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.
Note: Two chapters left, but it seems I wasn’t able to make it by the deadline of today, but I am so very close.
Part of my issue has been that I spent far too long last year on reading and considering the views of US Indology, which I had believed to be of credible academic value, only to learn, upon reading The Oxford Handbook of Indology, that they don’t actually do anything else but interpret Sanskrit and other Indian languages to their own subjective opinion. I was astonished to later learn that they had a complete ignorance of Islamic doctrines, which they purportedly aimed to compare the behavior of Hindus in the Medieval era to, and even more astonished to read Will Durant’s book to fact-check Far-Right claims and . . . well, facts didn’t care about my feelings. I learned to value Free Speech upon discovering the truth from credible historians that I could trust like Will Durant much later on. I had purchased and read all of Siva Gita by Andrew J. Nicholson and then several chapters of his other book Unifying Hinduism only to compare to Will Durant’s historic fact-finding research and conclude that Nicholson and the Indologists that he cited in his book were entirely ignorant of Islam’s actual impact in India. He even refers to Hindu intellectuals arguments against Islamic invasion as mythic. I had to spend so much unnecessary time re-evaluating my information and came to unsettling conclusions that I didn’t want to be true, but soon recognized was the truth based on factual evidence and a greater understanding of Islamic theology thanks to the College panel discussions by Ex-Muslims of North America. I feel I owe a great deal to them for opening my eyes to problems that were right in front of me, but for which I didn’t notice.
This may sound odd, but I feel a sense of oddness when reflecting how far my views have been reshaped and changed by doing my utmost to go on fact-finding for my book. I hope there’s no issues – and there shouldn’t be – with Amazon’s guidelines once I’m able to self-publish it. It’ll probably be about a week more; if anyone has been eager to read, then I sincerely thank you for your patience. I really am trying to do my utmost in making this a book full of useful information and critiques for all who are interested in a critique of religion through social and cognitive psychology, Nietzschean philosophy, and my own views and thought experiments added onto it. I hope for the best, but I have no idea how good or bad the book will do in terms of sales and generating interest. When I’m done, I feel like hibernating for a month, because my brain feels like it is on fire and melting as I go through the process of writing, editing, citing, re-editing, and then probably editing once again. My main issue is keeping the word count of the remaining two chapters of Hinduism within the 828 page limit of Amazon’s self-publishing physical copies. I hope I can write concisely and informatively enough to squeeze it in.
Overall, writing this book has been one of the most thrilling and satisfying experiences of my life.
On top of that, this puts these women at serious risk since Saudi Arabia is now labeling them as just as dangerous as terrorists and using advanced military tracking of their IMEI numbers to hunt them down and kill them for disobeying the Sharia.
Update: The Saudi sisters seeking Asylum seem to be back on Twitter now. It seems outcry over these issues does eventually change their behavior.
Here is the message I wrote as a complaint against the ban:
I shared a post to show evidence that Hitler stated the Nazi movement was Christian. He did say that in the speech that the picture mentioned. That is a factual historic statement. I was neither endorsing Nazism or Hitler when showing that. Instead, I was agreeing with the person who made the topic that I posted in, the person shared his own image and stated that the Nazis were largely were Christian and backed by Christian organizations. All of that is factual, unambiguous history of the rise of Nazism, Hitler, and their connections with Christianity. I sharing further historic evidence in concurrence with that argument, I was showing the horrifying connections of Christianity and Nazism. I wasn’t endorsing hate. I was challenging religious believers in a debate forum on harsh historic facts about Nazism. Please rescind your bans on my account now. It is absolutely absurd that I was blocked from being allowed to challenge the community guideline ban to begin with. Please rescind now.
It won’t do anything. Why? Because Facebook banned me from being able to complain about being banned. This is absurd.
Facebook, and most Social Media Companies, just aren’t capable of making good policies on Free Speech and often wrongfully ban people all the time. After finding out that Trump’s Free Speech complaint website was closed, I decided to just email my Senators and House Representative. It won’t do shit like always.
Well, so much for making connections on Facebook for my book release. If anyone is curious about the email I sent to the US Congress:
Could you please extend the First Amendment upon social media companies like Facebook and Twitter? It’s quite clear they’re too incompetent to make any sound policies, their arbitrary removal of content and then dismissing any ability to file a complaint about how our actions haven’t harmed their policies, and the fact a wide swathe of important functions from running small businesses to paying rent often requires using Facebooks services should be sufficient grounds of imposing standards of treating them like public utilities when they become so large and important for people’s very livelihoods. Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal determined a Presidential election and if that’s not sufficient grounds to change policy on large social media companies once they reach a certain level of audience, then what is?I was just banned for 30 days on the Facebook platform for criticizing Nazism because they thought my criticism of Nazism was somehow an endorsement of it. This is ridiculous. I was blocked and then when I went to file a complaint, I was blocked from being allowed to do that. If someone wants to run a small business or to pay rent and uses the Facebook software, but then gets banned from it, then what’re they suppose to do? If you have no ideas on how to fix this situation with Social media companies, then do your country a favor and retire to allow people who are intelligent enough to understand how Social media works to pass laws that can make changes. Because right now, from the outset, you all seem too ignorant and incapable of making any policy changes that protect the US public’s Constitutional rights.
Upon nearing the final portions of Part II of my book, I decided to check my word count and page count by making a separate file to place all that I have written into one word document, I found that, to my own chagrin, that I had undervalued myself and overshot the lengths I had already written… to the point that I will have to make this 4-year book project into a series. If you would like to read portions from the actual book to better understand what it’ll contain, here is a sample draft of chapter 6 which doesn’t reflect the final version, but it is still mostly the same.
At the time I decided to check, I found that my word count for Part II was 325,718 and combined with Part I which was on a separate file, it became 404,444 words. It amounted to 881 pages in word. For comparison, my first and terrible attempt at an ebook is around 18,000 words and takes up 203 pages double-spaced on Amazon’s ebook page count. As of now, my word count is 406,958 words and 1,001 pages in what has been completed thus far. So as you can plainly see, I have indeed worked on this book for four years. I will have to change it into a series and I wonder if I should scrub all references to Part III that were made to allude to that portion so that readers would look forward to it, or if I should keep it there so people get interested in future book releases… I really don’t know. It is intended to be a Two-Part Book series now though. I feel a strange and confusing feeling of pride and self-contempt that I’ve done this to myself.
I will now need to make two separate conclusions and I am struggling to think of what would even be appropriate for this book, since the intention was to finish Part III and make a conclusion for what was to be a single book. I’m contemplating a few ideas on how to conclude the entirety of the book as of now. I still haven’t finished the section on Hinduism, but I’ll probably do that one last because I really want to be sure that I can provide a satisfying conclusion that challenges people. I’m not sure if I’ll succeed on that point, but I’ll try with what I have thus far.
For those of you who might be curious, here is my Table of Contents. I wish to take down any notion that I’ll be going soft on Islam and harsher on other religions. I wish to show my ruthlessness upon all of them out of my compassion for the victims of religion:
“Injustice and filth cast they at the lonesome one: but, my brother, if thou wouldst be a star, thou must shine for them none the less on that account! And be on thy guard against the good and just! They would fain crucify those who devise their own virtue—they hate the lonesome ones. Be on thy guard, also, against holy simplicity! All is unholy to it that is not simple; fain, likewise, would it play with the fire—of the fagot and stake.” Thus Spake Zarathustra Pg. 67. Thomas Common Edition.
The most recent example today on 6/2/19 is Rayhana Sultan, founder of emexs.org, which seeks to combat both issues like domestic violence in Muslim communities and violence from the far-right who try to co-opt her work.
As some of you may already know, Ex-Muslim Atheist Ridvan Aydemir, the Apostate Prophet, was outright banned from Twitter with no explanation.
Ex-Muslim Anti-Theist Zara Kay temporarily dealt with this a few months ago.
Things are getting worse and, while my anti-theism was growing during this process, I feel it has blossomed because I cannot believe we live in a world where people who are literally just trying to argue for their right to exist, be heard, and have the same civil liberties as us all are being targeted, silenced, and banned for the crime of wanting to live their lives. This is all because of religious tolerance. Hitchens was absolutely right, Religion Poisons Everything. While Sam Harris has dealt with this crap for what is effectively 12 years now, at least he wasn’t being silenced, even if mockery, derision, and manipulation of his words is hardly any better.
This behavior is completely ridiculous and I am just so frustrated right now. I can’t believe we live in this kind of world. To get my point across further…
President Barack Obama was rebuffed by social media companies, including Twitter, when he requested that they take down ISIS terrorist content. Yet, Twitter has a new policy against so-called hate speech right around the time a Saudi Prince became the second majority shareholder of Twitter. Coincidentally, the selective targeting against Ex-Muslims just so happened to have begun around this point while “respected” Saudi Imams can continue to argue freely on Twitter that marital rape doesn’t exist.
A correction: Twitter has banned ISIS content over the years, but is also targeting human rights activists critical of Islamic despots and giving their information to the law enforcement of Islamic countries. Even those living overseas who have escaped such despots.
I am absolutely livid right now. Just thought I’d share to continue in any small way I can in having their voices heard. I worry things will only get worse since Twitter seems to be acting more pernicious as the months go by.