Donald Trump is not an intelligent man. Donald Trump is giving Saudi Arabia nuclear technology which they’ll undoubtedly use to sell to Al Qaeda in Libya and any new version of ISIS that pops up, given the fact they sell weapons to Al Qaeda and ISIS linked groups all the time. Donald Trump pulled out of the Iran deal and now Iran could be enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons. Donald Trump’s foreign policy consists of letting Saudi Arabia do whatever it wants including kill a journalist living in the US and not track even the most ridiculous forms of propaganda that the Saudis pump into the US. Donald Trump has either been bought out or is essentially behaving like an Islamist plant given the fact that his stupid personal attack on Illhan Omar has now been taken advantage of to support Islamic political activism in a more coordinated way to influence US policies domestically. Islamic political activists will now have a firmer grip in calling US domestic policy while US universities, US corporate news media, and most dangerously of all US Foreign Policy is being pumped full of Islamist cash through chequebook diplomacy by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and many others.
Islam is a global religion that seeks conversions, it is more Far-right than Far-right Christianity. The basic tenants of the Tafsir are that non-Muslims have no right to an opinion on Islam and even respected Muslim journalists in the West like Mehdi Hassan apply this to Ex-Muslims who risk death even in the West for the crime of Free Speech and Freedom of Thought. Donald Trump is almost categorically conceding and catalyzing an Islamist takeover of US culture. Illhan Omar got away with shutting down a Progressive Muslim activist demanding to know what she’ll do about FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), which disproportionately is happening in Illhan Omar’s own district, in order to tout herself for her identity as a Muslim woman (despite the fact a Progressive Muslim woman asked her that concerned question) and Illhan Omar has been able to catalyze and get away with all of this solely because of Donald Trump.
I shared a post about a newlywed couple, a Hindu man and a Muslim woman, marrying for love only to be harassed and threatened with death by their local community and the Muslim woman’s family because the Hindu man didn’t convert to Islam upon marrying his wife. It was very popular on the subreddit and brought in much discussion on the problems of religious tolerance in regards to a large minority population of a Islamic community and how India is a test-case for what happens when societies respect religious tolerance above Free Speech. Unfortunately, an Admin decided to ban it with no explanation. I wonder how it is that a subreddit claiming to be about open dialogue and good faith discussion about politics and philosophy can just ban topics arbitrarily. I followed all the guidelines, giving a Submission Statement explaining how this was important to better understand the problems that Religious Tolerance can create in a society by using the example of a Democratic country that actively tries to ban criticism of religion instead of allowing Free Speech. In Islam, a Muslim woman can’t marry a non-Muslim man because Islam treats women as property and not as people. While a Muslim man can marry a woman who is a “person of the book” meaning the Abrahamic faith traditions of Judaism and Christianity, even this is not acceptable for Muslim women. This is imposed upon Muslims by Islamic rulings as per Islamic theology and claims that Quran’s Chapter 2 opposes this is moot because Islam’s Tafsir system abrogates older passages and chapters of the Quran with newer chapters. If anyone is confused or curious by how Islam’s theory of Abrogation works and wish to be more informed to better understand why an entire Muslim community is threatening to kill these newlyweds over a Muslim woman’s choice to marry a man she loves, please click here. The US government – supported by both Republicans and Democrats – even has a list of Islamic countries that impose this religiously sanctioned misogyny upon Muslim women. When the newlywed couple sought police protection, the police physically and verbally threatened the Hindu man to change his religion to Islam in defense of the Muslim community’s outrage towards a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man, who were growing in ire over the marriage. The couple then went to the Indian media to beg for help and only the BJP-favorable media like OpIndia has shared the story of their suffering at the hands of Islamic violence.
Note: This will obviously contain Massive Spoilers for One Piece.
Onto the Theory:
So, I was daydreaming like usual when living in solitude with no prospects of a good future so far, thinking over the death and funeral of my grandfather who died ten days ago, and thinking over various existential crises that bother me when my thoughts turned to One Piece since it is one of my favorite anime. And then, my mind came to a sudden idea regarding Imu-Sama Theories in Youtube videos that I recalled watching.
The Freest Man In the Sea.
This had popped-up because of Imu-Sama’s name and various lore that many fans associated with him. Many posited Shanks or Mihawk as fitting the bill for this description due to various qualities that seemed to make them similar to the depictions of Imu-Sama that we have thus far. However, the idea of the Freest Man, while sufficiently associated with Pirates and even the Shichibukai/Warlords, doesn’t really comport with the mysterious ruler of the entire world who seems to be doing everything in his power to prevent the world from changing. If anything, this man represents someone who is stuck in his ways and acts as a hidden force . . . but also a pillar for the so-called Justice of the World Government. He is circumspect and doesn’t want the world to know of him while he acts freely enough to snuff out those who seek to change the world.
So, I examined the World Government and Marines instead, and wondered if any of them could fit the bill for Imu-Sama, behaving as a shadowy and knowing hand that pulls the strings and has just enough official authority to do so without being totally obvious to us viewers. I found a candidate who fit the bill hook, line, and sinker . . . and, well, you all will probably sufficiently laugh soon.
I just happened upon this interesting Youtuber when doing some further research regarding the Aryan Invasion theory:
I feel this is an important issue to highlight, because Western Academia seems poised to just ignore painful truths of history, even if it means genocide denial for the sake of treating all religions as equal. After learning more about the issues within Islam, I had to re-evaluate what I thought was true from US Indology books and so I made this post to highlight a perturbing trend of genocide denial by US Indology departments that seem to be extending across Western Indology and it may be branching into other portions of Western academia as well. That is why I feel it was necessary to make this post because what I thought was fairly innocuous information in Unifying Hinduism is now incredibly alarming when I reflect back on it.
Claims by US Indologists from Chapter 10 of Andrew Nicholson’s Book “Unifying Hinduism“:
“HINDUISM: A MODERN INVENTION? “Hindu” was not originally a Sanskrit word but a Persian term used by Muslims to describe a regional or ethnic identity: the people living near the Indus, or Sindhu, river.44 Only at a relatively late date was the term adopted by Indians to refer to themselves, typically as distinguished from outsider groups known as turuskas (Turks) or mlecchas (barbarians). Cynthia Talbot has recorded the earliest usage of the word “Hindu” in an Indian language from inscriptions in mid-fourteenth-century Andhra, in which some Vijayanagara kings were described with the epithet “Sultan among Hindu kings” (Hindu-raya-suratrana).45 Talbot cautions, though, that in these inscriptions, “Hindu meant Indic as opposed to Turkish, not ‘of the Hindu religion’ as opposed to ‘of the Islamic religion.’”46 In Gaudīya Vaiṣṇava texts written in Bengali in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, “Hindu” was occasionally used to distinguish natives from yavanas or mlecchas.47 Although the context makes clear that these foreigners were Muslims, Gaudīya Vaiṣṇava writers did not state this explicitly until the eighteenth century, when the term musulmāna fnally became common usage in Bengali. In this case too, the word may have designated ethnicity generally and not a specific set of religious beliefs.
Further on in the chapter:
“Unlike later Hindu nationalist intellectuals, who sometimes recorded their fantasies of heroic and violent resistance to Muslim oppression, Sanskrit intellectuals of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries responded with silence.28”
Source: Nicholson, Andrew J. Chapter 10: Hindu Unity And The Non-Hindu Other (4806-5293). Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History (South Asia Across the Disciplines). Columbia University Press, 2010.