gets, the greater their power. In fact, I think that one is much more logical. But well, you might have closed your mind already with this thought that all people that don't believe your theory are hypnotized by the establishment. After that point, discussions become indeed a bit pointless.

(Oh, by the way, this discussion is making me formulate things sharper than I do usually, I guess it gets me a bit too involved. But it's only standpoints I'd like to debate, not persons. So, I do love you all )

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

This sounds so frightening, but why does the author not come back to this in the article?

That opening paragraph wasn't written by the author, but by the editors of the website introducing the article, which seems to have been written before those recent events. This is clearer on the website itself.

Thanks again for your challenging response. I'll have to do more research now!

Supposedly a worked out theory is presented here: www.islam-watch.org

I'm going to read some of it now.

 

[zezt]

Five prominent Jewish organisations in the United States have written to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan urging him to urgently address what they claim is a wave of anti-Semitism. A report the Turkish daily, Hurriyet, said on Friday the organisations had expressed concern over what they called "anti-Semitic manifestations" in Turkey."

Yeah, Jewish organisations did this in almost all Western countries, during the Januari attacks/genocide on Palestinians. The thing could also be that Jewish organizations tend to perceive any manifestations of criticism on Israël as antisemitic quite easily.

JJJ, I am asking you to be very aware of what may be being manipulated behind the scenes, as it were. I am sure you know about Divide and Rule? About how the ruling establishment will use so-called 'multiculturalism' so as to split community, and have peoples fighting each other, and in so doing divert attention away from puppet master, and make a profit from it.

So, the European establishment wants us to think that multiculturalism and Muslims are a good thing, because that would in the end make it easier for The Muslims to take over the power from them? Hmm, something not logical about this, although I can not put my finger on it...

You could just as easily say that, with the same Divide and Rule strategy, Geert Wilders, late Jörg Haider etc. want to make us believe that Muslims are bad people with bad intentions. Because the more polarized the situation gets, the greater their power. In fact, I think that one is much more logical. But well, you might have closed your mind already with this thought that all people that don't believe your theory are hypnotized by the establishment. After that point, discussions become indeed a bit pointless.

(Oh, by the way, this discussion is making me formulate things sharper than I do usually, I guess it gets me a bit too involved. But it's only standpoints I'd like to debate, not persons. So, I do love you all )

Underlying the promotion by the establishment of multiculturalism is a design to split the larger community, that's what is being said. So I am not saying that the establishment are trying to make introduction of Shariah Law 'look good'. Of course it doesn't. It doesn't to us does it? But it divides the community, because what happens is that there is no assimilation in the host culture which is supposed to be liberal democratic.
So you are right though to question what is going on. SO am I. What is the game being played?

And I dont think challenging Islam and Shariah Law is intended to 'polarize'. because what is being shown is the actuality, potential for abuse of human rights. When a system of belief claims that only 'God' knows best.
In a liberal democracy we have the RIGHT and FREEDOM to challenge that, or any movement etc which is felt to be a threat, not only to our personal freedom, but other peoples freedoms--including round the world. And always remember that as well as Islam, I challenge general orthodox religious beliefs and scientism.

"But well, you might have closed your mind already with this thought that all people that don't believe your theory are hypnotized by the establishment. After that point, discussions become indeed a bit pointless."

No I am not accusing you of that. I am always open to discussing. NOT threatening with death threats when I am challenged. I am all for freedom to explore. Your asking good questions which in turn challenge me which is healthy.

 

[dennis1978]

You say in so many words ''God' is dead. Vivre le technology', but isn't the latter now a form of 'god' for some? And science more. Which is where tecyhnology derives from. And we have the likes of Richard Dawkins prosletyzing for 'science'.

This is seriously complex and we might need to go to another thread---hmmmmm. Dont know?

What is our need for spirituality? Are you saying it means nothing? Isn't that another form of fascism? OR must we look what we mean by it? Yes!

Sure. For some people technology is their god.
And off course there can be spirituality.
It has nothing todo with believing in a god,
couldn't you believe in yourself instead?
Isn't that spirituality aswell?

People are mind warped to believe certain things,
as they are mindwarped for certain social compliance / conditioning.
(think uniforms, etc. people asume the uniform means something,
they dont ever wonder about those things! And there are loads of mindpwarpings which people dont even know about themselves.
There will never be a patch for human stipidity, it will always get exploited.)

Saying there is NO god is not facism, by far!

I do not believe in any god.
Any god that lays rules upon his/her people is not my god.
But i DO find joy in taking psychedelics,
and it DOES have a deeper meaning:

seeing what shaman used too see, or still see for example.
This has nothing todo with any god at all.
Maybe to them it does, but that's their interpretation of things,
because they don't know better. They never went to a university.

The fact that people used to believe in gods is
very understandable, because psychedelics are STRONG.
They can easily make one belive he or she saw god.
Or, was down in the hell with some evil entity.

Never heard of complete villages and townships eating ergo infected rye in the past? This happened OFTEN.
They will surely have seen gods! All of them together!
Holy shit, ain't that proof?

If i'm tripping balls and i am outside and the weather turns,
surely it is somewhat logical to think its the weather gods!

There are some nice thesis about the "fact" that it was actually
psychedelics, that created gods and demons, etc!

However could one think of such a rediculous idea when always sober?

A god, living in heaven, which is somewhere in the sky.
Judging us all, and if you do not comply to all HIS rules,
satan comes with his henchmen and eat you allive.

It's just fucking hylarious if you ask me that people still believe this shit.
i mean...c'mooooooooon.

Look at the bible, gazillion versions of it.
Well, yeah that's conclusive :S

Look at israel, howmany religion fighting for ONE place?

isnt't that kind of weird aswell?

But i guess it just takes time to get rid of this "god" nonsense.
Because let's be honest, not too long ago people KNEW the earth was flat,
and if you talked otherwise you got burned ijn public,
and this is what people were a few 100 years ago, which is just a few
generations ago. Which is VERY closeby.

And now we see some are not that much different now, then
most people were back then

peace.

 

[VerusDeus]

Dennis, do you watch south park? If so do you know the episode where cartman freezes himself because he doesn't want to wait for the wii to come out? He ends up in a world without religion, but now the people are warmongering over what kind of atheism is the ultimate kind.

A big thumps up for the creator of SP, because they realise it's not religion that is the problem, it's the people. People will always fight about things, if it's not religion it'll be about territory or power etc.

Also, would you vote for Geert Wilders? Because even if you think that Israelophilliac and hypocrite is right, he doesn't have any plans really. And I personally do not consider him capable of politics...

Peace

 

[Brugmansia]

It is hilarious though.

Geert warning about forthcoming atom bombs, and where has he complained about since 2006? (Year that he got elected)

Right, Muslim teens who were agressively on the street in a dandy mood, vandalism, and a group of street scum who weren't willing to adjust themselve.

Be very aware of Israel, they always manage it to get an indirect voice in the government of foreign countries through an invisible strategy.

So WTF do WE have? Right, an intoxinated Zionist who speaks on behalf of the Israelic government in our parliament. His proposals are completely intended to bomb ants (agressive Muslim teens) with unrealistic proposals. Like it is Gaza.

Though, these proposals might be suitable in Israel, but not in this atheistic and rational country which has just Muslim teens with wild behaviour on a small scale. Some of them hardly believe themselve, but are just afraid to get away from their traditional family duties.

Geert has gotten himself a deep passion for Israel, he has been in a port of distress because of certain attacks during his residence there, as he said himself. Well, that's his choice, but it's obvious that he carries that luggage back to our parliament and starts with practising politics in this country with those experiences.

Though, I can communicate with those Muslim teens in a social way, who are known for crossing the line, and esthablish a proper interaction. So I have no idea what people are often on about. I do see that they do not take the time for the right approach. It's just really incapacity to determine what's really bothering these kids.

However, if there are Islamic warriors who are about to cross our laws they should be facing the court.

But as long it are rebels with a Muslim appearance there's no need to speak about the dangers of Islam. This whole concept is imported by Geert through his relation with Israel. And I don't dislike Israel, but it's daft to copy their policy over here.

It'd be cool if Arabians and Jews would be proud of this country and it's loose structure which allows us to live with each other as just beings. We shouldn't spoil this with rising flags, or swollen identities too much. Which is what Geert does.

 

[dennis1978]

versusDeus:

you sound like an angry person.
It is probably your age that's to blame for your senseless post.

I do not consider the wilders dude fit for politis either,
but lets face the fucking fact that bush terrirosed the fucking world for 8 years?

He is a hillbilly that doesnt speak his motherlanguage properly, he has an iq lower then 100, is a proven racist, aswell as ethanol user, he loves guns?
Not fit AT ALL for being president, not even of his own fucking bathroom.

So i think wilders is still much better fit then that fucking animal

But,

i would rather not vote at all.
The dutch system is screwed up, and like i posted in another thread, led by right hand christians, which are a REAL danger for us, and the world!
The problem with it is that when one does not vote, the vote gets divided into just the parties i dont want! AT ALL!

I mean, let's be honest, if like 10million dutch people dont vote, that should
mean all those christian retard mongloids must go!

But noooooooo :S

People their votes who have not been submitted,
get devided automatically!

So, it doesnt leave us much fucking choice now does it,
then to vote for the wilders idiot?
He is right about the fucking islam.
And that';s it. BUT:
he should consider chritians to be a danger aswell.

It is like with the fortuiyn retard.
He was NO nice person AT ALL.
It was more like people voted for that retard, because the rest was even worse :S

What he told, was kind of mindwarping people wasnt it?
But what we heard, was NOT what was on paper.
All who would benefit from his shit, would be rich people
big companies, the government obviously...
He would have fucked up out meaningless country for real kiddo.

So, you should just stf up about your southpark nonsense,
and participate in discussions in an appripriate way or fuck off

It is obvious i got you hard,
and i didn't ment to offent anyone, but shit happens...

Keep it cool kid

p's.

@ brugmansia:

israel have been backed up by the US covertly since the 70's, 80's.

Upto last year, they got more funds for weapons for example, then the US gave for food to africa. So i think this must put things in perspective a little

also, i personally see more danger at the moment in christianity, just because no1 else sees it but surely is there. They both want to be the one and only, and go through great lengths just to achieve it.
It makes me fucking sick.

 

[VerusDeus]

Dude you know shite about my age, and what does my age matter anyway? . And you misread underlying anger in my post.

I am perfectly fine with it if you want so support Wilders, but you probably didn't know he is quite biassed in this specific topic of discussion.

And just because Bush was terrible, that doesn't make Wilders good!

I may very well be younger than you, that does not mean I don't have anything sensible to add.

By the way: I'm the angry and immature poster here?? :?

 

[dennis1978]

i dont mean to offend you at all.

But your post was way too short to state the things that you did.
It is not convincing. There is no foundation for the things you said.

It looks like one want to flame, and not even take time to explaiin his or her point.

But it's oke.

[edit]
and yeah, know "mozart" is biassed.


i'd rather vote for him, then those christian idiots.
They are even more biassed.
{/edit]

 

[VerusDeus]

If you don't mean to offend me, please re-read your post. I am offended, but I'm not going to make this personal.

You are right about my brief unelaborate post. But the point I'm trying to make is if you want to ban these religions which you apparently seem to think of as a major threat, people would still think off other reasons to fight. It's an evolved form of territorial pissing if you ask me.

Anyway since my contribution is clearly not appreciated I'll leave this thread...

 

[dennis1978]

No need to leave.

Also, i know nothing about your age, very true.
But when you come barging in with cartooneque examples,
into a serious discussion, yeah i think you are a little kid,
because it is childish.

So then, i formed a post together in which i explained what was wrong with your posting, which offended you.

You should've thought it through better; you posting southpark nonsense in a pretty serious thread.

And i think you know damn well, but again,
no need to leave.

[edit]
and those religions, it is not what i think.
It is not about what i think.
They are facts, it is science
They are dangerous.
[/edit]

 

[Brugmansia]

@ brugmansia:

israel have been backed up by the US covertly since the 70's, 80's.

Upto last year, they got more funds for weapons for example, then the US gave for food to africa. So i think this must put things in perspective a little

also, i personally see more danger at the moment in christianity, just because no1 else sees it but surely is there. They both want to be the one and only, and go through great lengths just to achieve it.
It makes me fucking sick.

If it makes you sick then why do you switch from one label to another of the same class? You won't distant yourself from the course of domination as long as you choose symbolism or any label which can be classified as equal but just with an alternative content which is only in contrast with the one you denounce.

Taking about going through great stubborn persistence. Geert wants to reduce all donations to get a rid of poverty in Africa.

D66 is possibily the only solution as a psychonaut. They're having the weakest identity, they just construct their policy for each file itself through sophisticated rationalism, rather than looking at their identity first in order to come up with a proposal which is intended to put themselve through. We already have gotten a lot of of such loony's.

 

[dennis1978]

No i will never switch.
People just need to wake the fuck up.

THERE IS NO GOD!

that's all there is to it.
easy as a,b,c.
Simple as 1,2,3.

And what is the use of sending money to africa, if corrupted governemts take it? That is, the little part of money that actually arrives there!

It is a waste of recourses.

They need to LEARN! Get educated.
They need materials, like books, chairs, blackboards, no money.

Not mine anyway. They can have all my books
What's in there can make them survive, and maybe one day
even make africa an emerging economy.
Money wont do that.
So wilders has a good point there

Ans surely, i agree with you about voting D66.
But when ones votes that, it is more for piece of mind then anything else.
It might feel good, but doesn't change anything,
and that's where the problem lies. There is need for a big change
in the netherlands, but this can not be achieved by small actions anymore.
We need drastic measures to make our country better again.

 

[restin]

It is hilarious though.

Geert warning about forthcoming atom bombs, and where has he complained about since 2006? (Year that he got elected)

Right, Muslim teens who were agressively on the street in a dandy mood, vandalism, and a group of street scum who weren't willing to adjust themselve.

Be very aware of Israel, they always manage it to get an indirect voice in the government of foreign countries through an invisible strategy.

So WTF do WE have? Right, an intoxinated Zionist who speaks on behalf of the Israelic government in our parliament. His proposals are completely intended to bomb ants (agressive Muslim teens) with unrealistic proposals. Like it is Gaza. Rolling Eyes

Though, these proposals might be suitable in Israel, but not in this atheistic and rational country which has just Muslim teens with wild behaviour on a small scale. Some of them hardly believe themselve, but are just afraid to get away from their traditional family duties.

Geert has gotten himself a deep passion for Israel, he has been in a port of distress because of certain attacks during his residence there, as he said himself. Well, that's his choice, but it's obvious that he carries that luggage back to our parliament and starts with practising politics in this country with those experiences.

Though, I can communicate with those Muslim teens in a social way, who are known for crossing the line, and esthablish a proper interaction. So I have no idea what people are often on about. I do see that they do not take the time for the right approach. It's just really incapacity to determine what's really bothering these kids.

However, if there are Islamic warriors who are about to cross our laws they should be facing the court.

But as long it are rebels with a Muslim appearance there's no need to speak about the dangers of Islam. This whole concept is imported by Geert through his relation with Israel. And I don't dislike Israel, but it's daft to copy their policy over here.

It'd be cool if Arabians and Jews would be proud of this country and it's loose structure which allows us to live with each other as just beings. We shouldn't spoil this with rising flags, or swollen identities too much. Which is what Geert does.

This is not the first time this conclusion is drawn... why is there still a discussion?

THERE IS NO GOD!

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

A big thumps up for the creator of SP, because they realise it's not religion that is the problem, it's the people. People will always fight about things, if it's not religion it'll be about territory or power etc.

You can't prove that. We're in the process of modernizing the world, and one of its aims (and accomplishments) is to end unnecessary fighting. We do not have war in the Netherlands, we do not have war between the Netherlands and Germany, because of our modern mindset. The SP episode was funny, but had absolutely nothing to do with reality. RIGHT NOW people are fighting and scheming for God, whereas all genuine scientists and philosophers are engaged in respectful debate. Yes, people also fight over resources and territory, but that doesn't mean we should pay no attention to the hostility generated by religious doctrine.

The following was written by former muslims:

3. A REFORMED ISLAM?

Muslims must admit that some parts of their religion from the 7th or 8th century are unsuitable in the 21st century. Real, traditional Islam is - according to serious and honest writers and students of the religion - incompatible with democracy and individual freedom. A reformed Islam is therefore necessary. It will naturally look rather different from the traditional form.

The conclusions reached regarding policies for various parts of human life will indicate which religious theses and statements of Islam are not any longer acceptable. Those parts of the religion should be proclaimed as no longer valid and not be a part of it any longer. An unreformed Islam may in the future not be a permitted religion in Western countries because of its danger to a civilized society.

Presumably it is necessary to build a new theoretical foundation for an Islam that protects e.g. freedom and human rights. Basic questions are then: Which is the contents of Islam that can be allowed - in the long run – to be preached in a western country? And by whom and when shall that reformed Islam be formulated?

An even more important question is if it is really possible or meaningful to reform Islam. The issue if it is possible to reform and save Islam may easily be overshadowed by the fundamental question if the religion is worth saving. It is probably easy for some people to ask: Why shall one try to save certain parts of a religion that according to the texts and various accepted interpretations of it contain so much hate and violence, encourages violations of human rights, and - based on its own words - is a threat to freedom and a democratic society? If one reads Islamic texts, it is easy to conclude that they advocate inequality between sexes; a hostile behaviour towards other religions or world views; stands for violence as a political method and dictatorship (not democracy); collectivism (not individualism) and so on and so on. However, the question if the faith is worth saving shall naturally be answered by those who believe in the religion. It is their responsibility to decide which parts are now valid and which are obsolete. Just changing the prevalent abrogation rules formulated for the Quran, will be a good start.

 

[Forkbender]

whereas all genuine scientists and philosophers are engaged in respectful debate.

 

[zezt]

I think 'we' as westerners--the ones who have legacy of the 'Enlightenment' efinition: 'The Enlightenment' has been given many differing definitions but it was, at its broadest, a philosophical movement of the eighteenth century which stressed human reasoning over blind faith or obedience and was thus in contrast with much of the religious and political order of the day, while also encouraging 'scientific' thinking.
Examples: The Enlightenment is often cited as the start of the modern era, but this view is often dependant upon views on science and religion.:

That as we take on the role of criticizing anothers belief system that is completely ingrained--for many of its adherents--into the very structure of their lives, worldview, etc--we need to klnow what WE mean about where we are.

Many of the Islamic extremist views, and propaganda, vent their contempt at western values of materialism. And of course many westerners do, including me. So if we were like sat round a table with Muslims who wanted to know what could replace their un-modern Medieval belief system how would you respond?
Would it just be that we are 'scientific', and 'reasonable'? Is that enough? What about the spiritual aspect of life? What do us moderns mean by 'spirit'. Are we aware that official science does not even recognize spirit and soul? And that if one claims to have spiritual visions one very well will be classed in our belief system as being 'mentally ill'.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

whereas all genuine scientists and philosophers are engaged in respectful debate.

Why are you laughing actually? It's true, isn't it? You can publish any theory or write a critique of anyone else's, and you will not receive death threats. If you make a cartoon of prominent scientists (as South Park did, in a rather gross manner even, Richard Dawkins having sex with mr.Garrison) there will not be angry mobs protesting against it in the streets. Even if modern theorists engage in heated debates, there's no danger that it becomes violent. That has nothing to do with our so-called christian roots, it's just the modern way of life. At least it's what we're clearly aiming for, and want to preserve in at least the European countries.

When there were riots over the cartoons of Mohammed, there wasn't one moderate organization that came forth and said: "The rule of not depicting the prophet or Allah only applies to us muslims. We cannot demand you to follow our scriptural injunctions. There's no reason for us to feel personally offended by the mere depiction of historical personalities. It would depend on the nature of the joke. We will only protest against offensive jokes."

As far as I know, both the radicals and the moderates felt 'offended', even though they couldn't really explain why. I've seen some moderate Dutch muslims talking about it on TV, but they repeated the same radical idea: that we should conform to their sense of humor and their scripturally determined rule of what historical personalities we may depict in our art.

But as soon as we conform ourselves to such 8th century sensibilities, we're 'losing ground". Vast geographic areas actually. And the ignorant won't care, because "Islam is a benign religion" and "muslims make the best hash." Wake up psychonauts, we've got a real problem here. Discussing this matter has nothing to do with racism, nazism or xenophobia, and everything to do with ending sexism, homophobia, authoritarianism, patriarchy, monotheism, censorship, holy wars, and yes indeed, the war on drugs.

 

[dennis1978]

Are we aware that official science does not even recognize spirit and soul? And that if one claims to have spiritual visions one very well will be classed in our belief system as being 'mentally ill'.

...

So if we were like sat round a table with Muslims who wanted to know what could replace their un-modern Medieval belief system how would you respond?

Well yes i am aware of that.

Also, "having spiritual visions could be classified
as being metally ill..."

Uhm...back when there were "real" witches, people who got them,
were prosecuted as "witches" and burned publicly instantly.
Classified as being crazies!
So, it's not far from what we as people used to do not too long ago.

When you take halluciogens and do something bad,
one can easily claim they lost their minds?
That's pretty much being mentally ill isn't it?
So, don't we do this already?
Classify having visions as being temporarey mentally ill?
(being so drunk you nearly die and beat up somebody isnt, by the way!
This is again the social conditioning / mindwarping to believe certain stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Haven't we done this already forever, throughout the ages in europe?
Thinking if one hallucinates, they are mentally ill?

Witchers, black and white were the ones with knowlegde of poisons and haliciogens, and they were not respected then, as WE are not now.

They were hunted back then, like weed (amongst other things) is now.

About the muslims:

When i would be given that opportunity, i wouls just try to convince them
that they must pracitice their relegion in peace, not force their relogion upon other, etc. The NORMAL things i guess

I am not against anyone believing anything, i mean,
one has to know that for him or herself, but like it is now,
is just fucked up. We are almost again back in the roman time.

This is a small world, something LITTLE has to happen for us all to die.
And it is coming, some religions do not care about that as they so often say themselves, and that dangerous.
That has to go. That's the whole point.