[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

...not that I agree with many of your ideas ... too totalitarian for me.

Totalitarian? Well, please find another label to descredit me with, becasue the term "totalitarian" is not free from having a specific meaning, which according to Merriam-Webster is this:

the adjective "totalitarian":

1
a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian, dictatorial; especially : despotic
b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)

2
a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism
b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency
c : exercising autocratic powers

and the noun "totalitarianism":

1
: centralized control by an autocratic authority

2
: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

And now consider this: that I attack the existence of states, superregional power structures and politial parties, lobbies and monopoles of power; that I refuse to accept the totalitarian (!! ) claims in any relgious or political ideologies including Islam, propagate capitalism and free enterprise, free speech/media/thinking, libertarianism, humanism, individual responsibility, "zero-state" concepts, and if you want: secular Buddhism and spirtual atheism , and I call people to resist to giving up their freedoms in the face of being challenged and being demanded to abandon these freedoms.

But I should be totalitarian here...?

You mistake my determination and intransigence with autocratic control, but if you call me totalitarian, then that is as if you would claim Eisenhower and Churchill and Roosevelt as totalitarian dictators like Hitler and Stalin because they decided and willed those policies needed to bring down totalitarianism and fascism and fought even a war needed to defeat totalitarianism and fascism at least in Germany and Europe.

I think you still refuse to recognise what you are up against when facing Islam, and while trivialising its nature you therefore are not willing to show the determination needed to indeed confront it and stop its further advancing.

You seem too much into this ... who is Muslim and who is not with the claim the true Muslims are ISIS.
To me all Muslims are Muslims including the ISIS , you cant define for others who they are , when it comes to people and religion it works this way.

Oh, that allmighty you are not, as if you can rule that terms and labels of languages should be freed of all their meanings and just any word can be used arbitrarily for just anything. Muslim is not what a person in front of you claims it to be because that person has its interests. "Muslim" is defined by the ideology of Islam, and its written ideological fundament. And that is the decisive criterion, nothing else - not your believing in hear-say, individual assurances or your personal kind beliefs that hope for the best in man. KungTse demanded already in his time and place the sorting of terms and words, complaining that people use one and the same word for too many meanings that were opportunistically chosen and did not reflect their original rela meaning.

Spock would call it linguistic precision.

Yet with your approach you are actually blocking any possibility of reformed Islam to be embraced.

No, actually you are blocking it. And I said it before and I say it again: Islam will not need to see any need to finally, for the first time ever, start a critical, objective self-reflection, if people like you always let it get away with its lies and decptions, self-decpetions and claims for beign given specially designed fvree rides, so that it gets what it ants without needing to chnage. I confront Islamic ideology in general and the Muslim standing up face to face to me instead, not accepting this weaseling and policy of self-vicitmization and intimdiating the other at the same time, and trying to talk the othe rinto a bad coinscience and making him beleive he would owe a totalitarian, supremacist, inhumane, racist ideology anything.

Islam has been far more successful in preventing reformist thinking and reforms in its realm, than the catholic church ever has been, and until today it is more unscrupulous and uncompromised in running policies of enforced unity and monoculturalism in order to make sure that its orthodoy originality does not change. And this unmoved appearance is what makes it so attractive - amongst other factors - for many young ones, btw, for they see it as the antidot to the almost unlimited opportunism and absence of idealistic orientation and values in the modern world.

Your problem is that you see this my determination as "totalitarian". But actually my thoughts are the most bitter enemy of any form of totalitarianism. Religious liberals and orthodox, people being politically left or right, they all deal with each other and cooperate at times to secure their own influence and power over people, but freedom-loving free spirits and libertarians are hated and demonized more than anyone else. Because they know all too well that freedom cannot be rationed and corrupted, cannot be bribed and cannot be bought, and this is what makes such free minds to the worst and most bitter enemies of lefts and rights, religious liberals and religious orthodox alike. This is why libertarians get demonized both by the political left and the political right, and why in all religions heretics and apostates are looked down on, but atheists are being seen as the biggest and most diabolical enemy in all universe.

And if then somebody comes and sees me as one of these incarnations of all lesser and higher evils in the world, or even just calls me "totalitarian" - then I cannot avoid but to feel flattered.