Lifestyle > Train of Thought
The new white nationalism - WHAT we stand for
virtuoso:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on February 05, 2009, 12:47:53 AM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Jared Taylor on February 04, 2009, 07:40:16 PM ---
--- Quote from: Kill on February 02, 2009, 02:50:14 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Kill on February 02, 2009, 02:50:14 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Kill on February 02, 2009, 02:50:14 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Please read my web site and you can see some of the stuff I've posted. And no, ACT scores are not the basis.
--- End quote ---
again, i'll see about it when i got some time on my hands.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Kill on February 02, 2009, 02:50:14 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on February 05, 2009, 12:47:53 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on February 05, 2009, 12:47:53 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on February 05, 2009, 12:47:53 AM ---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?
--- End quote ---
Go to the scripture, then.
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on February 05, 2009, 12:47:53 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on February 05, 2009, 12:47:53 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
I am not ignoring Western violence. But the scale on which Muslim violence took place outweighs it. You just aren't aware.
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on February 05, 2009, 12:47:53 AM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version