Nu is a blockchain based simulation of democracy

A NuShare, or more generically, a Peershare, is a novel entity. Nothing like it was seen prior to its appearance in 2014. While it has some characteristics of equity instruments and is a fungible financial asset, a Peershare network differentiates itself from other types of blockchain networks in that it is a simulation of democracy, or a virtual democracy. It is not a democracy of shareholders. It is a direct democracy of NuShares. It can be compared to national political democracies such as Germany or Sweden. A voting block of NuShares may be thought of a citizen, having certain rights and responsibilities. A NuShare might also be called a NuCitizen. Nu is a virtual nation composed of NuCitizens, which we also call NuShares. One important difference between the Nu democracy and those that we are more familiar with (such as those in Germany or Canada) is that Nu is a direct democracy. It has no president, prime minister, parliament, congress or senate. This is because it is a direct democracy. Representatives are not needed, with a caveat about custodians.

Nu’s direct democracy has custodians, not members of parliament

In the Peershare democratic structure, custodians are defined not by certain voting privileges like we see with senators or members of parliament, but rather by their control of a finite quantity of funds belonging to the Nu nation. In other democracies, members of parliament are elected to make decisions on behalf of citizens for a fixed period of time. Nu is a direct democracy, so delegations of this kind are not needed. Still, it would be impractical to have NuCitizens direct each and every transaction. Even if they don’t direct transactions by custodians, NuCitizens still have the authority to halt or block transactions by custodians. Recently, two NSR FLOT groups composed of multisig custodians that went authoritarian, refusing to follow motions passed by NuCitizens. Being a direct democracy, NuCitizens are not helpless in the face of these would be authoritarians. They can immediately dispose of authoritarian custodians by blocking transactions from addresses belonging to the rogue custodians. Exactly this was just done in the Nu democracy.

What is the value of a Peershare based democratic simulation?

A democratic simulation such as Nu can perform many of the same functions as democracies such as Canada or Australia. For instance, it can issue currency, which can be used outside the scope of the Nu nation, just as US dollars can be used outside the United States. Nu can provide citizens of authoritarian regimes with money that doesn’t support their own oppression. So Nu, being merely a virtual democracy, can provide real money to anyone in the world. To do so, it needs to have its democratic institutions and procedures nurtured and upheld. We nurture and care for the democracy that is Nu, because it a prerequisite to credibly providing a stable and reliable currency. The problems Nu has had with the stability of its currency have not been economic phenomena. More reserves can’t address the problem we had in late May and June. The problem with the peg was precisely due to imposition of authoritarians and authoritarian values being held by many of Nu’s custodians. They scorned NuLaw and decided they would become a law unto themselves. @woodstockmerkle didn’t like the way most NuCitizens voted, so he did what he felt was right by opposing the peg by refusing to move funds to support it which were under his control. Later, he led the authoritarian wing of Nu, the minority of NuCitizens who foolishly opposed law, contracts and fairness when they experienced fear. Anyone who didn’t vote the way he thought they should was excluded and cut off from his version of the Nu nation. Indeed, anyone who demanded Nu consider its contracts and promises sacred was excluded. It was Marshal law justified by a crisis consisting of nothing more substantial than a feeling of fear. That is a classic authoritarian tactic: to kill the citizens that don’t support you. That is what @woodstockmerkle did, in simulated fashion, of course, with his Augeas blockchain.

The market has spoken. Its verdict is that the Nu nation is not worth much in view of the authoritarian actions revealed by many of its custodians in May and June. Authoritarian regimes have a poor record of being able to issue currency in a manner that is in the interest of the currency user. Take a look at the Soviet Union, which experienced numerous hyperinflations. Take a look at 20th century China, which also experienced multiple hyperinflations. Nobody wants a currency from an authoritarian regime, because they don’t value equality. When fear rises, they betray and destroy others, indulging their own ego and narcissism. Our future success depends on our ability to nurture our democratic values and keep individuals with authoritarian tendencies, such as @masterOfDisaster and @woodstockmerkle, out of any position of trust.

Nu’s young democracy has demonstrated a capacity to quickly stabilize and restore itself in the face of an authoritarian coup

Nu’s fledgling democracy has faltered due to its inability to prevent infiltration from authoritarians. The good news is, the infiltration of authoritarians and the failed authoritarian revolution that occurred in May and June was an extreme test of the immature and experimental democracy that is Nu. What the experience demonstrated was that it took a number of weeks to marginalize the authoritarian rebels and to appoint new custodians who honored democratic principles. During that time tremendous damage was done. However, what emerged was an intact democracy that continues to persist and gather strength. The authoritarians were able to throw the Nu democracy off balance for a short time, after which they were made irrelevant and new custodians that honored democracy were chosen by NuCitizens. In this sense, the Nu democracy has a resilience and flexibility that traditional democracies such as Canada or Sweden lack. To dethrone an authoritarian regime that may emerge in the Nu nation, NuCitizens are empowered by our direct democracy to lock and freeze the funds held by authoritarians on our blockchain and grant funds to others that uphold democracy and the rule of law.

Democracy is a culture to be nurtured

Democracies such as Canada and Sweden can only be maintained when its citizens safeguard certain foundations of democracy. If citizens fail to do this, lawlessness may take over and an authoritarian regime may come to destroy what remains of the democratic institutions. Nu, being a democratic simulation, does accurately mirror these political democracies we are familiar with. The Nu democracy has exactly the same dependencies for its prosperity as the Canadian or Swedish democracies. As such, Nu, like Canada and Sweden, must employ and successfully nurture a culture of democracy in order to remain prosperous. The foundations of democracy are worth looking at closely, because as a democratic simulation, Nu has precisely the same foundations.


While much could be said about authoritarianism, in our context, representing shareholders in an economic enterprise, what is most relevant is that it is economically inefficient, if not outright destructive economically. Essentially, authoritarians impose large losses on the masses to make gains themselves. In this way, authoritarianism is fundamentally anti-social. When people take authoritarian actions, they have as their motive either narcissism or fear. Essentially, the formula is to make the masses follow a narcissistic leader by means of fear. Fear has played an important role in Nu. Fear was a fundamental and critical factor in what happened to Nu in May and June. A wave of fear swept over many in the community due to the large NuBit sale on May 27th. This caused people with authoritarian tendencies, like @masterOfDisaster who comes from authoritarian culture, to say a crisis necessitated the suspension of our most important protective laws. Those who value democracy said, “no we have to follow due process, our regulations established by citizen vote. We have laws. Change the laws using democratic procedures if you want to change how we operate.” The authoritarians said: “This crisis was not foreseen. Therefore, the laws made before the crisis are of no use. We need to change the way we operate due to the crisis, suspending law. I will decide what the changes will be”. And what was the crisis? Nothing but a social mood of fear, it appears. At the time authoritarians chose to abandon the peg, Nu was capable of handling many, many times the number of NuBit redemptions that were likely to have occurred without the authoritarian coup. Nu was not even close to experiencing an inability to keep the peg in a financial sense. It was the authoritarian coup itself that caused the loss of the peg.

Let us make a comparison between what happened at Nu in May and June and what happened recently in the United States when an authoritarian order to implement a travel ban of people from 7 countries was briefly implemented. Asserting the authoritarian action taken by the US was caused by an emergency risk of terrorism from normally regulated travel is comparable to the claim that Nu had to drop the peg because it was not in a financial position to keep the peg. Both claims are demonstrably false. Both authoritarian actions were justified by irrational fear. Both created a variety of lose-lose scenarios where a large quantity of economic value was destroyed. Not transferred. Not stolen. Destroyed. We need to do our utmost to ensure our custodians never exhibit authoritarian actions. The democratic blockchain protocol Nu uses firmly secures our democracy in most contexts. We can’t do everything by protocol on the blockchain based on direct NuCitizen input, however. We need custodians who have the discretion and freedom to take a wide variety of actions dealing with third parties that can’t be managed directly on the blockchain. So, when we talk about avoiding authoritarianism in Nu, our main vulnerability is in our custodians. That is where things can go wrong. Accordingly, NuCitizens must do their utmost to ensure no custodian has any authoritarian leanings. I’m not suggesting custodians such as @masterOfDisaster and @woodstockmerkle who exhibited authoritarian actions in the Nu nation are evil agents plotting destruction. More likely, they didn’t have the experience of democracy that would impress upon them the importance of rule of law and due process. They felt fear in themselves, perceived it others, and used the strong emotion as justification for extreme and disorderly acts not based on reason.

Democracy is a complex cultural phenomena

Nu requires custodians with the strongest commitment to democratic principles, such that they will adhere to democratic principles of equality even in the presence of fear and crisis. How can we get this? Well, democracy is like a language. It is complex and culturally transmitted. Social pressure is used to maintain it. If you are raised in an authoritarian culture, democracy is a language not native to you. Just like someone born in China may learn English, someone born in an authoritarian culture can learn democracy. However, such an effort will take tremendous effort and they may never speak as fluently as a native speaker. Native speakers of democracy have proven useful for Nu. There is the question of social pressure as well. @masterOfDisaster isn’t going to face disapproval from his authoritarian society and social network for his authoritarian actions. @jooize, on the other hand, being a Swede, would certainly face emotionally painful disapproval from family and friends if he chose the same authoritarian actions. The Nu democracy should employ social pressures to its advantage in this way.

While the tiny number of Nu custodians doesn’t allow us to come to statistically significant conclusions about the relationship between living in an authoritarian culture and implementing destructive authoritarian actions as a custodian for Nu, the anecdotal evidence suggests choosing custodians rooted in democratic cultures offers a great deal of protection to the Nu democracy. While talking about that may be uncomfortable and even divisive, it is an important fact that should not be ignored by those who wish to see the Nu democratic simulation succeed. @mhps, @masterOfDisaster and @henry were all Chinese custodians. I can’t think of any Chinese custodians who have not hurt the growth of Nu with authoritarian actions. America has a hybrid culture of democracy and authoritarianism. Americans employ democratic elections at the state and local level. However, in recent decades, Americans have rejected the rule of law by refusing nearly all accused criminals the right to a trial and due process. Similarly, in America, property is routinely seized by police without due process. And then there are the endless, illegal and purposeless wars. All of these are classic authoritarian actions. Not surprisingly, some of our authoritarian custodians (particularly @woodstockmerkle) were American. We have also had some American successes as custodians, demonstrating the bipolar nature of America in regard to this democratic/authoritarian divide. While the behavior of custodians from Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands and similar cultures truly rooted in democracy hasn’t been perfect, they seem to tend to be more reliable custodians for Nu.


Nu is a democratic simulation native to the blockchain and the internet. Nu is a simulation of a sovereign like Canada or Germany. It is composed of NuCitizens (aka NuShares) which are structured as a direct democracy on its blockchain. Nu, despite being merely a democratic simulation, can do many things traditional democracies can. In particular, it can issue currency. Stable democracies have a much better record of maintaining currencies than authoritarian regimes. Accordingly, Nu can only succeed in its mission of issuing stable currencies over the long term if it nurtures and upholds democratic values. We must understand what democracy is, what authoritarianism is, and expel the authoritarians from among us. We have succeeded in implementing a robust blockchain democracy that is resilient in the face of authoritarian assaults. Nu’s principle failure has been to appoint custodians that exhibited authoritarian values. Nu’s authoritarian custodians have exhibited a pattern of coming from cultures and nations with authoritarian tendencies, specifically China and the United States.

I just posted this in Reddit, in case you would like to upvote it or comment on it there:

I picked out that sentence, but could have picked others. I believe that Phoenix/JordanLee is insane

1 Like

If you are unable to see that what the United States did here was authoritarian, you might be an authoritarian yourself, and we ought to know that. Thank you for your disclosure.

Since my name was invoked, I will respond both to provide some illumination around Augeas as well as share my current perspective on Nu.

I encourage readers of this post who are not familiar with the events of mid 2016 to research the conditions under which the Augeas blockchain was launched, specifically the timeline, and not just take Phoenix’s viewpoint as truth.

Phoenix has now gone from labeling the minority shareholders those as “authoritarian” (ironic, as they were in the minority) labeled that rebellion as “Augeas” even though Augeas did not emerge until October of 2016, months after the peg broke, and is now drawing parallels to me as an authoritarian leader who kills.

The beauty of the virtual world is that it’s infinte. Augeas operates in a different space – there is no physical territory to battle over or violence. Augeas was established by awarding AugeasShares to members of Nu that had a pattern of voting in the minority. These AugeasShares shares were not forced on people at gunpoint or under any threat of violence, rather they were created and handed out – to be used, or not to be used by those that received them.

After being regularly attacked on this messageboard, those that support Augeas have found more hospitable community members on the Peercoin boards and chat room.

I would also encourage any new readers to make up their own minds about if Nu is truly a Distributed Autonomous Organization, or even a Democracy that is representative of the population of community participants.

Several important events to review:

  • the establishment of the “Chief of Liquidity Operations” position
  • the sudden appearance of substantial voting power that pushed that motion and others over 51%
  • the use of B&C Exchange funds to support Nu, without any explicit motion or authorization
  • the disbandment of FLOT
  • no answer as to the facts behind the “stolen 200 million NSR” that compelled the Chief of Liquidity Operations to necessitate a Nu 4.0 release

There are a litany of many other questions that have gone unanswered by Phoenix over the past 9 months or so. Some community members may rekindle them here.

Despite my early optimism in this project and the promise of both the technology and distributed nature of it, my conclusion is that it was never decentralized – in that despite widespread community support for some tremendous ideas raised on this blog, for whatever reason, if Phoenix or JordanLee didn’t like it, they never came to pass, or were outvoted by sheer force of shares on the blockchain.

Please review the primary source material available on this message board and come to your own conclusions – about Nu, about Augeas, about Phoenix and/or JordanLee and about myself and the facts and opinions that I’ve just asserted.

I am tempted to engage in a debate as to rights of a sovereign terriority to maintain its borders - but that is a debate for another forum.

The only issue here, on a Nu forum, is Nu itself. That Phoenix/JordanLee sees parallels with Nu and US border issues is an indulgence that should be kept to himself.

Indeed, what optimal immigration policy looks like should be a debate for another forum. What should be debated here is proper process. I mentioned it precisely to stimulate a discussion about what due process looks like, because Nu requires custodians that understand it. A discussion will serve to educate the people in our community as well as illuminate who understands due process and who doesn’t.

So, let’s look at the US ban on travelers from 7 countries that was instituted on January 27th though the lens of due process and contract law. A democratic sovereign cannot do anything they want at any time like an authoritarian sovereign is apt to do.

A US court, playing the advocate of law and due process in this case, ruled that the plaintiffs “have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order.” While the plaintiffs are actually US states and not individual persons from the 7 countries involved, let’s talk about the injury to the individuals. Consider a theoretical Abbas, an Iranian who in 2007 struck a deal with the US government to become a permanent resident of the United States. This means he has the right to reside permanently in the United States and has the obligations of a permanent resident, such as the payment of tax based on that residency. In view of this agreement, Abbas acquires the education and licensing necessary to be a medical assistant within the US regulatory framework, he marries an American, has an American child with his American wife, and purchases a family home in the United States. Abbas has built his life on the agreement he made with the US government in 2007. In 2017, the arbitrary revocation of this agreement, originally deemed as “permanent”, will deny him of his home, family and livelihood. Any why? Is there some pressing security threat from Abbas? No, there was no allegation made against him. No justification for breaking the 2007 permanent agreement can be found. To be sure, such justifications are found as a matter of routine. Let’s imagine some other permanent resident is convicted of murder in the course of due process. Now he is a security threat or a long term financial burden on the US. Such people, regardless of their status as permanent residents, are in some cases deported as a part of appropriate legal and court proceedings.

But no, in the case of Abbas, in a democracy with equality and due process, the USA doesn’t have an arbitrary right “to maintain its borders” by preventing Abbas from entering, precisely because it has made an important, prior agreement with Abbas about the matter of his US residency. It has to be bound by its agreement.

Similarly, though Nu may also be a sovereign, it also must abide by the agreements it has made with customers. The most important of these is that customers may sell NuBits for $1, minus 0.5% for a trading spread. This agreement cannot be broken arbitrarily, even if you understand Nu as a sovereign entity. It could only be broken through due process. Due process for breaking the peg would need to include proving that NuShares are not salable for any amount, however tiny. This was not done, among other major omissions. Therefore, due process was not followed by Nu custodians in the matter of the peg abandonment nearly a year ago.

We need to talk about this, because if you can’t agree that arbitrarily excluding Abbas from the USA is a violation of due process, we can’t trust you to support due process in a role of Nu custodian, or any other trusted role within Nu.

You have illustrated a point of confusion so many on this forum have. Nu is certainly not a democracy that is representative of the population of community participants. Community participants are foreigners to Nu. They are not NuCitizens (aka NuShares), which can only live on the blockchain. The forum is an unsuitable framework for a democracy, while a Peershare like Nu is an ideal vehicle for a democratic simulation. People animating NuCitizens may read the words of foreigners and that communication may influence their voting and the course of the Nu democracy, but that is the only method by which anything that happens here has an impact on the Nu democracy. It is comparable to a Cambodian living in Cambodia crying foul about not being allowed to participate in Canadian elections. A Cambodian can’t participate directly because he isn’t a Canadian citizen. The only role the Cambodian can play is to try to persuade Canadian citizens how to vote. Similarly, a forum participant is not a NuCitizen, therefore, no forum participant has any right to control the direction of the Nu network, because they are foreigners.

An uninformed populace is death to democracy. Similarly, a sharebase that discusses issues soley using motions on the blockchain is death to distributed consensus.


I think the focus for Nu need to be on process and incentives to participate into a process, not necessarily what morally is right or wrong or what people believe. Also not sure about the comparisons and generalisations about where people come from. Although I believe there is a learning curve in starting a democracy for both the citizens and the government everyone would be able to educate themselves on it and monetary incentives are well known and understood in almost every culture.

Groups of actors and incentives
Let’s talk about these incentives. A shareholder buys shares to obtain profit right? There are shareholders who are just in it for a quick buck, daytraders and the likes and you have shareholders who are investing for the long haul (6 months+ in cryptoland). There are also people who don’t hold shares but would be willing to provide services. They all typically behave differently and would be sensitive to different incentives.

The first group would typically be a bad custodian even if they have large stakes temporarily. They are motivated to make a quick buck, not to support the network in the long run. Trusting them with a decision to sell large amounts of shares would likely result in issues. Most of them would help themselves first and foremost and wouldn’t take any actions which would reduce their holdings in the short term.

The second group, investors, is potentially a better custodian. They look to gain from their investment over a longer period and would be more likely prepared to take short term hit to support the coin in order to gain confidence and trust which is likely to pay off in the longer run.

The third group doesn’t have shares but is happy to exchange their time for e.g. shares or monetary incentives. With the right mix of incentives, typically different from the others, they can be valuable for either one-off processes or relatively low to medium risk and/or easily transferable ongoing processes/services.

However the first two groups, also acting as custodian protecting the peg are faced with a disincentive when they have to follow the process which is likely to hurt them by the diminishing value of their shares. So I believe some tweaks are required in the custodian model to ensure that any disincentives by following process as a custodian are clearly offset in a way which keeps the shareholder comfortable and prevents fear. Only then it would work.

Learnings and examples from outside of Nu
Let’s look outside of Nu. In the non-crypto world there are sweets and sours. The sours are the police and military and some other institutions which have been founded by governments to ensure citizens and residents behave according to process even if that is not always in their best interest, short term or long term, but it usually serves the wider community.

Nu doesn’t have (fortunately) has police, prisons or military to make people do things or punish them if they don’t. So the focus within Nu will have to be that any disincentives to follow process will need to be offset by adequate incentives. I believe we should spend more time into determining that to strengthen the value of Nu. There are some major roadblock there as it requires 100% transparency in the network and with the shareholders in a custodian role. This may not be possible and may vary for each individual.

Will give some examples to illustrate which ways disincentives to follow process can be offset.
Any custodian should be provably invested in the network (look at Dash their model regarding hosting masternodes) and obtain rewards based on the performance in executing process. In Nu’s model funds can be held in multisig addresses looked after by other custodians who should also rewarded in ways that motivates them to follow process. This can be done by a monthly payment which would be stopped if they don’t respond or act according to the contracted process.

The challenge in this is to build a model where all parties would always end up putting the Nu Networks interests over their own selfish interests. This requires a kind of KPI model which is used in many companies to ensure managers and directors do what their shareholders or boards want them to do.

To do that properly is no easy feat and many companies have failed and provided perverse incentives or non-transparent favours to some with all the negative consequences for the business as a whole. But I believe it is the only way to build proper governance without requiring force. It won’t be perfect and the system would need to be tweaked and adjusted as it grows and becomes more complex.
The trick is to minimize the impact and occurrence of the risks that a custodian acts selfish at the cost of the shareholders.

Food for thought.

1 Like

This is true and relevant. We found that NuShare holders generally did not have an understanding of how to conduct liquidity operations. That is alright, so long as they elect an expert to make decisions about liquidity operations.

I believe asking NuShare holders to manage park rates (interest rates) is beyond their ability to do effectively. Shareholders should generally elect experts and let them make specific decisions.

Using a data feed is kind of like voting for a political party and letting the party work out the details. That is the future of Nu.

I’d like to give a more thoughtful response later, because you bring up some important points about proper incentives as the best government. That is true, but it is difficult to implement incentives in the varied and novel scenarios custodians face as they go about their work. To handle these one-off situations, we need integrity and good process. The incentive should be that you will be monetarily rewarded for demonstrating integrity and good process as a custodian. Conversely, you will be fired if you demonstrate authoritarian tendencies as a Nu custodian. So, we need to create understanding and recognition of what is expected by shareholders of custodians.

Certainly we should do as much as possible guiding and controlling behavior by offering effective incentives. Indeed there are many aspects of the protocol and and network that provide good incentives. They can always be tuned and developed, of course.

Authoritarian my ass. Trump is the only thing standing in the way of the US turning into a ****hole like Sweden and these other European countries. They freely let these refugees into their countries trying to act like nice tolerant people, however these people had no intention of adapting and fitting in. Instead, they’re trying to take over. Violence and raping has skyrocketed, there are grenade attacks in the streets and the local media is trying to cover it up so their citizens are not properly informed of what is happening.

It’s so bad that an electric company had to stop servicing the area of Malmo because they’re afraid for the safety of their employees. They’re literally being sent back to the stone age as we speak. There’s no way in hell I want these backward people coming to my country. If the travel ban gives enough time to setup proper vetting procedures to prevent these crazies from coming over here to cause mayhem and destruction then so be it. If Clinton had not been stopped, the US would have been their next target. Besides, it is within the president’s legal right to protect American citizens in this way…

[quote]U.S. Code § 1182 (f)

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.[/quote]


Seek professional help, phoenix.


That is not enough. There need to be a monetary disincentive e.g. Shares or NBT at stake.

Bold statement, even people with proper visas? I’m with you that better vetting of non-visa holders needs to take place and separate the economic refugees from the real refugees who has been chased from their homeland. Not sure why that need to take so long though.

I’m mainly referring to the latter, the people who we don’t know anything about.

I don’t like talking politics, but I guess if USA continue to degrade by letting too many low quality immigrants into your country, China may challenge USA’s status in future. Trump is saving USA, from the view of many Chinese. Hitler is bad, but another extreme is also terrible.

How many refugees does USA want to accept? 1 Billion? There are 7 billion people on this planet, I guess majority of them prefer living in developed countries if they have chance.

This is based on a set of assumptions which are opinion, only.

The problem is not terrorism, it is jihad. In that respects, Trump’s ban is too narrow

Jihad is struggle to spread the Sharia, and to subdue those who do not recognise Allah as the sole god. There is jihad by politics, jihad by demography, and jihad by terror

Jihad by terror will not bring down western or non-Muslim civilisations, but the other two will, if not checked

Mohammed gave orders 1400 years ago, presented as Allah’s holy word to ensure compliance, that Muslims (bandits for the main part) who were outnumbered in a town were to stay low, and wait for reinforcements. Only when reinforced should Muslims attempt to take the town. This is why Muslims in small numbers do not wage jihad - they are following Mohammed’s instructions. In small numbers, Muslims can remain in a passive state indefinitely

When Muslims rise above a certain strength, they move to jihad. Modern Muslims are obviously not bandits, but they follow the strategic and tactical orders that Mohammed laid out 1400 years ago, presented as the word of Allah, which replicates the same effect. These order’s are laid out in the Koran (the words of Allah, i.e. Mohammed) and the Hadiths (which describe what Mohammed did after he spoke these words of Allah)

Muslims cannot be negotiated with, because they worship Allah, and Allah’s word (i.e. Mohammed’s orders) will always take precedence over the views of non-Muslims (“kaffirs”). The penalty for Muslims who argue with Allah is death in this world (e.g. honour killings) and hellfire in the next. The only way to contain Islam and sharia is not to import (more) Muslims.

Trumps gets this, but for politically correct reasons, he is presenting this as a terrorism issue. That is a mistake, in my view.

I do not know the U.S. policy for Muslims aleady living in the U.S., but I am not aware that Trump is proposing that American Muslims be deported. But there are many historical precedents for doing something similar; for example, Germans were deported (or interned) from Britain in 1939.

The U.S. is based on the rule of law, and if Trumps is entitled to act as he has done under U.S. law, then there is no issue legally. If he is not so entitled, then he needs to change the law. If an individual loses out due to a prior agreement with the U.S., they may be entitled to compensation or other legal redress - but that is not a reason to not prevent jihad and sharia. The duty of an American President is to defend Americans, not foreigners.


There are two possibilities:

  1. West countries people are so warm hearted &innocent & noble that they believe the people outsides are also of high quality like them. West countries are importing Muslims and call it diversity, while Muslims want to unite the spirit and oppress other cultural.

  2. White people don’t like having babies so you need the labors from outsides, in the name of diversity.

I am curious when “diversity” becomes the justice standard in west countries? Well. Russia and China are just waiting for the chance of the west’s fall due to diversity. It seems winning the cold war is not the end, the game is continuing.

It’s time for human being to apply the anti exotic species invasion policy on human being themselves.:smile: If we still respect the rules of the earth mother.