PDA

View Full Version : Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women ???



Tomenable
01-07-16, 23:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJkFQohIKNI

Dinarid
02-07-16, 08:26
Because they are Islamophiles. To leftists, everything Christian or European is evil and part of historical imperialism. Anything foreign is always good, but ignore any instances of oppression by Islam/Muslims.

bicicleur
02-07-16, 13:16
Because they are Islamophiles. To leftists, everything Christian or European is evil and part of historical imperialism. Anything foreign is always good, but ignore any instances of oppression by Islam/Muslims.

I agree with that.

Angela
02-07-16, 18:22
What has been created is an equality movement only for pretty, white girls with nice bodies and privileged backgrounds.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the-problem-with-modern-feminism

Gyms, the woman who wrote this piece is either very young or not very informed. (Not to mention that she needs to go back and learn some grammar. I mean, "their" for "they're"? Sorry, but this is like nails on a chalkboard for someone like me. :))

Like a lot of very young women, she takes for granted all the benefits that the women's liberation movement brought her. Without it women like me wouldn't have been able to rise in our professions, women wouldn't have been able to enter certain professions at all, including some blue collar professions, there would be no maternity leave, no flex hours for women with children, no on site nurseries in some large companies, no funded sports teams for my daughter, and on and on. My daughter was raised with the belief and expectation that she could work at any job she liked and for which she had the talent and training, and that training was her right. That wasn't true for all of human history until the last perhaps 100 years. That's a monumental, wonderful change.

Those things benefit Hispanics and African Americans as well as white people.

Also, who would expect thoughtful commentary on feminism from a bubble head like Taylor Swift or Meghan Trainor? They trade on their looks and sexuality and whatever minimal talent they possess. Who would look to them for enlightenment on the subject?

Why doesn't she ask what feminism means to women doctors and lawyers, or women who run a farm, or who work in factories?

That said, she'd get no argument from me about the dumbing down and trivialization of the term and the movement.

As for not being engaged or interested in the plight of women throughout the third world, including Muslim nations, that may be true for the Taylor Swifts of the world, but it's not true for everyone.

Many people, often, but not always women, realize that women can be an extraordinary catalyst for change in a society if they're empowered and motivated. How much change could be brought about if women in these countries had some control over procreation, not having children so young, not having so many, not marrying such closely related men? What if they had some marketable skills and could help support their families, or be independent if they so chose?

These are some very good organizations:

Educating Girls Matters-http://www.educatinggirlsmatters.org/howtohelp.html

This is another list:
http://www.goodnet.org/articles/930

Christy Turlington started one to decrease maternal mortality, so not all pretty women are air heads. :)

There's also Laura Bush's Women's Initiative and Afghan Women's Project. She's also done extraordinary work on literacy, which as a former librarian is very dear to her heart.
http://www.bushcenter.org/explore-our-work/issues/womens-initiative.html

bicicleur
02-07-16, 19:38
Gyms, the woman who wrote this piece is either very young or not very informed. (Not to mention that she needs to go back and learn some grammar. I mean, "their" for "they're"? Sorry, but this is like nails on a chalkboard for someone like me. :))

Like a lot of very young women, she takes for granted all the benefits that the women's liberation movement brought her. Without it women like me wouldn't have been able to rise in our professions, women wouldn't have been able to enter certain professions at all, including some blue collar professions, there would be no maternity leave, no flex hours for women with children, no on site nurseries in some large companies, no funded sports teams for my daughter, and on and on. My daughter was raised with the belief and expectation that she could work at any job she liked and for which she had the talent and training, and that training was her right. That wasn't true for all of human history until the last perhaps 100 years. That's a monumental, wonderful change.

Those things benefit Hispanics and African Americans as well as white people.

Also, who would expect thoughtful commentary on feminism from a bubble head like Taylor Swift or Meghan Trainor? They trade on their looks and sexuality and whatever minimal talent they possess. Who would look to them for enlightenment on the subject?

Why doesn't she ask what feminism means to women doctors and lawyers, or women who run a farm, or who work in factories?

That said, she'd get no argument from me about the dumbing down and trivialization of the term and the movement.

As for not being engaged or interested in the plight of women throughout the third world, including Muslim nations, that may be true for the Taylor Swifts of the world, but it's not true for everyone.

Many people, often, but not always women, realize that women can be an extraordinary catalyst for change in a society if they're empowered and motivated. How much change could be brought about if women in these countries had some control over procreation, not having children so young, not having so many, not marrying such closely related men? What if they had some marketable skills and could help support their families, or be independent if they so chose?

These are some very good organizations:

Educating Girls Matters-http://www.educatinggirlsmatters.org/howtohelp.html

This is another list:
http://www.goodnet.org/articles/930

Christy Turlington started one to decrease maternal mortality, so not all pretty women are air heads. :)

There's also Laura Bush's Women's Initiative and Afghan Women's Project. She's also done extraordinary work on literacy, which as a former librarian is very dear to her heart.
http://www.bushcenter.org/explore-our-work/issues/womens-initiative.html

Feminism should be about respect for women and women's rights worldwide.
But there is abuse, some women call themselves feminists and to me it seems they are simply bashing white men.
I agree there still is not equaltiy in all fields in the western world, but if they deny the fact that the average western man has much more respect for women than in most Muslim societies or in countries like India, these women should shut up, because they give the impression that feminists are just a bunch of frustrated women.
That is what the video is about.


This is the woman on the video :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

She mentions the new years eve in Köln, but it's more simple. If you, as a woman would walk certain streets in the Brussels suburbs you'd understand what she means.
It is one of the 'benefits' of Muslim immigration into Europe.

nordicwarrior
02-07-16, 20:02
One word: Fear.

Angela
02-07-16, 20:48
bicicleur;Feminism should be about respect for women and women's rights worldwide.
But there is abuse, some women call themselves feminists and to me it seems they are simply bashing white men.

I agree with that. The "feminists" on magazine covers and who belong to "Feminist" organizations are leftists by and large. This leads to bizarre situations like refusing to call out Bill Clinton for serial sexual harassment of women because they agree with him politically. It got to the point that they degraded the usually poor women accusing him as trailer trash. It's also true that they tend to ignore the appalling treatment of women in Muslim countries. One of my own pet peeves is that some privileged white women can sometimes think "women's liberation" means they're liberated from doing absolutely anything, to the point where they spend all day at the gym or the pool or the spa, and some Hispanic or black woman cleans their house, cooks their food, and raises their children, and if not them, the husband can come home from work and start cooking. Believe me, I've seen it, and it burns me up. It's as if cooking and cleaning and raising children is beneath them now.

I agree there still is not equaltiy in all fields in the western world, but if they deny the fact that the average western man has much more respect for women than in most Muslim societies or in countries like India, these women should shut up, because they give the impression that feminists are just a bunch of frustrated women.

Well, I don't know what their frustrations have to do with it, but I agree generally.

This is the woman on the video :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Ah yes, I know of her; she's a remarkable woman.


She mentions the new years eve in Köln, but it's more simple. If you, as a woman would walk certain streets in the Brussels suburbs you'd understand what she means.
It is one of the 'benefits' of Muslim immigration into Europe.

Believe me, I know. We have some of that in Italy too. It's inexcusable that it's allowed to go on. It used to be that as a single woman I only feared travelling in some third world countries. Now it's being exported to Europe. These men need a good shot of mace or pepper spray to the face, and maybe a kick where it will really hurt for good measure. I've always believed women should all take self defense courses in addition to ballet or whatever. It can come in handy.

Fire Haired14
02-07-16, 20:50
I agree with this lady. She never said everything about Muslims is sexist and everything about West isn't sexist. She's pointing out that Feminist are ignoring the sexist things done by the Muslim world. I agree with what Angela said but you should only be reacting to gyms not the video. The lady in the video never said all feminism is bad.


Because they are Islamophiles. To leftists, everything Christian or European is evil and part of historical imperialism. Anything foreign is always good, but ignore any instances of oppression by Islam/Muslims.

Agreed. But the Left formed for a reason. It was a reaction to bad things done by traditional Western culture. That's good but then it became blind/bias in the way you're describing.

LeBrok
02-07-16, 21:40
It is amazing how articles like this makes our resident Christian Conservatives to come off the woodwork. Did they come to support the poor Muslim Women? Of course not, I never heard them being happy for Saudi women being allowed to vote and be elected mayers in city elections, or some other achievements in realm of conservative world. Oh no, God forbid, it would make Jesus happy for sure.
On contrary, they are here quick to bash feminism and muslims all together. This must be a very happy moment for them. Bravo. Humanity at it's best.



Agreed. But the Left formed for a reason. It was a reaction to bad things done by traditional Western culture. That's good but then it became blind/bias in the way you're describing.This is admirable to see FH on balancing act.

Great post Angela!

Yetos
02-07-16, 23:05
the question that tomenable set on thread, is something I never wonder,
thanks man,
your question/thread kicks ...

time to think,

Sile
02-07-16, 23:45
Women in the muslim world have been brainwashed to think they are useless.
-count for nothing
-have no knowledge
-and only reason to exist is to bear children.

if women could not bear children they would have been wiped off the face of the world in muslim society many many centuries ago.

Dinarid
03-07-16, 00:47
I really want a new nation for European/American/Canadian "anti-racist" leftists, feminists, liberal activists, etc. so they can have their utopia. We will watch them adopt an open-border policy, and then their precious liberal utopia will be destroyed by savage Mohammedan hordes.

Garrick
03-07-16, 01:49
Women in the muslim world have been brainwashed to think they are useless.
-count for nothing
-have no knowledge
-and only reason to exist is to bear children.

if women could not bear children they would have been wiped off the face of the world in muslim society many many centuries ago.

It may seem from the perspective of someone watching from the side. However things are more complex.

Islam is another civilization. For Muslims Quran is God's word. What is written in Quran cannot be changed. Another source of Islamic teaching by relevance immediately after the Quran is Hadhit. Sharia - Islamic law is derived from Quran and Hadith.

The role of woman is determined in Quran and Hadith. Women activists in Islamic world can act only within those limits. They can be very intelligent, educated, can have large knowledge etc. but they cannot change basic rules. Islam is male dominant religion and Muslims believe it is God's will.

Fire Haired14
03-07-16, 04:29
I really want a new nation for European/American/Canadian "anti-racist" leftists, feminists, liberal activists, etc. so they can have their utopia. We will watch them adopt an open-border policy, and then their precious liberal utopia will be destroyed by savage Mohammedan hordes.

This utopia already exists. It's called Sweden.

Fire Haired14
03-07-16, 04:35
It is amazing how articles like this makes our resident Christian Conservatives to come off the woodwork. Did they come to support the poor Muslim Women? Of course not, I never heard them being happy for Saudi women being allowed to vote and be elected mayers in city elections, or some other achievements in realm of conservative world. Oh no, God forbid, it would make Jesus happy for sure.
On contrary, they are here quick to bash feminism and muslims all together. This must be a very happy moment for them. Bravo. Humanity at it's best.

You're making a good point that people who normally hate feminist will make a feminist stance because of Islam. It's contradictive. However I will say that you won't find anyone who cares more about Muslims, including Muslim women, than many in the church. You won't find anyone who cares more about people in general.

LeBrok
03-07-16, 09:06
Women in the muslim world have been brainwashed to think they are useless.
-count for nothing
-have no knowledge
-and only reason to exist is to bear children.

if women could not bear children they would have been wiped off the face of the world in muslim society many many centuries ago.
It is a common knowledge. The point is what did you do to change it?

LeBrok
03-07-16, 09:08
the question that tomenable set on thread, is something I never wonder,
thanks man,
your question/thread kicks ...

time to think,
Really? It happens only few hundred kilometers from you!

LeBrok
03-07-16, 09:11
I really want a new nation for European/American/Canadian "anti-racist" leftists, feminists, liberal activists, etc. so they can have their utopia. We will watch them adopt an open-border policy, and then their precious liberal utopia will be destroyed by savage Mohammedan hordes.How many people were killed in christian Europe from year 500 to 2000? You want more of the same? Good plan, lol.

LeBrok
03-07-16, 09:17
This utopia already exists. It's called Sweden.Utopia doesn't exist by definition? If it exists it is not utopia!

LeBrok
03-07-16, 09:18
You're making a good point that people who normally hate feminist will make a feminist stance because of Islam. It's contradictive. However I will say that you won't find anyone who cares more about Muslims, including Muslim women, than many in the church. You won't find anyone who cares more about people in general.Can we care about oppressed women regardless of their faith? Shouldn't be a normal human response to suffering and injustice of anyone?

Garrick
03-07-16, 12:54
Can we care about oppressed women regardless of their faith?

This is very good question and in terms of thread feminists cannot make more than they make. It is incorrect to blame feminists.

In our civilization based on Judeo-Christian tradition it is normal that feminists criticize everything what threatens women's rights and fight for gender equality. In our civilization is entirely normal gender equality, democracy, freedom of speech, diversity of options, to be a believer or an atheist, etc.

But Islam is entirely different civilization. For example Islam forbids atheists, it is impossible to be an atheist in Islamic society.

I wrote, Quran cannot be changed, role of woman is determined in Quran and Hadith, and Sharia (Islamic law) is derived from Quran and Hadith.

Nobody in Islamic society, man or woman, cannot criticize or change Quran, it is strictly forbidden and consequences are very severe.

Feminists who originate from the civilization based on Judeo-Christian tradition have very limited opportunities to criticize what is happening in Islamic society. It is another faith, system, civilization, Muslim scholars can criticize them that to meddle in another religion, to talk about things they do not understand since they do not practice and do not understand Islam, to act arrogantly imposing their Judeo-Christian or atheist position to Islam, etc. For feminists who originate from the Judeo-Christian tradition is generally not correct to interfere in Islamic issues and question is how much they are competent for it. And after that it is clearer why feminists largely avoid this issues.

Who can? Muslim feminists. And they do. But again we must know basic rules. Muslim feminists are limited by Islamic rules. Role of woman is determined, Islam is male dominant religion and Muslim feminists can move only within these limits.

Different schools of Sharia law may have differences in interpretation. Not all schools think Muslim man can have four woman at a time, for example there is interpretation that he can marry nine woman. But all schools require that Muslim woman can have only one man for husband at a time. Or, Muslim man can have woman another faith but Muslim woman can be married to a Muslim only, if a non-Muslim man wants to marry a Muslim woman he must became Muslim. Etc.

The possible actions of Muslim feminists are very narrowed viewed from the side of someone who is not a Muslim. However civilizations are different, something that is logical and right in one civilization can be completely illogical/invalid in another. Someone can like or dislike Huntington, but he noticed that civilizations differ and it is objective reality.

Huntigton:

"Every civilization sees itself as the center of the world and writes its history as the central drama of human history."

Minty
03-07-16, 16:15
It is not just the Muslims, women in South Asia also has severe gender inequalities. Can you go tell them to change their whole culture and system? I don't think you can turn another culture into your culture.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/1556-the-facts-gender-inequality-and-violence-against-women-and-girls-around-the-world

LeBrok
03-07-16, 19:08
It is not just the Muslims, women in South Asia also has severe gender inequalities. Can you go tell them to change their whole culture and system? I don't think you can turn another culture into your culture.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/1556-the-facts-gender-inequality-and-violence-against-women-and-girls-around-the-worldAnd since when giving women equality is the same as changing the whole culture? We will not get anywhere in this discussion if you keep exaggerating to prove your point.
While we at changing cultures, could you explain by what miracle European/Western culture managed to change giving women equality?

Dinarid
03-07-16, 19:32
It is not just the Muslims, women in South Asia also has severe gender inequalities. Can you go tell them to change their whole culture and system? I don't think you can turn another culture into your culture.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/1556-the-facts-gender-inequality-and-violence-against-women-and-girls-around-the-world
You're right. That's why you don't let them in to your country.

Dinarid
03-07-16, 19:33
This utopia already exists. It's called Sweden.
LOL! Even then I kind of disagree. I think the leftists want total socialism, but Sweden has a mixed economy which I think works pretty well. Their social policies however are beyond insanity.

Dinarid
03-07-16, 19:35
How many people were killed in christian Europe from year 500 to 2000? You want more of the same? Good plan, lol.
I don't actually want that; I was making a joke to highlight the hypocrisy of moronic leftists who allow in hordes of Muslims who are opposed on the most basic moral level to everything they say to believe in.

Fire Haired14
03-07-16, 20:26
Can we care about oppressed women regardless of their faith? Shouldn't be a normal human response to suffering and injustice of anyone?

Of course I'm just making the point that Christians do a lot because some classifying all Christians as angry prudes.

Wanderlust
03-07-16, 22:30
the hypocrisy of moronic leftists who allow in hordes of Muslims who are opposed on the most basic moral level to everything they say to believe in.

I don't think you understand the liberal world view that well. Open-mindedness, tolerance and inclusivity are hallmarks of liberalism. And in order to be open-minded, one must be tolerant of views contrary to those he or she may hold. Unlike right-wing conservatives, liberals don't demand that everyone look, think, believe and behave as they do--because that would be antithetical to liberalism.

Also, liberals are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of "the greater good." And in this case, there are far more Muslims simply seeking peace and stability than there are opportunistic rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists. Liberals believe that it would be morally wrong and inhumane to deny the many (in need) for the sins of the few. Moreover, liberals ultimately believe that their tolerant and compassionate values will breed further tolerance and compassion, particularly in those who have benefited from it--being "open" encourages "openness" in others. Second and third generation Muslims living in secularized Western nations tend to be more secular and progressive than their forebears; culture is anything but immutable.

And though there will always be a few sociopaths in every bunch who take advantage of kindness/generosity and see it as a sign of weakness to exploit, liberalism is not concerned with stooping/pandering to the lowest common denominator; its ideals are much higher and more humanely broad in scope.

Dinarid
03-07-16, 22:45
I don't think you understand the liberal world view that well. Open-mindedness, tolerance and inclusivity are hallmarks of liberalism. And in order to be open-minded, one must be tolerant of views contrary to those he or she may hold. Unlike right-wing conservatives, liberals don't demand that everyone look, think, believe and behave as they do--because that would be antithetical to liberalism.

Also, liberals are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of "the greater good." And in this case, there are far more Muslims simply seeking peace and stability than there are opportunistic rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists. Liberals believe that it would be morally wrong and inhumane to deny the many (in need) for the sins of the few. Moreover, liberals ultimately believe that their tolerant and compassionate values will breed further tolerance and compassion, particularly in those who have benefited from it--being "open" encourages "openness" in others. Second and third generation Muslims living in secularized Western nations tend to be more secular and progressive than their forebears; culture is anything but immutable.

And though there will always be a few sociopaths in every bunch who take advantage of kindness/generosity and see it as a sign of weakness to exploit, liberalism is not concerned with stooping/pandering to the lowest common denominator; its ideals are much higher and more humanely broad in scope.
I understand everything about it. And that's why I hate it. You can't let in to your country people who have ideals that are fundamentally opposed to yours and expect flawless assimilation. I live in an increasingly Islamic nation and hate every second of it. Then again you are in Sweden. Enjoy your multiculturalism.

Angela
03-07-16, 23:14
I don't think you understand the liberal world view that well. Open-mindedness, tolerance and inclusivity are hallmarks of liberalism. And in order to be open-minded, one must be tolerant of views contrary to those he or she may hold. Unlike right-wing conservatives, liberals don't demand that everyone look, think, believe and behave as they do--because that would be antithetical to liberalism.

Also, liberals are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of "the greater good." And in this case, there are far more Muslims simply seeking peace and stability than there are opportunistic rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists. Liberals believe that it would be morally wrong and inhumane to deny the many (in need) for the sins of the few. Moreover, liberals ultimately believe that their tolerant and compassionate values will breed further tolerance and compassion, particularly in those who have benefited from it--being "open" encourages "openness" in others. Second and third generation Muslims living in secularized Western nations tend to be more secular and progressive than their forebears; culture is anything but immutable.

And though there will always be a few sociopaths in every bunch who take advantage of kindness/generosity and see it as a sign of weakness to exploit, liberalism is not concerned with stooping/pandering to the lowest common denominator; its ideals are much higher and more humanely broad in scope.

"Liberal tolerance" has big limitations. There is no place in the U.S. that is more dominated by liberals than American college campuses. They are also the least tolerant places in America. It has gone to quite absurd lengths.

"Tolerance", like "free speech" applies to the whole spectrum of opinion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberal-but-not-tolerant-on-the-nations-college-campuses/2016/02/11/0f79e8e8-d101-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/11/how-liberals-have-ruined-college.html

Wanderlust
04-07-16, 00:26
You can't let in to your country people who have ideals that are fundamentally opposed to yours and expect flawless assimilation.

Who expects "flawless assimilation?" Liberals strive for integration, not assimilation. For one, they don't see non-native cultures and belief systems, by default, as infectious dead tissue in need of sloughing off. And two, reasonable people understand that it can take time (with a few bumps and bruises along the way) for different cultures to acclimate to each other and that's ok. Humans are tribal, narcissistic and stubborn--we need time, hell, even when we look alike, speak the same language and come from a similar place (look at early Irish immigrants in the US). But most importantly, thousands of our fellow human beings (many of whom are women and children) fleeing unimaginable terror will be able to sleep better at night. That's more important than me hating the smell of Doner Kebabs and the sight of Hijabs. After a while, I might even like Doners (I do).

But you know what doesn't help the integration process along? Hatred and fear mongering, which leads me to my next point...



Then again you are in Sweden. Enjoy your multiculturalism.

One would think that a Croat, more than most, would understand the insidiousness of ethnic nationalism and xenophobia and its disastrous consequences. Sweden is home to plenty of Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian refugees (and their descendents) thanks in part to your disdain for multiculturalism.

Wanderlust
04-07-16, 00:53
"Liberal tolerance" has big limitations. There is no place in the U.S. that is more dominated by liberals than American college campuses. They are also the least tolerant places in America. It has gone to quite absurd lengths.

"Tolerance", like "free speech" applies to the whole spectrum of opinion.

I totally agree that "tolerance" and "free speech" should apply to everyone and that is what TRUE liberals believe.

The American college campuses are dominated by fascistic minded, agenda driven leftists, who in practice, are not actual liberals. As a society, we tend to use leftist and liberal interchangeably and there is often overlap but the former is more of a dogmatic political affiliation and the latter a worldview and philosophy. Leftists, just like their right winged counterparts at the other end of spectrum, are primarily concerned with maintaining their agendas--unyielding tunnel vision, selective morality and double standards are de rigeur. Liberals are actually open to dissenting views and encourage a debate of ideas.

LeBrok
04-07-16, 01:53
Who expects "flawless assimilation?" Liberals strive for integration, not assimilation. For one, they don't see non-native cultures and belief systems, by default, as infectious dead tissue in need of sloughing off. And two, reasonable people understand that it can take time (with a few bumps and bruises along the way) for different cultures to acclimate to each other and that's ok. Humans are tribal, narcissistic and stubborn--we need time, hell, even when we look alike, speak the same language and come from a similar place (look at early Irish immigrants in the US). But most importantly, thousands of our fellow human beings (many of whom are women and children) fleeing unimaginable terror will be able to sleep better at night. That's more important than me hating the smell of Doner Kebabs and the sight of Hijabs. After a while, I might even like Doners (I do).

But you know what doesn't help the integration process along? Hatred and fear mongering, which leads me to my next point...




One would think that a Croat, more than most, would understand the insidiousness of ethnic nationalism and xenophobia and its disastrous consequences. Sweden is home to plenty of Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian refugees (and their descendents) thanks in part to your disdain for multiculturalism.
Welcome to Eupedia Wandelust. I enjoy your posts. Very refreshing in today's nationalistic and conservative climate of fearful of everything Europeans, and Americans alike.

Unfortunately, many former Yugoslavia members here are the most nationalistic people in Europe. One would assume that after years of killing each other they would learn that peace and tolerance is the only solution of coexistence, but effect was different. And the explanation is that any fight for independance heightens nationalistic feelings in such country. I wish I'm wrong, and most of them learned a lesson, but few disgruntled and disappointed soles voice their nationalistic hatred over safety of internet.

Aaron1981
04-07-16, 02:25
I don't think you understand the liberal world view that well. Open-mindedness, tolerance and inclusivity are hallmarks of liberalism. And in order to be open-minded, one must be tolerant of views contrary to those he or she may hold. Unlike right-wing conservatives, liberals don't demand that everyone look, think, believe and behave as they do--because that would be antithetical to liberalism.

Also, liberals are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of "the greater good." And in this case, there are far more Muslims simply seeking peace and stability than there are opportunistic rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists. Liberals believe that it would be morally wrong and inhumane to deny the many (in need) for the sins of the few. Moreover, liberals ultimately believe that their tolerant and compassionate values will breed further tolerance and compassion, particularly in those who have benefited from it--being "open" encourages "openness" in others. Second and third generation Muslims living in secularized Western nations tend to be more secular and progressive than their forebears; culture is anything but immutable.

And though there will always be a few sociopaths in every bunch who take advantage of kindness/generosity and see it as a sign of weakness to exploit, liberalism is not concerned with stooping/pandering to the lowest common denominator; its ideals are much higher and more humanely broad in scope.

I'm afraid you drank the koolaid. Frankly, your attitude will erode and destroy Swedish customs and values. That's the reality, perhaps that's what you want.
You can't compare Irish assimilating to "British" customs on the same level. The country is about a stone's throw away and not really much different from British-American values. The bottom line is Muslim immigrants will soon outnumber Swedes within their own country, that is a fact. They are not going to acclimatize themselves to your customs and traditions. Perhaps in some respects but not the true traditional values. You must be on a lot of drugs man.

Wanderlust
04-07-16, 03:13
Welcome to Eupedia Wandelust. I enjoy your posts. Very refreshing in today's nationalistic and conservative climate of fearful of everything Europeans, and Americans alike.

Unfortunately, many former Yugoslavia members here are the most nationalistic people in Europe. One would assume that after years of killing each other they would learn that peace and tolerance is the only solution of coexistence, but effect was different. And the explanation is that any fight for independance heightens nationalistic feelings in such country. I wish I'm wrong, and most of them learned a lesson, but few disgruntled and disappointed soles voice their nationalistic hatred over safety of internet.

Thanks LeBrok, I'm a long time lurker and I enjoy your posts as well. You and Angela are amongst my favorites!

And I completely agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, the anthrofora are rife with bright yet disaffected, emotionally stunted, browbeaten people grasping at straws for any semblance of worth, value, power and relevance. The most angry usually cry the loudest. One thing that unites all of humanity is the common desire for validation and to know that we matter, in ways grandiose or seemingly trivial. But warfare particularly strips away dignity, integrity, self worth and humanity; it doesn't just tear down cities, countries and bodies, it disfigures hearts and minds as well, sometimes irreparably.

Nationalism has always been the cheapest way to feed the (figuratively and literally) starving masses--usually with hot air that bloats them up without providing any true sustenance. As opposed to supplying the people with what they truly need: healthy food, livable wages, decent shelter, adequate healthcare and education, instead they receive filler, high fructose laden pride based on phenotype or bygone civilizations that absolutely do nothing tangibly for their current misbegotten state. It's tragic really.

I've found that trauma can create two distinctive worldviews: one of fear and withdrawal or one of heightened empathy and compassion. It's rather ironic that conservatives are known for being such "tough," "hawkish," and "hardline" badasses when what motivates them at their core is fear and the dread of being consumed by change, the unknown, the other, and every other "boogie man" that threatens the status quo (read: their ultra fragile sense of security). Whereas liberals get criticized for being "bleeding hearts" and "soft," which usually implies some sort of weakness or naivite when it actually takes a lot of guts to look fear in the face and decide to not be deterred, to do what's right and assume the risks. Just sayin.

Dinarid
04-07-16, 03:22
Who expects "flawless assimilation?" Liberals strive for integration, not assimilation. For one, they don't see non-native cultures and belief systems, by default, as infectious dead tissue in need of sloughing off. And two, reasonable people understand that it can take time (with a few bumps and bruises along the way) for different cultures to acclimate to each other and that's ok. Humans are tribal, narcissistic and stubborn--we need time, hell, even when we look alike, speak the same language and come from a similar place (look at early Irish immigrants in the US). But most importantly, thousands of our fellow human beings (many of whom are women and children) fleeing unimaginable terror will be able to sleep better at night. That's more important than me hating the smell of Doner Kebabs and the sight of Hijabs. After a while, I might even like Doners (I do).

But you know what doesn't help the integration process along? Hatred and fear mongering, which leads me to my next point...




One would think that a Croat, more than most, would understand the insidiousness of ethnic nationalism and xenophobia and its disastrous consequences. Sweden is home to plenty of Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian refugees (and their descendents) thanks in part to your disdain for multiculturalism.
We have had our culture suppressed and our land ruled by a blood-thirsty Middle Eastern death cult. We have always hated everything about it. The Serbs tried to force multiculturalism on all of us, and guess what- they lost. The Mohammedans won. That's why we hate our current situation.

Dinarid
04-07-16, 03:28
Welcome to Eupedia Wandelust. I enjoy your posts. Very refreshing in today's nationalistic and conservative climate of fearful of everything Europeans, and Americans alike.

Unfortunately, many former Yugoslavia members here are the most nationalistic people in Europe. One would assume that after years of killing each other they would learn that peace and tolerance is the only solution of coexistence, but effect was different. And the explanation is that any fight for independance heightens nationalistic feelings in such country. I wish I'm wrong, and most of them learned a lesson, but few disgruntled and disappointed soles voice their nationalistic hatred over safety of internet.
So sorry that not everyone wants globalization, the abolition of national identity and culture, and destructive "tolerance". Yes, I'm a nationalist, and I'm proud. That's my political philosophy, just as yours is internationalist globalization. But I respect your worldview, despite how ridiculous it seems to me. I don't assume that I am empirically 100% right.

Also the Bosniak usurpers are not nationalist, their "nationality" is Islam, and they know full well they are sitting on other peoples' lands.

Wanderlust
04-07-16, 04:05
I'm afraid you drank the koolaid. Frankly, your attitude will erode and destroy Swedish customs and values. That's the reality, perhaps that's what you want.
You can't compare Irish assimilating to "British" customs on the same level. The country is about a stone's throw away and not really much different from British-American values. The bottom line is Muslim immigrants will soon outnumber Swedes within their own country, that is a fact. They are not going to acclimatize themselves to your customs and traditions. Perhaps in some respects but not the true traditional values. You must be on a lot of drugs man.

1.) Frankly, your many presumptions are rather obnoxious and uncalled for.

2.) Some of you seem to be incapable of understanding that ALL cultures change and evolve over time and that's both normal and ok. This has happened for as long as humans have existed. The fact that this must be said on an anthropology forum is beyond baffling.

3.) What are the Swedish customs and values that my people hold so dear? Do enlighten me. What's hilarious is that the only culture to (arguably) "erode and destroy" Swedish customs and values over the last century has been American culture.

4.) Clearly you are unfamiliar with the egregious amounts of discrimination Irish immigrants received in the United States that impeded them from "whiteness." They were disliked because of their Catholic faith and the "odd" religious rituals and customs associated with it; they were stereotyped as being unintelligent, impulsive, aggressive, violent alcoholics; and they generally were an unskilled labor force. Hmmmm....that sounds an awful like another ethnic/religious minority some of you seem to be irrationally obsessed with.

5.) There is no way in hell that "Muslim immigrants will soon outnumber Swedes." lol The ignorance is unbounded. For one, they are 5% of the population and two, less than a quarter of that number are devout, practicing Muslims. Fortunately, fear mongering is rarely ever supported by the actual facts.

6.) If "on a lot of drugs" = stable, secure, open-minded and armed with facts, then yes, I am quite high.

Tomenable
04-07-16, 09:10
there are far more Muslims simply seeking peace and stability than there are opportunistic rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists. Opinion polling carried out on representative samples of Muslims living in Europe tends to support your view expressed above, but only by the narrowest of margins. It seems that the proportion of peace-seeking Muslims to rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists is roughly like 60% to 40%. So, about 40% of Muslims in Europe are rapists, sadists, fanatics or terrorists, and about 60% are peace and stability seekers. Good luck with such "high quality manpower".

Tomenable
04-07-16, 09:21
-and only reason to exist is to bear children.

This is actually true, and not just for women, but for males as well - for both sexes. :)

The sole evolutionary purpose of humans, is to reproduce and perpetuate the species. :)

bicicleur
04-07-16, 10:03
This is actually true, and not just for women, but for males as well - for both sexes. :)

The sole evolutionary purpose of humans, is to reproduce and perpetuate the species. :)

that is a big struggle, because space and capacity on planet earth is limited
if you want your offspring to survive you'll have to learn it to compete with the offspring of others
that is the reality since mankind, we tend to forget

gyms
04-07-16, 10:45
I don't think you understand the liberal world view that well. Open-mindedness, tolerance and inclusivity are hallmarks of liberalism. And in order to be open-minded, one must be tolerant of views contrary to those he or she may hold. Unlike right-wing conservatives, liberals don't demand that everyone look, think, believe and behave as they do--because that would be antithetical to liberalism.

Also, liberals are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of "the greater good." And in this case, there are far more Muslims simply seeking peace and stability than there are opportunistic rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists. Liberals believe that it would be morally wrong and inhumane to deny the many (in need) for the sins of the few. Moreover, liberals ultimately believe that their tolerant and compassionate values will breed further tolerance and compassion, particularly in those who have benefited from it--being "open" encourages "openness" in others. Second and third generation Muslims living in secularized Western nations tend to be more secular and progressive than their forebears; culture is anything but immutable.

And though there will always be a few sociopaths in every bunch who take advantage of kindness/generosity and see it as a sign of weakness to exploit, liberalism is not concerned with stooping/pandering to the lowest common denominator; its ideals are much higher and more humanely broad in scope.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/kim-holmes/rise-intolerant-liberals

A new study provides proof that liberals are more intolerant of different political ideologies than conservatives.
The right-wing has long complained that underneath the façade of “tolerance” and “diversity,” liberals are uniquely intolerant of different ideas – and the study (http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/) of internet usage proves it.
44 percent with “consistently liberal” views would block or “unfriend” someone on a social network because of different political views. Only three in ten conservatives would do the same.
(http://3m12dd41gw8bqlgg62dfsvyl.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pew-study.png)
Pew Research did the study, which showed a massive bias in internet news sites. Of the 32 most used news sites, 25 are considered “left of center.”
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/study-proves-liberals-more-intolerant-than-conservatives

bicicleur
04-07-16, 11:31
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/kim-holmes/rise-intolerant-liberals

A new study provides proof that liberals are more intolerant of different political ideologies than conservatives.
The right-wing has long complained that underneath the façade of “tolerance” and “diversity,” liberals are uniquely intolerant of different ideas – and the study (http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/) of internet usage proves it.
44 percent with “consistently liberal” views would block or “unfriend” someone on a social network because of different political views. Only three in ten conservatives would do the same.
(http://3m12dd41gw8bqlgg62dfsvyl.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pew-study.png)
Pew Research did the study, which showed a massive bias in internet news sites. Of the 32 most used news sites, 25 are considered “left of center.”
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/study-proves-liberals-more-intolerant-than-conservatives

political correctness has created a new religion
the adepts think of themselves as open-minded and tolerant, while those who have a different opinion are not
you see, it is a dangerous religion, as it creates tunnelvision among the adepts
it makes them difficult to reason with

Wanderlust
04-07-16, 11:55
Opinion polling carried out on representative samples of Muslims living in Europe tends to support your view expressed above, but only by the narrowest of margins. It seems that the proportion of peace-seeking Muslims to rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists is roughly like 60% to 40%. So, about 40% of Muslims in Europe are rapists, sadists, fanatics or terrorists, and about 60% are peace and stability seekers. Good luck with such "high quality manpower".

Lol Seriously? Who conducted this "opinion polling?" And where is your source for this information?

And again, irony of ironies, this rhetoric is coming from a Pole, the current ethnic scapegoat and "vermin" (according to some) now "overrunning" the UK! There are many who associate Poles with hyper-Catholicism, hyper-nationalism and hyper-anti-semitism and therefore find them to be incompatible with modern British/Western values. Sadly, your commentary only affirms this about some of your people. But despite the few that damage the prospects of Polish people, they should not be unfairly targeted and denied access to better lives. Do you see how tolerance works?

Wanderlust
04-07-16, 12:11
A new study provides proof that liberals are more intolerant of different political ideologies than conservatives.
The right-wing has long complained that underneath the façade of “tolerance” and “diversity,” liberals are uniquely intolerant of different ideas – and the study of internet usage proves it. 44 percent with “consistently liberal” views would block or “unfriend” someone on a social network because of different political views. Only three in ten conservatives would do the same.”

I actually addressed this in a previous comment I've made up-thread. I'll just quote myself:


I totally agree that "tolerance" and "free speech" should apply to everyone and that is what TRUE liberals believe.

The American college campuses are dominated by fascistic minded, agenda driven leftists, who in practice, are not actual liberals. As a society, we tend to use leftist and liberal interchangeably and there is often overlap but the former is more of a dogmatic political affiliation and the latter a worldview and philosophy. Leftists, just like their right winged counterparts at the other end of spectrum, are primarily concerned with maintaining their agendas--unyielding tunnel vision, selective morality and double standards are de rigeur. Liberals are actually open to dissenting views and encourage a debate of ideas.

Cultish leftists are the narrowminded people you speak of, but liberals are anything but.

gyms
04-07-16, 12:42
"There are many who associate Poles with hyper-Catholicism, hyper-nationalism and hyper-anti-semitism and therefore find them to be incompatible with modern British/Western values."

The "there are many" are the hyper intolerant NEOLIBERAL media (public service) ,cultur marxists and left wing politicians.Please enumerate the "modern Western values"!

(What's the definition of "hyper-Catholicism" ?)

gyms
04-07-16, 12:51
I actually addressed this in a previous comment I've made up-thread. I'll just quote myself:



Cultish leftists are the narrowminded people you speak of, but liberals are anything but.
Most important of all, what does it mean to be a liberal today? In different contexts, the term can refer to polar opposites – champions of laissez-faire or supporters of a redistributive state – and it long served as a term of abuse on both left and right too, denoting a wishy-washy lack of conviction. But of course the word is derived from the Latin liber ‘free (man)’, and is still associated with an affirmation of free speech, movement, and independent thought, and a commitment to civil liberties. In this sense, a liberal society is free from narrow-minded prejudice and arbitrary or unnecessary constraints, and tolerant of divergent thinking. So shouldn’t we all be liberals?

http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2010/session_detail/4272/

Wanderlust
04-07-16, 13:23
The "there are many" are the hyper intolerant NEOLIBERAL media (public service) ,cultur marxists and left wing politicians. Please enumerate the "modern Western values"!

My point is that he ironically endorses the same biases and prejudices towards Muslims that others use to disenfranchise people like him. He sees Muslims as "vermin" just as Brits see Poles as "vermin" and yet I bet he'd take issue with their assessment of his people. Now, if I'm wrong and he believes that his people should be subject to the same discrimination as Muslims, then I have no qualms with his position because at the very least, it would be fair and not hypocritical.


(What's the definition of "hyper-Catholicism" ?)

Poles are more energetically and actively Catholic than their Western European and American counterparts. This is widely known. Though they have become increasingly more secular, they are still more devout than other groups.

Wanderlust
04-07-16, 13:35
Most important of all, what does it mean to be a liberal today? In different contexts, the term can refer to polar opposites – champions of laissez-faire or supporters of a redistributive state – and it long served as a term of abuse on both left and right too, denoting a wishy-washy lack of conviction. But of course the word is derived from the Latin liber ‘free (man)’, and is still associated with an affirmation of free speech, movement, and independent thought, and a commitment to civil liberties. In this sense, a liberal society is free from narrow-minded prejudice and arbitrary or unnecessary constraints, and tolerant of divergent thinking. So shouldn’t we all be liberals?

Absolutely agreed. Just because I disagree with an idea, belief or position, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be said. Everyone deserves the right to have their say without fear of intimidation, coercion, censorship or retribution. Suppression always leads to resentment, uprisings and revolt.

gyms
04-07-16, 13:57
My point is that he ironically endorses the same biases and prejudices towards Muslims that others use to disenfranchise people like him. He sees Muslims as "vermin" just as Brits see Poles as "vermin" and yet I bet he'd take issue with their assessment of his people. Now, if I'm wrong and he believes that his people should be subject to the same discrimination as Muslims, then I have no qualms with his position because at the very least, it would be fair and not hypocritical.

"Poles are more energetically and actively Catholic than their Western European and American counterparts. This is widely known. Though they have become increasingly more secular, they are still more devout than other groups."


One of the earliest proposals for a ‘united Europe’ dates back to the 15th Century. The Bohemian King George of Poděbrady proposed a treaty between all Christian nations – with its members pledging to settle disputes between themselves peacefully and concentrate military efforts against the Ottoman Empire. There were to be supranational institutions common to all Christian countries, with a common Christian parliament.

“Europe” was not mentioned once. This was to be a Christian entity – and it was envisioned as a union standing in opposition to the encroachment of “non-Christian” forces upon Christendom. At the time, people rarely used the Latin word ‘Europa’ (Europe) to discuss the geographical or cultural entity we now call Europe. Much more common, at least from the eleventh century onwards, was ‘Christianitas’ (Christendom).
At some point, Europe was defined (insofar as it was defined at all) as a Christian continent. But is this still the case today?



http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/06/22/christian-europe/#.V3pNCN_r1jo

Wanderlust
04-07-16, 15:11
At some point, Europe was defined (insofar as it was defined at all) as a Christian continent. But is this still the case today?

The theory behind King George of Poděbrady's objective was flawed from the beginning and therefore, doomed to failure...which it did. Again, irony is seriously underrated and ignored around these parts. "Let's unite the various bloodthirsty Christian hordes to defeat the bloodthirsty Islamic horde." Fundamentally, THEY WERE ALL SELF-INTERESTED, BLOODTHIRSTY HORDES, christian or otherwise.

George failed because Roman Papal authority would not concede and consent. Even amongst Christians, the perceived differences proved to be insurmountable. Within that context, drawing a line between Christian and Muslim almost seemed arbitrary because they all behaved like fanatical, irrational, war obsessed savages. Even if Europe was at some point defined as a Christian continent, let's not pretend these Christians coexisted peacefully and as one. There were dozens of fractured denominations that subsequently caused centuries of bloodshed, war and strife.

And yes, Europe is still overwhelmingly Christian, albeit far more secularized Christianity in varying degrees depending on the nation. Secularization has helped us come together, though we still retain some of our individual Protestant/Lutheran/Catholic/Orthodox traditions and that's fine. Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit. In Sweden, less than a quarter of the estimated %5 Muslim population are actually practicing Muslims. Times change, people change, cultures change and evolve--that's normal and follows human tradition. I don't understand why people on an anthropology forum have a hard time grasping this.

gyms
04-07-16, 15:42
The theory behind King George of Poděbrady's objective was flawed from the beginning and therefore, doomed to failure...which it did. Again, irony is seriously underrated and ignored around these parts. "Let's unite the various bloodthirsty Christian hordes to defeat the bloodthirsty Islamic horde." Fundamentally, THEY WERE ALL SELF-INTERESTED, BLOODTHIRSTY HORDES, christian or otherwise.

George failed because Roman Papal authority would not concede and consent. Even amongst Christians, the perceived differences proved to be insurmountable. Within that context, drawing a line between Christian and Muslim almost seemed arbitrary because they all behaved like fanatical, irrational, war obsessed savages. Even if Europe was at some point defined as a Christian continent, let's not pretend these Christians coexisted peacefully and as one. There were dozens of fractured denominations that subsequently caused centuries of bloodshed, war and strife.

And yes, Europe is still overwhelmingly Christian, albeit far more secularized Christianity in varying degrees depending on the nation. Secularization has helped us come together, though we still retain some of our individual Protestant/Lutheran/Catholic/Orthodox traditions and that's fine. Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit. In Sweden, less than a quarter of the estimated %5 Muslim population are actually practicing Muslims. Times change, people change, cultures change and evolve--that's normal and follows human tradition. I don't understand why people on an anthropology forum have a hard time grasping this.

"Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit."

Surely.

https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:
60 million Christians.

!!!60 million Christians!!!

"This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad!"

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis/islamic_viewpoints/is_islam_compatible_with_democracy_and_human_right s/

" The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region... The system of free elections is not suitable to our country"
King Fahd of Saudi Arabia

Islamisation of European population centres

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EYhalarYNs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf_IaaCAdNs

Wanderlust
04-07-16, 17:03
"Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit."

Surely.

Christians had centuries to maim and kill Jews, Muslims and fellow Christians until various painstaking and bloody reformations brought about more (not definitive, just more) peace and harmony. Muslims never had the benefit of such reformations but now find themselves at a crossroads for such a thing to take place and surprise surprise, it's not pretty. But unlike the case with Christians, I don't think it will take centuries for this process to work itself out with Muslims--globalization has its perks and our learning curve isn't what it used to be. Personally, I'm agnostic and am put off by all of the Abrahamic religions, in particular, seeing as how historically, they seem to cause all of the trouble. In my opinion, you all deserve each other.

Having said that, I just find it utterly jarring that Christian Europeans conquer, dominate, colonize, crusade, enslave, destroy, pillage, and plunder virtually unimpeded for centuries upon centuries but when (according to some) "the chickens finally come home to roost," somehow Europe's shady, inhumane past vanishes into thin air and they suddenly become victims on the verge of being besieged by barbarian hordes. The unmitigated gall is astounding. To some, this is nothing but karma and I must say, you aren't taking it very well. And make no mistake, arguably, the Islamic Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc... are also getting their fair share of universal "karma." Maybe one day people will learn that regardless of our differences, we're similarly shit at the core and we should try to overcome that together.

gyms
04-07-16, 17:30
[QUOTE=Wanderlust;483247]Christians had centuries to maim and kill Jews, Muslims and fellow Christians until various painstaking and bloody reformations brought about more (not definitive, just more) peace and harmony. Muslims never had the benefit of such reformations but now find themselves at a crossroads for such a thing to take place and surprise surprise, it's not pretty. But unlike the case with Christians, I don't think it will take centuries for this process to work itself out with Muslims--globalization has its perks and our learning curve isn't what it used to be. Personally, I'm agnostic and am put off by all of the Abrahamic religions, in particular, seeing as how historically, they seem to cause all of the trouble. In my opinion, you all deserve each other.

Having said that, I just find it utterly jarring that Christian Europeans conquer, dominate, colonize, crusade, enslave, destroy, pillage, and plunder virtually unimpeded for centuries upon centuries but when (according to some) "the chickens finally come home to roost," somehow Europe's shady, inhumane past vanishes into thin air and they suddenly become victims on the verge of being besieged by barbarian hordes. The unmitigated gall is astounding. To some, this is nothing but karma and I must say, you aren't taking it very well. And make no mistake, arguably, the Islamic Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc... are also getting their fair share of universal "karma." Maybe one day people will learn that regardless of our differences, we're similarly shit at the core and we should try to overcome that together.[/QUOTE

Bill Maher gets into a debate with Charlie Rose on why Islam is more Violent than Christianity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jm3UWawqAc

Muslim Migrants warn Germans their days are numbered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFb7cmFsPoc

gyms
04-07-16, 17:45
"Muslims never had the benefit of such reformations but now find themselves at a crossroads ..."

What?

Islamic Reformation?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/arab-awakening/sami-zubaida/islamic-reformation

We keep hearing calls for an ‘Islamic Reformation’, assumed to be the remedy for a fundamentalist Islam behind the conservative Salafi brand as well as the Jihadist. Islam, under these assumptions, generates problems because it had not been ‘reformed’. The assumed model is the Christian Reformation of the sixteenth century, the Protestant reformers, Luther, Calvin and their followers. Informed writers on religion and history have pointed out the problematic nature of these suppositions, with regard to the histories of both Christianity and Islam. I argue here that Islam has undergone many reformations, in radically different directions: Wahhabism, much like Protestant reforms, urged a return to the scriptures and prophetic traditions and a rejection of ‘corrupt’ and heretical practices of saint worship and visitation of tombs, Sufi mysticism and ceremonies, and sectarian doctrines, principally Shi`ism. In contrast, a modernist and rationalist reformation was a powerful strand in public life, politics and culture from the nineteenth and throughout the twentieth centuries, in the Ottoman, Arab and Iranian worlds. These different kinds of ‘reform’ were institutionalised in various ways, recounted below. Liberal/ modernist reforms are now available in public space, but not attractive to most religious Muslims because they do not fit in with their social and psychological needs and outlooks.

Garrick
04-07-16, 19:29
We have had our culture suppressed and our land ruled by a blood-thirsty Middle Eastern death cult. We have always hated everything about it. The Serbs tried to force multiculturalism on all of us, and guess what- they lost. The Mohammedans won. That's why we hate our current situation.

Serbian intellectual elite has dominantly multicultural views, what maybe is not good in environment where there is Serbia (and in Yugoslavia Serbs were mostly pro-federalists and many Serbs wanted to be Yugoslavians and not Serbs, but other nations saved their national identity and their religion). Today we live in the time when Neo-Ottoman and Islamic movements rise and they find a lot of allies in the Balkans, among others in the territories on the ex Yugoslavia.

Garrick
04-07-16, 20:09
I don't think you understand the liberal world view that well. Open-mindedness, tolerance and inclusivity are hallmarks of liberalism. And in order to be open-minded, one must be tolerant of views contrary to those he or she may hold. Unlike right-wing conservatives, liberals don't demand that everyone look, think, believe and behave as they do--because that would be antithetical to liberalism.

Also, liberals are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of "the greater good." And in this case, there are far more Muslims simply seeking peace and stability than there are opportunistic rapists, sadists, fanatics and terrorists. Liberals believe that it would be morally wrong and inhumane to deny the many (in need) for the sins of the few. Moreover, liberals ultimately believe that their tolerant and compassionate values will breed further tolerance and compassion, particularly in those who have benefited from it--being "open" encourages "openness" in others. Second and third generation Muslims living in secularized Western nations tend to be more secular and progressive than their forebears; culture is anything but immutable.

And though there will always be a few sociopaths in every bunch who take advantage of kindness/generosity and see it as a sign of weakness to exploit, liberalism is not concerned with stooping/pandering to the lowest common denominator; its ideals are much higher and more humanely broad in scope.

This is a very well written, but questions remains. How it reflects reality. I appreciate thinkers as Huntington who stand in regard that civilizations differ as it reflects reality.

I am federalist. I appreciated Yugoslav federation and now I am for European federation. For me it is not much important if someone is liberal or conservative, more left or more right, if he or she embraces federal agenda.

But I don't like option that Balkan or Europe become Neo-Ottoman or Islamic ruled or part of Caliphate.

It seems to me that we are a bit away from thread.

In introductory post is the question about feminist unconcern for Muslim women. In post #21 is my opinion. Feminists cannot do more and nobody should blame feminists.

bicicleur
04-07-16, 20:35
Muslims never had the benefit of such reformations

I'm not an expert in Islamic history, but

the 2 highlights in Islamic cultural life are the Abassid Caliphate in Bagdad and the Morish Umayyads
it has been said many times that these cultures were way ahead of the backward Christian kingdoms in Europe

haven't the Abassids been ousted by fundamentalist Islamist fractions who promoted strict Islamic rule again?
haven't the Umayyads been ousted by the fundamentalist Almohavides?

you say the Christians were conquerors and colonisers and Muslims never got to that
there are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide
do you think most of them were converted peacefully?
what do you think would have happened to Europe if Karel Martel didn't stop the Muslims in Poitiers?

I think your vision is very one-sided
if that is what all your optimism is based upon, allow me to have some doubts

Tomenable
04-07-16, 20:36
Wanderlust,


And where is your source for this information?

It is all over the internet, nothing easier to find on your own. But check for example here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx


There are many who associate Poles with hyper-Catholicism

And the English have a long tradition of hating Catholics. Look what they did in Ireland, including English-made "Great Famine" of 1840-1852 which killed or forced to emigrate so many Irishmen that even now Ireland has a smaller population than in 1840.

Some people consider that as a genocide perpetrated by the English on "Irish Catholic Apes":

https://www.google.pl/search?q=Irish+Catholic+Apes&client=opera&hs=ZoV&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAx8uou9rNAhXoApoKHS2uAGMQ_AUICCgB&biw=1366&bih=658

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment

Ironically, Anglicanism is not really Protestantism. It is mostly Catholicism, but without a Pope.

It is the only religion ever that was established just to get a divorce, and for no other reason.


(What's the definition of "hyper-Catholicism"?)

Every Catholic is a hyper-Catholic. There is no middle ground. :smile:

Tomenable
04-07-16, 20:51
Wanderlust,


He sees Muslims as "vermin" just as Brits see Poles as "vermin" and yet I bet he'd take issue with their assessment of his people.

I don't care, actually. IMO it will be better for Poland, if the English expel their Polish "vermin" back to Poland.

BTW - you say "Brits", but I never heard about Anti-Polish sentiment in Scotland. It applies to England only.

And one more thing - I did not call Muslims "vermin". You are the one using this word.

===================

Also it can be noted that reasons why Poles are hated and why Muslims are hated in England, are very different reasons. Muslims are hated because they do not work, collect welfare, and commit crimes. On the other hand, Poles are hated because:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP-l40WEGNo

Tomenable
04-07-16, 21:04
Wanderlust,


Polish people, they should not be unfairly targeted and denied access to better lives. Do you see how tolerance works?

I strongly disagree.

People should work hard and build a better live in their own country. People who escape / emigrate are kind of cowards. If everyone stayed and worked hard to make their own homeland a better place, the whole world would benefit. On the other hand, you seem to be happy that millions of people from the 3rd World are escaping from their countries and flooding into Sweden/Europe.

I wonder why do you like this situation - it is neither good for Sweden/Europe, nor good for the Third World.

Tomenable
04-07-16, 21:10
BTW - this Anti-Polish racism in England is not a new thing, it has a very long tradition already.

Already in the 1920s Prime Minister David Lloyd George claimed that Polish people are "monkeys".

So now we only evolved from "monkeys" to "vermin", not sure which racial rank is more superior?

Tomenable
04-07-16, 21:27
Wanderlust,


Humans are tribal, narcissistic and stubborn--we need time

Yes, they are - and this is genetically determined. So it will most likely NOT change with time.

Liberals do not understand, that every temperamental trait is under strong genetic influence.

You cannot just mold people into whatever shape you want. We are genetically programmed.


Poles are more energetically and actively Catholic than their Western European and American counterparts. This is widely known. Though they have become increasingly more secular, they are still more devout than other groups.

Yes - most of Poles are religious. And again - religiosity is largely genetically determined.

Around 30% - 45% of inclination for religiosity is genetic*. So Poles are genetically religious.

The same applies to Muslims - they will NOT become less fanatical, because it is in their genes.

*Source: Thomas J. Bouchard, "Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits", (Table 1.).

Dinarid
05-07-16, 03:58
It's quite hilarious how the Islamophile, Europhile left is so Slavophobic, and basically subscribes to traditional snobbish Western European stereotypes of Slavs…
Maybe Western Europe is beyond help with their tolerance and self-hate. :laughing:

LeBrok
05-07-16, 04:15
So sorry that not everyone wants globalization, the abolition of national identity and culture, and destructive "tolerance". Yes, I'm a nationalist, and I'm proud. That's my political philosophy, just as yours is internationalist globalization. But I respect your worldview, despite how ridiculous it seems to me. I don't assume that I am empirically 100% right.
Nope, you don't get me. I'm fine with every culture and people being proud of their culture, as long as they are tolerant to other cultures.
Unlike you, who is not tolerant to others to the point of hatred:

Also the Bosniak usurpers are not nationalist, their "nationality" is Islam, and they know full well they are sitting on other peoples' lands.

Let's stress it again. I'm ok with Croatian culture or Bosnian culture, or Islam culture. I'm not ok with anyone hating people of other cultures, degrading people and their cultures, hurting and killing people because they are of other culture.
I'm tolerant to tolerant people and I'm intolerant to intolerant people. Can you understand such paradox?

I'm advising you against voicing your hatred against Bosniaks and other Muslims. This won't be tolerated on Eupedia!

LeBrok
05-07-16, 04:33
BTW - this Anti-Polish racism in England is not a new thing, it has a very long tradition already.

Already in the 1920s Prime Minister David Lloyd George claimed that Polish people are "monkeys".

So now we only evolved from "monkeys" to "vermin", not sure which racial rank is more superior?Are you some kind of masochist? Try English 16th century poetry, I'm sure you will find something anti-polish too. Take it to your heart till it hurts.

Angela
05-07-16, 04:40
Nope, you don't get me. I'm fine with every culture and people being proud of their culture, as long as they are tolerant to other cultures.
Unlike you, who is not tolerant to others to the point of hatred:


Let's stress it again. I'm ok with Croatian culture or Bosnian culture, or Islam culture. I'm not ok with anyone hating people of other cultures, degrading people and their cultures, hurting and killing people because they are of other culture.
I'm tolerant to tolerant people and I'm intolerant to intolerant people. Can you understand such paradox?

I'm advising you against voicing your hatred against Bosniaks and other Muslims. This won't be tolerated on Eupedia!

I second that.

LeBrok
05-07-16, 04:44
Wanderlust,



Yes, they are - and this is genetically determined. So it will most likely NOT change with time.

Liberals do not understand, that every temperamental trait is under strong genetic influence.

You cannot just mold people into whatever shape you want. We are genetically programmed. We are genetically killers too. Do you think we should use these inborn skills and keep killing each other till the end of the World? Or perhaps we should exercise our other human skills like reason, compassion, cooperation and free will to live in peace and prosperity?



Yes - most of Poles are religious. And again - religiosity is largely genetically determined.

Around 30% - 45% of inclination for religiosity is genetic*. So Poles are genetically religious.
I agree. But in other 45% they are traditionally religious.


The same applies to Muslims - they will NOT become less fanatical, because it is in their genes.Fanaticism is mostly cultural. Killer is already in us, fanatic teaching unleashes it.

Fire Haired14
05-07-16, 04:49
Fanaticism is mostly cultural. Killer is already in us, fanatic teaching unleashes it.

So true. I think everyone has a switch inside of them that can make them into savages. Even a 10 year old girl. Teaching isn't the only thing that brings it out. Things that we put emotional value you on like loved ones or politics or sports brings that out as well whether we're taught fanatics or not.

LeBrok
05-07-16, 04:52
It's quite hilarious how the Islamophile, Europhile left is so Slavophobic, and basically subscribes to traditional snobbish Western European stereotypes of Slavs…
Maybe Western Europe is beyond help with their tolerance and self-hate. :laughing:Stop being so afraid of everything! World is beautiful! Come out of your shell and live a little. Hug your neighbor like Jesus asked.
Just kidding. This is how they get you...

LeBrok
05-07-16, 05:26
Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit. In Sweden, less than a quarter of the estimated %5 Muslim population are actually practicing Muslims. Times change, people change, cultures change and evolve--that's normal and follows human tradition. I don't understand why people on an anthropology forum have a hard time grasping this. It was a surprise for me too. Then again how many people 70 years ago, in midst of destruction of WW2, would envision peaceful and economically advanced Europe of today? Just few optimists and visionaries. The rest would have called it Utopia. Just short 7 decades ago!

Dinarid
05-07-16, 05:34
Stop being so afraid of everything! World is beautiful! Come out of your shell and live a little. Hug your neighbor like Jesus asked.
Just kidding. This is how they get you...
I'm not even really a practicing Christian (more spiritual/"theist"). I do hug my neighbor by I care for my own first and foremost, because yes, I am proud of my people.

Dinarid
05-07-16, 05:36
I completely reject the idea that everything about us is "genetically programmed". I think everything except for perhaps some physical traits and mental disorders are influenced by the environment. Should we give up on educating people then?

Dinarid
05-07-16, 05:40
Nope, you don't get me. I'm fine with every culture and people being proud of their culture, as long as they are tolerant to other cultures.
Unlike you, who is not tolerant to others to the point of hatred:


Let's stress it again. I'm ok with Croatian culture or Bosnian culture, or Islam culture. I'm not ok with anyone hating people of other cultures, degrading people and their cultures, hurting and killing people because they are of other culture.
I'm tolerant to tolerant people and I'm intolerant to intolerant people. Can you understand such paradox?

I'm advising you against voicing your hatred against Bosniaks and other Muslims. This won't be tolerated on Eupedia!

I don't "hate" them, I don't like the occupation of our land. And yes I do have some problems with Islam as do most people on Eupedia. Just look at the Quran discussion thread. No one said anything about Middle Easterners being racially inferior or anything.

gyms
05-07-16, 08:49
Merkel says German multicultural society has failed
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/ottomanempire_1.shtml
Mehmet slaughtered many of the population and forced the rest into exile, later repopulating the city by importing people from elsewhere in Ottoman territory.

http://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/1400-years-of-christian-islamic-struggle
The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."

Wanderlust
05-07-16, 10:22
"Muslims never had the benefit of such reformations but now find themselves at a crossroads ..."

We keep hearing calls for an ‘Islamic Reformation’, assumed to be the remedy for a fundamentalist Islam behind the conservative Salafi brand as well as the Jihadist. Islam, under these assumptions, generates problems because it had not been ‘reformed’. The assumed model is the Christian Reformation of the sixteenth century, the Protestant reformers, Luther, Calvin and their followers. Informed writers on religion and history have pointed out the problematic nature of these suppositions, with regard to the histories of both Christianity and Islam. I argue here that Islam has undergone many reformations, in radically different directions: Wahhabism, much like Protestant reforms, urged a return to the scriptures and prophetic traditions and a rejection of ‘corrupt’ and heretical practices of saint worship and visitation of tombs, Sufi mysticism and ceremonies, and sectarian doctrines, principally Shi`ism. In contrast, a modernist and rationalist reformation was a powerful strand in public life, politics and culture from the nineteenth and throughout the twentieth centuries, in the Ottoman, Arab and Iranian worlds. These different kinds of ‘reform’ were institutionalised in various ways, recounted below. Liberal/ modernist reforms are now available in public space, but not attractive to most religious Muslims because they do not fit in with their social and psychological needs and outlooks.

I meant that Islam had not previously endured an all encompassing, earth shattering, cataclysmically violent and confrontational reformation similar to the Christian Reformation that many agree pushed Europe to fundamentally alter its core (because of the immense cost and casualties), but that the immense violence and destruction rocking the Islamic world in recent times was forcing them into a similar space where fundamental change must occur, in large part due to the devastation, the subsequent fallout and enduring consequences. I'm not arguing that violence is necessary when it comes to reform but just that it usually and understandably raises the stakes significantly higher because the amassed and escalating atrocities are untenable. With rampant acts of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism across the globe, the complete destabilization of Muslim nations, the unparalleled migrant crisis, etc..., the stakes have never been higher for Islam as a religion to get its act together.

But I agree that Islam has been reforming itself for at least the last century, and some of those reformations have resulted in more conservative and less progressive versions of Islam, which is always a possibility--"Reformation" does not have a liberal bias, it just means that the people are renegotiating power and authority and sometimes the heathens are the most vocal. But in concert with the current crises underway in the Muslim world, I do think that because we live in the internet age where there is a wealth of competitive ideas, and millions of Muslims are achieving greater literacy and are able to individualize their beliefs for themselves outside of some imam, alongside the ever growing population of secular muslims living in Western nations who are being (unfairly) held accountable for the sins of the worst factions, that a cataclysmic, core altering reformation is in process. And in an ever globalizing world, it is most certainly within the "social and psychological needs" of the Muslim people to acclimate to more progressive, tolerant, open-minded values.

Wanderlust
05-07-16, 10:42
I'm not an expert in Islamic history, but

the 2 highlights in Islamic cultural life are the Abassid Caliphate in Bagdad and the Morish Umayyads
it has been said many times that these cultures were way ahead of the backward Christian kingdoms in Europe

haven't the Abassids been ousted by fundamentalist Islamist fractions who promoted strict Islamic rule again?
haven't the Umayyads been ousted by the fundamentalist Almohavides?

I'll repost a previous comment:


I meant that Islam had not previously endured an all encompassing, earth shattering, cataclysmically violent and confrontational reformation similar to the Christian Reformation that many agree pushed Europe to fundamentally alter its core (because of the immense cost and casualties), but that the immense violence and destruction rocking the Islamic world in recent times was forcing them into a similar space where fundamental change must occur, in large part due to the devastation, the subsequent fallout and enduring consequences. I'm not arguing that violence is necessary when it comes to reform but just that it usually and understandably raises the stakes significantly higher because the amassed and escalating atrocities are untenable. With rampant acts of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism across the globe, the complete destabilization of Muslim nations, the unparalleled migrant crisis, etc..., the stakes have never been higher for Islam as a religion to get its act together.

But I agree that Islam has been reforming itself for at least the last century, and some of those reformations have resulted in more conservative and less progressive versions of Islam, which is always a possibility--"Reformation" does not have a liberal bias, it just means that the people are renegotiating power and authority and sometimes the heathens are the most vocal. But in concert with the current crises underway in the Muslim world, I do think that because we live in the internet age where there is a wealth of competitive ideas, and millions of Muslims are achieving greater literacy and are able to individualize their beliefs for themselves outside of some imam, alongside the ever growing population of secular muslims living in Western nations who are being (unfairly) held accountable for the sins of the worst factions, that a cataclysmic, core altering reformation is in process. And in an ever globalizing world, it is most certainly within the "social and psychological needs" of the Muslim people to acclimate to more progressive, tolerant, open-minded values.


you say the Christians were conquerors and colonisers and Muslims never got to that
there are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide
do you think most of them were converted peacefully?
what do you think would have happened to Europe if Karel Martel didn't stop the Muslims in Poitiers?

I never said or even implied that Muslims did not conquer or colonize like Christians because that would be egregiously preposterous and inaccurate. They were just as terrible in their own right. What I also said is that similarly to Christians, Muslims are experiencing "universal karma" for their previous exploits. I have never paternalized them or portrayed them to be blameless victims.


I think your vision is very one-sided

Actually, it's not. I'm rather balanced, just not a fear drenched hate monger.

Wanderlust
05-07-16, 12:34
Wanderlust,


I strongly disagree.

People should work hard and build a better live in their own country. People who escape / emigrate are kind of cowards. If everyone stayed and worked hard to make their own homeland a better place, the whole world would benefit. On the other hand, you seem to be happy that millions of people from the 3rd World are escaping from their countries and flooding into Sweden/Europe.

I wonder why do you like this situation - it is neither good for Sweden/Europe, nor good for the Third World.

I strongly disagree.

1.) Many times in human history, emigration has been a matter of life and death, of survival. Is not wanting to die (from war, famine, poverty, plague) cowardice? Is not wanting your family to die cowardice?

2.) A nation of immigrants is the most powerful country on the planet. It actually takes an extraordinary amount of bravery to abandon what you know for the unknown. To some, the cowards are the ones who stay. Personally, I find both of those viewpoints to be overly simplistic and unfair.

3.) Humanity has always benefited from the intimate exchange of different ideas and methods, some of which can only come from perspectives arrived at the world over.

4.) Please don't presume to tell me what I'm happy or unhappy about. Allow me to do that. Thanks.

As an avid world traveler, I somewhat selfishly love the notion of distinct cultures and traditions being preserved so that I can indulge in them. I want there to be Tuscan culture, Catalonian culture, Bavarian culture, Han culture, Yoruban culture--I love that humanity is so different because I find that to be fascinating. But I'm not ignorant to the fact that innately, culture is not static. It evolves and changes. Again, one would think that people who study anthropology would know this better than most.

And quite frankly, some cultures need to change. Not every cultural artifact deserves preservation (the US obsession with guns, female genital mutilation, honor killings). And "outside" influence from other cultures can spur on this change. Personally, I like that Swedish merchants are adopting a more "American" approach to customer service by being a bit more outwardly engaging and enthusiastic. I like that American influence encourages Swedes to be a bit more individualistic and less obsessed with conformity. I like that our rather bland palates have become more accustomed to spicier, more interesting Eastern flavors. But Swedish culture will endure--we will still always respect herring, the queuing process and a need for personal space.

Having said that, I don't believe in unfettered immigration, especially along the lines of what we've recently seen. I think that there must be a healthy respect for the fact that 1.) resources have limitations, 2.) most people need gradual change and time to adjust to "difference," and 3.) with that "difference" comes some potential culture clashes and problems that must be addressed honestly and responsibly. But then again, the migrant crisis is a crisis, and does not reflect normal trends. Sweden is particularly burdened because other countries don't pull their weight, whether from of a lack of desire (Denmark), an inability to handle the load (Serbia and Croatia) or both (Poland)--although Poles don't mind "burdening" other EU nations with their own people, including mine. ;-)

Lastly, I believe that most of the current influx of immigrants should go back to their countries once there is greater stability in their lands and that moreover, they actually do want that for themselves. But when people are in dire need, I believe that humanity owes it to ourselves to help. It's quite simply really.

bicicleur
05-07-16, 13:59
I strongly disagree.

1.) Many times in human history, emigration has been a matter of life and death, of survival. Is not wanting to die (from war, famine, poverty, plague) cowardice? Is not wanting your family to die cowardice?

2.) A nation of immigrants is the most powerful country on the planet. It actually takes an extraordinary amount of bravery to abandon what you know for the unknown. To some, the cowards are the ones who stay. Personally, I find both of those viewpoints to be overly simplistic and unfair.

3.) Humanity has always benefited from the intimate exchange of different ideas and methods, some of which can only come from perspectives arrived at the world over.

4.) Please don't presume to tell me what I'm happy or unhappy about. Allow me to do that. Thanks.

As an avid world traveler, I somewhat selfishly love the notion of distinct cultures and traditions being preserved so that I can indulge in them. I want there to be Tuscan culture, Catalonian culture, Bavarian culture, Han culture, Yoruban culture--I love that humanity is so different because I find that to be fascinating. But I'm not ignorant to the fact that innately, culture is not static. It evolves and changes. Again, one would think that people who study anthropology would know this better than most.

And quite frankly, some cultures need to change. Not every cultural artifact deserves preservation (the US obsession with guns, female genital mutilation, honor killings). And "outside" influence from other cultures can spur on this change. Personally, I like that Swedish merchants are adopting a more "American" approach to customer service by being a bit more outwardly engaging and enthusiastic. I like that American influence encourages Swedes to be a bit more individualistic and less obsessed with conformity. I like that our rather bland palates have become more accustomed to spicier, more interesting Eastern flavors. But Swedish culture will endure--we will still always respect herring, the queuing process and a need for personal space.

Having said that, I don't believe in unfettered immigration, especially along the lines of what we've recently seen. I think that there must be a healthy respect for the fact that 1.) resources have limitations, 2.) most people need gradual change and time to adjust to "difference," and 3.) with that "difference" comes some potential culture clashes and problems that must be addressed honestly and responsibly. But then again, the migrant crisis is a crisis, and does not reflect normal trends. Sweden is particularly burdened because other countries don't pull their weight, whether from of a lack of desire (Denmark), an inability to handle the load (Serbia and Croatia) or both (Poland)--although Poles don't mind "burdening" other EU nations with their own people, including mine. ;-)

Lastly, I believe that most of the current influx of immigrants should go back to their countries once there is greater stability in their lands and that moreover, they actually do want that for themselves. But when people are in dire need, I believe that humanity owes it to ourselves to help. It's quite simply really.

you forget to tell that most refugees that entered Europe last year and early this year didn't do so out of necessity
they came because they believed the stories of human trafickers who promised them they would get in Europe free housing an a very nice wellpaid job, even if they had no qualifications at all
that is why so many are dissapointed and are starting to return to their home country
so, I don't know whether Sweden got so many immigrants because other countries didn't pull their weight, maybe Sweden was more naive than other countries
and about cultures that need change, I don't say everything is perfect in Europe, but it is not Europe that should change, it is the countries where these people come from that should change
and people that come to Europe as a host should adapt themselves to Europe and not the other way
and what about Poland, they have hosted a lot of Ukrainian refugees, but Europe tried to interfere in Ukraine and they failed out of arrogance, and now everyone in Europe seems to have 'forgotten' what is happening there

I agree some refugees can't stay at home
but they should be allowed in Europe only if there is absolutely no alternative, and if they come they should adapt
furthermore people should be stimulated to return and rebuild their country as soon as it is possible
and if Europe is able to intervene military or in another way to help restore stability in any of these countries it should do so

gyms
05-07-16, 14:16
I strongly disagree.

1.) Many times in human history, emigration has been a matter of life and death, of survival. Is not wanting to die (from war, famine, poverty, plague) cowardice? Is not wanting your family to die cowardice?

2.) A nation of immigrants is the most powerful country on the planet. It actually takes an extraordinary amount of bravery to abandon what you know for the unknown. To some, the cowards are the ones who stay. Personally, I find both of those viewpoints to be overly simplistic and unfair.

3.) Humanity has always benefited from the intimate exchange of different ideas and methods, some of which can only come from perspectives arrived at the world over.

4.) Please don't presume to tell me what I'm happy or unhappy about. Allow me to do that. Thanks.

As an avid world traveler, I somewhat selfishly love the notion of distinct cultures and traditions being preserved so that I can indulge in them. I want there to be Tuscan culture, Catalonian culture, Bavarian culture, Han culture, Yoruban culture--I love that humanity is so different because I find that to be fascinating. But I'm not ignorant to the fact that innately, culture is not static. It evolves and changes. Again, one would think that people who study anthropology would know this better than most.

And quite frankly, some cultures need to change. Not every cultural artifact deserves preservation (the US obsession with guns, female genital mutilation, honor killings). And "outside" influence from other cultures can spur on this change. Personally, I like that Swedish merchants are adopting a more "American" approach to customer service by being a bit more outwardly engaging and enthusiastic. I like that American influence encourages Swedes to be a bit more individualistic and less obsessed with conformity. I like that our rather bland palates have become more accustomed to spicier, more interesting Eastern flavors. But Swedish culture will endure--we will still always respect herring, the queuing process and a need for personal space.

Having said that, I don't believe in unfettered immigration, especially along the lines of what we've recently seen. I think that there must be a healthy respect for the fact that 1.) resources have limitations, 2.) most people need gradual change and time to adjust to "difference," and 3.) with that "difference" comes some potential culture clashes and problems that must be addressed honestly and responsibly. But then again, the migrant crisis is a crisis, and does not reflect normal trends. Sweden is particularly burdened because other countries don't pull their weight, whether from of a lack of desire (Denmark), an inability to handle the load (Serbia and Croatia) or both (Poland)--although Poles don't mind "burdening" other EU nations with their own people, including mine. ;-)

Lastly, I believe that most of the current influx of immigrants should go back to their countries once there is greater stability in their lands and that moreover, they actually do want that for themselves. But when people are in dire need, I believe that humanity owes it to ourselves to help. It's quite simply really.

Kolla det här,mister True Liberal!(Check out this...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9VObD_GvEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOPhr0UQ9wc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o27hCRkJd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghr-JMq1VT0

Wanderlust
05-07-16, 14:18
Wanderlust,


Yes, they are - and this is genetically determined. So it will most likely NOT change with time.

Liberals do not understand, that every temperamental trait is under strong genetic influence.

You cannot just mold people into whatever shape you want. We are genetically programmed.

So then you discount epigenetics? Because both genetics and epigenetics play an important role in who we are and what we do. It's foolish to overstate nature just as it foolish to overstate nurture. Both matter.

Autosomally and temperamentally, the "hunter-gatherer" in me is strong. And as far back as I can trace on paper, I come from people who've always had impulses and drives not necessarily suited to restrictive and sedentary environments. Frankly, I'm pretty predisposed to apathy and aggression, and subsequently violence and brutality :shocked:. And yet I live in a society that finds even raising one's voice to be abhorrent. In my opinion, both extremes don't serve the modern world. Arguing and confrontation are fine as long as there is an underlying respect and civility that ideally, don't result in needless bloodshed. Regardless, I believe that humanity is better served through care and cooperation. Therefore, I choose to curtail and control genetic and epigenetic impulses, on behalf of the greater good. People most certainly can be molded and shaped.

Personally, I believe that sole reliance on genetic determinism encourages laziness and lets people off of the hook too easily. There are cases where genetics are insurmountable (I have family members with aggressive Cystic Fibrosis) but there are also plenty of caveats that only environment and free will can provide.

bicicleur
05-07-16, 14:29
I never said or even implied that Muslims did not conquer or colonize like Christians because that would be egregiously preposterous and inaccurate. They were just as terrible in their own right. What I also said is that similarly to Christians, Muslims are experiencing "universal karma" for their previous exploits. I have never paternalized them or portrayed them to be blameless victims.


well it certainly seemed to me like that

Europe did take 600 years to free themselves from religious dogmas
I don't think Muslims are anywhere near that point
Look at Turkey. It was beaten after WW I and it started to become secular.
Now it is turning into a fascist Muslim state.
Look at youtube to the speeches Nasser gave 60 years ago and see what the Muslim brotherhood has done to that country.

You say Islam never had the chance to reform. It has had more chances than Christians, but every reform in Islam is countered by fundamentalism.
It seems to me most Muslims have accepted this as their karma.
If secular society wins, they keep low profile.
If fundamentalism wins, they'll submit to that without revolt.

gyms
05-07-16, 14:36
Wanderlust:"3.) Humanity has always benefited from the intimate exchange of different ideas and methods, some of which can only come from perspectives arrived at the world over."

Absolutely!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykbJOXxyGho

Wanderlust
05-07-16, 15:05
you forget to tell that most refugees that entered Europe last year and early this year didn't do so out of necessity
they came because they believed the stories of human trafickers who promised them they would get in Europe free housing an a very nice wellpaid job, even if they had no qualifications at all
that is why so many are dissapointed and are starting to return to their home country

Like I said, the people were in need, obviously. If they had adequate jobs, shelter, and good life prospects in their home countries, they wouldn't be willing to uproot themselves and leave, at dangerous costs to themselves, right? Some refugees had bombs exploding over their heads and others just wanted a better job and decent living conditions. They can't be faulted for wanting something better. Most immigrants have that in common.


so, I don't know whether Sweden got so many immigrants because other countries didn't pull their weight, maybe Sweden was more naive than other countries

You're wrong. It is because other European countries were not pulling their weight.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/28/world/europe/countries-under-strain-from-european-migration-crisis.html

"The United Nations reported that more than one million refugees and migrants fled to Europe in 2015, half a million of whom were escaping the Syrian war. The burden to absorb these migrants has been distributed unevenly."


and about cultures that need change, I don't say everything is perfect in Europe, but it is not Europe that should change, it is the countries where these people come from that should change
and people that come to Europe as a host should adapt themselves to Europe and not the other way

I think that all good house guests should adapt to reasonable house rules. But I also think that any good host will cater to his guests and make sure that they are comfortable and adequately cared for. Both the host and the hosted must make an effort to be considerate to the other. Just because someone extends you a kindness, does not mean that you are beholden to them and their every whim. But usually, kind deeds motivate people to acquiesce.


if they come they should adapt furthermore people should be stimulated to return and rebuild their country as soon as it is possible
and if Europe is able to intervene military or in another way to help restore stability in any of these countries it should do so

Agreed.

gyms
05-07-16, 15:43
You're wrong. It is because other European countries were not pulling their weight.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...on-crisis.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/28/world/europe/countries-under-strain-from-european-migration-crisis.html)

"The United Nations reported that more than one million refugees and migrants fled to Europe in 2015, half a million of whom were escaping the Syrian war. The burden to absorb these migrants has been distributed unevenly."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/616541/European-Union-Migrants-Refugees-George-Soros-Hungary-Viktor-Orban-Europe

EUROPEAN Union supporter George Soros has claimed Europe should take "at least a million" refugees every year and let them choose where they want to live.
The human rights activist, who is a notable backer of the European Union, called on the EU to accept more refugees and cover the cost of housing health care and education for each refugee for the first two years.
The billionaire businessman was last week accused by Hungary's prime minister of deliberately encouraging the migration crisis.

Wanderlust
05-07-16, 16:13
well it certainly seemed to me like that

Fortunately, perception isn't fact.


Europe did take 600 years to free themselves from religious dogmas
I don't think Muslims are anywhere near that point
Look at Turkey. It was beaten after WW I and it started to become secular.
Now it is turning into a fascist Muslim state.
Look at youtube to the speeches Nasser gave 60 years ago and see what the Muslim brotherhood has done to that country.

You say Islam never had the chance to reform. It has had more chances than Christians, but every reform in Islam is countered by fundamentalism.
It seems to me most Muslims have accepted this as their karma.
If secular society wins, they keep low profile.
If fundamentalism wins, they'll submit to that without revolt.

What people like you consistently gloss over or ignore altogether in these conversations, are:

1.) The massive roles the US and Europe have played in destabilizing the Middle East by virtue of interventionist policies meant to keep the region strategically, economically, and politically tied to the West, regardless of the disastrous effects on the sovereignty of the people in the region (which incidentally, figures like Nasser sought--sovereignty from the west). The fact of the matter is that the Middle East and North Africa are worse off now than they were before the increased involvement of the US and its Nato allies. This destabilization has allowed groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to form, coalesce, gain power and popularity, particularly when contextually, they seem to be opposing Western dominance and its puppet politicians in the East.

2.) The socio-cultural identity politics that lie at the root of much of the dysfunction in Muslim nations. Muslims are not monolithic in belief, and most certainly not in ethnicity, nationality, culture and social class, which also factor greatly. Particularly in countries like Turkey, that have a much closer relationship to Christian Europe, there has been a tension between secular, middle-class, materialistic, Christian European values and the more conservative, traditional values of the Muslim East and this is still being reconciled. Because of the Christian reformation, Christianity is not attached to the identity of most Europeans in an all encompassing, core defining way--no, it's more individualized and therefore, comes with less judgmental, identity angst. That's not the case for many other religious groups in the world, including Muslims, who see being Muslim as more central to them than their ethnicity. But because of globalization (increased proximity to other cultures and belief systems) and the internet (access to different ideas and ways of thinking), Muslims are now individualizing what Islam means for them and contextualizing it depending on who they are (gender, sexuality, nationality) and where they live, in ways that have nothing to do with often fundamentalist, centralized power structures, like Imams that used to function as their sole authority (similarly to Catholics and the Pope). That is liberating and reforming. Going back to my previous point, now is the right time, more than ever before, for Islamic reformation in an earth moving way, which I believe will produce more progressive values.

gyms
05-07-16, 16:46
Wanderlust:"And quite frankly, some cultures need to change."

Yes.

Migrants Attack 60 Minutes Crew In Sweden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42jpuXJPk0w

During a trip to the Swedish suburbs of Rinkeby and Husby two NRK-reporters were attacked with rocks and threatened by masked youth
They were aiming for the police. We were never hit by the rocks, says cameraman Mohammed Alayoubi. The most dramatic incident happened as we came along with the police inside a car park, where they were arresting kids dealing drugs. The kids were masked and extremely aggressive. They have no respect for the police and really disliked that we were there as well, says Alayoubi.

Norwegian Broadcasting visiting Husby, Sweden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTRMKQ6-sLk

Wanderlust
05-07-16, 17:27
Wanderlust:"And quite frankly, some cultures need to change."

Yes.



The Vikings have become such wimps. lol Does that scare or intimidate you? Not one of them threw a proper punch. :useless: I'd hardly consider myself terrified.

I do think that Somalis are particularly problematic in that they are warlike and tribal and the refugees tend to have a healthy smattering of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder on top of it--which one would expect, considering the circumstances from which they come.

But this is the problem with humanitarianism--we're forced to have compassion for people who may be too psychologically wounded to care or be appreciative. And even worse, they may bite the hand that feeds them. But it's not humanitarianism if there are strings attached; then, it's just doing good things so that people think we're good when in actuality, we aren't, we just want to look that way.

Like most Swedes who have lived very privileged lives, it's hard to understand why someone would be so "mean" to you when you are being so "nice" to them. Cry me a river. Again, these are wounded people whose cultures and values are much harsher. Just because they have been removed from an even worse situation, doesn't mean they abandon the psychological scars overnight. It takes time. Why don't people get that? Doing the right thing is usually not easy; that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done anyway.

bicicleur
05-07-16, 17:39
Fortunately, perception isn't fact.



What people like you consistently gloss over or ignore altogether in these conversations, are:

1.) The massive roles the US and Europe have played in destabilizing the Middle East by virtue of interventionist policies meant to keep the region strategically, economically, and politically tied to the West, regardless of the disastrous effects on the sovereignty of the people in the region (which incidentally, figures like Nasser sought--sovereignty from the west). The fact of the matter is that the Middle East and North Africa are worse off now than they were before the increased involvement of the US and its Nato allies. This destabilization has allowed groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to form, coalesce, gain power and popularity, particularly when contextually, they seem to be opposing Western dominance and its puppet politicians in the East.

2.) The socio-cultural identity politics that lie at the root of much of the dysfunction in Muslim nations. Muslims are not monolithic in belief, and most certainly not in ethnicity, nationality, culture and social class, which also factor greatly. Particularly in countries like Turkey, that have a much closer relationship to Christian Europe, there has been a tension between secular, middle-class, materialistic, Christian European values and the more conservative, traditional values of the Muslim East and this is still being reconciled. Because of the Christian reformation, Christianity is not attached to the identity of most Europeans in an all encompassing, core defining way--no, it's more individualized and therefore, comes with less judgmental, identity angst. That's not the case for many other religious groups in the world, including Muslims, who see being Muslim as more central to them than their ethnicity. But because of globalization (increased proximity to other cultures and belief systems) and the internet (access to different ideas and ways of thinking), Muslims are now individualizing what Islam means for them and contextualizing it depending on who they are (gender, sexuality, nationality) and where they live, in ways that have nothing to do with often fundamentalist, centralized power structures, like Imams that used to function as their sole authority (similarly to Catholics and the Pope). That is liberating and reforming. Going back to my previous point, now is the right time, more than ever before, for Islamic reformation in an earth moving way, which I believe will produce more progressive values.

is the west responsable for the constant clashes between shi'ites and sunni?
the truth is these people are obsessed with their own wholy truth and are not ripe for democracy nor reason
they were better of with tyrants like Khadafi and Saddam Hussein
but optimistic people - like you? - cheered Arab spring and US and EU governments were stupid enough to get involved

and I never said Muslims are all alike, I just see what is happening in many Muslim countries
and I notice the attitude of some (not just a few) of the Muslim immigrants in Europe

I think your analyses of the psyche of the individual Muslim in a changing world is more wishfull thinking from your side than unravelling the factual truth which is unknown

bicicleur
05-07-16, 17:43
You're wrong. It is because other European countries were not pulling their weight.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...on-crisis.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/28/world/europe/countries-under-strain-from-european-migration-crisis.html)

"The United Nations reported that more than one million refugees and migrants fled to Europe in 2015, half a million of whom were escaping the Syrian war. The burden to absorb these migrants has been distributed unevenly."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/616541/European-Union-Migrants-Refugees-George-Soros-Hungary-Viktor-Orban-Europe

EUROPEAN Union supporter George Soros has claimed Europe should take "at least a million" refugees every year and let them choose where they want to live.
The human rights activist, who is a notable backer of the European Union, called on the EU to accept more refugees and cover the cost of housing health care and education for each refugee for the first two years.
The billionaire businessman was last week accused by Hungary's prime minister of deliberately encouraging the migration crisis.





he should run for President of the EU and see if he gets a mandate for that from all Europeans
or he should buy a big island with all his money and house and cater all those refugees over there

bicicleur
05-07-16, 18:03
The Vikings have become such wimps. lol Does that scare or intimidate you? Not one of them threw a proper punch. :useless: I'd hardly consider myself terrified.

I do think that Somalis are particularly problematic in that they are warlike and tribal and the refugees tend to have a healthy smattering of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder on top of it--which one would expect, considering the circumstances from which they come.

But this is the problem with humanitarianism--we're forced to have compassion for people who may be too psychologically wounded to care or be appreciative. And even worse, they may bite the hand that feeds them. But it's not humanitarianism if there are strings attached; then, it's just doing good things so that people think we're good when in actuality, we aren't, we just want to look that way.

Like most Swedes who have lived very privileged lives, it's hard to understand why someone would be so "mean" to you when you are being so "nice" to them. Cry me a river. Again, these are wounded people whose cultures and values are much harsher. Just because they have been removed from an even worse situation, doesn't mean they abandon the psychological scars overnight. It takes time. Why don't people get that? Doing the right thing is usually not easy; that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done anyway.

ah, come on
why don't you stop looking for excuses?

gyms
05-07-16, 18:04
Wanderlust,this is not "humanitarianism".This is craziness.They are mostly illegal immigrants not refugees.

Even EU officials are now finally admitting that a lot – or, rather, most – of the people we have been calling ‘refugees’ are not refugees. They are economic migrants with no more right to be called European citizens than anybody else in the world. Even Frans Timmermans, Vice President of the European Commission, made this point this week. In his accounting, at least 60pc of the people who are here are economic migrants who should not be here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/12123684/Six-in-ten-migrants-not-entitled-to-asylum-says-EU-chief.html) – are from North African states such as Morocco and Tunisia. As he told Dutch television:-

“These are people that you can assume have no reason to apply for refugee status.”
Swedish officials are coming to a similar conclusion, saying that as many as 80,000 of the mainly young men who have gone to Sweden as ‘refugees’ in the past year alone are no such thing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35425735).

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/heres-a-fine-example-of-the-trouble-our-continent-is-descending-into/


Sweden's immigration agency (Migrationsverket) is powerless to enforce deportation orders, says a spokesman for the organisation, as more than 11,000 asylum seekers go underground in Sweden



An increasing proportion of refugees due to be deported from Sweden are instead disappearing. Last year Migrationsverket decided to expel more than 20,000 people. But the proportion of those leaving the country voluntarily after the expulsion order was reduced to 41%.
http://www.thelocal.se/20150503/more-illegal-immigrants-going-underground-in-sweden

bicicleur
05-07-16, 18:28
Like I said, the people were in need, obviously. If they had adequate jobs, shelter, and good life prospects in their home countries, they wouldn't be willing to uproot themselves and leave, at dangerous costs to themselves, right? Some refugees had bombs exploding over their heads and others just wanted a better job and decent living conditions. They can't be faulted for wanting something better. Most immigrants have that in common.



You're wrong. It is because other European countries were not pulling their weight.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/28/world/europe/countries-under-strain-from-european-migration-crisis.html

"The United Nations reported that more than one million refugees and migrants fled to Europe in 2015, half a million of whom were escaping the Syrian war. The burden to absorb these migrants has been distributed unevenly."



I think that all good house guests should adapt to reasonable house rules. But I also think that any good host will cater to his guests and make sure that they are comfortable and adequately cared for. Both the host and the hosted must make an effort to be considerate to the other. Just because someone extends you a kindness, does not mean that you are beholden to them and their every whim. But usually, kind deeds motivate people to acquiesce.



Agreed.

so whoever believes he has no future in his home country should come to Europe and be provided with shelter and all necessary cares?
they should even get European citizenship?

gyms
05-07-16, 18:55
World's refugees and displaced exceed record 60 million: U.N.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-refugees-idUSKBN0U10CV20151218

Merkel:"WIR SCHAFFEN DAS."

Tomenable
05-07-16, 20:01
Wanderlust,


Is not wanting your family to die cowardice?

Show me where do you see families (ca. 70% or more of "refugees" are young adult males of military age):

http://soshable.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Middle-East-Refugees-Young-Males.jpg

Garrick
05-07-16, 21:01
I'm not ok with anyone hating people of other cultures,


But, people see situation, every day, every week, every month... A lot of areas in the Balkans are more islamized today (territorially expanded) than 20 years ago. And not only in the Balkans. You know in the Middle East whole non-Muslim populations disappeared in front of our eyes (Assyrians, Yazids etc.). And in Europe no-go zones rise what for example this British source reports (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/657520/Europe-no-go-900-EU-areas-police-lost-control).

Yes it would be ideal that between different cultures and civilization is harmony, and Wanderlust have beautiful ideas, but unfortunately reality is different.

Pope Benedict wanted honest dialogue with Muslim prelates. He wanted discussion about some key questions. And unfortunately silence in the other side occured despite his great and sincere wishes.

What do you think why? Because nobody in Ulama can change Quran and Hadith. Nobody can change propositions about believers and unbelievers (kafirs); types of unbelievers: people of the book (Christians, Jews, Sabians) who have right to live but as dhimmis, second order citizens with numerous restrictions including special tax - jizya, and others: polytheists, atheists, etc. which position is incomparably worse.

Nobody can change propositions about Dar al-Islam: territory where Muslims rule with Sharia law (practically Muslim countries), Dar al-Harb: territory where Muslim compete with non-Muslim for domination (practically zone of war), etc.

Nobody can change propositions about jihad which is in purpose of Muslim expansion and it can be practiced in many ways (including violent and non-violent and spiritual forms). Etc.

And nobody (what is important for this thread) cannot change regulations of males, females and family which are regular part of Sharia law. It is completely vain struggle, why someone of non-Muslims, for example non-Muslim feminists, should interfere in internal Muslim issues.

But pope Benedict is great man. Dialogue is a necessary. It would be ideal if very different civilizations can live in coexistence. But it is very hard and requires a lot of commitment, energy and effort. And carries risks, what all who accept this heavy task must be aware of.

gyms
05-07-16, 23:16
Luton is Now a MUSLIM Town With a MUSLIM Mayor!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGdOBKapYuo

New London Mayor: Submit or You Will be Less Safe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaMCFBCAXXI

Welcome to Islamic Republic of Great Britain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z46imVQJejQ

Wanderlust
05-07-16, 23:23
Wanderlust,this is not "humanitarianism".This is craziness.They are mostly illegal immigrants not refugees.

Even EU officials are now finally admitting that a lot – or, rather, most – of the people we have been calling ‘refugees’ are not refugees. They are economic migrants with no more right to be called European citizens than anybody else in the world.


ah, come on
why don't you stop looking for excuses?

I'm not making excuses--I'm being a thoughtful person who has a deep and complex understanding of human behavior and the issues at hand. You want me to say, "they are evil, terrible people who should be sent away" but human beings and life are far more complex than that.

Would I rather disaffected, disruptive, maladapted, violent, trouble making refugees/immigrants not be in Europe? YES. I am not blind to the problems they present. I understand Europe's frustrations and concerns. I don't want to deal with crap from ethnic European trouble makers, let alone foreign ones. But again, there are extenuating circumstances. These are poor, usually traumatized people who have no prospects and are just trying to get a leg up. Life has victimized them enough, why would I add to that and return them to misery? Like I said, these types of situations can get messy, unpleasant and uncomfortable, but I'm willing to make some sacrifices.

I do think Sweden needs to stop taking in more, especially for the time being, and focus on the ones that are already here because it is a bit out of control. But every other nation needs to pull their weight.


so whoever believes he has no future in his home country should come to Europe and be provided with shelter and all necessary cares?
they should even get European citizenship?

Isn't that why most immigrants leave their countries? To find a better life? As long as they are willing to work for it, I have no issues. Besides, Europe has taken and stolen enough resources from every other continent for centuries and so yes, yes, we had it coming.

Wanderlust
05-07-16, 23:24
is the west responsable for the constant clashes between shi'ites and sunni?

Partly, yes and they've certainly done nothing to stop it. It has been no secret that the United States, particularly, is allied with the predominantly Sunni Gulf States and has backed them even as they've repressed and slaughtered Shi'ites. Who do you think installed Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, over a predominantly Shi'ite nation and then did nothing as he murdered them?


the truth is these people are obsessed with their own wholy truth and are not ripe for democracy nor reason
they were better of with tyrants like Khadafi and Saddam Hussein
but optimistic people - like you? - cheered Arab spring and US and EU governments were stupid enough to get involved

I cheered no such thing. The Arab Spring was most certainly manipulated by the West in order to initiate a pro-Western regime change. And now North Africa is an even worse hellhole than it was before. If you were actually reading and comprehending the things I've said, you'd understand that I think Western interference has been far more destructive than it has been helpful.


I think your analyses of the psyche of the individual Muslim in a changing world is more wishfull thinking from your side than unravelling the factual truth which is unknown

We will see, won't we.

bicicleur
06-07-16, 01:08
Partly, yes and they've certainly done nothing to stop it. It has been no secret that the United States, particularly, is allied with the predominantly Sunni Gulf States and has backed them even as they've repressed and slaughtered Shi'ites. Who do you think installed Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, over a predominantly Shi'ite nation and then did nothing as he murdered them?



I cheered no such thing. The Arab Spring was most certainly manipulated by the West in order to initiate a pro-Western regime change. And now North Africa is an even worse hellhole than it was before. If you were actually reading and comprehending the things I've said, you'd understand that I think Western interference has been far more destructive than it has been helpful.



We will see, won't we.

Please stop the crap.
Shi'ites and Sunni are killing each other allready 1300 years, from the 3rd Islamic generation, and the west has nothing to do with that.
They are fanatics and everyone that does not agree with them are kafirs.

bicicleur
06-07-16, 01:11
I'm not making excuses--I'm being a thoughtful person who has a deep and complex understanding of human behavior and the issues at hand. You want me to say, "they are evil, terrible people who should be sent away" but human beings and life are far more complex than that.

Would I rather disaffected, disruptive, maladapted, violent, trouble making refugees/immigrants not be in Europe? YES. I am not blind to the problems they present. I understand Europe's frustrations and concerns. I don't want to deal with crap from ethnic European trouble makers, let alone foreign ones. But again, there are extenuating circumstances. These are poor, usually traumatized people who have no prospects and are just trying to get a leg up. Life has victimized them enough, why would I add to that and return them to misery? Like I said, these types of situations can get messy, unpleasant and uncomfortable, but I'm willing to make some sacrifices.

I do think Sweden needs to stop taking in more, especially for the time being, and focus on the ones that are already here because it is a bit out of control. But every other nation needs to pull their weight.



Isn't that why most immigrants leave their countries? To find a better life? As long as they are willing to work for it, I have no issues. Besides, Europe has taken and stolen enough resources from every other continent for centuries and so yes, yes, we had it coming.

oh yes you are looking for excuses
you know nothing about those Somalis on the video
nothing about their past nor about their intentions

gyms
06-07-16, 10:08
Wanderlust:"I'm not making excuses--I'm being a thoughtful person who has a deep and complex understanding of human behavior and the issues at hand."

Do you have any understanding for the Swedish people too?

"These are poor, usually traumatized people..."
How do you know that? They have no ID cards.

gyms
06-07-16, 11:00
"Life has victimized them enough..."

Muslim taxi driver refuses to take disabled passenger with his guide dog 'because it's against his religion'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3673685/Muslim-taxi-driver-refuses-disabled-passenger-guide-dog-s-against-religion.html

Sile
06-07-16, 11:19
Women should be fighting the religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism as they are all anti-female religions.

They should stop attending all services until they ( women ) get equality in ALL these religions .

I cannot believe how many men in this forum are anti women sexists ..........you guys should be flogged.

gyms
06-07-16, 11:49
"Women should be fighting the religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism as they are all anti-female religions."

Really?

Mary barely speaks in the New Testament, but her image and legacy are found and celebrated around the World.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/virgin-mary-text

Mary's life and role in the history of salvation is foreshadowed in the Old Testament, while the events of her life are recorded in the New Testament. Traditionally, she was declared the daughter of Sts. Joachim and Anne. Born in Jerusalem, Mary was presented in the Temple and took a vow of virginity. Living in Nazareth, Mary was visited by the archangel Gabriel, who announced to her that she would become the Mother of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967

gyms
06-07-16, 14:47
Migration as a Business: The Case of Trafficking

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227947677_Migration_as_a_Business_The_Case_of_Traf ficking
The article focuses on migrant trafficking, the core of the illegitimate business. Migrant trafficking, a subject of growing political concern, is recognized by migration experts and policy makers to be undermining international collaborative efforts to produce ordered migration flows. Trafficking, widely condemned for its inhuman practices and links to international organized crime, is also believed to be increasing in scale and sophistication. Our model conceives of trafficking as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies of destination countries.

https://www.oecd.org/migration/Can%20we%20put%20an%20end%20to%20human%20smuggling .pdf
In the first ten months of 2015, more than 1.2 million illegal border crossings at the external border of the EU have been detected, a level never seen before in Europe. Available evidence suggests that irregular migration also persists in other parts of the world at high levels. Most of the migrants who use these routes put their lives in the hands of unscrupulous human smugglers and traffickers, who make big money out of this business. Tackling these crimes has become a top priority for policy makers.

Top 10 of 2015 – Issue #4: Big Business of Smuggling Enables Mass Movement of People for Enormous Profits
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/top-10-2015-issue-4-big-business-smuggling-enables-mass-movement-people-enormous-profits (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/top-10-2015-issue-4-big-business-smuggling-enables-mass-movement-people-enormous-profits)

Smuggling routes to Europe resemble a vast, complex chain, stretching from points in southern Africa and Central Asia to the Mediterranean. While there is no such thing as a single global smuggling network, routes are developed through a series of systems and crossroads that fan like webs across entire continents. The nationalities of those arriving are diverse, with migrants and would-be asylum seekers engaging multiple smuggling services along the way.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/terror-expert-shelley-speaks-of-islamic-state-business-model-a-1011492.html
Shelley: I have noticed that in Germany there is little research on the linkages of these phenomena. There is also little basic analysis on the non-traditional security challenges facing Germany today. Germany is surrounded by many regions of the world where dirty entanglements are pervasive -- North Africa (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-expanding-into-north-africa-a-1003525.html), the Balkans, and the Middle East. Germany does not control its borders any more. Yet there is little analysis on the consequences of this for Germany. Few researchers are studying the reasons for, and the dimensions of, illicit migration into Germany. In my conversations with the German government, I talked about an African country that nobody has on the radar, but because of its abundant natural resources, dozens of trans-national criminal organizations are active there. I was asked: How do you know that? And I replied: Because I do research! Germany was once known for its research tradition. It should remember that.

LeBrok
06-07-16, 16:28
Wanderlust:"I'm not making excuses--I'm being a thoughtful person who has a deep and complex understanding of human behavior and the issues at hand."

Do you have any understanding for the Swedish people too?

"These are poor, usually traumatized people..."
How do you know that? They have no ID cards.
And from ID cards you would learn their wealth and psychological state? :good_job:
Impeccable logic, dude.

LeBrok
06-07-16, 16:34
"Life has victimized them enough..."

Muslim taxi driver refuses to take disabled passenger with his guide dog 'because it's against his religion'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3673685/Muslim-taxi-driver-refuses-disabled-passenger-guide-dog-s-against-religion.html Anegdotal evidance is a great tool to learn about human nature:

I'm being a thoughtful person who has a deep and complex understanding of human behavior and the issues at hand."
And how come you are missing all anecdotal stories about crazy christians? Should I help you? I know how to google and post it on this thread.

LeBrok
06-07-16, 16:37
Migration as a Business: The Case of Trafficking

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227947677_Migration_as_a_Business_The_Case_of_Traf ficking
The article focuses on migrant trafficking, the core of the illegitimate business. Migrant trafficking, a subject of growing political concern, is recognized by migration experts and policy makers to be undermining international collaborative efforts to produce ordered migration flows. Trafficking, widely condemned for its inhuman practices and links to international organized crime, is also believed to be increasing in scale and sophistication. Our model conceives of trafficking as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies of destination countries.

https://www.oecd.org/migration/Can%20we%20put%20an%20end%20to%20human%20smuggling .pdf
In the first ten months of 2015, more than 1.2 million illegal border crossings at the external border of the EU have been detected, a level never seen before in Europe. Available evidence suggests that irregular migration also persists in other parts of the world at high levels. Most of the migrants who use these routes put their lives in the hands of unscrupulous human smugglers and traffickers, who make big money out of this business. Tackling these crimes has become a top priority for policy makers.

Top 10 of 2015 – Issue #4: Big Business of Smuggling Enables Mass Movement of People for Enormous Profits
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/top-10-2015-issue-4-big-business-smuggling-enables-mass-movement-people-enormous-profits

Smuggling routes to Europe resemble a vast, complex chain, stretching from points in southern Africa and Central Asia to the Mediterranean. While there is no such thing as a single global smuggling network, routes are developed through a series of systems and crossroads that fan like webs across entire continents. The nationalities of those arriving are diverse, with migrants and would-be asylum seekers engaging multiple smuggling services along the way.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/terror-expert-shelley-speaks-of-islamic-state-business-model-a-1011492.html
Shelley: I have noticed that in Germany there is little research on the linkages of these phenomena. There is also little basic analysis on the non-traditional security challenges facing Germany today. Germany is surrounded by many regions of the world where dirty entanglements are pervasive -- North Africa (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-expanding-into-north-africa-a-1003525.html), the Balkans, and the Middle East. Germany does not control its borders any more. Yet there is little analysis on the consequences of this for Germany. Few researchers are studying the reasons for, and the dimensions of, illicit migration into Germany. In my conversations with the German government, I talked about an African country that nobody has on the radar, but because of its abundant natural resources, dozens of trans-national criminal organizations are active there. I was asked: How do you know that? And I replied: Because I do research! Germany was once known for its research tradition. It should remember that.


Anything about supporting rights of muslim women, on topic, or you stuck in your anti muslim fits?

Garrick
06-07-16, 17:13
Women should be fighting the religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism as they are all anti-female religions.

They should stop attending all services until they ( women ) get equality in ALL these religions .

I cannot believe how many men in this forum are anti women sexists ..........you guys should be flogged.

I don't believe that people are anti women sexists but discussion moved off thread, some new thread could be about multiculturalism, Europe and Islam.

In regards to thread I said, nobody should blame feminists, non-Muslims (men or women all the same) have very very limited opportunities to meddle in internal Muslim issues.

Seen from the side someone may look scary however it is their internal matter.

Quran, Sunnah and Haddith provide gender role, Sharia law elaborate, every Muslim man and Muslim woman must follow these rules.

Only Muslim feminists can change something, but only things which are not written in Quran and Haddith, or which are taken from non-Muslim practice.

Wanderlust
06-07-16, 17:35
Please stop the crap.
Shi'ites and Sunni are killing each other allready 1300 years, from the 3rd Islamic generation, and the west has nothing to do with that.
They are fanatics and everyone that does not agree with them are kafirs.

I'm flabbergasted by people on anthropology forums who don't understand context and nuance, especially because those are traits very important to every field of anthropology. I intentionally speak with much nuance. Evidently, it's lost on you.


oh yes you are looking for excuses
you know nothing about those Somalis on the video
nothing about their past nor about their intentions

I don't need to know the Somalis in the video in order to give an informed, thoughtful opinion because I have known many Somalis very much like the ones in the video and I'm also fairly familiar with the internal logic that informs them as a culture. As someone who has actually studied socio-cultural anthropology, I'm used to making sense of behaviors that outsiders may find bizarre or perplexing. Again, I am amazed that this must be said on an anthropology forum, and to a purported "advisor," no less. It's absolutely amazing.

I must continually remind myself that many anthrophora are more concerned with outdated pseudo-scientific physical anthropology where racism and ethnocentrism dominate and concepts like cultural relativism are unheard of or flat out ignored. It's rather intellectually disappointing.

bicicleur
06-07-16, 18:30
I'm flabbergasted by people on anthropology forums who don't understand context and nuance, especially because those are traits very important to every field of anthropology. I intentionally speak with much nuance. Evidently, it's lost on you.



I don't need to know the Somalis in the video in order to give an informed, thoughtful opinion because I have known many Somalis very much like the ones in the video and I'm also fairly familiar with the internal logic that informs them as a culture. As someone who has actually studied socio-cultural anthropology, I'm used to making sense of behaviors that outsiders may find bizarre or perplexing. Again, I am amazed that this must be said on an anthropology forum, and to a purported "advisor," no less. It's absolutely amazing.

I must continually remind myself that many anthrophora are more concerned with outdated pseudo-scientific physical anthropology where racism and ethnocentrism dominate and concepts like cultural relativism are unheard of or flat out ignored. It's rather intellectually disappointing.

there is no nuance at all in your argumentation, it is very one-sided and sometimes irrelevant
that is what I argue against
but if you believe that because of your higher intelligence and your education I'm unable to grasp what you're saying, the discussion is finished
that believe comes from your own political correct convictions
I'm sure I can't heal you from that

Wanderlust
06-07-16, 18:45
there is no nuance at all in your argumentation, it is very one-sided and sometimes irrelevant

I believe your lack of comprehension is the issue because I've had to repeat myself several times and you still don't get it. Perhaps it's just a language difficulty and not an intellectual one. Or it could be both.


but if you believe that because of your higher intelligence and your education I'm unable to grasp what you're saying, the discussion is finished

Agreed.


that believe comes from your own political correct convictions
I'm sure I can't heal you from that

Nor can I heal you from your bigoted, plebeian myopia. Cheers, nonetheless!

bicicleur
06-07-16, 19:11
I believe your lack of comprehension is the issue because I've had to repeat myself several times and you still don't get it. Perhaps it's just a language difficulty and not an intellectual one. Or it could be both.



Agreed.



Nor can I heal you from your bigoted, plebeian myopia. Cheers, nonetheless!

thanks, you just proved me right

Garrick
06-07-16, 19:14
Anything about supporting rights of muslim women, on topic, or you stuck in your anti muslim fits?

I don't think that people here are anti Muslim. Even maybe if someone says some stronger word and it can be understood.

Key problem is that Muslims should harmonize their religion with 21 century. But I gave reason why Ulama will not do it.

And what is result. Angela and I discussed about this a long. And yesterday, today, tomorrow... the same target as a distance. When someone comes to live in a country he or she should behave according to the laws of that country.

But a lot of Muslims no, because for them Sharia law (based on Quran, Sunnah, Haddith) is above state law.

You can see for example new research in Germany:

Deutche Welle

Study: Large number of Turks in Germany put Islam above the law

http://www.dw.com/en/study-large-number-of-turks-in-germany-put-islam-above-the-law/a-19336757

gyms
06-07-16, 19:15
I believe your lack of comprehension is the issue because I've had to repeat myself several times and you still don't get it. Perhaps it's just a language difficulty and not an intellectual one. Or it could be both.



Agreed.



Nor can I heal you from your bigoted, plebeian myopia. Cheers, nonetheless!

National nihilism is a manifestation of the antipatriotic ideology of bourgeois cosmopolitanism, disrespect for the national pride and the national dignity of peoples. Comrade Stalin said: "National nihilism only injures the cause of socialism, acting as a tool for bourgeois nationalists." (Works, Vol. 4, p. 91). Comrade Stalin strongly spoke out against those who suggested that "the struggle with nationalism must at the same time throw away everything that is national." (Works, Vol. 5, p. 311). National nihilism in our conditions is a form of struggle chosen by rootless-cosmopolitans against Soviet patriotism, against Soviet culture (national in form, socialist in content); it is a display of their cringing before bourgeois culture. In this way, national nihilism with its attitude towards the Great Russian people and the other peoples of our nation, time and again was linked [in the minds of] rootless cosmopolitans with bourgeois nationalism, which today is inseparably tied with the cosmopolitan ideology of the imperialist bourgeoisie.
Comrade Stalin , Comrade Stalin , Comrade Stalin ...
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/chernov/chernov-cosmo-e.html

Sile
06-07-16, 19:47
"Women should be fighting the religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism as they are all anti-female religions."

Really?

Mary barely speaks in the New Testament, but her image and legacy are found and celebrated around the World.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/virgin-mary-text

Mary's life and role in the history of salvation is foreshadowed in the Old Testament, while the events of her life are recorded in the New Testament. Traditionally, she was declared the daughter of Sts. Joachim and Anne. Born in Jerusalem, Mary was presented in the Temple and took a vow of virginity. Living in Nazareth, Mary was visited by the archangel Gabriel, who announced to her that she would become the Mother of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967

Really!
The church called her a prostitute and started to defile her from Roman days until present. Is this not fact?

She was a Phoenician Priestess ( practicing the phoenician religion ) and was no prostitute

Sile
06-07-16, 19:53
I don't believe that people are anti women sexists but discussion moved off thread, some new thread could be about multiculturalism, Europe and Islam.

In regards to thread I said, nobody should blame feminists, non-Muslims (men or women all the same) have very very limited opportunities to meddle in internal Muslim issues.

Seen from the side someone may look scary however it is their internal matter.

Quran, Sunnah and Haddith provide gender role, Sharia law elaborate, every Muslim man and Muslim woman must follow these rules.

Only Muslim feminists can change something, but only things which are not written in Quran and Haddith, or which are taken from non-Muslim practice.

Passing the buck

We ( westerner Governments ) should demand eqaulity in all aspect of society ...including ALL religions practiced in the nation. If tthe religions do not change there anti-female theories, then the religion should be removed.
I see no women bishops , Popes or cardinals, no female clerics, no female have zero equal rights in regards to islam, judasism or christians religious practices.

Sile
06-07-16, 19:54
Islam Is Actually A Feminist Religion: 5 Myths About Islam

Today, society’s most prominent ills are frequently attributed to Islam. Islam’s own view is then dismissed. Given the daily misfortunes we witness, the urge to have a catch-all blame name is understandable. However, that does not mitigate the absurdity of this practice.
Gender discrimination is one of the most overwhelming and ill-founded allegations used to discredit Islam. Yet gender discrimination does not actually exist in Islam — I know, bold claim. To prove this, below are five popular myths (gathered from Facebook, my informal pollster (https://www.facebook.com/rabah.jl/posts/807039726023100?pnref=story)) which perpetuate this gross stereotype. Each will be addressed in turn, with reference to evidence-based analysis.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/MyMPN/islam-actually-feminist-religion-5-myths-islam/

Islam: A Religion of Peace

Islam is a religion of peace in the fullest sense of the word. The Qur’an calls its way ‘the paths of peace’ (5:16). It states that God abhors any disturbance of peace (2:205).
In fact the root word of Islam is ‘silm’ which itself means peace. So the spirit of Islam is the spirit of peace. The first verse of the Qur’an breathes the spirit of peace. It reads: In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
http://www.cpsglobal.org/content/islam-religion-peace

When did you see a female islamic cleric ?

Wanderlust
06-07-16, 20:10
thanks, you just proved me right

Likewise. :grin:



National nihilism is a manifestation of the antipatriotic ideology of bourgeois cosmopolitanism, disrespect for the national pride and the national dignity of peoples.

Yeah, I guess.

Any pride I have as a person is not attached to Europe, Sweden or being European and Swedish because I had no choice in that--I didn't ask to be Swedish; I didn't ask to be born here; I just was, and that's ok, but it was unearned. I love many things about Europe and Sweden, in particular. But my pride comes from my own exploits and endeavors, as everyone's should.

It's no wonder that many who form the foundation of these far right, nationalist movements are perpetually insecure and afraid, un/under-educated, unemployed, and usually have nothing going on for themselves; therefore, their only or primary source of pride is rooted in vague, malleable cultural abstractions of nationalism or achievements by others who share their nationality; they piggyback off of the exploits and achievements of others, as if that gives them value and worth, too. And they are wrong. Just because Bach and Nietzsche were brilliant, doesn't mean all Germans are. Why should some pig farmer in Choppenburg feel better about himself because of Goethe?

Most of what I love about Swedish culture I could find in Norway, Denmark, Hamburg, or Seattle. "Swedishness" is not so unique and special. A lot of different cultures all across the globe are "Swedish" at heart. And for the last time, the fact that people on an anthropology board don't know that there are many universal human truths that unite us more than national borders, is saddening.

Tomenable
06-07-16, 21:01
Wanderlust,


Europe has taken and stolen enough resources from every other continent for centuries and so yes, yes, we had it coming.

Why are you using continents - not countries - as territorial divisions in this case ???

How much wealth did Slovenia or Czech Republic steal from other continents ??? :laughing:

As for your country - Sweden - it was mostly stealing resources from Germany (e.g. in 1618-1648) and Poland (e.g. in 1655-1660). I don't think that you stole more from Somalia than from Germany or Poland. So why are you "being nice" to Somalis?

Also what is your definition of "Europe" ???

For example Konrad Adenauer said that Europe starts to the west of the Elbe River.

Garrick
06-07-16, 21:10
Please stop the crap.
Shi'ites and Sunni are killing each other allready 1300 years, from the 3rd Islamic generation, and the west has nothing to do with that.
They are fanatics and everyone that does not agree with them are kafirs.

You're right, nobody from the West or North has a link with Sunni-Shia split.

Split between Sunnis and Shias emerged several decades after Muhammad dead (632 AD). Ali ibn Ali Talib was cousin of Muhammad and ruler of Caliphate five years, but he was assassinated (661 AD). His son Husayn ibn Ali killed in the Battle of Karbala (680 AD). Umayyad caliph Yazid I won the battle with large military forces. Shia Muslims are Ali's followers and for them this battle has a central place in their tradition. After this battle Sunni-Shia split was lasting.

...
Interesting discussion I had with some Shia Muslims about society wide questions and they told me that democracy is a great achievement and that Islam should find adequate answers to it.

Wanderlust
06-07-16, 21:37
"Most of what I love about Swedish culture I could find in Norway, Denmark, Hamburg, or Seattle. "Swedishness" is not so unique and special."
Maybe for you.

ÅSA JINDER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDhNF2WxrD8

Jättebra! That was beautiful. But I also like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzTnwGZQwNo

...which is also "Swedish."

Brorsan, cultures change. What it means to be Swedish will change for the next 1,000 years. What it meant to be Roman 2,000 years ago is not the same as what that means now. I know change is hard but it is inevitable. This is why conservatives eventually lose--things change. But the things you love will never die so long as you love them. No one can take your culture away from you, because "Swedish culture" is now both ÅSA JINDER och Lorentz. There is something for everyone. Space is not limited at the culture table.

Wanderlust
06-07-16, 22:15
Wanderlust,


Why are you using continents - not countries - as territorial divisions in this case ???

How much wealth did Slovenia or Czech Republic steal from other continents ??? :laughing:

"Sins of the father...."

Exodus 34:6-7 “The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

As a dutiful, genetically hardwired Polish Catholic, I thought you'd appreciate that. What can I say, karma is an inexact science. Europe is the parent, and Slovenia and the Czech republic are the neglected stepchildren. :cool-v:


As for your country - Sweden - it was mostly stealing resources from Germany (e.g. in 1618-1648) and Poland (e.g. in 1655-1660). I don't think that you stole more from Somalia than from Germany or Poland. So why are you "being nice" to Somalis?

Sweden was also a slave trading nation, though admittedly, they didn't take slaves from East Africa--regardless, they stole from Africa (but didn't benefit as much directly like many other Western European nations; but the wealth sucked from Africa over the centuries has benefited much of Europe indirectly). :satisfied: I'm being a bit cheeky, but Sweden helps Somalis because Sweden is a generous, humanitarian nation. The idea of not helping someone just because they don't look like you or share your same culture is preposterous.


Also what is your definition of "Europe" ???

For example Konrad Adenauer said that Europe starts to the west of the Elbe River.

Admittedly, when I say "Europe," I'm usually thinking of Western Europe in similar terms to Adenauer because they actually have money and resources. :grin: But obviously, Europe consists of the 50 countries on the continent of Europe.

Wanderlust
06-07-16, 22:54
You're right, nobody from the West or North has a link with Sunni-Shia split.

You're wrong. To be clear, I never said that Western involvement was the genesis for the Sunni-Shia split or even had a significant hand in their dysfunctional relationship throughout the centuries, or even implied that. I already know that the Sunni and Shia have clashed for over a 1,000 years. Bicicleur asked "is the west responsable for the constant clashes between shi'ites and sunni?" And I said "PARTLY, yes." I don't think he understands what partly means. Partly does not mean "fully responsible" or even "mostly responsible." What partly means is "to some extent." Because of Iran, the US has tried to keep Shi'ite power at a minimum by supporting and backing Sunni forces, thus adding to the instability between Sunnis and Shi'ites. I'm not wrong about that.

Garrick
06-07-16, 22:55
Passing the buck

We ( westerner Governments ) should demand eqaulity in all aspect of society ...including ALL religions practiced in the nation. If tthe religions do not change there anti-female theories, then the religion should be removed.
I see no women bishops , Popes or cardinals, no female clerics, no female have zero equal rights in regards to islam, judasism or christians religious practices.

I have no problem with female priests.

Churches should give answer.


When did you see a female islamic cleric ?

He joked.

He gave examples of taqiyya.

Garrick
06-07-16, 23:32
You're wrong. To be clear, I never said that Western involvement was the genesis for the Sunni-Shia split or even had a significant hand in their dysfunctional relationship throughout the centuries, or even implied that. I already know that the Sunni and Shia have clashed for over a 1,000 years. Bicicleur asked "is the west responsable for the constant clashes between shi'ites and sunni?" And I said "PARTLY, yes." I don't think he understands what partly means. Partly does not mean "fully responsible" or even "mostly responsible." What partly means is "to some extent." Because of Iran, the US has tried to keep Shi'ite power at a minimum by supporting and backing Sunni forces, thus adding to the instability between Sunnis and Shi'ites. I'm not wrong about that.

Clarification about Sunni-Shia split was important because certain circles in the West (I will not say leftists do not drop in hard right wing agenda) for all what happened and happens in Third world are pointing to the West. But it is wrong. For each country of the third world it is much better to look at their own strengths and weaknesses and the opportunities which has on the road to development than blaming the West for the miserable destiny. Far East countries through appropriate strategies and hard work managed to escape initially unfavorable conditions (without thinking that blame West) and they show that path is possible.

Bicicleur noticed extraordinary:


You say Islam never had the chance to reform. It has had more chances than Christians, but every reform in Islam is countered by fundamentalism.
It seems to me most Muslims have accepted this as their karma.
If secular society wins, they keep low profile.
If fundamentalism wins, they'll submit to that without revolt.

This is great truth, no matter how many tried to present it is no so.

Wanderlust
07-07-16, 05:24
certain circles in the West (I will not say leftists do not drop in hard right wing agenda) for all what happened and happens in Third world are pointing to the West. But it is wrong. For each country of the third world it is much better to look at their own strengths and weaknesses and the opportunities which has on the road to development than blaming the West for the miserable destiny.

The West may not be responsible for "all" that is wrong with the Third World but they are for a lot of it, and in many cases, their significant involvement has done more harm than good.

1.) One of biggest problems is that in places like Africa and Asia (including the Middle East), for centuries or even thousands of years, there had already been intra-continental fighting between national/ethnic/religious groups with longstanding grievances. The West conquered and colonized these places and either took advantage of and exploited the sectarian differences or ignored the differences and treated the conquered peoples as one. Worse, certain groups were favored over others and the allocation of resources were unequally distributed which exacerbated already existing tensions. And then during major political upheavals like WW1, WW2 and decolonization, there were many "arbitrary" borders constructed that didn't take into consideration the prior grievances and disputes amongst the peoples on the land and unsurprisingly, all hell broke loose, eg. Jews/Palestinians, Hausa-Fulani/Igbo, Hutu/Tutsi, Sunni/Shia/Kurds, etc....

2.) Let's remember that while Europe was still ensnared in the Dark Ages, there had been the Mayans, the Kingdom of Pagan, the Ghana Empire, the Incas, the Mali Empire, and don't even get me started on the kingdoms of India and dynasties in China--my point is, for most of the peoples who currently occupy the "Third World" or are considered to be developing nations, they were not culturally and economically impoverished pre-European Colonialism and Imperialism. No, they had long established their own artisans, monuments, currencies, trade routes, etc... and evidently were not desolate, "lazy," colored people--all propaganda used by Europeans to justify their disenfranchisement by the way. Resource rich Latin America, Africa and Asia have been robbed and plundered for centuries by the West; and the pillaged resources weren't just limited to the likes of sugar, cotton, gold, timber, coal, oil, etc... but also human capital via slave labor. Many peoples were forced into artificial, long lasting, generational poverty because their lands and resources were overexploited and completely depleted to the benefit of the Europeans and not the native peoples. For example, Britain utterly undermined India's economic potential--India went from exporting manufactured goods to providing raw materials to Britain, that for almost a century, amounted to the yearly equivalent of sixty million Indian workers. India didn't become poor on its own. And this trend took place consistently all over the Third World.

3.) And I just want to quickly address the slavs, who seem to be quite conservative, nationalistic and anti-left around here. Even Eastern Europe owes a lot of its current situation to Western European machinations. The very fact that the word slave is derived from slav is painfully telling. Whether from being worked to death in Charlemagne's mines, to being sold to the Muslims by Germany, France and Italy in order to revitalize themselves after the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, to being specifically targeted for extermination by fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, slavs have had a hard time. And if that hadn't been bad enough, slavs then became the victims of Soviet expansion (colonialism and imperialism by another name). So, because Eastern European slavs have fared pretty badly over the past millennium or so, does that mean that they are inferior peoples meant only for servitude? Or that they were victimized continuously by various oppressive elements to the point where they were stagnated as a people? Philosopher Friedrich Engels once wrote concerning Irish treatment at the hands of the English: "How often have the Irish started out to achieve something, and every time they have been crushed politically and industrially. By consistent oppression they have been artificially converted into an utterly impoverished nation." Something to think about.


Far East countries through appropriate strategies and hard work managed to escape initially unfavorable conditions (without thinking that blame West) and they show that path is possible.

1.) Far East Asians are hard working and everyone else in the Third Word is simply lazy? Thanks for signaling the oldest and most unsubstantiated claim by Western Imperialists to date. Again, pre-European Colonialism and Imperialism, the "Third World," much of which is located in warm climates and inhabited by brown people, had flourishing kingdoms and civilizations. So, out of nowhere, and of their own volition, they somehow became slothful and lazy? Mind you, these are the same people who, today, often work excruciatingly long hours in warm, tropical climates, for meager earnings. Laziness isn't the problem.

2.) The Far East has plenty to "blame the West" for and they have and they will get even, eventually. Japan and China are well versed in playing the long game. They know how to bide their time and strengthen themselves before they get revenge. When the US under Commodore Matthew Perry humiliated Japan (then run by a Warrior society) by forcing them to open up their borders for trade, they copied and duplicated Western societal models and became an Imperial power themselves. And then eventually, Pearl Harbor happened. They had been embarassed less than a century prior to that--which was a defining cultural memory for a very prideful, honor based people. And then Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened which upped the ante--they have neither forgiven nor forgotten. And China deserves to be even angrier. They too had been forced by the West into unfair trading treaties and when they revolted, they were put down brutally (which the Japanese jumpstarts aided in). One of the reasons why the Chinese embraced Marxism was because they saw it as anti-Western, which had been personified in their eyes through imperialist capitalism. And of course, communism led them down a dark, isolated, regressive, restrictive path but they are recovering, and fast. One day soon, they will be powerful enough to seek revenge on all of those who have wronged them, chief on the list being the West and Japan (who is allied with the West).



Bicicleur noticed extraordinary:



This is great truth, no matter how many tried to present it is no so.

I don't think that was some extraordinary, unknown observation. Muslims have had an uneasy time reconciling their traditional, conservative beliefs with secular modernity; that tension stagnates them. They want to be modern, and there are many things they like about the Western world, but at the same time, they don't want to violate a belief system that is attached to their identity (even more strongly than their ethnicity--people in the West can't understand this). They would not be the first people, who faced with two difficult, complicated, polarizing choices, choose to "do nothing."

Tomenable
07-07-16, 08:00
Wanderlust,


Sweden was also a slave trading nation, though admittedly, they didn't take slaves from East Africa

As far as I know Swedes were taking slave girls from Ukraine and then selling them to Muslim harems.

So you should rather be taking refugees from Eastern Ukraine (Donbass War) to pay for your past sins.

Muslim Arabs were actually your business partners in that disgusting sex slave trade, not your victims.

Vikings were also taking slaves from the British Isles, but those were mostly Danes and Norwegians.


visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.

I know my genealogical tree as far as the fourth generation back.

They didn't commit any sins against people from other continents.


As a dutiful, genetically hardwired Polish Catholic, I thought you'd appreciate that.

Actually I do not identify with Catholicism.

Looks like you are eager to stereotype other people as long as they have similar skin colour as you ???

Only stereotyping people with dark skin tones - or Muslims of any skin tone - is Non-PC in Sweden?


The idea of not helping someone just because they don't look like you

The reason for not helping is not how they look like, but how they behave and what are their value systems.

I am eager to help Non-Muslims from the Middle East. For example Yazidi refugees are welcomed:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32165-5000-Yazidi-slavegirls-being-bought-and-sold-even-for-no-price


the wealth sucked from Africa over the centuries has benefited much of Europe indirectly).

You are delusional. There had been NO any significant wealth in Africa before Europeans colonized it. Sub-Saharan Africa was always a poor shithole - both before Europeans came, and after Europeans left. And the reason for this is - sadly - because they have average genotypic IQ of just 80. In other words - Sub-Saharan Africans are genetically less intelligent than Eurasians. Saying this is not racism - it is a scientific fact, which is being suppressed by the PC left.


But obviously, Europe consists of the 50 countries on the continent of Europe.

No, Europe is not a continent. Nothing separates it from Asia.

Where do you draw a border between Europe and Asia, is entirely arbitrary.

There is a continent of Eurasia - it is one continent, not two.

Europe is a peninsula or a subcontinent - just like India.

Tomenable
07-07-16, 09:02
Wanderlust,


Resource rich Latin America, Africa and Asia have been robbed and plundered for centuries by the West

Read about Muslim slave trade - Arabs and Turks were robbing and plundering Africa, the Middle East, India and Europe for centuries. Muslim slave trade extracted more people from Sub-Saharan Africa, than Atlantic slave trade did. Not to mention several millions of native Europeans who were enslaved by the Muslims. Also the so called "blood tax" was being payed by Balkan nations under Turkish occupation - Ottoman rulers were taking living people as tribute.


The Far East has plenty to "blame the West" for and they have and they will get even, eventually. Japan and China are well versed in playing the long game. They know how to bide their time and strengthen themselves before they get revenge. When the US under Commodore Matthew Perry humiliated Japan (then run by a Warrior society) by forcing them to open up their borders for trade, they copied and duplicated Western societal models and became an Imperial power themselves. And then eventually, Pearl Harbor happened. They had been embarassed less than a century prior to that--which was a defining cultural memory for a very prideful, honor based people. And then Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened which upped the ante--they have neither forgiven nor forgotten.

What the heck are you talking about ???

What am I reading: "Poor Japan, humiliated and harmed by the evil West in WW2"? WTF ?! The Japanese Empire killed more civilians and commited more genocides and war crimes in WW2 than Nazi Germany. The Japanese are the perpetrators of WW2, not its victims!

Jeez..., you Swedes are brainwashed as hell by your Anti-European education system. You are lost, brainwashed, there is no hope for you. We should let Sweden collapse, as a lesson for others, how not to run a country.

Tomenable
07-07-16, 09:16
Wanderlust,

Also your confidence that the West will "suffer consequences for its actions", is just laughable. They will not suffer consequences for what their ancestors did many generations ago, because they are already awakening from their self-hatred. Open your eyes, look what is happening all over the West - they are fed up with left-wing rules. Brexit won, Trump is heading for victory in the U.S., Alt-right parties are gaining ground everywhere. In Austria the lefties falsified election results, now the election will be re-held and the Alt-right candidate is doomed to win. Your multi-cultural, self-hating, Europe-hating lefties, are losing ground everywhere, all the time. The West is going to rise again, and far-left nuts can do NOTHING, literally NOTHING to stop it. The regressive left is doomed to get lost - and they were asking for it, with their own dumb policies, which have already dissatisfied so many people. Libtards and cuckservatives are in full retreat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7aG-VQYGhA

Tomenable
07-07-16, 09:49
Wanderlust,


And if that hadn't been bad enough, slavs then became the victims of Soviet expansion (colonialism and imperialism

As far as I know, the Soviets were Slavs themselves. At least most of them were.

Unless you believe in Judeo-Bolshevism and Jewish-Communism theories?

But that would make you a very Anti-Semitic Swede, wouldn't it ???


So, because Eastern European slavs have fared pretty badly over the past millennium or so, does that mean that they are inferior peoples meant only for servitude? Or that they were victimized continuously by various oppressive elements to the point where they were stagnated as a people?

The good thing is that Muslim rapefugees also have the same stereotype of Eastern Europe as you, so they don't want to come here (they aren't aware that it is still infinitely better here than in their native shitholes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqEsE-IKBI8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqEsE-IKBI8

Tomenable
07-07-16, 09:57
Wanderlust,


Philosopher Friedrich Engels once wrote concerning Irish treatment at the hands of the English: "How often have the Irish started out to achieve something, and every time they have been crushed politically and industrially. By consistent oppression they have been artificially converted into an utterly impoverished nation." Something to think about.

Didn't the same Engels (or was it Marx?) write:

"The Basques are two stages behind Capitalist nations in development. If you are two stages behind, you cannot keep up and then procede to Communism, so the Basques need to be exterminated" - or something along these lines.


the "Third World," much of which is located in warm climates and inhabited by brown people

"Brown people" is actually not a valid ethnic taxon. Some "brown people" are closely related to Europeans, others are genetically far away from us. Skin-deep differences are not as important as other differences.

Tomenable
07-07-16, 11:10
Wanderlust,
what it meant to be Roman 2,000 years ago is not the same as what that means now. And what does that mean now? :confused: It means nothing to be Roman today. Today there are no Romans anymore. In his publication from 1921 a Swedish scholar - Martin P. Nilsson - explained why Rome collapsed. Look it up.

Tomenable
07-07-16, 11:52
Wanderlust,


the Ghana Empire, (...), the Mali Empire

Most of people in those empires lived like cattle, in dirt and extreme poverty. Only a few aristocrats enjoyed high living standards. And the one and only source of wealth for aristocratic rulling clans of those empires, was selling their own people into slavery to Arabs and Europeans. One of common lies about Sub-Saharan slavery, is that Europeans were hunting people throughout the Interior of Africa. This is patently false - European merchants only visited factories located along the coast of Africa. Native Negroid chieftains were bringing their fellow Negroid slaves to those coastal outposts, and selling them to Europeans. This is how it worked. And slavery exists in Africa even today, long after Europe has banned it.

So you can't even blame Europeans for that, because those people were going to be slaves anyway - their fellow Africans enslaved them, and they were going to sell them - if not to Europeans, then to Arabs or to someone else.


the peoples who currently occupy the "Third World" or are considered to be developing nations

The main problem is, that many of these Third World nations are not even developing - many of these nations are either stagnating, or de-developing (i.e. becoming more and more backwards). Population in Sub-Saharan Africa is increasing faster than GDP, so GDP per capita is decreasing. Africa is even poorer today than it was under European rules.

Read this book: Venatius Chukwudum Oforka, "The Bleeding Continent" (it is about Africa).

Miss Marple's nephew
07-07-16, 12:05
...... Africa is even poorer today than it was under European rules. ....
How much oil are western enterprises pumping out of Nigeria .... as we speak?

Tomenable
07-07-16, 12:07
Also, the rulling classes of those Sub-Saharan Empires were often foreign conquerors, not natives.

Especially Arabs and Horners (peoples of the Horn of Africa) came to prominence in those regions.

The subjects were usually native Negroids, while the rulers were mixed race, Negroid-Caucasoid.

The Great Zimbabwe was most likely established by Yemenite Jews who migrated to that region.

Today the Lemba people are descendants of those Jews - but they mixed with native Bantu folks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba_people

So Sub-Saharans never created any high culture totally on their own - only with foreign "help".

bicicleur
07-07-16, 14:05
How much oil are western enterprises pumping out of Nigeria .... as we speak?

first you have to tackle corruption inside Nigeria, that is the guilty part

so I'd like to hear your plan how you will do that

bicicleur
07-07-16, 14:19
Wanderlust,

you say the Europeans have disrupted so many peacefull, harmonious an advanced civilizations

read this book

War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage (Oxford University Press (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press), 1996) is a book by Lawrence H. Keeley, an archaeology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology) professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois_at_Chicago)who specializes in prehistoric Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Europe). The book deals with warfare conducted throughout human history by societies with little technology. In the book, Keeley aims to stop the apparent trend in seeing civilization as bad, by setting out to prove that prehistoric societies were violent and frequently engaged in warfare.

Keeley started writing the book after unsuccessfully requesting funds from the U.S. National Science Foundation to excavate several Early Neolithic village sites in Belgium. He hoped to uncover ancient palisades and fortifications similar to others in the area. He was denied the grant until he referred to these other sites as “enclosures” rather than “fortifications”. The politically correct NSF archaeologists couldn’t fathom the concept of prehistoric warfare. To their eyes, violence in prestate societies was infrequent, nonlethal, unimportant, ritualistic, and unsophisticated.
But as Keeley subsequently proves, there’s only so many mass graves and skulls embedded with arrowheads that one can pretend don’t exist. Eventually, the evidence piles up: prehistoric warfare was frequent, deadly, and serious — more “Conan the Barbarian” and less “Dances with Wolves”.

This book is out allready 20 years and nobody has proven it to be fundamentally wrong.
This story about Europe disrupting an existing peacefull world order is wrong. It is a story invented by the political correct castes who try to blaim Europe and the US for whatever goes wrong in the world. Their goal is to make all Europeans and Americans feel guilty and responsable for whatever goes wrong in the world.
I strongly reject that. Most things are the responsability of the local actors on the field themselves. The attitude of blaiming the west is actually an excuse for those who are realy guilty in the facts. This attitude is certainly not helpfull.

gyms
07-07-16, 16:21
The Rise of Sweden's Far-Left Militants

Ultra-nationalist political parties scored unprecedented victories in the European elections, making the rise of the far right in Europe impossible to ignore. Many of these groups, some of which are openly neo-Nazi, are gaining strength everywhere. In Sweden, there's been a sharp rise in political violence in the country, with crimes carried out by radical groups making headlines. Howe...
Show More

Ultra-nationalist political parties scored unprecedented victories in the European elections, making the rise of the far right in Europe impossible to ignore. Many of these groups, some of which are openly neo-Nazi, are gaining strength everywhere.

In Sweden, there's been a sharp rise in political violence in the country, with crimes carried out by radical groups making headlines. However, what's unusual is that one of the most violent extremist organizations in Sweden aligns itself not with Nazism and the far right but with anti-fascism and the far left.

Known as the Revolutionary Front, this group of militant socialists aims to crush fascism by any means necessary. VICE News set out to find the Revolutionary Front and to understand the unlikely rise of the militant far left in Sweden.
http://www.vice.com/video/the-rise-of-swedens-far-left-militants

Angela
07-07-16, 17:13
Tomenable: Most of people in those empires lived like cattle, in dirt and extreme poverty. Only a few aristocrats enjoyed high living standards.

The same is true for 19th century Europe, including my Italy and your Poland. If you really want to be horrified, do some research into how even the nobility and royalty lived in medieval Europe.


Tomenable: So Sub-Saharans never created any high culture totally on their own - only with foreign "help".


Please enlighten us as to which "high culture" developed totally on its own. As I posted on another thread, the only steppe specific contributions to the "Indo-European" package were the domestication of the horse, and perhaps hyper-patriarchy, and more idolization of a warrior caste. I'm grateful for the first but definitely not for the second and third.

If you want to look at Europe, European culture would not be possible without the ancient Greeks and Romans, but, of course, they built on the achievements of the ancient Near East, and...

See what happens?

Let's try not to turn every thread into a slanted analysis trying to show the innate superiority of one group over another.

LeBrok
07-07-16, 17:14
How much oil are western enterprises pumping out of Nigeria .... as we speak?To be fair, the resource belongs to the Nigerian government and decision about giving contracts to companies is in their hands too. Times and methods of Imperial Europe don't apply there anymore.


first you have to tackle corruption inside Nigeria, that is the guilty part

so I'd like to hear your plan how you will do that
It is irrelevant. Corruption or not they will need western companies to drill or build mines, as they don't have developed local industry yet.

LeBrok
07-07-16, 17:35
Wanderlust,



As far as I know Swedes were taking slave girls from Ukraine and then selling them to Muslim harems.

So you should rather be taking refugees from Eastern Ukraine (Donbass War) to pay for your past sins.

Muslim Arabs were actually your business partners in that disgusting sex slave trade, not your victims.

Vikings were also taking slaves from the British Isles, but those were mostly Danes and Norwegians.



I know my genealogical tree as far as the fourth generation back.

They didn't commit any sins against people from other continents.



Actually I do not identify with Catholicism.

Looks like you are eager to stereotype other people as long as they have similar skin colour as you ???

Only stereotyping people with dark skin tones - or Muslims of any skin tone - is Non-PC in Sweden?



The reason for not helping is not how they look like, but how they behave and what are their value systems.

I am eager to help Non-Muslims from the Middle East. For example Yazidi refugees are welcomed:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32165-5000-Yazidi-slavegirls-being-bought-and-sold-even-for-no-price



You are delusional. There had been NO any significant wealth in Africa before Europeans colonized it. Sub-Saharan Africa was always a poor shithole - both before Europeans came, and after Europeans left. And the reason for this is - sadly - because they have average genotypic IQ of just 80. In other words - Sub-Saharan Africans are genetically less intelligent than Eurasians. Saying this is not racism - it is a scientific fact, which is being suppressed by the PC left.



No, Europe is not a continent. Nothing separates it from Asia.

Where do you draw a border between Europe and Asia, is entirely arbitrary.

There is a continent of Eurasia - it is one continent, not two.

Europe is a peninsula or a subcontinent - just like India. Tomenable, this is not a bidding war. Wanderlust presented examples of a concept, that nobody is just a saint or a sinner. We all, races and nations of this planet, did our dirty deeds and also good ones. You on other hand went quickly in very defensive mood and eagerly started a bidding war, with many posts, "Who is a bigger sinner or a better saint". It was not the point.

As Angela noticed here:



Let's try not to turn every thread into a slanted analysis trying to show the innate superiority of one group over another.
It is symptomatic.

Angela
07-07-16, 17:44
This is when leftists really lose people: Migrant rape isn't as bad as indigenous rape

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214479

Rape is rape. Put them in jail for a very long time. If they keep doing it, chemical castration is what I recommend. For child rape, I might even go for the death penalty. It's better than putting them into the general prison population where some guard will turn his back and the other inmates will kill him.

bicicleur
07-07-16, 17:57
The same is true for 19th century Europe, including my Italy and your Poland. If you really want to be horrified, do some research into how even the nobility and royalty lived in medieval Europe.



Please enlighten us as to which "high culture" developed totally on its own. As I posted on another thread, the only steppe specific contributions to the "Indo-European" package were the domestication of the horse, and perhaps hyper-patriarchy, and more idolization of a warrior caste. I'm grateful for the first but definitely not for the second and third.

If you want to look at Europe, European culture would not be possible without the ancient Greeks and Romans, but, of course, they built on the achievements of the ancient Near East, and...

See what happens?

Let's try not to turn every thread into a slanted analysis trying to show the innate superiority of one group over another.

I'm sorry, but Tomenable didn't mention any 'high culture', it is Wanderlust in post n° 128 who did.

Angela
07-07-16, 18:02
I'm sorry, but Tomenable didn't mention any 'high culture', it is Wanderlust in post n° 128 who did.

I'm not following you. See post # 137.

It's posted by Tomenable and says the following:

"So Sub-Saharans never created any high culture totally on their own - only with foreign "help"."

Of course, if I've mis-attributed it, I'll apologize.

bicicleur
07-07-16, 18:18
The Rise of Sweden's Far-Left Militants

Ultra-nationalist political parties scored unprecedented victories in the European elections, making the rise of the far right in Europe impossible to ignore. Many of these groups, some of which are openly neo-Nazi, are gaining strength everywhere. In Sweden, there's been a sharp rise in political violence in the country, with crimes carried out by radical groups making headlines. Howe...
Show More

Ultra-nationalist political parties scored unprecedented victories in the European elections, making the rise of the far right in Europe impossible to ignore. Many of these groups, some of which are openly neo-Nazi, are gaining strength everywhere.

In Sweden, there's been a sharp rise in political violence in the country, with crimes carried out by radical groups making headlines. However, what's unusual is that one of the most violent extremist organizations in Sweden aligns itself not with Nazism and the far right but with anti-fascism and the far left.

Known as the Revolutionary Front, this group of militant socialists aims to crush fascism by any means necessary. VICE News set out to find the Revolutionary Front and to understand the unlikely rise of the militant far left in Sweden.
http://www.vice.com/video/the-rise-of-swedens-far-left-militants

it reminds me that terrorism in the 1960's and 1970's was mostly commited by leftist organisations
they are so full of their own convictions they think they stand above the law
we've seen in the Soviet-Union how quickly this can degenerate

bicicleur
07-07-16, 18:24
I'm not following you. See post # 137.

It's posted by Tomenable and says the following:

"So Sub-Saharans never created any high culture totally on their own - only with foreign "help"."

Of course, if I've mis-attributed it, I'll apologize.

you'll have to ask Tomenable himself to be sure

but by foreign he means Arabs and Horners (peoples of the Horn of Africa) and Yemenite Jews who migrated to that region

and by 'help' he means subjecting the natives

all in reaction to post n° 128

Miss Marple's nephew
07-07-16, 19:06
first you have to tackle corruption inside Nigeria, that is the guilty part

so I'd like to hear your plan how you will do that

Looks to me that you have the cart before the horse. You make it sound as though domestic corruption is a phenomenon onto itself. It is western corporations that are raping Nigeria due to the corruption they have fostered with Nigerian authorities. These western companies want Nigeria's oil at the least possible cost. Meanwhile, Nigerians are starving and suffering from a murderous civil war at the same time. Westerners (and their Nigerian partners in crime) simply rub their hands together and watch their bank accounts grow.

Miss Marple's nephew
07-07-16, 19:12
it reminds me that terrorism in the 1960's and 1970's was mostly commited by leftist organisations
they are so full of their own convictions they think they stand above the law
we've seen in the Soviet-Union how quickly this can degenerate

Is that what you would call the Reagan/Thatcher Bush/Blair partnerships ........ "leftist organisations that are so full of their own convictions they think they stand above the law"?

Tomenable
07-07-16, 19:15
This is when leftists really lose people: Migrant rape isn't as bad as indigenous rape

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214479


I guess it's time to modernize in accordance with what the Progressive Left is saying:

https://s32.postimg.org/7fdmolus5/Ale_jest_2016.png

Another mind-blowing example - a German left-wing politician was raped by three migrant men:

But she lied to the Police that they were native Germans. Why did she do that? "To stop racism":

Raped German Politician Lied About Attackers' Nationality To 'Stop Racism' (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/06/raped-german-politician-lied-attackers-nationality-stop-racism/)

Angela
07-07-16, 19:21
I guess it's time to modernize in accordance with what the Progressive Left is saying:

https://s32.postimg.org/7fdmolus5/Ale_jest_2016.png

Another mind-blowing example - a German left-wing politician was raped by three migrant men:

But she lied to the Police that they were native Germans. Why did she do that? "To stop racism":

Raped German Politician Lied About Attackers' Nationality To 'Stop Racism' (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/06/raped-german-politician-lied-attackers-nationality-stop-racism/)

The extreme left and the extreme right are both bonkers in my humble opinion. Turn your back on all these irrational nut jobs. Join me in the sane, humane, centrist cluster. :)

Wanderlust
07-07-16, 19:38
I must say, mentally enslaved people like you ignite my worst impulses because you:

1.) resort to desperate, ridiculously obvious strawman arguments because you can't refute my actual arguments at face value. It's just exhaustive and intellectually dishonest and I have better things to do with my time. Therefore, this will be my last interaction with you on this topic.

2.) lack any sense of historical/social/cultural irony and self-awareness and therefore, repeat the same backwards, maladaptive patterns of those that first enslaved you. But then I think of wild dogs that become caged dogs and for years, are so neglected, isolated, used, abused, traumatized, and divorced from their empathetic core, that they revert to a vicious feral state and become an unstable, unpredictable danger to everyone around them. And I think, would it be better to just end their misery (and mine) and take them out back and put them down with a bullet to the brain (Final Solution style)? Or is it more humane and compassionate to just endure their long road to recovery and tolerate their stunted development? :thinking:And then I remember that I actually want to be a better person than my impulses drive me to be. I'm smart enough to handle that and I have enough character and integrity to do it. I'm actually brave and not driven by fear. If only others could be that way or at least learn how to be, the world would be a better place. But the residual effects of physical, mental, spiritual, political and economic slavery on a population can not be undervalued.

And now on with this shit show...



Wanderlust,



As far as I know Swedes were taking slave girls from Ukraine and then selling them to Muslim harems.

So you should rather be taking refugees from Eastern Ukraine (Donbass War) to pay for your past sins.

Muslim Arabs were actually your business partners in that disgusting sex slave trade, not your victims.

Vikings were also taking slaves from the British Isles, but those were mostly Danes and Norwegians.

1.) Strawman.

2.) Sweden does take Ukrainian refugees, and every other kind of refugee.

3.) What your enslaved mind is incapable of grasping is that Sweden helps all people, because it is a humane and humanitarian nation. It hasn't always been that way, and has done its fair share of colonizing, conquering and pillaging (like when it ransacked and destroyed Poland), which is even more reason why Sweden should give and help. Because Sweden is a wealthy nation, it helps not only those that it has wronged, but those who simply need help, regardless of who they are and where they come from. That's admirable. You wouldn't understand; Unfortunately, Poles are, historically, not used to receiving kindness and generosity and therefore, don't know how to give it. Crabs in a barrel mentality.



I know my genealogical tree as far as the fourth generation back.

They didn't commit any sins against people from other continents.

Lol 4 generations back? Are you willfully obtuse or actually obtuse?

It's interesting that you frequent a site called "Eupedia" dedicated to European interests. Why don't you confine yourself to Polish or Slavic forums only? That's because you see yourself as Polish and European. And if you are European, then the good comes with the bad. You can't be European when it's convenient and then not, when you don't want to. Europe has taken a lot from the rest of the world. And Europe needs to rectify this--which in more than a few ways, they are.


Actually I do not identify with Catholicism.

Looks like you are eager to stereotype other people as long as they have similar skin colour as you ???

Only stereotyping people with dark skin tones - or Muslims of any skin tone - is Non-PC in Sweden?


1.) Isn't this you?:


Yes - most of Poles are religious. And again - religiosity is largely genetically determined.

Around 30% - 45% of inclination for religiosity is genetic*. So Poles are genetically religious.

The same applies to Muslims - they will NOT become less fanatical, because it is in their genes.

*Source: Thomas J. Bouchard, "Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits", (Table 1.).

LOL How fascinating it is that you are the exception to your (narrow minded) rule. So, you are not religiously Catholic? According to your belief in genetic determinism, you must be religiously something else then, right? Because one can't escape his genes, correct? LOL You stereotyped yourself and your own people, but then conveniently, you don't fit that stereotype. But you have no problem stereotyping all Muslims. Of course you accuse me of doing the same intellectually dishonest things you do. Hilariously sad.



The reason for not helping is not how they look like, but how they behave and what are their value systems.

I am eager to help Non-Muslims from the Middle East. For example Yazidi refugees are welcomed:

Have you ever left Poland? I'm thinking not. I have encountered so many Muslims who shared my same humanistic values. I have encountered so many Christians who share my same humanistic values. I have encountered so many Atheists who share my same humanistic values. You start with the fallacy that everyone worships and engages religion in the same ways. There are those who are very secular and those who quite fundamentalist in their values, and many more who are somewhere in between.

Primitive Polish far right troglodytes have brought their backwards, regressive, hateful values to Sweden and have been attacking refugees. So, because the values of these specific cretins don't align with ours, should all Polish immigrants be expelled and restricted? I find it amusing that you think you are so different from the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists when your core values are actually the same > base provincialism, narcissism and fear of the other. You deserve each other.


You are delusional. There had been NO any significant wealth in Africa before Europeans colonized it. Sub-Saharan Africa was always a poor shithole - both before Europeans came, and after Europeans left.

The utter depth of your ignorance is so embarrassing. Truly.

"The Wealth of the West was built on Africa's exploitation":

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/aug/20/past.hearafrica05


Africa's economic and social development before 1500 may arguably have been ahead of Europe's. It was gold from the great empires of West Africa, Ghana, Mali and Songhay that provided the means for the economic take-off of Europe in the 13th and 14th centuries and aroused the interest of Europeans in western Africa.


African people in Nubia invented their own 23 sign alphabet under the Moroe kingdon (800 BC to 350 AD). All over Africa, going back to 1,000 BC or further, there are examples of mining for gold, iron, copper, bronze and other minerals, and their smelting and so-on. The ancestors of the Shona people extracted 20-million ounces of gold from around Great Zimbabwe (the 15th century Portuguese traders write of it being surrounded by gold mines). The ancient Ethiopians were smelting their own coins from about 2,000 years ago. In the 1700s the kingdom of Benin (in modern Nigeria) had factories producing their own firearms.

More can be found by reading this book: "Black brain, white brain" by Gavin Evans

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/gavin-evans/books/black-brain-white-brain

And of course, continued exploitation of Africa's resources by the West don't contribute to Africa's condition. Of course not.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/10/kofi-annan-exploit-africa-natural-resources



And the reason for this is - sadly - because they have average genotypic IQ of just 80. In other words - Sub-Saharan Africans are genetically less intelligent than Eurasians. Saying this is not racism - it is a scientific fact, which is being suppressed by the PC left.

You are most certainly a racist and/or supremely ignorant and uninformed...and a slavic Pole. A racist slavic Pole. Wow. Tragically unironic.


There are indeed environmental and genetic influences in IQ at an individual level, and the proportions are open to legitimate debate. The point is that the differences between average IQs at a population level are explained entirely by environmental factors. IQ scores are hugely influenced by environment, which is why IQ continues to rise (but faster in some societies, like Kenya, than others). The gap between black American and White American IQs is closing. Early in the 20th century Ashkenazi Jewish IQs in the US were below average; not they are above average. In the 1960s Asian American IQs were below average, now they are above average. Almost all serious IQ theorists acknowledge there is no point in comparing IQ scores of different populations because these differences are entirely the result of environmental differences. As Jim Flynn, the most important IQ theorist of the past half century has explained, the reason for different IQ scores among different populations relates mainly to exposure to abstract logic and the scientific way of viewing the world. If tested on today’s IQ tests, Americans of 100 years ago would have average IQs of below 70. They haven’t changed genetically in a century. The reason relates to exposure to abstraction.

Intelligence– even the very limited IQ variant – involves the combination of thousands of genes. Despite exhaustive attempts, no single gene has been found that has a significant role in superior intelligence. It is highly likely that human intelligence has not advanced for 100,000 years and perhaps far longer – all the way back to the evolution of the first modern humans about 200,000 years ago.

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/gavin-evans/books/black-brain-white-brain

And I know you won't read the book because people like you can only feel good about yourselves if you (wrongly) believe that you are superior to others. I have some compassion for psychicly scarred individuals whose empathy has understandably been impaired. Nonetheless, you are still quite grading on the nerves.

Wanderlust
07-07-16, 20:01
What the heck are you talking about ???

What am I reading: "Poor Japan, humiliated and harmed by the evil West in WW2"? WTF ?! The Japanese Empire killed more civilians and commited more genocides and war crimes in WW2 than Nazi Germany. The Japanese are the perpetrators of WW2, not its victims!

Jeez..., you Swedes are brainwashed as hell by your Anti-European education system. You are lost, brainwashed, there is no hope for you. We should let Sweden collapse, as a lesson for others, how not to run a country.

1.) Strawman.

2.) My point was that the WEST INITIATED BAD BLOOD with Asia. Japan became an imperial nation AFTER being forced to open up their borders to the West. Did you grasp that? There is so much straw in your eyes, I don't know if you did.


Wanderlust, And what does that mean now? :confused: It means nothing to be Roman today. Today there are no Romans anymore. In his publication from 1921 a Swedish scholar - Martin P. Nilsson - explained why Rome collapsed. Look it up.

1.) Strawman.

2.) What are the people who now live in the Italian City of Rome called? Romans, right? What it means to be a Roman today is very different to what that meant thousands of years ago, right? Because "Romanness" has changed and evolved into something very different. Can you grasp that? I can't tell whether you are being willfully obtuse or you are actually obtuse. It's annoying.


Wanderlust,



As far as I know, the Soviets were Slavs themselves. At least most of them were.

Unless you believe in Judeo-Bolshevism and Jewish-Communism theories?

But that would make you a very Anti-Semitic Swede, wouldn't it ???



The good thing is that Muslim rapefugees also have the same stereotype of Eastern Europe as you, so they don't want to come here (they aren't aware that it is still infinitely better here than in their native shitholes):


1.) Strawman.

2.) I already know that the Russians were slavs themselves. I only included Soviet expansionism to show that they caused greater insult to the injury already perpetrated by the west, which have all contributed to the poorer, more disenfranchised status of Eastern Europe.

3.) I wasn't stereotyping Eastern Europeans. The first question was something that a bigot like you would say about a people who have perpetually found themselves in subjugated, subservient, subpar, subhuman situations. The second question was the more humane, compassionate alternative.

gyms
07-07-16, 20:08
it reminds me that terrorism in the 1960's and 1970's was mostly commited by leftist organisations
they are so full of their own convictions they think they stand above the law
we've seen in the Soviet-Union how quickly this can degenerate


Speech by Nicolae Ceausescu at the celebration of his 55th birthday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIbfHRdWIHo

Dinarid
07-07-16, 20:08
I must say, mentally enslaved people like you ignite my worst impulses because you:

1.) resort to desperate, ridiculously obvious strawman arguments because you can't refute my actual arguments at face value. It's just exhaustive and intellectually dishonest and I have better things to do with my time. Therefore, this will be my last interaction with you on this topic.

2.) lack any sense of historical/social/cultural irony and self-awareness and therefore, repeat the same backwards, maladaptive patterns of those that first enslaved you. But then I think of wild dogs that become caged dogs and for years, are so neglected, isolated, used, abused, traumatized, and divorced from their empathetic core, that they revert to a vicious feral state and become an unstable, unpredictable danger to everyone around them. And I think, would it be better to just end their misery (and mine) and take them out back and put them down with a bullet to the brain (Final Solution style)? Or is it more humane and compassionate to just endure their long road to recovery and tolerate their stunted development? :thinking:And then I remember that I actually want to be a better person than my impulses drive me to be. I'm smart enough to handle that and I have enough character and integrity to do it. I'm actually brave and not driven by fear. If only others could be that way or at least learn how to be, the world would be a better place. But the residual effects of physical, mental, spiritual, political and economic slavery on a population can not be undervalued.

And now on with this shit show...




1.) Strawman.

2.) Sweden does take Ukrainian refugees, and every other kind of refugee.

3.) What your enslaved mind is incapable of grasping is that Sweden helps all people, because it is a humane and humanitarian nation. It hasn't always been that way, and has done its fair share of colonizing, conquering and pillaging (like when it ransacked and destroyed Poland), which is even more reason why Sweden should give and help. Because Sweden is a wealthy nation, it helps not only those that it has wronged, but those who simply need help, regardless of who they are and where they come from. That's admirable. You wouldn't understand; Unfortunately, Poles are, historically, not used to receiving kindness and generosity and therefore, don't know how to give it. Crabs in a barrel mentality.




Lol 4 generations back? Are you willfully obtuse or actually obtuse?

It's interesting that you frequent a site called "Eupedia" dedicated to European interests. Why don't you confine yourself to Polish or Slavic forums only? That's because you see yourself as Polish and European. And if you are European, then the good comes with the bad. You can't be European when it's convenient and then not, when you don't want to. Europe has taken a lot from the rest of the world. And Europe needs to rectify this--which in more than a few ways, they are.




1.) Isn't this you?:



LOL How fascinating it is that you are the exception to your (narrow minded) rule. So, you are not religiously Catholic? According to your belief in genetic determinism, you must be religiously something else then, right? Because one can't escape his genes, correct? LOL You stereotyped yourself and your own people, but then conveniently, you don't fit that stereotype. But you have no problem stereotyping all Muslims. Of course you accuse me of doing the same intellectually dishonest things you do. Hilariously sad.




Have you ever left Poland? I'm thinking not. I have encountered so many Muslims who shared my same humanistic values. I have encountered so many Christians who share my same humanistic values. I have encountered so many Atheists who share my same humanistic values. You start with the fallacy that everyone worships and engages religion in the same ways. There are those who are very secular and those who quite fundamentalist in their values, and many more who are somewhere in between.

Primitive Polish far right troglodytes have brought their backwards, regressive, hateful values to Sweden and have been attacking refugees. So, because the values of these specific cretins don't align with ours, should all Polish immigrants be expelled and restricted? I find it amusing that you think you are so different from the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists when your core values are actually the same > base provincialism, narcissism and fear of the other. You deserve each other.



The utter depth of your ignorance is so embarrassing. Truly.

"The Wealth of the West was built on Africa's exploitation":

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/aug/20/past.hearafrica05





More can be found by reading this book: "Black brain, white brain" by Gavin Evans

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/gavin-evans/books/black-brain-white-brain

And of course, continued exploitation of Africa's resources by the West don't contribute to Africa's condition. Of course not.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/10/kofi-annan-exploit-africa-natural-resources




You are most certainly a racist and/or supremely ignorant and uninformed...and a slavic Pole. A racist slavic Pole. Wow. Tragically unironic.



http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/gavin-evans/books/black-brain-white-brain

And I know you won't read the book because people like you can only feel good about yourselves if you (wrongly) believe that you are superior to others. I have some compassion for psychicly scarred individuals whose empathy has understandably been impaired. Nonetheless, you are still quite grading on the nerves.

You've most certainly crossed a boundary. You are now insulting European Slavs on behalf of Muslims. In your mind you are so intelligent and well-educated that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational and of inferior intellect. Also, cultural relativism is all that exists in most universities as ethnocentrism is frowned upon as "racist". It makes little sense to engage with someone who is blind to reports of ghettos, rapes, robberies, mob behavior, etc. You don't want to hear the facts because they are inconvenient to your liberal utopian multicultural ideals.

I've never understand this liberal Northern European elitism that usually corresponds with vitriolic Slavophobia but mentally ill Islamophilia. In case you've missed it, the neo-nazis in Britain (who are few and far between) hate Slavs as much as Muslims. They insult "Polish vermin".

Tomenable
07-07-16, 20:23
The extreme left and the extreme right are both bonkers in my humble opinion. Turn your back on all these irrational nut jobs. Join me in the sane, humane, centrist cluster. :)

I agree with you Angela. :)

Wanderlust,


Primitive Polish far right troglodytes have brought their backwards, regressive, hateful values to Sweden and have been attacking refugees.

One of such primitive Polish troglodytes, was the only one who reacted during a social experiment in Sweden:
(the experiment was supposed to check how people react when they see a woman getting publicly abused):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFaYU87AgAE

Tomenable
07-07-16, 20:24
Maybe the fact that Scandinavian men don't defend their women is why your women say that you are effeminate:

1) One example:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B40WJY-5L1g

gyms
07-07-16, 20:25
The regressive left (also sometimes referred to as regressive liberals) is a political epithet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithet) used to negatively characterize a section of leftists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics) who are accused of holding politically regressive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_regressive) views (as opposed to progressive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) views) by tolerating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration) illiberal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) principles and ideologies for the sake of multiculturalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism) and cultural relativism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism).
Within the specific context of multiculturalism, British anti-Islamism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Islamism) activist Maajid Nawaz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz) used the term in 2012 in his memoir Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical:_My_Journey_out_of_Islamist_Extremism)[note 1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left#cite_note-first_use-2) to describe "well-meaning liberals and ideologically driven leftists" in the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) who naïvely and "ignorantly pandered to" Islamists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism) and helped Islamist ideology to gain acceptance. In a 2015 video presentation on the Internet forum Big Think (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Think), Nawaz elaborated on the meaning of the term, saying that it describes "a section of the left (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics)" that has, in his opinion, "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry) that can occur within minority communities ... for the sake of political correctness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness), for the sake of tolerating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration) what they believe is other cultures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism) and respecting different lifestyles".[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left#cite_note-Bigthink-3)
Among well-known political and social commentators, comedian Bill Maher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher), Internet-based talk show host Dave Rubin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Rubin) and New Atheist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheist) writers like Sam Harris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris) and Richard Dawkins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) have discussed the concept numerous times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

Tomenable
07-07-16, 20:25
2) Second example:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPQBOhjYf4Y

Angela
07-07-16, 20:37
One can disagree without resorting to insults and calling out specific national or ethnic groups. Cut it out or I'm going to have to start issuing infractions.

Wanderlust
07-07-16, 20:42
I'm sorry, but Tomenable didn't mention any 'high culture', it is Wanderlust in post n° 128 who did.

As usual in this debate, you don't know what you're talking about. I never said anything about "high culture."


Wanderlust,

you say the Europeans have disrupted so many peacefull, harmonious an advanced civilizations

Please quote and highlight where I said that. You enjoy putting words in my mouth and words where there were none. In fact, what I have actually said was


One of biggest problems is that in places like Africa and Asia (including the Middle East), for centuries or even thousands of years, there had already been intra-continental fighting between national/ethnic/religious groups with longstanding grievances. The West conquered and colonized these places and either took advantage of and exploited the sectarian differences or ignored the differences and treated the conquered peoples as one. Worse, certain groups were favored over others and the allocation of resources were unequally distributed which exacerbated already existing tensions. And then during major political upheavals like WW1, WW2 and decolonization, there were many "arbitrary" borders constructed that didn't take into consideration the prior grievances and disputes amongst the peoples on the land and unsurprisingly, all hell broke loose, eg. Jews/Palestinians, Hausa-Fulani/Igbo, Hutu/Tutsi, Sunni/Shia/Kurds, etc....

I acknowledged that the societies Europe colonized and conquered already had pre-existing histories of war and dissention. I never said or implied that they were "peaceful, harmonious" peoples. Maybe one day you will properly quote me.


Their goal is to make all Europeans and Americans feel guilty and responsable for whatever goes wrong in the world.
I strongly reject that. Most things are the responsability of the local actors on the field themselves. The attitude of blaiming the west is actually an excuse for those who are realy guilty in the facts. This attitude is certainly not helpfull.

Laughable...and so sad. When disenfranchised groups take Europeans to task for the things we or our ancestors have done, I don't feel guilty at all. And I don't know a single ethnic European who shares my views that feels guilty. We don't feel guilty because we know that we are not being criticized as individuals, but that it's the white supremacist/Eurocentric systems and institutions from which we have benefited from that are rightfully being criticized or "blamed," to use your word.

We also know that we aren't shitty people who hold hateful, racist, bigoted views and so there is no reason to feel guilty. People only feel guilty when they know that there is some or a lot of truth to the critique. Moreover, because my sense of pride, esteem and integrity are not attached to Europe (they are attached to my own successes and failures), I can be more partial. But for you people who are Belgian or European before you are an individual, I understand why you feel so threatened--your integrity and self esteem are on the line. You have a lot in common with the super sensitive, fundamentalist Muslims, actually. :laughing:

P.S. Are you Belgian? If so, then I truly understand your need to deny the atrocities your country committed in the Belgian Congo.

http://i64.tinypic.com/mtmb2e.jpg

Tomenable
07-07-16, 20:52
Wanderlust,


because you can't refute my actual arguments at face value.

You never posted any "strong" arguments so far, unless I missed something.

I will check again to see if I missed anything. If I did, I will reply to it later.


But then I think of wild dogs that become caged dogs and for years, are so neglected, isolated, used, abused, traumatized, and divorced from their empathetic core, that they revert to a vicious feral state and become an unstable, unpredictable danger to everyone around them. And I think, would it be better to just end their misery (and mine) and take them out back and put them down with a bullet to the brain (Final Solution style)? Or is it more humane and compassionate to just endure their long road to recovery and tolerate their stunted development?

Last time when Germanics tried to end Slavic misery, it backfired on them and ended up on the streets of Berlin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG7fY6esp_g

Feel free to try again, but this time Sweden should openly declare war rather than just secretly supplying thousands of Aryan volunteers to the ranks of Waffen SS, and tons of resources to the Nazis, while at the same time being officially a neutral nation.


What your enslaved mind is incapable of grasping is that Sweden helps all people, because it is a humane and humanitarian nation. It hasn't always been that way, and has done its fair share of colonizing, conquering and pillaging (like when it ransacked and destroyed Poland), which is even more reason why Sweden should give and help. Because Sweden is a wealthy nation, it helps not only those that it has wronged, but those who simply need help, regardless of who they are and where they come from. That's admirable.

"That's admirable" ??? Oh, so you are not just a typical Germanic supremacist, but also a narcissistic one. Maybe you should let Non-Swedes judge what is admirable about Sweden ??? When I achieve something, I don't go around telling people: "Look at me, I have just won this contest and it's admirable, now you must admire me". :laughing: You are very self-important and overly narcissistic.

Randomly letting in thousands of refugees is one thing, integrating them into your society is another thing.

You managed to let them in (not a big achievement!), but so far you have failed to integrate them, failed to ensure that each of them has a job, etc. So nothing to admire! I also recall that one Swedish politician wanted to settle refugees in forests - he said that you have a shortage of housing units to accomodate them, but that you have enough forests, so there is no problem. :smile:

This just shows in what kind of delusional utopia you are living up there in the North.


(like when it ransacked and destroyed Poland)

You were very efficient in slaughtering civilians, but your invasion was - eventually, after a few years - repulsed by Poland.

So what "destroying" are you talking about?

It was Russia which destroyed Poland, together with Prussia & Austria. Much later. Yes, you invaded Poland in the same time as the Cossack Uprising and the Muscovite Invasion. So - fighting on three fronts - Poland suffered a lot, and got permanently weakened.


How fascinating it is that you are the exception to your (narrow minded) rule. So, you are not religiously Catholic? According to your belief in genetic determinism, you must be religiously something else then, right? Because one can't escape his genes, correct? LOL You stereotyped yourself and your own people, but then conveniently, you don't fit that stereotype.

Yes, I am an exception to the rule.

Can you distinguish between statistical group characteristics and individual characteristics ???


According to your belief in genetic determinism, you must be religiously something else then, right?

My believes are quite close to Deism (even though I don't call myself a Deist):

http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

Basically I believe that some supernatural power could indeed "start" all of this.

Not that I'm extremely convinced about it, but I don't exclude such a possibility.


But you have no problem stereotyping all Muslims. Of course you accuse me of doing the same intellectually dishonest things you do.

I am not stereotyping all Muslims - when I talk about Muslims as a group, I am referring to statistical averages.

Of course not every single Muslim individual is like an average Muslim, but statistically - as a group - they are.


And then I remember that I actually want to be a better person than my impulses drive me to be. I'm smart enough to handle that and I have enough character and integrity to do it. I'm actually brave and not driven by fear. If only others could be that way or at least learn how to be, the world would be a better place. But the residual effects of physical, mental, spiritual, political and economic slavery on a population can not be undervalued.

I am also trying to overcome my impulses and weaknesses.

What makes you think that I'm driven by fear, not by reason?

davef
07-07-16, 21:06
The extreme left and the extreme right are both bonkers in my humble opinion. Turn your back on all these irrational nut jobs. Join me in the sane, humane, centrist cluster. :)

Can I point out that her quest to end racism would've resulted in an innocent native German man spending time in prison while she gets to sit there in her fancy dining hall eating expensive gourmet meals?

And the men who raped her are probably still out and about, ready to rape her again....but wait.,.why even call the authorities if you won't even let them track down the actual criminals?

Wanderlust
07-07-16, 21:15
You've most certainly crossed a boundary. You are now insulting European Slavs on behalf of Muslims.

"On behalf of Muslims?" :laughing: Of course, the most "hard-line" and "proud" and "bad ass" are always the most sensitive: you types of people can always dish it out but never take it. I was trying to illustrate a point. When you subscribe to racial/ethnic/religious hierarchies, there will always be someone who is "superior," "better" or "on top." Just as several East European slavs around here love to denigrate Muslims, there are many who also see you as inferior heathens. I'm not one of them, but my point is that it sucks to have people shit on you because of who you are. You think that it's ok for you to do that to others but not for it to be done to you and that's ridiculous.

I don't see race, ethnicity, nationality and religion in a hierarchical way: Atheists > Christians > Muslims or Scandinavians > Poles > Serbians. Instead, I see Scandinavians = Poles = Serbians = Christians = Atheists = Muslims. No one is perfect; no nation, people or empire have lived a perfect, unblemished, glorious history; we all have faults just as we all have strengths.


In your mind you are so intelligent and well-educated that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational and of inferior intellect. Also, cultural relativism is all that exists in most universities as ethnocentrism is frowned upon as "racist". It makes little sense to engage with someone who is blind to reports of ghettos, rapes, robberies, mob behavior, etc. You don't want to hear the facts because they are inconvenient to your liberal utopian multicultural ideals.

Wrong. I'm never opposed to facts. But the "facts" that many of your ilk spout are "facts" taken out of context and intentionally presented in a way as to mislead or support a biased agenda. Several times in this debate, I have acknowledged the problems that some Muslims and refugees may present--I'm not blind at all. I just choose to have compassion and treat them like the humans they are. Big difference.

And ethnocentrism never works out well which is why it should be abandoned. You can love your people and your culture without hating others or thinking that you are better. Because if I become ethnocentric, and support Nordicism, then that means you and your people are inferiors and that Hitler and Mussolini should've rid the world of you.


In case you've missed it, the neo-nazis in Britain (who are few and far between) hate Slavs as much as Muslims. They insult "Polish vermin".

Which is why you should have some humility and compassion because you should understand what it's like to be openly despised and discriminated against. But you lack empathy.

davef
07-07-16, 21:21
Can I point out that her quest to end racism would've resulted in an innocent native German man spending time in prison while she gets to sit there in her fancy dining hall eating expensive gourmet meals?

And the men who raped her are probably still out and about, ready to rape her again....but wait.,.why even call the authorities if you won't even let them track down the actual criminals?

I hope people don't misinterpret this as me blaming her for being against racism. Her crime is putting innocent people at risk for being arrested.

Tomenable
07-07-16, 21:39
Wanderlust,


Because if I become ethnocentric, and support Nordicism

I think you are confusing Nordicism with Germanicism.

Nordicists considered people with a certain skull shape and physical traits to be superior, regardless of what language they spoke. And although this Nordic skull type is common in Sweden, the majority of Swedes are still Non-Nordic (there is no any nation where Nordic type is in majority). Nordicists were people like Hans Friedrich Karl Günther (1891-1965), who opposed Germanic supremacism:

http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/Genesis%20X%20and%20Origins/Races%20of%20Europe_McMahon.pdf


(...) Günther found the overwhelming majority of Germans racially mixed, just 6-8% pure Nordic ... (Proctor 1988: 151; Günther 1933: 57 & 112). (...)
(...) Unlike scientific anthroposociological elitism, mystical, cultural Germanicism made almost all Germans into superior Aryans, even if as blond as Hitler, as dolichocephalic as Rosenberg, as tall as Goebbels, as slender as Göring, and as manly as Streicher , as an anti-Nazi joke put it (Huxley & Haddon 1935: 26). While Lenz criticised the mythical, irrational excesses of Nazi race propaganda, and Günther declared the Nordic movement will always ruthlessly reject Germanicist enthusiasm , his Nordicist rival Clauß advocated a less biological and more culturally defined northern supremacism, while Kaup led a more populist campaign for an inclusive German national race (Wiercinski 1962: 12; Lutzhöft 1971: 17 & 22-23; Graham 1977: 1159). (...)

Some Waffen SS members were also Nordicsts, and therefore they considered Non-Nordic Germans to be subhumans as well:


(...) Ackermann claims the more extreme SS men began to take Nordic supremacy to its logical conclusion that non-Nordic Germans were inferior, and that five to ten percent of the population, its best selection would ultimately rule the rest [of Germans] (1970: 174). (...)

Heinrich Himmler on the other hand was a not a Nordicist, so he considered even Nordic Jews to be inferior subhumans:


(...) Nazis strained to be Nordicists, but within limits: Himmler, watching Jews going to the gas chamber, picked out a blond, blue-eyed boy and asked him if he were a Jew and if both his parents were Jews. When the boy answered in the affirmative, Himmler replied: What a pity, then I cannot save you. (Mosse 1978: 221). (...)

Angela
07-07-16, 21:51
OK, that's it, or I'm going to have to close this thread and issue infractions. COOL OFF!

That applies to you too, Wanderlust. I know you're new, so I gave extra latitude, but your singling out of Slavs and Poles in particular is just as objectionable as doing it to Muslims.

Tomenable
07-07-16, 22:04
Angela, your posts are enthralling as always. :)

I have a feeling that Jarls were R1b-U106, Karls were R1a-Z284, and Thralls were I1-L22: ^^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrall

Tomenable
07-07-16, 22:17
Wanderlust,


Just as several East European slavs around here love to denigrate MuslimsI know some former Muslims (born to Muslim parents) and Non-Muslims from the Near East, who denigrate Muslims with a passion.

For example in Poland one of the most fervent critics of Muslims and Islam is Miriam Shaded, who is of Syrian descent.

By the way, is "not wanting your country to become majority-Muslim" really the same as "denigrating Muslims" ???

Since "Muslim" is not a race - is criticizing Islam racist ??? After all, one can always change one's religion. It is not innate...

=======================

Anti-Semitism is different, as it targets Jews on ethnic basis (Atheist Jews & Jews who converted to Christianity were also targeted).

Criticism of Judaism, or criticising behaviour and customs of Orthodox Jews, is not the same as Anti-Semitism.

Wanderlust
07-07-16, 22:37
This is when leftists really lose people: Migrant rape isn't as bad as indigenous rape

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214479

Rape is rape. Put them in jail for a very long time. If they keep doing it, chemical castration is what I recommend. For child rape, I might even go for the death penalty. It's better than putting them into the general prison population where some guard will turn his back and the other inmates will kill him.

I agree.

I've talked a lot about how many of these refugees and migrants are maladapted, psychologically wounded, traumatized people and though I think that warrants some compassion and consideration, that does not absolve them of their crimes.

But there are different types of "rape sub-culture," depending on the culture, that may be more rooted in ignorance than they are in actual malice. Of course, the underlying factor and commonality that unites them all is sexism and misogyny but in more progressive cultures, the sexism can still be a bit more nuanced. On college campuses all around the US, they've had to create various initiatives to combat date rape because this notion of "playing hard to get" or "girls say 'no' when they really mean 'yes' so they don't actually want you to stop" is culturally pervasive. And in North Africa and the Middle East, there is a cultural perception that Western women, especially Scandinavian women (who are stereotyped for being sexually 'liberal'), are loose and usually down for one night stands and the like. This, coupled with the fact that there are some islamic tenets that permit the belief that women's bodies belong to men, it's not surprising that their own particular rape culture lends to the "rape epidemic" in Sweden. By the way, marital rape is often included in the rape statistics and that's another sad but pervasive cultural phenomenon.

But what I think that politician was getting at is that Swedish society has done a lot to minimize rape culture by way of hardcore, feminist initiatives over the past several decades. Swedish men don't even "check women out" in passing because they'd see that as a violation of a person/woman's right to privacy. "Cat calling" and all of that is virtually non-existent. Therefore, a Swedish man, born and raised with Swedish ethics and values, who rapes, would more likely be of the pathological variety. And I think it's fair to say that not every criminal is created equal. I do think that there is a difference between someone who has been taught (by way of the rabidly sexist and misogynist culture we live in--all over the world) that "girls say 'no' when they really mean 'yes' so they don't actually want you to stop" and commits date rape VS. a pathological, sociopathic rapist who specifically targets the vulnerable in order to assert his power over them.

And most justice systems in the world measure intent when they make charges. The Nordic prison system is more concerned with rehabilitation than it is purely punitive. They know that culture, drugs, mental illness, etc... can all play a role in why people do the things they do. The fact that they have some of the lowest recidivism rates in the world would suggest that they're doing something right.

Tomenable
07-07-16, 23:05
It's no wonder that many who form the foundation of these far right, nationalist movements are perpetually insecure and afraid, un/under-educated, unemployed, and usually have nothing going on for themselves; therefore, their only or primary source of pride is rooted in vague, malleable cultural abstractions of nationalism or achievements by others who share their nationality; they piggyback off of the exploits and achievements of others, as if that gives them value and worth, too. And they are wrong. Just because Bach and Nietzsche were brilliant, doesn't mean all Germans are. Why should some pig farmer in Choppenburg feel better about himself because of Goethe?

Care to show us any statistics proving that supporters of right-wing and nationalist parties are losers?

Because, you know, people with such views as yours, are also being stereotyped. In the following way:

http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/swedensven_thumb.jpg

Wanderlust
07-07-16, 23:13
That applies to you too, Wanderlust. I know you're new, so I gave extra latitude, but your singling out of Slavs and Poles in particular is just as objectionable as doing it to Muslims.

I know, that's what I was trying to show! And as expected, they became very touchy, sensitive, wounded and defensive, as anyone would, when they are being mocked and made fun of for being "inferior." Discrimination does not feel good. But I apologize for sewing any discord. Occasionally, I like to employ unconventional teaching methods to make a point but I understand if that's a bit too radical around here. Again, sincerely, my apologies to you.


Angela, your posts are enthralling as always. :)

I have a feeling that Jarls were R1b-U106, Karls were R1a-Z284, and Thralls were I1-L22: ^^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrall

1.) You're telling on yourself again. You're showing how important hierarchies matter to you and that you so desperately need to feel superior to someone. Fortunately, Odin be praised, that's not me. I don't give a damn. I could come from thralls, whores, thieves, murderers (I'm actually certain about this one) and that would be fine because THEY ARE NOT ME. They may have given me some interesting yet questionable genes (that I'm pretty satisfied with) but everything else I do with myself and make of my life is all on me. Perhaps one day you'll understand that and learn to value yourself. Trust me, it will free and liberate your soul. :smile:

2.) Having said that, unlike you, I can trace my family back over 19 generations ago...on paper. And we may have very well been someone's thrall at some point in time but rest assured, we certainly didn't end up that way. :good_job:

Tomenable
07-07-16, 23:25
Wanderlust,


unlike you, I can trace my family back over 19 generations ago

What makes you think that I can't ??? Did I write so ???

You are reading too much into what I wrote. You quoted a Bible passage saying that everyone is responsible for sins of his/her ancestors up to four generations ago. That's why I wrote, that I know my ancestors from that period, and that no of them did any harm to people from other continents. I did not, however, write that I don't have any knowledge about my ancestors who had lived before that.

Obviously everyone have numerous lineages of ancestors (from both mother's side and from father's side).

I can trace one lineage back to the 14th century, while most of other lineages to the 18th or 19th centuries.

I didn't say, that I can trace back all of my family ONLY to the 4th generation ago.


I can trace my family back over 19 generations ago

19 generations ago everyone could have even up to half a million ancestors.

So I don't think that you were able to trace all of those thousands of people. :laughing:

Let's do the math for you:

You - 1 person
1st generation back (parents) - 2 people
2nd generation back - 4 grandparents
3rd gen. - 8 ancestors
4th gen. - 16 ancestors
5th gen. - 32
6th gen. - 64
7th gen. - 128
8th gen. - 256
9th gen. - 512
10th gen. - 1024
11th gen. - 2048
12th gen. - 4096
13th gen. - 8192
14th gen. - 16384
15th gen. - 32768
16th gen. - 65536
17th generation back - 131072
18th generation ago - 262144
19th generation ago - 524288 ancestors

So 19 generations ago, everyone could have up to half a million ancestors.

Of course the number is usually smaller, due to so called "pedigree collapses":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse

But we are still left with many thousands of ancestors living at that time.

Angela
07-07-16, 23:46
I agree.

I've talked a lot about how many of these refugees and migrants are maladapted, psychologically wounded, traumatized people and though I think that warrants some compassion and consideration, that does not absolve them of their crimes.

But there are different types of "rape sub-culture," depending on the culture, that may be more rooted in ignorance than they are in actual malice. Of course, the underlying factor and commonality that unites them all is sexism and misogyny but in more progressive cultures, the sexism can still be a bit more nuanced. On college campuses all around the US, they've had to create various initiatives to combat date rape because this notion of "playing hard to get" or "girls say 'no' when they really mean 'yes' so they don't actually want you to stop" is culturally pervasive. And in North Africa and the Middle East, there is a cultural perception that Western women, especially Scandinavian women (who are stereotyped for being sexually 'liberal'), are loose and usually down for one night stands and the like. This, coupled with the fact that there are some islamic tenets that permit the belief that women's bodies belong to men, it's not surprising that their own particular rape culture lends to the "rape epidemic" in Sweden. By the way, marital rape is often included in the rape statistics and that's another sad but pervasive cultural phenomenon.

But what I think that politician was getting at is that Swedish society has done a lot to minimize rape culture by way of hardcore, feminist initiatives over the past several decades. Swedish men don't even "check women out" in passing because they'd see that as a violation of a person/woman's right to privacy. "Cat calling" and all of that is virtually non-existent. Therefore, a Swedish man, born and raised with Swedish ethics and values, who rapes, would more likely be of the pathological variety. And I think it's fair to say that not every criminal is created equal. I do think that there is a difference between someone who has been taught (by way of the rabidly sexist and misogynist culture we live in--all over the world) that "girls say 'no' when they really mean 'yes' so they don't actually want you to stop" and commits date rape VS. a pathological, sociopathic rapist who specifically targets the vulnerable in order to assert his power over them.

And most justice systems in the world measure intent when they make charges. The Nordic prison system is more concerned with rehabilitation than it is purely punitive. They know that culture, drugs, mental illness, etc... can all play a role in why people do the things they do. The fact that they have some of the lowest recidivism rates in the world would suggest that they're doing something right.

You say you do but you actually don't.

I don't know much about the Swedish system of jurisprudence, but I have more than a passing acquaintance with the American system, and thankfully there are no ifs, ands or buts here where rape is concerned. I, and the courts here, don't care what your culture or your religion might be; if you live here you follow our laws, and that includes the one that makes rape a reprehensible crime. Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that someone has committed a rape, that person should be arrested, charged and tried. If convicted, during the sentencing phase the courts may take certain mitigating factors into consideration, but there are obvious common sense limits. If having been in a war zone and being assumed to be traumatized for that reason is an excuse for rape, then I guess we're supposed to look at events like the Rape of Nanking, or the mass rape of German women by the Russian army with more "compassion"? I utterly reject that kind of reasoning.

As for recidivism among sex offenders, most of these studies showing there isn't that much recidivism among them are based on looking only at subsequent convictions, and only at certain very short intervals. That totally obscures the reality of the situation from my experience. There is very high recidivism among what we call "serial rapists", and especially among certain types of pedophiles. No one knows how to fix these people, and that includes the Swedes. Until we can cure them, they belong behind bars to protect us and our children. End of story, in my opinion.

In terms of murder, I do agree that certain murderers kill under a very specific set of circumstances, and the likelihood they'd do it again is pretty low. I therefore think there should be more latitude in sentencing than currently is permitted. However, for certain types of murders the only possible sentence is life imprisonment without possibility of parole. You could put the members of the Manson family in that category. We could never be sure they're "cured", and prison is not just for rehabilitation. It's also for retribution and to serve as an object lesson. They're all going to die in jail, as so they should, and people like them.

bicicleur
07-07-16, 23:57
Looks to me that you have the cart before the horse. You make it sound as though domestic corruption is a phenomenon onto itself. It is western corporations that are raping Nigeria due to the corruption they have fostered with Nigerian authorities. These western companies want Nigeria's oil at the least possible cost. Meanwhile, Nigerians are starving and suffering from a murderous civil war at the same time. Westerners (and their Nigerian partners in crime) simply rub their hands together and watch their bank accounts grow.

so you have no plan at all
blaiming the west allready makes you feel better
who says domestic corruption isn't a phenomen on itself?
it is very widespread among all layers of the population
and the west can't resolve the problem, it is a domestic problem

bicicleur
08-07-16, 00:20
As usual in this debate, you don't know what you're talking about. I never said anything about "high culture."



Please quote and highlight where I said that. You enjoy putting words in my mouth and words where there were none. In fact, what I have actually said was





2.) Let's remember that while Europe was still ensnared in the Dark Ages, there had been the Mayans, the Kingdom of Pagan, the Ghana Empire, the Incas, the Mali Empire, and don't even get me started on the kingdoms of India and dynasties in China--my point is, for most of the peoples who currently occupy the "Third World" or are considered to be developing nations, they were not culturally and economically impoverished pre-European Colonialism and Imperialism.

Tomenable allready told you about the sub-sahara African empires.
And the way the Mayans and the Incas treated their enemies, you couldn't have picked a worse example.

bicicleur
08-07-16, 00:41
Laughable...and so sad. When disenfranchised groups take Europeans to task for the things we or our ancestors have done, I don't feel guilty at all. And I don't know a single ethnic European who shares my views that feels guilty. We don't feel guilty because we know that we are not being criticized as individuals, but that it's the white supremacist/Eurocentric systems and institutions from which we have benefited from that are rightfully being criticized or "blamed," to use your word.

We also know that we aren't shitty people who hold hateful, racist, bigoted views and so there is no reason to feel guilty. People only feel guilty when they know that there is some or a lot of truth to the critique. Moreover, because my sense of pride, esteem and integrity are not attached to Europe (they are attached to my own successes and failures), I can be more partial. But for you people who are Belgian or European before you are an individual, I understand why you feel so threatened--your integrity and self esteem are on the line. You have a lot in common with the super sensitive, fundamentalist Muslims, actually. :laughing:

P.S. Are you Belgian? If so, then I truly understand your need to deny the atrocities your country committed in the Belgian Congo.

http://i64.tinypic.com/mtmb2e.jpg

I never said the Europeans didn't commit any atrocities.
I only said that your comments are not nuancated and that your arguments are very one-sided.
The Eureopeans did commit a lot of atrocities, but in this they were not different from other peoples who got the chance.
But your one-sided bias makes me think that either you're brainwashed or you have a special purpose to do so.
I must tell you, it doens't work.
I hope you've noticed for yourself by now.

And for your information, I am not proud to be a Belgian.
Come to Belgium and you will notice very few Belgians are.
It is the country in which I was born and where I live and who's laws I obey because it is a practical arrangement and it makes a safe and peacefull society.
The atrocities were commited by the Belgian royal familie and the Belgian establishment at the time.
None of my family ever benfited from that.
Have you noticed my profile don't carry the Belgian flag?
Do you know what the flag in my profile stands for?
These people were discriminated and despised by the Belgian establishment at the time of the Belgian Congo.

I am proud to be an European though, who liberated themselves from religious dogmas, who created the industrial revolution of which the whole world benefits today.
I'd rather be an American though. They've done better the last 2 centuries.

Tomenable
08-07-16, 02:17
A very interesting discussion:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSSSRx5FiQ8

Wanderlust
08-07-16, 03:30
You say you do but you actually don't.

I don't know much about the Swedish system of jurisprudence, but I have more than a passing acquaintance with the American system, and thankfully there are no ifs, ands or buts here where rape is concerned. I, and the courts here, don't care what your culture or your religion might be; if you live here you follow our laws, and that includes the one that makes rape a reprehensible crime. Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that someone has committed a rape, that person should be arrested, charged and tried. If convicted, during the sentencing phase the courts may take certain mitigating factors into consideration, but there are obvious common sense limits. If having been in a war zone and being assumed to be traumatized for that reason is an excuse for rape, then I guess we're supposed to look at events like the Rape of Nanking, or the mass rape of German women by the Russian army with more "compassion"? I utterly reject that kind of reasoning.

So we're clear, I'm not equivocating whatsoever on what constitutes rape or that rape is a reprehensible crime. Date rape, marital rape, doesn't matter, it's all vile and abhorrent. And like you said, anybody reasonably believed to have committed a rape should be arrested and prosecuted, which is how it works in Sweden as well. Most of my comment was more concerned with the sentencing outlook. And even then, by no means do I think offenders deserve a slap on the wrist.

But as I'm sure you're well aware of, the criminal justice system in America most certainly has its flaws, especially concerning its glaring racial disparities that occur at almost every part of the process. I followed the case of that vile Stanford Student Brock Turner--who violated an intoxicated, unconconscious girl behind a dumpster and tried to run away when he was caught--and was sentenced to 6 months and 3 years probation because the judge thought a harsher sentence would have too "severe" an impact. Seriously gross. And baffling enough, despite the victim's account and her being found unconscious and partially naked, he wasn't even charged with rape, but attempt to commit rape. Meanwhile the Brian Banks of the world, a black ex-football star who also had a promising future, at 16 made out with a girl with no type of sex taking place, was accused of rape, charged with rape and kidnapping, tried as an adult and served 5 out of 6 years, before he was exonerated for a crime he never committed. Tragic. Both Turner's case and Bank's case, disgusting on multiple levels and most certainly, miscarriages of justice in my opinion. Regardless of the judicial standards it professes to hold, it seems the American justice system does actually consider what someone's race, culture, ethnicity AND social class is. There was nothing "common sense" about the sentencing for either of these cases and it's not as if these are remote outliers within the system at large.

And I never said that trauma was an "excuse" for rape; a lot of people have traumas and yet they don't rape others. Nor do I think that one must have compassion for them on a personal level but I do think that the justice system should have the highest ideals. I certainly believe that justice for the victimized (raped, murdered, etc...) is important, as well as there needs to be an example made for the rest of society that deters them from committing the same or similar behaviors; but I also think that a focus on rehabilitation (for those who can be) is important and that purely punitive justice is problematic, particularly when we live in a world where everyone isn't treated equally. When it comes to criminal justice and mass incarceration, the American system doesn't have the best record of success. And Sweden's is certainly not ideal--I do think that the Leftist agenda has gone too far in some cases, where there are those who aren't held as accountable as they should be. The conundrum is how do we deliver equalized outcomes and just sentences for all people that also demonstrably send a strong message about our zero intolerance for rape and rape culture?


As for recidivism among sex offenders, most of these studies showing there isn't that much recidivism among them are based on studies looking only at subsequent convictions, and only at certain very short intervals. That totally obscures the reality of the situation from my experience. There is very high recidivism among what we call "serial rapists", and especially among certain types of pedophiles. No one knows how to fix these people, and that includes the Swedes. Until we can cure them, they belong behind bars to protect us and our children. End of story, in my opinion.

In terms of murder, I do agree that certain murderers kill under a very specific set of circumstances, and the likelihood they'd do it again is pretty low. I therefore think there should be more latitude in sentencing than currently is permitted. However, for certain types of murders the only possible sentence is life imprisonment without possibility of parole. You could put the members of the Manson family in that category. We could never be sure they're "cured", and prison is not just for rehabilitation. It's also for retribution and to serve as an object lesson. They're all going to die in jail, as so they should, and people like them.

Yes, definitely agreed.

davef
08-07-16, 03:46
So we're clear, I'm not equivocating whatsoever on what constitutes rape or that rape is a reprehensible crime. Date rape, marital rape, doesn't matter, it's all vile and abhorrent. And like you said, anybody reasonably believed to have committed a rape should be arrested and prosecuted, which is how it works in Sweden as well. Most of my comment was more concerned with the sentencing outlook. And even then, by no means do I think offenders deserve a slap on the wrist.

But as I'm sure you're well aware of, the criminal justice system in America most certainly has its flaws, especially concerning its glaring racial disparities that occur at almost every part of the process. I followed the case of that vile Stanford Student Brock Turner--who violated an intoxicated, unconconscious girl behind a dumpster and tried to run away when he was caught--and was sentenced to 6 months and 3 years probation because the judge thought a harsher sentence would have too "severe" an impact. Seriously gross. And baffling enough, despite the victim's account and her being found unconscious and partially naked, he wasn't even charged with rape, but attempt to commit rape. Meanwhile the Brian Banks of the world, a black ex-football star who also had a promising future, at 16 made out with a girl with no type of sex taking place, was accused of rape, charged with rape and kidnapping, tried as an adult and served 5 out of 6 years, before he was exonerated for a crime he never committed. Tragic. Both Turner's case and Bank's case, disgusting on multiple levels and most certainly, miscarriages of justice in my opinion. Regardless of the judicial standards it professes to hold, it seems the American justice system does actually consider what someone's race, culture, ethnicity AND social class is. There was nothing "common sense" about the sentencing for either of these cases and it's not as if these are remote outliers within the system at large.

And I never said that trauma was an "excuse" for rape; a lot of people have traumas and yet they don't rape others. Nor do I think that one must have compassion for them on a personal level but I do think that the justice system should have the highest ideals. I certainly believe that justice for the victimized (raped, murdered, etc...) is important, as well as there needs to be an example made for the rest of society that deters them from committing the same or similar behaviors; but I also think that a focus on rehabilitation (for those who can be) is important and that purely punitive justice is problematic, particularly when we live in a world where everyone isn't treated equally. When it comes to criminal justice and mass incarceration, the American system doesn't have the best record of success. And Sweden's is certainly not ideal--I do think that the Leftist agenda has gone too far in some cases, where there are those who aren't held as accountable as they should be. The conundrum is how do we deliver equalized outcomes and just sentences for all people that also demonstrably send a strong message about our zero intolerance for rape and rape culture?



Yes, definitely agreed.

It's sad how the Stanford rapist only gets 3 years in prison yet people caught growing weed are getting twice as much prison time if not more. This poor girl may have to spend the rest of her life traumatized by this incident yet he's getting a slap on the wrist due to his "potential". No matter how drunk you make me, I would never ever assault a woman or sexually penetrate her without her consent. I don't have that ability.

Wanderlust
08-07-16, 04:12
Care to show us any statistics proving that supporters of right-wing and nationalist parties are losers?

Because, you know, people with such views as yours, are also being stereotyped. In the following way:

http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/swedensven_thumb.jpg

lol Cute. And of course, you are a homophobe. Fits perfectly with the info I have for you below.

Though it's none of your business, there are ways in which I am typically liberal and ways where I am not. My wife and I are currently gearing up for hunting season in Finland this fall (we skin and eat what we kill)--I happen to be a gun enthusiast but I'm a responsible owner and believe that only responsible owners should have them. I'm also not as "sentimental" towards animals as some believe I should be. I'm also an agnostic with Heathen/Odinist leanings, which incidentally, have been co-opted by racists, and that make us look bad but I don't care, because it's apart of my culture and I love it. I most certainly am a lover of other peoples and cultures, but none do I love and value more than my own. I place that above "Swedishness," which is more of modern construct.

And finally, here is the info that will affirm and confirm everything I've said about you on this thread. Cheers!:

Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes
"Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact"


Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism



The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was
measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education,
and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their
no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4,
participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate;
an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and
conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought;
when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.


http://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/low-effort-thought-promotes-political-conservatism-2012.pdf

Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

Wanderlust
08-07-16, 04:28
It's sad how the Stanford rapist only gets 3 years in prison yet people caught growing weed are getting twice as much prison time if not more. This poor girl may have to spend the rest of her life traumatized by this incident yet he's getting a slap on the wrist due to his "potential". No matter how drunk you make me, I would never ever assault a woman or sexually penetrate her without her consent. I don't have that ability.

Agreed. What's also terrible is that Brock Turner's lawyer had his family and friends write character letters on Brock's behalf and a female friend of his said, "Just because he raped, doesn't mean he's a rapist." :confused2: Sadly, it's thinking (or the lack thereof) like this that is partly responsible for why some girls don't report rape; they, too, have been socialized into thinking that their bodies are not truly their own and that they somehow share culpability with the same cretins that force themselves upon them or make unwanted advances.

Dinarid
08-07-16, 04:34
Wanderlust,

Also your confidence that the West will "suffer consequences for its actions", is just laughable. They will not suffer consequences for what their ancestors did many generations ago, because they are already awakening from their self-hatred. Open your eyes, look what is happening all over the West - they are fed up with left-wing rules. Brexit won, Trump is heading for victory in the U.S., Alt-right parties are gaining ground everywhere. In Austria the lefties falsified election results, now the election will be re-held and the Alt-right candidate is doomed to win. Your multi-cultural, self-hating, Europe-hating lefties, are losing ground everywhere, all the time. The West is going to rise again, and far-left nuts can do NOTHING, literally NOTHING to stop it. The regressive left is doomed to get lost - and they were asking for it, with their own dumb policies, which have already dissatisfied so many people. Libtards and cuckservatives are in full retreat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7aG-VQYGhA

I'm sorry but that video lost me. "White nationalism" has no place in civilized, modern society. I agree with nationalism, and I agree with some kind of pan-European, Western unity. But this takes things too far. We also know that Trump and his supporters are in bed with Putin and Eurasianists. It's Europe vs. Eurasia as they themselves admit. They want to create a Eurasia. We must stop the Putinists and National Bolshevists as well as outright neo-nazis from hijacking patriotic, right-wing European movements.

Wanderlust
08-07-16, 05:03
2.) Let's remember that while Europe was still ensnared in the Dark Ages, there had been the Mayans, the Kingdom of Pagan, the Ghana Empire, the Incas, the Mali Empire, and don't even get me started on the kingdoms of India and dynasties in China--my point is, for most of the peoples who currently occupy the "Third World" or are considered to be developing nations, they were not culturally and economically impoverished pre-European Colonialism and Imperialism.

Tomenable allready told you about the sub-sahara African empires.
And the way the Mayans and the Incas treated their enemies, you couldn't have picked a worse example.

1.) Tomenable is absolutely and painfully clueless about Sub-Saharan African cultures and peoples. He's also quite racist. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

2.) lol You still didn't prove your point. I never said anything about "high culture"; Tomenable did. All I said is that the "Third World," before European Imperialism, was not "culturally and economically impoverished." That means that they had artisans, architects, cityscapes, monuments, art, currency, trade routes, etc.... They were not intellectually, culturally and economically inferior, like many Europeans at the time tried to claim, in order to justify their disenfranchisement.

3.) AGAIN, I never said that they were "peaceful, harmonious" peoples. YOU SAID THAT. And then I gave you proof of what I actually said. And somehow, you still ignore it. Hopeless.


I never said the Europeans didn't commit any atrocities.
I only said that your comments are not nuancated and that your arguments are very one-sided.
The Eureopeans did commit a lot of atrocities, but in this they were not different from other peoples who got the chance.
But your one-sided bias makes me think that either you're brainwashed or you have a special purpose to do so.
I must tell you, it doens't work.
I hope you've noticed for yourself by now.

1.) No matter what I say, no matter how much I quote myself or prove that I actually was nuanced in some of my opinions, you won't believe it because you are incapable of seeing what you don't want to see.

2.) You do understand that If I punch my neighbor in the face, and then someone from another neighborhood comes over and shoots both of us in the head and takes our homes, that makes him worse, right? A lot of the peoples that Europe conquered may have had their own wars and grievances, but Europe eclipsed that on another scale. You are trying to equalize the behavior of the Europeans with the behavior of the peoples they conquered towards each other and that is a false equivalency.

3.) I don't expect anything I say to "work" on you. I'm not trying to convince you of anything because you are incorrigible. I'm just debating your ideas. Conservative thinkers only clamp down and become more entrenched in their ideas; they don't respond to reason and facts.


Do you know what the flag in my profile stands for?
These people were discriminated and despised by the Belgian establishment at the time of the Belgian Congo.

So you're Flemish? But this is what confuses me: maybe I'm wrong, but I always expect people who belong to ethnic/national/racial/religious minorities to have a bit more compassion and understanding for other minorities. To me, that's what empathy is: when you can feel for the plight of others because of your own plights. But that's not what I see from you.


I am proud to be an European though, who liberated themselves from religious dogmas, who created the industrial revolution of which the whole world benefits today.

1.) You should have pride in what you accomplish, not what Europe accomplished...unless you were the one who started the Industrial Revolution...that also had quite disastrous effects, as well. Personally, I wouldn't be so proud of that.

bicicleur
08-07-16, 08:52
1.) Tomenable is absolutely and painfully clueless about Sub-Saharan African cultures and peoples. He's also quite racist. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

2.) lol You still didn't prove your point. I never said anything about "high culture"; Tomenable did. All I said is that the "Third World," before European Imperialism, was not "culturally and economically impoverished." That means that they had artisans, architects, cityscapes, monuments, art, currency, trade routes, etc.... They were not intellectually, culturally and economically inferior, like many Europeans at the time tried to claim, in order to justify their disenfranchisement.

3.) AGAIN, I never said that they were "peaceful, harmonious" peoples. YOU SAID THAT. And then I gave you proof of what I actually said. And somehow, you still ignore it. Hopeless.




Of course Tomenable and other people that disagree with you are racists.
I knew that all along.

The term 'high culture' was used by Angela and it ultimately referred to your quote.




1.) No matter what I say, no matter how much I quote myself or prove that I actually was nuanced in some of my opinions, you won't believe it because you are incapable of seeing what you don't want to see.

2.) You do understand that If I punch my neighbor in the face, and then someone from another neighborhood comes over and shoots both of us in the head and takes our homes, that makes him worse, right? A lot of the peoples that Europe conquered may have had their own wars and grievances, but Europe eclipsed that on another scale. You are trying to equalize the behavior of the Europeans with the behavior of the peoples they conquered towards each other and that is a false equivalency.

3.) I don't expect anything I say to "work" on you. I'm not trying to convince you of anything because you are incorrigible. I'm just debating your ideas. Conservative thinkers only clamp down and become more entrenched in their ideas; they don't respond to reason and facts.



Indeed you're getting more nuanced as you're getting more counterarguments.
But you keep twisting your stories so you can stick to the same final conclusions.




So you're Flemish? But this is what confuses me: maybe I'm wrong, but I always expect people who belong to ethnic/national/racial/religious minorities to have a bit more compassion and understanding for other minorities. To me, that's what empathy is: when you can feel for the plight of others because of your own plights. But that's not what I see from you.



You don't have to tell me with whom or what to sympathise.




1.) You should have pride in what you accomplish, not what Europe accomplished...unless you were the one who started the Industrial Revolution...that also had quite disastrous effects, as well. Personally, I wouldn't be so proud of that.

try to imagine how the world would look today without the industrial revolution

and acording to you I shouldn't be proud at all, I should feel guilty about the Belgian Congo

Maleth
08-07-16, 09:02
Care to show us any statistics proving that supporters of right-wing and nationalist parties are losers?

Because, you know, people with such views as yours, are also being stereotyped. In the following way:

http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/swedensven_thumb.jpg

Now that is sounding Bitchy Tomenable, dont you think? Spending too much time on the keyboards looking as screens are we? I dont think Geert Wilders will agree with you, but thats beside the point

gyms
08-07-16, 09:09
The European ''humanitarian superpower'' Sweden does its very best to please foreign asylum seekers, by providing them with both food, clothing and shelter, but it seems the country's own ethnic citizens in need are of less importance and forgotten.

Sture, a homeless man in his 60s was found dead early Wednesday morning outside the hospital in Nynashamn.

Sture had sought refuge from the cold in Nynäshamns hospital during the night. But he was not allowed to remain there. A security guard threw him out, and without any offers of housing from the municipality, and out of options, he was forced to spend the night at a bus stop outside the hospital.

In the morning he was found frozen to death, reports Nynäshamnsposten (http://nynashamnsposten.se/nyheter/nynashamn/1.3440548-man-hittades-dod-utanfor-sjukhuset).
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.2405/the-humanitarian-superpower-that-lets-its-own-people-freeze-to-death.html

bicicleur
08-07-16, 09:53
I'm sorry but that video lost me. "White nationalism" has no place in civilized, modern society. I agree with nationalism, and I agree with some kind of pan-European, Western unity. But this takes things too far. We also know that Trump and his supporters are in bed with Putin and Eurasianists. It's Europe vs. Eurasia as they themselves admit. They want to create a Eurasia. We must stop the Putinists and National Bolshevists as well as outright neo-nazis from hijacking patriotic, right-wing European movements.

it is what you get when you keep on blaming the white people for all the sins in the world
there is a counterreaction
and not everyone is acting in the smartest way

Tomenable
08-07-16, 11:27
I don't have time to reply to everything now, but regarding that study of IQ in childhood vs. views in adulthood:

In childhood IQ is mostly environmental, heritability is low (about 20% at age 5, and later it gradually increases).

However, the heritability factor of intelligence increases to over 80% by the age of 25. So it is likely that someone with a higher IQ in childhood can later become a stupid adult, and inversely - a child with a lower IQ can later become a smart adult.

Why didn't they measure IQ of actual adults with various political views, instead of resorting to testing children?

https://z139.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/increasing-heritability.png

https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/iq-heritability-age.png

Maleth
08-07-16, 15:27
We also know that Trump and his supporters are in bed with Putin and Eurasianists.

Well said and their aim is to dismantle the EU in any form they can with the help of the Far right within the EU.....then they call themselves patriots. They wreck everything like bulls in a china shop then walk away and let others deal with the aftermath. (Like Farage for an example?) Now the EU will pay for his pension too.

Dinarid
08-07-16, 20:17
Well said and their aim is to dismantle the EU in any form they can with the help of the Far right within the EU.....then they call themselves patriots. They wreck everything like bulls in a china shop then walk away and let others deal with the aftermath. (Like Farage for an example?) Now the EU will pay for his pension too.

To further illustrate just how disingenuous they are, all of these movements have a kind of pan-European cooperation. While I do want a patriotic awakening, and a less close Union, I think a all of this proves that Europeans do need each other.

Wanderlust
08-07-16, 20:37
it is what you get when you keep on blaming the white people for all the sins in the world

For someone who constantly critiques others on being one-sided, you sure seem to be pretty one-sided yourself.

1.) First of all, it is the height of blind privilege and entitlement to benefit on the backs of others for centuries, and then become angry when the people you've subjugated resist, revolt, demand better treatment and expect recompense for their disenfranchisement. :confused2: The white European elites and the establishment, who have primarily benefited from robbing much of the world, understand this, but there are other sections of white European society who feel like they never received the memo that they were "privileged." That's the elites' burden to bare and fix, not the disenfranchised masses. More on that below.

2.) The toxic combination of the most prolonged period of economic stagnation and the worst refugee crisis since the end of the Second World War is the reason for the rapid rise of the far right, that include white nationalist groups. Over a period of nearly 150 years, every financial crisis was followed by a 10-year surge in support for far right populist parties, as shown by a recent analysis of more than 800 elections by German economists.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/oct/financial-crises-cesifo-wp-5553.pdf

a.) One of the central problems is that the European elite were the primary benefactors from Third World conquests. Yes, there were "trickle down effects" that allowed other classes of Europeans to live marginally to much better lives but the primary benefactors were elite European political and financial institutions. Imperialism is arguably the mother of capitalism and for much of Europe's rapid advancement, they were intertwined. And in hyper-capitalist systems, the lower classes, who are also usually more un/under-educated and stay that way because of insurmountable capitalist structures, always suffer the most and their lots in life only marginally improve, if they do at all. And though they may have benefited in a few ways from white privilege (in comparison to other groups, who may be more prone to receiving flat out discrimination, violence, etc....), they were oppressed by other systems like classism, which in their eyes or even in reality, neutralized any supposed white privilege.

Therefore, they feel as if they are in direct competition (globalization is real and has consequences) with immigrant labor, some of it coming from browner people from warmer places in the world where people believe differently and possess different values. The native, working/lower class people see public, government sponsored programs and initiatives directed at immigrants, refugees, people of color and feel as if they are being neglected when they, too, are suffering and not advancing. Again, in some ways real or imagined, they feel as though they don't benefit from whiteness (like the leftist establishment tells them they do), become angry and resentful, and subsequently, regard themselves as "minority classes in their own countries" who must fight back.

b.) And they are right in some ways; the elites, the establishment, have failed them in many cases: by taking away their economic security and upward mobility via hyper-capitalist policies that are destructive to the middle class; by stoking their fears and feeding them hateful propaganda that actually work against their economic interests (Brexit); by allowing in hordes of refugees/migrants without addressing the concerns of the native people who were also economically stagnant and not upwardly mobile; by allowing in hordes of refugees/migrants whose cultures and value systems were a very real culture shock to a sizeable part of the demographic (older people) without adequate initiatives to ease integration and cooperation. Many people who form the foundation of these far right movements believe that their leaders and politicians have not voiced their frustrations over the consequences of globalization or come to their economic aid.

c.) When people are anxious, they make bad decisions. There's been recent research showing that anxiety suppresses neurons in the pre-frontal cortex region of the brain, which is involved in decision-making. Natural disasters and social disasters (terrorism, migration crisis) are increasing and when these types of things occur, anxiety forces people look for someone to blame, and often immigration and minorities become an easy scapegoat for a problem that is far less visible in origin – as is the case with financial crises.

It's far more complicated than simply "white people don't want to be blamed for the sins of the world," which is quite limited and one-sided.

Wanderlust
08-07-16, 21:54
Of course Tomenable and other people that disagree with you are racists.
I knew that all along.

Is there any possible way for you not to think so myopically?

People who disagree with me are not necessarily racists, but when they say racist things like: Dinarid- "savage Mohammedan hordes," "a blood-thirsty Middle Eastern death cult"; Tomenable-"Sub-Saharan Africa was always a poor shithole," "They are genetically less intelligent than Eurasians," (which is false and has not been proven)-and he posts a video in favor of white nationalism, then that leads me to believe that they hold racist views. It's really quite simple. You probably believe as they do but don't want to deal with the "guilt" of being called a "racist" and so you defend their bigotry as if it isn't racist and bigoted--conservative tactics 101. When one spouts false, unsubstantiated, disproven "information" or "facts" that denigrate other people, one is either unintelligent, ridiculously ignorant and uninformed, a racist or possibly all 3.

Also, he obviously believes in racial/ethnic/cultural/religious hierarchies and a lot of the information he pulls from is old, outdated and written by pseudo-scientific racists. It seems as if his views have been informed almost entirely by anthropological works written before the 1940s. Even the taxon he uses (Caucasoid, Negroid, etc...) suggests a typological view of race that has been outdated for quite some time. He reeks of pseudo-scientific racism. Though I'm not surprised, seeing as how Eastern Europe is still behind the West and playing "catch up," across the board.


The term 'high culture' was used by Angela and it ultimately referred to your quote.

Again, you are misguided. Tomenable first said "high culture" in reference to something I never specifically named "high culture." And Angela critiqued his use of that term.


Indeed you're getting more nuanced as you're getting more counterarguments.
But you keep twisting your stories so you can stick to the same final conclusions.

The second comment I made in this thread showed my nuance. And then it continued to show up. Regardless of what you think you see, you actually don't see nuance because you don't think with nuance and your comments continue to prove this.


try to imagine how the world would look today without the industrial revolution

There are peoples all over the world who live in happiness that never benefited from the Industrial Revolution. Who is to say that you are happier than them? Or that you live a "better" life than they do? Admittedly, I do love wifi and access to the internet. But aside from that, one of my favorite places to be is lost in the wild, in the midst of nature. Electricity is good but overrated.


and acording to you I shouldn't be proud at all, I should feel guilty about the Belgian Congo

1.) You should be proud of yourself. But if you have nothing to personally be proud of, then I understand why you must be proud of Europe, instead.

2.) What a lot of you don't understand is that the good comes with the bad. Some of you like to take credit for everything Europe has done "right," as far as what you perceive to be social, political and cultural achievements, but you like to minimize, refute, deny, downplay or flat out ignore the bad things that Europe has done and that's hypocritical and ridiculous. If you want to be proud of Belgian waffles and Rin Tin Tin, than you have to own what happened in the Belgian congo. If you want to be proud of the Industrial Revolution, then you have to own European Imperialism and Colonialism and the destruction it reeked on most of the world. It's simple.

Tomenable
08-07-16, 22:26
Wanderlust,


People who disagree with me are not necessarily racists, but when they say racist things like:
(...)
Tomenable- (...) "They are genetically less intelligent than Eurasians," (which is false and has not been proven)

My claim that Sub-Saharans are genetically less intelligent than Eurasians is based on the following sources:

1) Davide Piffer, "Estimating the genotypic intelligence of populations...", 2015 - Link (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272408010_Estimating_the_genotypic_intelligence_of _populations_and_assessing_the_impact_of_socioecon omic_factors_and_migrations)
2) Emil Kirkegaard, "The genetic correlation between educational attainment and IQ...", 2014 - Link (http://openpsych.net/OBG/2014/04/the-genetic-correlation-between-educational-attainment-intracranial-volume-and-iq-is-due-to-recent-polygenic-selection-on-general-cognitive-ability/)
3) Davide Piffer, "Factor Analysis of Population Allele Frequencies...", 2013 - Link (http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Factor-Analysis-of-Population-Allele-Frequencies-as-a-Simple-Novel-Method-of-Detecting-Signals-of-Recent-Polygenic-Selection-The-Example-of-Educational-Attainment-and-IQ.pdf)

In publication 1) check especially Table 4a and Table 4b.

In publication 2) check Table 1 and Tables 2a, 2b and 2c.

In publication 3) check Table 1a, Table 1b and Table 1c.

This data indicates, that Sub-Saharans have lower average frequencies of intelligence-increasing mutations.

Are you still going to claim that I am racist? Is science "racist" ??? Are facts "racist" ??? :thinking:

==================================

There are also other similar publications on genotypic IQ - for example:

A. Okbay et al. 2016 - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/abs/nature17671.html
M. R. Johnson et al. 2016 - http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v19/n2/full/nn.4205.html
D. Piffer et al. 2014 - http://www.ibc7.org/article/journal_v.php?sid=317
C. A. Rietveld et al. 2013 - http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/laibson/files/gwas_science_053013.pdf
B. Benyamin et al. 2013 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935975/
F. M. Gosso et al. 2007 - http://bmcmedgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2350-8-66
Rushton & Jensen 2005 - https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

==================================

As you can see, I'm not claiming this based on research from 1940, but on recent studies from 2005-2016.

==================================

See also media coverage (December 2015):

"Intelligence genes discovered by scientists":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

And some additional data snippets below:

https://i.imgur.com/bSPBUk5.png

Dinarid
08-07-16, 22:44
Is there any possible way for you not to think so myopically?

People who disagree with me are not necessarily racists, but when they say racist things like: Dinarid- "savage Mohammedan hordes," "a blood-thirsty Middle Eastern death cult"; Tomenable-"Sub-Saharan Africa was always a poor shithole," "They are genetically less intelligent than Eurasians," (which is false and has not been proven)-and he posts a video in favor of white nationalism, then that leads me to believe that they hold racist views. It's really quite simple. You probably believe as they do but don't want to deal with the "guilt" of being called a "racist" and so you defend their bigotry as if it isn't racist and bigoted--conservative tactics 101. When one spouts false, unsubstantiated, disproven "information" or "facts" that denigrate other people, one is either unintelligent, ridiculously ignorant and uninformed, a racist or possibly all 3.

Also, he obviously believes in racial/ethnic/cultural/religious hierarchies and a lot of the information he pulls from is old, outdated and written by pseudo-scientific racists. It seems as if his views have been informed almost entirely by anthropological works written before the 1940s. Even the taxon he uses (Caucasoid, Negroid, etc...) suggests a typological view of race that has been outdated for quite some time. He reeks of pseudo-scientific racism. Though I'm not surprised, seeing as how Eastern Europe is still behind the West and playing "catch up," across the board.



Again, you are misguided. Tomenable first said "high culture" in reference to something I never specifically named "high culture." And Angela critiqued his use of that term.



The second comment I made in this thread showed my nuance. And then it continued to show up. Regardless of what you think you see, you actually don't see nuance because you don't think with nuance and your comments continue to prove this.



There are peoples all over the world who live in happiness that never benefited from the Industrial Revolution. Who is to say that you are happier than them? Or that you live a "better" life than they do? Admittedly, I do love wifi and access to the internet. But aside from that, one of my favorite places to be is lost in the wild, in the midst of nature. Electricity is good but overrated.



1.) You should be proud of yourself. But if you have nothing to personally be proud of, then I understand why you must be proud of Europe, instead.

2.) What a lot of you don't understand is that the good comes with the bad. Some of you like to take credit for everything Europe has done "right," as far as what you perceive to be social, political and cultural achievements, but you like to minimize, refute, deny, downplay or flat out ignore the bad things that Europe has done and that's hypocritical and ridiculous. If you want to be proud of Belgian waffles and Rin Tin Tin, than you have to own what happened in the Belgian congo. If you want to be proud of the Industrial Revolution, then you have to own European Imperialism and Colonialism and the destruction it reeked on most of the world. It's simple.

So insulting their religion is racist? As I said before: sick Islamophilia.

Tomenable
08-07-16, 22:56
Wanderlust,

When it comes to Muslim populations - they are currently underperforming on IQ tests.

Their genotypic IQ is higher than what they actually score. But this is NOT due to "environment".

This is most likely due to centuries of traditional Muslim inbreeding, which lowers average IQ.

It has been estimated, that inbreeding usually lowers IQ by between 10 and 16 points:

1) "Cousin marriage can reduce I.Q. a lot":

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/cousin-marriage-can-reduce-i-q-a-lot/#.V1MNtnJkjIU

2) "Effects of inbreeding on cognitive performance":

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v266/n5601/abs/266440a0.html

3) "Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society":

http://en.europenews.dk/-Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society-78170.html

^ Now check this map showing the prevalence of inbreeding in the world - Muslims are the leaders:

Consanguineous marriages (second-degree cousins or closer) in the world, in percentage (%):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg/800px-Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg/800px-Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg.png

Angela
08-07-16, 22:59
OK...I've had enough. You guys have taken this thread totally off topic and used it as a vehicle to insult each other. I don't even know who started it anymore. Rather than hand out infractions right, left, and center, I'm just going to close the thread. If you pull this on another thread I will issue infractions, and that will be that. Anyone who wants to follow Goga's path, go right ahead.