Keep Civilisation Civilised

A man was charged with attempted murder following a stabbing at Leytonstone tube station on Saturday evening; other charges may follow.

The video of the incident went viral, mostly, it seems, because of the statement made by an onlooker: "You ain't no Muslim, Bruv"

I was not there; I have seen only a bad smart-phone clip(above) on the news and subsequent reports (Article - The Standard.) so, first, my assumptions:

I may only assume the speaker of the viral phrase "You ain't no Muslim, Bruv" ...

a. was Muslim.
b. did not know the religiosity of the attacker prior to the incident.
c. assumed the religion of the attacker from the attacker's demeanour and actions.

Now, based only on the meagre evidence available, the attacker could easily have been an anti-war protester who had outgrown his trousers, so a couple of interesting aspects whizzed through my brain pan as I watched...

1: The onlooker jumped, fairly instantly, given the drama, to a conclusion akin to "if someone is attacking people in a terrorist fashion, it's likely to be a Muslim."
So, a Muslim onlooker, identified a Muslim as a Muslim by his violence, then informed this violent Muslim, and everyone else, "You ain't no Muslim, Bruv", which one may only assume is short for "my brother in Islam".
Is it just me or are there multiple layers of priceless but revealing irony in there?
2: I find it highly unlikely that any non-muslim onlooker would feel the need to deliver the defencive and deliberately distancing "He's not one of our gang!" meaning, which the phrase carries, however, if the onlooker had been non-Muslim, how many of that wider Muslim gang would have 'vocalised' outrage at the onlooker's clear assumption... "Goatee-chinned, non-white, knife-wielding attacker?? It must be a Muslim!"? Do you think there is any chance there would have been no cries of racism and islamaphobia from team Islam?

The most recent reports claim the attacker has mental health issues but this would in no way mitigate the assumptions made by the onlooker about the actions likely to be carried out by those of his team.


In the long history of struggle to keep civilisation civilised, can you think of a more intricately knotty problem for the governments and peoples of modern multicultural liberal democracies to untangle?
How does one plan for the future of rational society, maintain and run a a civil civilisation when it's packed with people who think pretending is a rational course of action?
Instead of pandering to the cravings of those raised to be dependent on religion, would it not be more rational and most likely a lot less bloody, to ask all those who are addicted to pretending, to just get clean?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Syria - to bomb or not to bomb

An Open letter to UK Members of Parliament and all in positions of power.

With a UK Parliament vote on bombing Daesh in Syria (a noteworthy distinction to "bombing Syria") looming I thought I'd offer my perspective...
So, to bomb or not? It's easier to bomb... So much easier, than looking at the real problems.
Much less embarrassing to slaughter innocents in the name of righteousness than to start a program of education...

It's wrong to teach your child to seek friends only from your own religion.
It's wrong to teach your child being gay is evil.
It's wrong to teach your child that they belong to a group of people who are more special than any other human group.
It's wrong to keep or trade slaves.
It's wrong to shun unbelievers.
It's wrong to impose your standards of faith on another but abhorrent to inflict it on your child.
It's wrong to expect any child of the UK to be brought up as if they were living in a different country(by way of imposing old country's culture)
It's wrong for every other mandatory medieval value and viewpoint imposed on the faithful by the same fantasy fiction from which Daesh directly draws its medieval death-cult narrative to be imposed on a child.

It's impossible to ignore the central cause of Daesh; The Qur'an's message of paradise for those who slay they who cause mischief in the land will always be a source of jihadis; while Islam exists unedited it will always generate those who desire its promised paradise. Let's be honest, the strict medieval sharia imposed by Saudi Arabia and the medieval Daesh are exactly the same sharia. And, by way of the same measure of honesty, it's impossible to convince an atheist that if she would just blow up innocent humans and herself up while saying "magic words" paradise awaits her.

Close faith schools; they are the absolute antithesis of integration. It is an unbelievable kowtowing to religious privilege that even one exists. This is not "Islamaphobia"; I would advocate similar ethical neutering of the equally vile and supremacist tomes, the Torah and New Testament. The most peaceful answer is to make religious practise an adult only activity. In very few generations the problem would be gone.

Unfortunately, as what people pretend happens after they die is so much more important than saving innocent lives, it will be so much easier for everyone who feels compelled to pretend in the supernatural, to unload TNT and watch the body count rise. Yeah, much less embarrassing. And, while the ways and mindset of pretending has everyone's balls in a sling, the mountains of flesh and lakes of blood sacrificed to this childish folly will roll on unending, staining our future with myriad blood feuds just as it has stained our past.

However, education will do nothing to eradicate the threat of those who have had their minds set against us and, while our liberal democracies exist, those educated by the frighteningly many theocratic sympathisers of Qur'anic inspiration to hate all that we are will be coming.
Take the fight to them by all means, limit collateral damage wherever you may, but equal resources must be allocated into countering the medieval supremacist narrative couched in peaceful garb that is the true legacy of all the Abrahamic religious doctrines. If you're gonna have a revenge tantrum and bomb the shit out of someone's uncle and auntie's neighbourhood, it's probably best to first educate their nephew and niece here, who may hold sympathy with the target's ideological foundation, or you will just be building an army within.


This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Suicide by Compassion

A short while ago the world was gripped by an outbreak of a deadly disease in Africa. Ebola was chasing people to a bloody death left and right, and the pain and suffering streamed to our screens daily. Fortunately the tide of the deadly plague was stemmed and the world relaxed.
What if the plague had become so out of control that hundreds of thousands of people decided the terror and fear and chance of death was so great and so imminent that another country would be more safe and secure? What would have happened? Would those potential plague carriers have been allowed to travel across multiple borders? Offered welcome, regardless of their infection status, in the heart of a mostly healthy different continent?
One would assume there would be armed checkpoints, mandatory testing for the disease and one would further assume testing would include those who are not sick but carriers.
Would anyone question the sense of protecting the healthy from the infected, even if many thousands died waiting to be tested?
I think we'd all agree that proper quarantine measures are good sense; a necessary imposition for protection. And, in a time of good health, most of those suffering under the quarantine would also agree it's a necessary measure.
It's an easy decision to impose a quarantine when the disease is as obvious as Ebola, so clearly a threat, but what about when the disease is not so visible, not physically based but psychological?
What about if the disease is not running rife but only carried by those who have been brought up to tolerate the deformities it inflicts?

I am speaking of course of the ISIS ideological plague that is the current scourge of a big chunk of desert and jungle. The ISIS ideological plague spreads similarly to a biological virus, by finding suitable hosts in which to grow and causing the death of those who do not succumb to its pathology.
Should those who carry such a plague not be quarantined and tested to make sure they will not deliberately or accidentally infect those not previously afflicted with its symptoms?
I understand that those inflicted with similar diseases do not recognise those who carry the ISIS plague, as carriers of a plague, however, those of us who are rational should be encouraging quarantine of these poor befuddled victims of that vile contagion in order to protect the most common casualties of the plague: freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of action.
With protection of these highest held freedoms of humanity in mind I offer the 'ISIS plague carrier's self-identification test' so that victims can recognise their affliction.
The test can be taken by any who follow a dogma of supernatural coercion and I urge all who pretend in god(s) or spirits etc to take it.
If enough people take it and do so honestly and with honour, the freethinking areas of the world may still avoid suicide by compassion.

So, why is the no quarantine?
I suspect it's because to the majority of Europeans who are pretenders in god, those who pretend in god are all lovely peaceful bunnies.
I further suspect they'd have a different opinion if they stood on the oppressed and abused non-believer's rational side of the argument.
 
This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

To Indoctrinate or Not

To those poor families forced to now feel shame and grief because of their sons' delusions, I genuinely offer deepest sympathies and best wishes.

However, I feel compelled to raise what seems to me a fairly obvious point...

"Hello, good evening and welcome to 'Britons Today'.
I'm your host, Su Spicious and, first up is Mrs Unbe Liever, whose son is not one of the many young men who have rushed off to fight in one of the many 'holy' wars currently raging.
Mrs Liever. Welcome."

"Thank you, Su. Delighted to be here."

"Now, Mrs Liever, could you explain just how your son not going off to fight in this latest 'holy' war has made you feel?"

"Well, I said to his father, 'what shall we indoctrinate the lad with, Father?' This was not long after the boy was newborn and I'd had a few pamphlet through, so I asked, I said, 'should we go with the barbaric classics, the Torah, Bible and Qur'an or switch it up a bit and baste the bairn in Hindu? Or, maybe, go with more modern day voodoo like scientololologism or the new-wave crystalline wiccadruids.' I mean, y'know it's a tough choice! So many to choose from! 'I've read all the pamphlets', I said, 'and they're all much of a muchness!"
And he said, not straight away mind; he carried on staring into the fire in silence for a bit, like he did, then he said something that I really wasn't expecting.
'You now what, mother?' He said, he had a very deep voice, that's one of the things that first attracted me, 'You know what? I don't think any of them make any sense!'
Well, it raised my eyebrow, I can tell you, but before I could say anything he continued, which in itself was unusual, not a very verbose chap y'know, anyway, he said. 'I've had deer poop' only he didn't say poop, he was a bit of a lad; luv 'im. 'I've had deer poop in my socks for a month now; just exactly as Morgana at the 'wishes & wants emporium' said to do, and Nothing! No improvement whatever! I tell ya, I don't think any of those people, who wax all lyrical about magical things, actually know anything about magical things! And, if they don't know anything about 'em, maybe there are no magic things!"
I was dumbstruck! I just sat and watched as he angrily tore off his poopy socks, then tentatively offered, 'You are suggesting we don't indoctrinate him at all, Father?'
'I am, Mother.' He said, he was deadly serious and when he's deadly serious it's always worth thinking about. So I did, I thought about it a bit, and what I thought was Kylie, my tarot card reader, never gets anything right! And it made me feel he might just be onto something. So after a moment or two I agreed, I said to him.
'Right, that's settled, then. I can stop worrying about it and recycle all those inane pamphlets!' As I stood to collect them, a thought struck me... 'So that the lad has the best chance of learning to think for himself, maybe we should abstain from practising our indoctrinations while he grows into an adult?" Well, father looked at me with such a loving smile on his face; proud, y'know.
'That's my girl,' he said, 'always thinking two steps ahead.'
So we didn't indoctrinate him in anything. And now, with all these kids leaving to join in some 'holy' war or other, I'm thrilled with our choice.
So many of those who chose to indoctrinate their precious sons have lost them to the violence of ideological war that their child only learned about from the book of their indoctrination! It's very sad, they must feel like they've betrayed their own children. And now, sadly, each and every one of them will never know the joy of being grandparents. Whereas, my son and his partner are expecting my third grandchild.

I just wish Father were still alive to see the wonderful fruits of our choice."

And so to the questions...

Is it possible for one who is NEVER branded and indoctrinated with an ideology to consider Jihad, Crusade or other "holy" war justified and worthwhile?
If one has never been taught to believe 'there is a paradise waiting for you', can one be persuaded to offer one's life for any cause promising paradise for those killed in pursuit of it?
On both counts, I think not.

However, this is not how the great multitudes of indoctrinated have been, and are being, educated to think...

At about 50 seconds into the report the obviously troubled father asks...
"Who made fatwa for them to go there? On what basis?" I feel that one may only conclude that the unspoken subtext of that mental position is...
"If one of my righteous religious leaders had got it in his head to call a fatwa, then it would be fine. I wouldn't be annoyed, shocked or worried.
I'd be rejoicing in my son's honourable participation in glorious holy Jihad."

So as a final ponder...
Can we honestly continue to pretend that these "warrior for god" concepts are not promoted in books, which almost all of society hail as "instructions direct from god"?
Is it not time for us all stop pretending these books are benign?
Might it be time to eradicate them, or at the very least edit them?

More on this theme...
To Offer Or Not Offer Belief, Scripture Scramble Religious Gameshow or Presentation for 3rd Annual International Day of Protest against Hereditary Religion

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!