The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for

[Jared Taylor]

Do you think that Muslim hatred toward the west is a strictly religious phenomenon?

Religion is an important part of it, in large part because Islam has always been relatively intolerant of non-believers, and anyone who is critical of Islam. To be fair, there was a time when Christianity was worse, but modern Islam is still a highly intolerant religion as it exists today. Religious hatred is a very big part of it.

But no, religion is not the only factor. A lot of it has to do with the decline of the Muslim world from the heights that it reached from the 8th to 13th centuries. They're bitter that they've been surpassed by non-Muslims. Then there's the fact that most of the Muslim world got very lucky (they happened to be sitting on oil), which means that they have never had to do much work to make money. Anyone will tell you that people in that sort of position tend to become childish and out of touch with reality.

If so, how do years of western infiltration and exploitation of Arab and Muslim countries figure in their antagonism toward the west?.

Western demand for oil is, relatively speaking, relatively recent in history. The Muslim world has been antagonistic towards the West since long before our economies became dependent upon oil. Anyway, I am also curious to know how you define exploitation.

You also don't mention that violent forms of resistance practiced by Muslims are far surpassed by Western violence. Would you also attribute Western violence to the inherent evil of various western religions or cultures?

In what way? Because of the fact that whenever we bomb enemy targets, lots of civilians tend to get killed?

Also, here's the thing - Muslim violence goes back a very, VERY long time. If we were to tally up total kills for Islam, the Muslims have surpassed us by quite a bit.

[I TO DA GEEZY]

So Muslim hatred toward the west has nothing to do with what the west has been doing in the middle east for the last couple of decades?A US sponsored coup in Iran to install a brutal dictator? The support for dictatorships like Saudi Arabia that make sure the money from oil goes to the west-not to the people of the region-has nothing to do with it? British occupation? U.S support for Israeli occupation and aggression ? US support for monsters like Sadam?.  None of this matters? you wanna tell me Muslims don't mind the robbery and destruction and all they care about is religion? It takes a leap of faith. Even if we grant that there is intolerance in the Muslim religion (as there is in virtually any religion), the west did nothing to contribute to Muslim intolerance with its destructive actions?. I guess Bush was right then, they DO hate you for your freedom.Come on man.

Secondly,western violence is far superior in its "achievements" if only for the tremendous imbalance of power the west enjoys. I don't think anyone would dispute it. As for tallying up total kills throughout history, do you also include inter-European warfare for hundreds of years and the genocide of millions of native Americans?

But you haven't answered my question. Why don't you attribute western violence to western cultures and religions like you do with Islam?

[Kill]

Ok, you're not a Nazi Jared but you get a lot of stuff wrong.

(2.) Islam - It is the position of NCF/AmRen that the religion of Islam is a very wicked and intolerant faith which aims to become dominant over the entire world. The modern-day jihadist movement represents the most violent and ambitious incarnation of Islam yet, but NCF/AmRen believes that Islam is fundamentally a very dangerous belief system that is antithetical to human progress. Right now, many countries in Europe are, in a slow death wish, inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities, many of whom hate the West and want to replace it with some sort of caliphate. NCF/AmRen rejects the traditional anti-Semitic white nationalists who believe Jews are the enemy and are willing to cooperate with Muslims (as David Duke did in 2006 when he met with Iranian President Ahmoud Ahmadinejad). We believe that right now, the greatest threat to Western white European/American civilization comes from Islamic immigrants. We support a policy of deporting Muslims who espouse jihadist views, and limiting Islamic immigration generally as much as possible.

Islam is rotten to the core, but so is Christianity. Yes, Islam (and most specifically Islamism) is a prime example of how self-righteous, pugnacious and plain dangerous religion can be, but religion in general is inimical to progress in contemporary society. The world's least religious societies are its most progressive ones, and the problem in Islamic societies might partly be the specific religion itself, but to a great extent it's the degree of religiousness in that society. If you compare Turkey to the Lebanon, you should get the picture. And I'll have to go with I TO DA GEEZY in asking how you can attribute all the wrong done in the Muslim world to Islam and don't do the same for western culture. That's a double standard and a loophole for people like you to support religious conservatism. If you were consequent, you'd be a strict atheist.

Secondly, apparently you don't know the first thing about immigration politics (and policies) in Europe. What you're right about is that, sadly, a lot of European Muslims have trouble coping with Western beliefs and that's a very serious problem which undoubtedly is related to Islam itself. However, the statement that European countries are "inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities" is way more off than the statement that you are a Nazi.

(5.) White supremacy - It is the position of NCF/AmRen that there is no scale on which racial differences can all be ranked so as to draw across-the-board conclusions about racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’. t is certainly true that in some important traits—intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease—whites can be considered ‘superior’ to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be ‘superior’ to whites.

Intelligence? What are you basing that one on, ACT scores? If there is any evidence that there is any biological aspect to the Asian > White > Black issue in the IQ department, I'd like to see it. The resistance-to-disease-thing seems kinda new to me as well. And since, from what I know, about 90% or something of genetic diversity among our species are exclusive to Africa, this seems to make little sense from a biological perspective, unless it was the 10% best genes that made it out of Africa. If so, show me. 

(6.) Religion - Although most of NCF/AmRen's members are white Protestants, our religion does not figure in any way in our arguments. Our views are not based upon a perceived "Christian identity"; they are based upon scientific research and statistics. Our white nationalism is a secular, scientific nationalism. It is not like 1940s European fascism (linked closely with Christianity in many countries) in this sense. Theological explanations do not figure in our views of blacks, Muslims, Latinos, or other minorities.

I see that, but they should, negatively. If you don't condemn the Bible as much as you condemn the Qu'Ran, you got a credibility problem. The fact that the Qu'Ran is even slightly more belligerent and that at this very point in history, "Christian" countries are culturally ahead of Islamic ones doesn't take away from the fact that general intolerance and a pretty repetitive ongoing clash with science is as fundamental a problem for white Protestants as it is for your run-of-the-mill Al-Qaida basket case.

[Jared Taylor]

So Muslim hatred toward the west has nothing to do with what the west has been doing in the middle east for the last couple of decades?A US sponsored coup in Iran to install a brutal dictator? The support for dictatorships like Saudi Arabia that make sure the money from oil goes to the west-not to the people of the region-has nothing to do with it? British occupation? U.S support for Israeli occupation and aggression ? US support for monsters like Sadam?.  None of this matters? you wanna tell me Muslims don't mind the robbery and destruction and all they care about is religion? It takes a leap of faith. Even if we grant that there is intolerance in the Muslim religion (as there is in virtually any religion), the west did nothing to contribute to Muslim intolerance with its destructive actions?. I guess Bush was right then, they DO hate you for your freedom.Come on man.

First of all, I am not a Bush supporter.

Anyway, you refuse to answer my main question - is it not true that Islamic civilization is pretty fucked-up? And that most of what they've been through is their own fault? And Muslim hatred for the West certainly does go back way before most of the shit you've listsed (all of which took place in the 20th century). Islamic teachings have stipulated that the goal of Muslims must be to expand Islam and kill infidels. They would hate us regardless of what we did or did not do.

Anyway, the thing is...what about the stuff we did to HELP Muslims? Aside from the fact that I'm of the opinion colonialism probably helped those illiterate savages far more than it hurt them, what about the U.S. aiding the Afghan Mujahideen? Or saving Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from destruction? Aiding Albanian Muslims in Kosovo? It's weird how none of that stuff seems to figure in their world view.

Secondly,western violence is far superior in its "achievements" if only for the tremendous imbalance of power the west enjoys. I don't think anyone would dispute it. As for tallying up total kills throughout history, do you also include inter-European warfare for hundreds of years and the genocide of millions of native Americans?

I meant Muslim killings of Christians, or other non-Muslims. The Armenian Genocide alone makes most European genocides look pretty tame.

But you haven't answered my question. Why don't you attribute western violence to western cultures and religions like you do with Islam?

Because right now, most of the West lives under civilized democracies in which criticism and free speech is tolerated. Whereas most of the Muslim world is in roughly the same place we were 500 years ago, if not farther back.

Answer me this: Is it not true that Western democracies do not go to war with each other? Actually, democracies in general don't go to war with each other.

[Jared Taylor]

Islam is rotten to the core, but so is Christianity. Yes, Islam (and most specifically Islamism) is a prime example of how self-righteous, pugnacious and plain dangerous religion can be, but religion in general is inimical to progress in contemporary society. The world's least religious societies are its most progressive ones, and the problem in Islamic societies might partly be the specific religion itself, but to a great extent it's the degree of religiousness in that society. If you compare Turkey to the Lebanon, you should get the picture. And I'll have to go with I TO DA GEEZY in asking how you can attribute all the wrong done in the Muslim world to Islam and don't do the same for western culture. That's a double standard and a loophole for people like you to support religious conservatism. If you were consequent, you'd be a strict atheist.

I'm actually not terribly religious, though I respect the power of the good Protestant values that built this country. Also, does it ever interest you that so many atheist socialists and Marxists seem more sympathetic to the religious fascist Islamists than they are to the (mostly) secular West?

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion about Christianity. But the fact, which you don't seem to acknowledge, is that Islamic societies are overwhelmingly far more tolerant than Christian societies. Islam does not tolerate criticism, as the Muhammad cartoon controversy and the Salman Rushdie affair shows. It takes FAR more bravery to criticize Islam for the simple fact that there is always a threat of Islamic violence in the background. Criticism of the Bible is available everywhere in America, if you choose not to believe in it. Whereas Islamic governments ban any sort of criticism at all. This is well-documented.

Christianity went through a Reformation. Islam needs to do the same, or it needs to be wiped out. And frankly, I'd prefer the latter.

Secondly, apparently you don't know the first thing about immigration politics (and policies) in Europe. What you're right about is that, sadly, a lot of European Muslims have trouble coping with Western beliefs and that's a very serious problem which undoubtedly is related to Islam itself. However, the statement that European countries are "inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities" is way more off than the statement that you are a Nazi.

You mean they aren't inviting lots of Muslims? That's odd. If you ever want to check the BNP web site, you'll find the truth about that. I am aware that some European governments are in the habits of disowning the policies which let these savages in their countries, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

Intelligence? What are you basing that one on, ACT scores? If there is any evidence that there is any biological aspect to the Asian > White > Black issue in the IQ department, I'd like to see it. The resistance-to-disease-thing seems kinda new to me as well. And since, from what I know, about 90% or something of genetic diversity among our species are exclusive to Africa, this seems to make little sense from a biological perspective, unless it was the 10% best genes that made it out of Africa. If so, show me. 

Please read my web site and you can see some of the stuff I've posted. And no, ACT scores are not the basis.

I see that, but they should, negatively. If you don't condemn the Bible as much as you condemn the Qu'Ran, you got a credibility problem. The fact that the Qu'Ran is even slightly more belligerent and that at this very point in history, "Christian" countries are culturally ahead of Islamic ones doesn't take away from the fact that general intolerance and a pretty repetitive ongoing clash with science is as fundamental a problem for white Protestants as it is for your run-of-the-mill Al-Qaida basket case.

Yes, but again, very few (read: almost none) Christians kill people who disagree with them. Whereas the Islamic world issues death threats to critics on a regular basis. Muhammad himself was known to criticize those who disagreed with him. I'm not aware of Jesus doing that.

[Rugged Monk]

If my hand had free reign and the ability to i'd impose a secular UN dictatorship upon Israel and Palestine and forcefully spoon feed their children a liberal secular enlightenment inter-religious education...I'd encourage inter-faith, bi-racial and bi-cultural relationships and families ......Plus I'd rebuild Solomon's Temple...

Right, but here's the thing: The Israelis would go along with it, while the Palestinians wouldn't. Chances are, you'd be forced to slap the Palestinians around the same way that the Izzies have had to do.

No, we would be forced to slap EVERYBODY around. Israel was founded on terrorism. Palestine adopted terrorism.

[Jared Taylor]

No, we would be forced to slap EVERYBODY around. Israel was founded on terrorism. Palestine adopted terrorism.

No, just the Palestinians. Israel was founded with a need to defend itself against illiterate Islamic savages. The Palestinians, being Muslims, would rather fight than accept a 2-state solution.

[Rugged Monk]

No, we would be forced to slap EVERYBODY around. Israel was founded on terrorism. Palestine adopted terrorism.

No, just the Palestinians. Israel was founded with a need to defend itself against illiterate Islamic savages. The Palestinians, being Muslims, would rather fight than accept a 2-state solution.

Well...regardless, for their own good my illuminated leviathan would slap them all around and forcefully relocate screaming settlers and Palestinians alike inorder to establish boarders; rather than allow the periodic culling of the Palestinian population and the cycle of violence to continue.


Zionism is good, but Shaolin Illuminati Click is for the babies.

[Hey Ma]

Shaolin Illuminati Click is for the babies.

It's pretty much necessary for our world to survive without ignorance being the default setting for human beings.

[I TO DA GEEZY]

You see there's a difference between actual history and parallel universes. You argue they WOULD hate us "regardless of what we did or did not do". This is like saying Muslim hatred for the west is pathological and cannot be explained by real world events and interests, it's a very convenient ideological concoction.But there's a problem, if Muslim hatred for the west is independent of real world concerns(like having national resources and personal freedom stolen) then why do Muslims-some of the most religiously fanatical ones incidentally-cooperate with US strategic interests?(Like the Saudis and once even Osama, as you probably know).Remember you argue real world concerns don't enter their calculus, otherwise what I've listed(or "what WE do") would be very relevant.

Secondly,there certainly existed an amount of antagonism between religions and nations throughout history, Muslims and Arabs were no exception, but does this prove their hatred was, or is now, independent of real world interests?

As for fault. It's interesting how you measure faults. So the 1000 something Palestinians killed by my government lately, using U.S weapons, brought it on themselves?...Yeah I know my government uses arguments like this, but serious people know exactly to whom those bombs and planes belong. Normal people usually attribute fault to those who pull the trigger and kill 300 children, in what has become an Israeli controlled prison.

As for Muslim violence. If you limit history to those cases which support the thesis that Muslims are more violent then naturally you won't have a problem. Since, under these constraints, you don't need to face hundreds of years of Western violence.

And my question still remains unanswered. The fact Western countries are democracies has little to do with the argument.Also,the fact most western countries share strategic interests-and hence don't fight wars with each other-doesn't prove anything. Your argument was this: Muslims commit acts of violence, thus the Muslim religion is evil. Why don't Western acts of violence prove the evil of Western culture and the religions of which it consists?

[virtuoso]

You see there's a difference between actual history and parallel universes. You argue they WOULD hate us "regardless of what we did or did not do". This is like saying Muslim hatred for the west is pathological and cannot be explained by real world events and interests, it's a very convenient ideological concoction.But there's a problem, if Muslim hatred for the west is independent of real world concerns(like having national resources and personal freedom stolen) then why do Muslims-some of the most religiously fanatical ones incidentally-cooperate with US strategic interests?(Like the Saudis and once even Osama, as you probably know).Remember you argue real world concerns don't enter their calculus, otherwise what I've listed(or "what WE do") would be very relevant.

Secondly,there certainly existed an amount of antagonism between religions and nations throughout history, Muslims and Arabs were no exception, but does this prove their hatred was, or is now, independent of real world interests?

As for fault. It's interesting how you measure faults. So the 1000 something Palestinians killed by my government lately, using U.S weapons, brought it on themselves?...Yeah I know my government uses arguments like this, but serious people know exactly to whom those bombs and planes belong. Normal people usually attribute fault to those who pull the trigger and kill 300 children, in what has become an Israeli controlled prison.

As for Muslim violence. If you limit history to those cases which support the thesis that Muslims are more violent then naturally you won't have a problem. Since, under these constraints, you don't need to face hundreds of years of Western violence.

And my question still remains unanswered. The fact Western countries are democracies has little to do with the argument.Also,the fact most western countries share strategic interests-and hence don't fight wars with each other-doesn't prove anything. Your argument was this: Muslims commit acts of violence, thus the Muslim religion is evil. Why don't Western acts of violence prove the evil of Western culture and the religions of which it consists?

But but it's not like they actually targeted the palestinians, they were targeting Hamas, it's just the palestinians got in the way. However back to the real world,you see, the fact is, they all do it, all target civilian infrastructure sometimes, terrorism is needed to turn the populous against one another in many cases. and indeed it's what NATO were doing all across Yugoslavia. Seperate to that. the americans were using white phosphorous, the israelis were to, there were many reports of israeli soliders locking palestinians inside schools and then bombing the schools.  Also god only knows what the british and americans and others were and have been doing in Iraq, we will NEVER get the full truth of that.  The west have pulverised Irsq into a state in which the very core of it has been ripped apart, the israeli ruling elite through a methodology of terrorism prior to the inception of the state of israel and since then have turned Gaza into a giant concentration camp.

It's also a warped mindset that would justify hatred towards muslims by using the excuse of muslim savagery, when even ignoring the savagery outlined above. Modern day muslim savagery has largely been led by hardcore dictators installed by western intelligence. However if we are to look at savagery further back in time, what about the savagery of europeans wiping out the aborigines, the indians, heck, savagery....the burning at the stake of anyone deemed to be a witch, the list is endless. 

 

[Kill]

Islam is rotten to the core, but so is Christianity. Yes, Islam (and most specifically Islamism) is a prime example of how self-righteous, pugnacious and plain dangerous religion can be, but religion in general is inimical to progress in contemporary society. The world's least religious societies are its most progressive ones, and the problem in Islamic societies might partly be the specific religion itself, but to a great extent it's the degree of religiousness in that society. If you compare Turkey to the Lebanon, you should get the picture. And I'll have to go with I TO DA GEEZY in asking how you can attribute all the wrong done in the Muslim world to Islam and don't do the same for western culture. That's a double standard and a loophole for people like you to support religious conservatism. If you were consequent, you'd be a strict atheist.

I'm actually not terribly religious, though I respect the power of the good Protestant values that built this country. Also, does it ever interest you that so many atheist socialists and Marxists seem more sympathetic to the religious fascist Islamists than they are to the (mostly) secular West?

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion about Christianity. But the fact, which you don't seem to acknowledge, is that Islamic societies are overwhelmingly far more tolerant than Christian societies. Islam does not tolerate criticism, as the Muhammad cartoon controversy and the Salman Rushdie affair shows. It takes FAR more bravery to criticize Islam for the simple fact that there is always a threat of Islamic violence in the background. Criticism of the Bible is available everywhere in America, if you choose not to believe in it. Whereas Islamic governments ban any sort of criticism at all. This is well-documented.

Christianity went through a Reformation. Islam needs to do the same, or it needs to be wiped out. And frankly, I'd prefer the latter.

erm, as for the part highlighted in red, i'll just assume you wanted to say the opposite. I do acknowledge that, it's too obvious for any sane person to deny. i don't see where marxism comes in in this discussion, i'm not a marxist in case you thought so. and the thing about atheists being overly tolerant when it comes to backwards-ass islamic countries where you get a good old stoning for insulting allah and women are treated like cattle...yes, that unfortunately happens to be true. it's by far not all atheists (read Sam Harris' chapter about Islam in "The End of Faith", you'd kinda like it), but some of them do have that problem. i won't go into why i think that is now.

however, none of that makes protestantism or any version of christianity good. the bible is only slightly less stupid than the qu'ran (new testament) or pretty much equal (old testament), as far as i can tell. of course you will find some universal words of wisdom in both of these books, but at the same time, both are full of shit. but what i mean is this: islamic countries are less tolerant because of religion, (predominately) christian countries are more tolerant despite religion. the more christian a certain place is, the more tolerance issues it generally has, not only related to people critisizing christianity, but also when it comes to other things bible freaks consider "wrong" for some reason, be that sex before marriage, Darwinian science or homosexuality (yeah, interestingly, religiousness usually goes with the idea of being in the position to judge other people's sexual preferences).

the more we stepped away from traditional christian values in the west, the more we advanced towards modern society.

Secondly, apparently you don't know the first thing about immigration politics (and policies) in Europe. What you're right about is that, sadly, a lot of European Muslims have trouble coping with Western beliefs and that's a very serious problem which undoubtedly is related to Islam itself. However, the statement that European countries are "inviting hoards of Muslims into their cities" is way more off than the statement that you are a Nazi.

You mean they aren't inviting lots of Muslims? That's odd. If you ever want to check the BNP web site, you'll find the truth about that. I am aware that some European governments are in the habits of disowning the policies which let these savages in their countries, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

I'll see what your website says when i get round to it. of course, european countries take up refugees when there's a good reason which i'm sure you wouldn't critisize. but you're suggesting that we're a bunch of self-destructive lunatics euphorically flooding our own gates with hoards of barbarian warriors trying to take down our societies cause we're suicidal like that. i live right in the middle of europe and i see what's going on.

Intelligence? What are you basing that one on, ACT scores? If there is any evidence that there is any biological aspect to the Asian > White > Black issue in the IQ department, I'd like to see it. The resistance-to-disease-thing seems kinda new to me as well. And since, from what I know, about 90% or something of genetic diversity among our species are exclusive to Africa, this seems to make little sense from a biological perspective, unless it was the 10% best genes that made it out of Africa. If so, show me. 

Please read my web site and you can see some of the stuff I've posted. And no, ACT scores are not the basis.

again, i'll see about it when i got some time on my hands.

I see that, but they should, negatively. If you don't condemn the Bible as much as you condemn the Qu'Ran, you got a credibility problem. The fact that the Qu'Ran is even slightly more belligerent and that at this very point in history, "Christian" countries are culturally ahead of Islamic ones doesn't take away from the fact that general intolerance and a pretty repetitive ongoing clash with science is as fundamental a problem for white Protestants as it is for your run-of-the-mill Al-Qaida basket case.

Yes, but again, very few (read: almost none) Christians kill people who disagree with them. Whereas the Islamic world issues death threats to critics on a regular basis. Muhammad himself was known to criticize those who disagreed with him. I'm not aware of Jesus doing that.

i'm just saying the bible won't be more helpful than the qu'ran to somebody trying to stomach evolution 'n shit. that's what i mean: the west is (fortunately) way ahead of the islamic world, but that doesn't make christianity an intelligent thing cause it's still inimical to progress.

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

Its always funny how obvious racists back-track in order to not appear racist. This is only a tactic to make their racist view points seem logical lol.

[Jared Taylor]

This is like saying Muslim hatred for the west is pathological and cannot be explained by real world events and interests, it's a very convenient ideological concoction.

It's not concocted. You are deluding yourself if you don't think Islam thrives upon the need to hate and have an "enemy" to blame. Islam as a religion is based upon conquest of non-believers.

The real-world events for which Muslims hate us may have happened, but they're mostly an excuse, not the cause.

then why do Muslims-some of the most religiously fanatical ones incidentally-cooperate with US strategic interests?(Like the Saudis and once even Osama, as you probably know).Remember you argue real world concerns don't enter their calculus, otherwise what I've listed(or "what WE do") would be very relevant. 

First of all, I don't group all Muslim extremists in the same group. Just because I think Islam is a violent, intolerant religion doesn't mean I think all Muslims are as fanatical as others. I do think most Muslims can't be trusted to stand up for what is right, just as most Catholics can't be.

Muslims cooperate with the U.S. when it sees fit, but that doesn't mean they aren't looking to screw us in other ways. The Saudis are funding Wahabist extremism (often, against us) even as they work with us. Part of the problem is that people like Bush used to try and convince themselves that Muslims don't want to destroy us. The Saudis are being strategic (their pussy army couldn't stop us if it tried, anyway, seeing as it relies on our funding), but that doesn't mean they like us.

Secondly,there certainly existed an amount of antagonism between religions and nations throughout history, Muslims and Arabs were no exception, but does this prove their hatred was, or is now, independent of real world interests? 

Go to the scripture, then.

So the 1000 something Palestinians killed by my government lately, using U.S weapons, brought it on themselves?...Yeah I know my government uses arguments like this, but serious people know exactly to whom those bombs and planes belong. Normal people usually attribute fault to those who pull the trigger and kill 300 children, in what has become an Israeli controlled prison.

The Palestinians elected Hamas. It's a "prison" because they support terrorism and don't want to live in peace with the Israelis. In guerrilla warfare, the line between insurgents and civilians is sketchy. But the Palestinians are a useless people, anyway. Why should I feel sympathy?

As for Muslim violence. If you limit history to those cases which support the thesis that Muslims are more violent then naturally you won't have a problem. Since, under these constraints, you don't need to face hundreds of years of Western violence.

I am not ignoring Western violence. But the scale on which Muslim violence took place outweighs it. You just aren't aware.

And my question still remains unanswered. The fact Western countries are democracies has little to do with the argument.Also,the fact most western countries share strategic interests-and hence don't fight wars with each other-doesn't prove anything. Your argument was this: Muslims commit acts of violence, thus the Muslim religion is evil. Why don't Western acts of violence prove the evil of Western culture and the religions of which it consists?

The fact that Western countries don't fight each other proves why their societies are morally superior to Islamic societies. If you can't see that, then you are deluded.

As far as acts of violence goes, Westerners use violence when provoked. If Muslims would not attack us, we'd leave them alone. Whereas Muslims kill civilians and LAUGH about it. How hard is that to figure out?

[I TO DA GEEZY]

Let's get it straight. You argue Muslim hatred is pathological, you say this argument is " not concocted". If so, if their hatred is pathological, how can Muslims-being the pathological haters of the west that they are-how can they be "strategic"? If they hate the west independently of real-world events they would hate it in all circumstances, regardless of more worldly concerns like timing and fear of destruction at the hands of US power. As you concede, they do not fight the west in all circumstances. How do you reconcile  your argument with the fact that crazed Islamic radicals like the Saudis and Osama can be pragmatic and strategic. There is no evidence for pathological Muslim hatred for the west. You wouldn't get pragmatism from the most radical Islamists, if it had been the case.

I don't see how the scriptures prove that Muslim hatred is unrelated to real world interests. Is the old testament any less violent? well, why don't you argue Jews and Christians are pathological haters of infidels then? - You don't argue this cause it's ridiculous to cite scriptures to prove an argument like pathological hatred toward others. Forget the scriptures, how can we even begin to prove something like this? Do you have some special electrodes you attach to Muslims? Seriously, this is the type of argument that is meant not to inform but to confuse and create prejudice.

I find no indication in the historical record that Muslim violence is somehow more lethal than western violence. And the argument about Hamas being elected, thus justifying Israeli crimes against palestinians is equivalent to the following: Israelis electing governments which systematically kill Palestinians and Lebanese (in much larger amounts) justify violence against Israelis. It's ridiculous.

The fact Western countries don't fight each other tells us nothing about their moral superiority, especially in circumstances when the preponderance of violence in the world is perpetrated by the west (specifically by the US) using its overwhelming power. Now, you still are evading the question of why this western violence doesn't prove that the west is evil, if Muslim violence proves that Islam is evil.

As for Westerners using violence only when provoked, I'd like to see the evidence for that. Does provoking include not following the kind of economic policies the US wants? Well if so you have an interesting definition of provocation.If this is your definition then I guess Iranians wanting their national resources DID provoke the US to install a brutal dictator. And you know, Nazi Germany was also a western country, did the Jews provoke the Nazi Holocaust?