Some wisdom from Cato the Elder

[BaalChatzaf]

Straight from Cato's mind to your eyes by way of translation:

 

1. “Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.” – as quoted by Plutarch, Life of Cato

2. “Moreover, I consider that Carthage should be destroyed.” – a line Cato began using at the end of all his speeches late in his career

3. “The best way to keep good acts in memory is to refresh them with new.” -Apothegms (no. 247)

4. “All mankind rules its women, and we rule all mankind, but our women rule us.” – as quoted by Plutarch, Life of Cato

5. “Buy not what you want, but what you have need of; what you do not want is dear at a farthing.” - Epistles, 94

I agree with #2 especially.   Islam delanda est   Islam must be destroyed. 

[jts]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I agree with #2 especially.   Islam delanda est   Islam must be destroyed. 

The most powerful weapon against Islam is to tell the truth about it. But we are deprived of this weapon because it is "hate speech".

The truth about Islam is it's a war manifesto against mankind and the truth about Muhammad, founder of Islam, is he was a terrorist and a mass murderer and a liar and probably every bad accusation you can think of. Not my opinion but by his own statements.

The worst thing you can do in the war against Islam is protect it under "hate speech".

What is wrong with hate speech? Why shouldn't we hate Islam?

The penalty for not telling the truth about Islam (winning the war against Islam peacefully) is some day Islam will lead to physical violence, perhaps world war 3. And if it comes to physical violence, you still won't get rid of Islam unless you tell the truth about it.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, jts said:

The most powerful weapon against Islam is to tell the truth about it. But we are deprived of this weapon because it is "hate speech".

The truth about Islam is it's a war manifesto against mankind and the truth about Muhammad, founder of Islam, is he was a terrorist and a mass murderer and a liar and probably every bad accusation you can think of. Not my opinion but by his own statements.

The worst thing you can do in the war against Islam is protect it under "hate speech".

What is wrong with hate speech? Why shouldn't we hate Islam?

The penalty for not telling the truth about Islam (winning the war against Islam peacefully) is some day Islam will lead to physical violence, perhaps world war 3. And if it comes to physical violence, you still won't get rid of Islam unless you tell the truth about it.

 

We will never remove the curse of Islam by purely peaceful methods.  At some point,  blood must flow and flesh must be destroyed.  They who live by the sword shall perish by the sword.  Islam is a form of insanity and it is instilled and programmed into people when they are  young.  It is nearly impossible to expunge it by reason. 

[william.scherk]

On 7/2/2016 at 5:42 AM, Jerry said:

But we are deprived of this weapon because it is "hate speech".

The truth about Islam is it's a war manifesto against mankind and the truth about Muhammad, founder of Islam, is he was a terrorist and a mass murderer and a liar and probably every bad accusation you can think of. Not my opinion but by his own statements.

So, you just put yourself on an CAIR/ISIS/Ismaili list, is that what you are saying? Good thing the landlord doesn't revoke leases for over-the-top denunciations.  But that is besides the point. Your observation is partial.

There is a robust media that reflects your opinions, from Eek a Muslim Daniel Pipes to SOLO Passion, with a zillion points of light and truth about evul hordes in between. You should get out more.

Here's the thing, Jerry. In Alberta you have a gay Muslim in David Khan (a Liberal). You have a Muslim brown-faced Mayor in Calgary. You have other politicos moving up in the ranks. You have Muslims up the yin-yang in Alberta, a significant minority even in the oil-patch. They have names and occupations and a public life, kids, peewee hockey, snowmobiles, and some of them vote Tory. They are waiting to engage you in conversation. They come in different flavours, believe it or not.  

Maybe you fear falling afoul of some nebulous 'hate speech' law in your province, or are simply feeling put-upon by push-back against a bigoted opinion?  If you are unready for controversy, what might that say about your 'truth-telling' abilities -- how does it contribute to the integrity of  belief and action? 

Here at OL everyone can expect push-back if they publish what strikes somebody as stupid, wrong, unwarranted, emotional and otherwise defective opinion. That is the unspoken rule. 

If you want an all-agree, no back-talk Death to Islam Island, SOLO is more congenial. No push-back on uninformed racialism and unwarranted nonsense there. They'd lap up your remarks above, and would appreciate the Poor Me stylings. It seems that folks who utter hateful nonsense don't like it being called hateful nonsense. They don't think expressing hatred should be called hate.  So they self-select into a ball of ugly and call off the engagement with a wider world.  Poor strategic thinking.

(this is of course a different error than grouping all critics, doubters, historians of X into a Hate column. This is like suggesting all such folks are Trumpo\Clinto-phobic. NB -- I hate the panoply of  -phobia tags, almost every last one, even xenophobia -- except when they are warranted short-form descriptors of demonstrated fear and loathing of a class of people. I prefer to call opinions bigoted or prejudiced and show my reasons for assessment, based on  resistance to disconfirming correction or utter incorrigibility. We know that there are phobias, real phobias, crippling and bizarre at times, often of mysterious gestation.  Maybe some folks make Telling Truth about Islam their hobby/obsession. It is not a phobia that cripples, but an awful epistemology, IMO.)

On 7/2/2016 at 5:42 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

We will never remove the curse of Islam by purely peaceful methods. 

One of the semi-peaceful methods is deep infiltration. This is the semi-official Canadian line. Get into those mosque breeding grounds, monitor them like only nosey neighbours can, take names and numbers and spy out relationships, jobs, schools where they are known to congregate. Invite yourself into their evul meetings and social events -- get right inside the recruiting grounds.

Ultimately, try to envelop them in a mucous of multiculturalism. Crafty, sneaky, commie Canada. Love bombs. Tightly embracing the 'enemy' ...

This pro-Islam agit-prop video I include for the pan-Canadian reality of bagpipes. Some may be staggered by the wishful thinking. Or feel suffocated like Jerry.

On Canada Day, 40 new citizens were sworn in inside a mosque to reflect the country's multiculturalism.https://t.co/9WHIdQCKjV

— AJ+ (@ajplus) July 3, 2016

 

On 7/2/2016 at 5:42 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

At some point,  blood must flow and flesh must be destroyed.

Yah.  ~500,000 Syrians have been destroyed.  We should probably figure out why, where and how much more must be destroyed before the intra-mural civil wars are ended -- not only in Syria, but in the adjoining states and in Yemen.  Baghdad today is just counting the corpses and maimed from another ISIS kamikaze attack. 

Edited July 3, 2016 by william.scherk
Added response to Ba'al Chatzaff's lyrical blood-song; grrrrammar

[anthony]

William: There are gray areas to be clarified. What turned out with "no-go zones" in France (remember that argument?): the 'facts' turned out to contain exaggerated alarmism, and yet with some validity. First, in the general manner jts raised his objection, there he shows no specific prejudice against North American Muslims; who, I gather originally came to escape the regimen of sharia laws in Yemen, Somalia etc.etc. To their highest credit, they or their forebears left home by good judgment and chose America for all the good reasons. They are largely, already long 'converted'. So, look further afield than the choir in Canada. A main fact remains, "we" and our Western freedoms, principles and behaviour are hardly loved, at times loathed, by a large number, if not a major percentage, back in the Arab lands and there had to come a collision of values. It will certainly worsen before it slowly improves. In those countries I feel sure the truths lie somewhere in between the opinions of our bigoted, uninformed tar brushers and the apologist Western white-washers, and constantly veering between extremes. Complicated -- but agreeing with Jerry, I say one should not be afraid to speak honestly and unprejudicially about a religion and the approach of its adherents to the West, and us to it, without worry of being called "phobic": Islamo- , xeno-, whatever.

[jts]

About telling the truth about Islam:  What's so complicated about that? The truth about Islam comes from Muhammad, inventor of Islam (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his armpits). If you want Muhammad's sayings (not writings because he couldn't write) in organized and understandable form, I refer you to Craig Winn's book 'Prophet of Doom'. It is free. You can read it online for free; you can download it for free; you can listen to the audio of it online for free; you can download the audio for free. You can't ask for better than that. This book tells the truth about Muhammad and about Islam, and this truth comes from Muhammad's own statements. The book consists of Muhammad's own statements with several respected translations and Craig Winn's comments. Muhammad and Craig Winn are clearly separated so you can't confuse between them. His comments usually are obvious points that are difficult to argue with and usually have nothing to do with Christianity even tho Craig Winn is a christian. In the war against Islam, this book is a nuke (metaphorically speaking). The problem is to get people to read it or to listen to the audio.

About Islam and Muslims:  Notice I'm talking about telling the truth about Islam, not Muslims; the war against Islam, not Muslims. Islam is the religion; Muslims are the people who believe the religion and live by it. Islam is evil. Islam is insanity. Muslims are victims. Muslims are damaged, perhaps in some cases beyond repair. Some do recover and become ex-Muslims. An ex-Muslim sometimes becomes a powerful ally in the war against Islam. An example is Ali Sina. 

About violence:  I am not opposed in all cases to violence. But violence is the last thing to do, not the first. Violence alone will not win the war against Islam. No matter how many billion Muslims you nuke and no matter how much collateral damage you do to non-Muslims and the environment, you still need to tell the truth about Islam. If you do that from the start, then maybe you can avoid the necessity of most of the violence.

About hate speech:  There is nothing wrong with hating bad things. There is nothing wrong with hating disease, hating socialism, hating poverty, and there is nothing wrong with hating Islam. Expressing hatred of something does not necessarily imply advocating violence. If a doctor expresses hatred of disease, is he necessarily advocating violence? I am not advocating violence. I merely said Islam is evil and insanity and the most powerful weapon against Islam is to tell the truth about it and thumbs down on hate laws that prevent this.

 

[anthony]

That's no help, jts. I think you could fall into the same false dichotomy (hate//tolerance) which most Westerners do on Islam. And possibly you're collectivizing all Muslims a bit. Have you personally known a few? There's a standard people in the west should set, to be firm and vocal about what they instead stand FOR - which won't be compromised - rather than pointlessly trying and failing to bring a religion down with criticisms of its scripture, teaching, law - info which has been 'out there' for quite a time. A religion, for god's sake! And of a billion, plus! No ways. Which means (on your one point I do agree) not being silenced by 'correctness', making clear identifications and careful distinctions, and insisting on the same reality from evasive politicians. (I wonder if they can know the harm their appeasement has caused, as much to peaceful, western Muslims hopeful of change from within, ironically). This example, raised and fixed, by Western principles of liberty ~might~ hasten the much-needed reformation of Islam into modernity. I've decided on not spending my energy and life on hating, while I still despise every nihilistic, death-loving attack or suicide bombing - just for one city, Baghdad, a regular occurrence.