Weasel...
-
legalAlien wrote:
Says who?
Evidence, look at the Amish, or the weird Swedes who live in Venezuela. Its Darwinism. If our society, our culture, has merit it will survive. If it hasnt, it will die. But, how about 0% loans, isnt that a good thing? Nunc est bibendum
But the very fact that they have survived, surely, is de-facto evidence that they have merit even if we can't see it? (And I'm sure every good little muzzi boy will point out that could apply equally to islam). It show that the surrounding cultures allow them to do what they want. I can't see that happening in Londonistan or Brusselistan under Ayatollah Blair, can you?
fat_boy wrote:
But, how about 0% loans, isnt that a good thing?
Now I must admit that having just taken on a HUMUNGOUS FUCK-OFF mortgage that could entice me but I could never have a beard. Too itchy. Oh, and I would need to put up pictures of allah otherwise how will I know him when he turns up? No, in truth I could not be forced to worship anyone. Especially Darth Allah.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
That article is written by an Islam hater, who barely hides his bias and prejudice. It is also wrong. Did the Celts bemoan the loss of thweir culture to Rome? Yes, and yet it bought vast benefits to the populace. Did the Romanised Celts, now lounging around in steam baths bemoan their loss of culture to the Saxons and Jutes? Yes, and yet it gave us King Alfred. And did he in turn bemoan the influx of Danes? He fought against it, and yet it bought an even richer culture. And in turn, did the Norman French not impose yet more cultural change on the Celto-Anglo-Saxon-Danish melting pot? Yet it gave us probably the worlds best language (in terms of colour, nuance, poetic ability, flexibility, subtelty etc) And how about the Chicken Tika Masala being the UKs favourtite meal? Culture IS ever changing, it is not always painless, but it cant be stopped. To attempt to arrest a culture and preserve it is the final death knell. Nunc est bibendum
There is nothing that better encapsulates the stupitidy and insanity of the left than those observation. All of those historic invasions were met with fierce oppostion. That opposition played as important a role in the subsequent social evolution as did any other factor. What is going on in the west is not some kind of social darwinianism. It is cultural and genetic suicide. The west is not being displaced by Islam because Islam is somehow culturally superior - it is because the west is under the control of factions who simply will not allow it to fight back. Who actually want it to die because we are all supposed to feel quilty about our success as a culture and as a 'race'. Islam is not conquering with better ideas, culture and techology - it is being given a gift by a minority of western leftists - and the rest of us are considered the real enemy if we do anything other than stand and watch like so many happy idiots.
fat_boy wrote:
Culture IS ever changing, it is not always painless, but it cant be stopped.
Therefore what? You just roll over and give up to who ever happens to come strolling into your civilization? If you are really so casual about cultural change, why is there so much opposition to Christian Fundamentalism? Hell, its just another cultural change.
fat_boy wrote:
That article is written by an Islam hater, who barely hides his bias and prejudice.
Yeah? So fucking what? You think they don't hate you? You think that not being biased againt them is going to make them like you? Maybe its time for us to stop listening to morons like you and time for a little self interested bias. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
There is nothing that better encapsulates the stupitidy and insanity of the left than those observation. All of those historic invasions were met with fierce oppostion. That opposition played as important a role in the subsequent social evolution as did any other factor. What is going on in the west is not some kind of social darwinianism. It is cultural and genetic suicide. The west is not being displaced by Islam because Islam is somehow culturally superior - it is because the west is under the control of factions who simply will not allow it to fight back. Who actually want it to die because we are all supposed to feel quilty about our success as a culture and as a 'race'. Islam is not conquering with better ideas, culture and techology - it is being given a gift by a minority of western leftists - and the rest of us are considered the real enemy if we do anything other than stand and watch like so many happy idiots.
fat_boy wrote:
Culture IS ever changing, it is not always painless, but it cant be stopped.
Therefore what? You just roll over and give up to who ever happens to come strolling into your civilization? If you are really so casual about cultural change, why is there so much opposition to Christian Fundamentalism? Hell, its just another cultural change.
fat_boy wrote:
That article is written by an Islam hater, who barely hides his bias and prejudice.
Yeah? So fucking what? You think they don't hate you? You think that not being biased againt them is going to make them like you? Maybe its time for us to stop listening to morons like you and time for a little self interested bias. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Wish I'd said all that.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by the islamic morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it. What a cunt. French editor fired over cartoons[^] I applaud the other newspapers for not bowing to pressure. I may not have much time for journalists and the nonsense they write but they should not be censored in any way even if that means they may offend anyone, me included (which they do on a regular basis).
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-- modified at 6:26 Thursday 2nd February, 2006 I have oft admired Stan Shannon's sig line: a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself so I went a-huntin and came across this article which is not directly related to the thread but, hopefully, will open a vigourous and heated discussion: It's the Demography, Stupid. The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.[^]
legalAlien wrote:
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by the islamic morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it.
I don't think so. He only reprinted the cartoons. And as an editor, he should have known the impact. I find it irresponsible: if you know that these cartoons will offense many islamic people, then why print them? It's not as if those cartoons are that important. You could describe them of course, you can inform your readers about them. But reprinting them in the full knowlegde that you will only anger people, that's stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speach. That's almost the same as shouting "FIRE" in a full theater and create a panic that way. So yes: that idiot should be fired.
-
legalAlien wrote:
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by the islamic morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it.
I don't think so. He only reprinted the cartoons. And as an editor, he should have known the impact. I find it irresponsible: if you know that these cartoons will offense many islamic people, then why print them? It's not as if those cartoons are that important. You could describe them of course, you can inform your readers about them. But reprinting them in the full knowlegde that you will only anger people, that's stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speach. That's almost the same as shouting "FIRE" in a full theater and create a panic that way. So yes: that idiot should be fired.
SteveKing wrote:
if you know that these cartoons will offense many islamic people, then why print them
Because we are free to do so and that right should not be allowed to be subjugated or diluted by a vociferous minority that profess to find it offensive. I find many things in papers, books, etc highly offensiver either personally, racially or culturally and yet I defend the right of the perpetrator to say those things as I am strong enough in my beliefs to withstand attacks from any quarter and to either retort in kind or laugh. It is entirely disingenuous to throw the 'Fire' argument in: this is not the same thing: this creates an entirely artificial panic that is whipped up by the same mullahs that woul dhave ou killed as soon a slook at you. Have we become such cowards in the west that we'll let them walk over us and destroy us without a fight?
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
legalAlien wrote:
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by the islamic morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it.
I don't think so. He only reprinted the cartoons. And as an editor, he should have known the impact. I find it irresponsible: if you know that these cartoons will offense many islamic people, then why print them? It's not as if those cartoons are that important. You could describe them of course, you can inform your readers about them. But reprinting them in the full knowlegde that you will only anger people, that's stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speach. That's almost the same as shouting "FIRE" in a full theater and create a panic that way. So yes: that idiot should be fired.
SteveKing wrote:
That's almost the same as shouting "FIRE" in a full theater and create a panic that way.
But when the theater is actually on fire, shouting "FIRE" is not merely a freedom - its a responsibility. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
That article is written by an Islam hater, who barely hides his bias and prejudice. It is also wrong. Did the Celts bemoan the loss of thweir culture to Rome? Yes, and yet it bought vast benefits to the populace. Did the Romanised Celts, now lounging around in steam baths bemoan their loss of culture to the Saxons and Jutes? Yes, and yet it gave us King Alfred. And did he in turn bemoan the influx of Danes? He fought against it, and yet it bought an even richer culture. And in turn, did the Norman French not impose yet more cultural change on the Celto-Anglo-Saxon-Danish melting pot? Yet it gave us probably the worlds best language (in terms of colour, nuance, poetic ability, flexibility, subtelty etc) And how about the Chicken Tika Masala being the UKs favourtite meal? Culture IS ever changing, it is not always painless, but it cant be stopped. To attempt to arrest a culture and preserve it is the final death knell. Nunc est bibendum
And culture isn't transmitted along purely racial lines, or necessarily passed from the conqueror to the conqurered. Greeks are are fair example of this. The Greeks that fought at the battle of Thermopylae were not the same ethnic group as the Greeks who fought at Troy, they were later invaders who adopted and adapted the indigenous culture. Yet the Greeks of thermopolae revered the same heros and Gods. Likewise, Roman culture owed a lot to the Greeks, hell they borrowed their pantheon and adopted stoicism (a greek philosophy) as the Roman ideal. And of course, the habit the roman legions had of picking up foriegn cults from conquered peoples is the reason why europe became christian. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
legalAlien wrote:
Says who?
Evidence, look at the Amish, or the weird Swedes who live in Venezuela. Its Darwinism. If our society, our culture, has merit it will survive. If it hasnt, it will die. But, how about 0% loans, isnt that a good thing? Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
But, how about 0% loans, isnt that a good thing?
They are not 0% loans, they are a theological slight of hand. Generaly they work by the 'lender' buying the property out right, then renting it to the lendee for the period of time required to pay it off (at a slightly increased rate, generaly more expensive than an infidel mortgage). Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
There is nothing that better encapsulates the stupitidy and insanity of the left than those observation. All of those historic invasions were met with fierce oppostion. That opposition played as important a role in the subsequent social evolution as did any other factor. What is going on in the west is not some kind of social darwinianism. It is cultural and genetic suicide. The west is not being displaced by Islam because Islam is somehow culturally superior - it is because the west is under the control of factions who simply will not allow it to fight back. Who actually want it to die because we are all supposed to feel quilty about our success as a culture and as a 'race'. Islam is not conquering with better ideas, culture and techology - it is being given a gift by a minority of western leftists - and the rest of us are considered the real enemy if we do anything other than stand and watch like so many happy idiots.
fat_boy wrote:
Culture IS ever changing, it is not always painless, but it cant be stopped.
Therefore what? You just roll over and give up to who ever happens to come strolling into your civilization? If you are really so casual about cultural change, why is there so much opposition to Christian Fundamentalism? Hell, its just another cultural change.
fat_boy wrote:
That article is written by an Islam hater, who barely hides his bias and prejudice.
Yeah? So fucking what? You think they don't hate you? You think that not being biased againt them is going to make them like you? Maybe its time for us to stop listening to morons like you and time for a little self interested bias. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Damn, I haven't ventured into here for a while, and while I don't always agree with a lot of Stan's comments - this one hits things right dead on center. A-fuckin-men. My only quible is that I don't think the problem is just with the "left", I'd say it's problem prevasive through all parts of the US, and not limited to Dems or Reps (or left or right). I remember my Dad saying (10-15 years ago) that he had felt that Islam and the West were on a collision course, and it would end up being very violent. I didn't agree with him at the time. The more I read things like this in the news, the more I think he is right and that we'll see a major conflict (like WWII major) like this sometime very soon. And it seems a good chunk of responsibility for preventing this lies with the very same countries currently going apeshit over this silly cartoon. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
There is nothing that better encapsulates the stupitidy and insanity of the left than those observation. All of those historic invasions were met with fierce oppostion. That opposition played as important a role in the subsequent social evolution as did any other factor. What is going on in the west is not some kind of social darwinianism. It is cultural and genetic suicide. The west is not being displaced by Islam because Islam is somehow culturally superior - it is because the west is under the control of factions who simply will not allow it to fight back. Who actually want it to die because we are all supposed to feel quilty about our success as a culture and as a 'race'. Islam is not conquering with better ideas, culture and techology - it is being given a gift by a minority of western leftists - and the rest of us are considered the real enemy if we do anything other than stand and watch like so many happy idiots.
fat_boy wrote:
Culture IS ever changing, it is not always painless, but it cant be stopped.
Therefore what? You just roll over and give up to who ever happens to come strolling into your civilization? If you are really so casual about cultural change, why is there so much opposition to Christian Fundamentalism? Hell, its just another cultural change.
fat_boy wrote:
That article is written by an Islam hater, who barely hides his bias and prejudice.
Yeah? So fucking what? You think they don't hate you? You think that not being biased againt them is going to make them like you? Maybe its time for us to stop listening to morons like you and time for a little self interested bias. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is nothing that better encapsulates the stupitidy and insanity of the left than those observation.
No, it encapsulates the stupidity and insanity of fat_boy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What is going on in the west is not some kind of social darwinianism. It is cultural and genetic suicide. The west is not being displaced by Islam because Islam is somehow culturally superior - it is because the west is under the control of factions who simply will not allow it to fight back. Who actually want it to die because we are all supposed to feel quilty about our success as a culture and as a 'race'. Islam is not conquering with better ideas, culture and techology - it is being given a gift by a minority of western leftists - and the rest of us are considered the real enemy if we do anything other than stand and watch like so many happy idiots.
The "rest of you" haven't much of a record in halting fundamentalist Islam. Some progress in Afghanistan. Regress in Iraq and Palestine and most of the rest of the Islamic world. If the threat to the West is a matter of country vs country, then the West will always win because fundamentalists are always going to be technologically backward in comparison. If it is a matter of demographic change within Western countries, then a list of possible hard-line measures to counter it would include: 1. restrictions on immigration by Muslims, 2. action to encourage a higher birth rate (among non-Muslims, though it would not be necessary to specifically target them), 3. an enforcement of secular education (i.e., eliminating all religious schools) and other steps to promote secular, pluralistic values and the separation of church and state. I am not convinced that any of these is actually necessary in my own country of Australia. I think that, over a generation or two, Muslims living in the West will tend to embrace Western liberal values provided they are treated reasonably, since freedom and democracy are intrinsically attractive. "Reasonable treatment" does not mean accepting or cooperating with the least acceptable aspects of fundamentalist Islam, such as discrimination against women and a lack of freedom of expression. It means generally adopting an attitude of goodwill and a live and let live policy on all matters that don't involve non-negotiable principles. However, a watching brief should be kept on this, and I would support
-
legalAlien wrote:
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by the islamic morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it.
I don't think so. He only reprinted the cartoons. And as an editor, he should have known the impact. I find it irresponsible: if you know that these cartoons will offense many islamic people, then why print them? It's not as if those cartoons are that important. You could describe them of course, you can inform your readers about them. But reprinting them in the full knowlegde that you will only anger people, that's stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speach. That's almost the same as shouting "FIRE" in a full theater and create a panic that way. So yes: that idiot should be fired.
SteveKing wrote:
I don't think so. He only reprinted the cartoons. And as an editor, he should have known the impact. I find it irresponsible: if you know that these cartoons will offense many islamic people, then why print them? It's not as if those cartoons are that important. You could describe them of course, you can inform your readers about them. But reprinting them in the full knowlegde that you will only anger people, that's stupid.
Rubbish. There is a context to all this. There is a large number of Islamic-dominated countries that lack freedom of expression, lack religious freedom, lack freedom in social behaviour, and have a population that is prone to violent responses to anything or anyone that disagrees with them. Progress requires that the people in those countries get over their repressive attitudes. This progress will never occur unless people are prepared to go against the system and actually cause offence. That is how freedom was won in the West; it is the only way freedom can be won. Ideally, of course, reform should come from within, because it is more readily accepted from that source. Campaigns coming from outside incite nationalist as well as religious resistance. However, while the West should not be launching a Jihad of its own against Muslim beliefs, it should maintain its own standards. Ridicule of Christianity has a long history in the West and Islam should not have a total exemption. It really is preposterous to think that people in Saudi Arabia should be determining what cartoons are acceptable in Denmark or France. The West should not allow itself to be culturally colonised. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
SteveKing wrote:
I don't think so. He only reprinted the cartoons. And as an editor, he should have known the impact. I find it irresponsible: if you know that these cartoons will offense many islamic people, then why print them? It's not as if those cartoons are that important. You could describe them of course, you can inform your readers about them. But reprinting them in the full knowlegde that you will only anger people, that's stupid.
Rubbish. There is a context to all this. There is a large number of Islamic-dominated countries that lack freedom of expression, lack religious freedom, lack freedom in social behaviour, and have a population that is prone to violent responses to anything or anyone that disagrees with them. Progress requires that the people in those countries get over their repressive attitudes. This progress will never occur unless people are prepared to go against the system and actually cause offence. That is how freedom was won in the West; it is the only way freedom can be won. Ideally, of course, reform should come from within, because it is more readily accepted from that source. Campaigns coming from outside incite nationalist as well as religious resistance. However, while the West should not be launching a Jihad of its own against Muslim beliefs, it should maintain its own standards. Ridicule of Christianity has a long history in the West and Islam should not have a total exemption. It really is preposterous to think that people in Saudi Arabia should be determining what cartoons are acceptable in Denmark or France. The West should not allow itself to be culturally colonised. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is nothing that better encapsulates the stupitidy and insanity of the left than those observation.
No, it encapsulates the stupidity and insanity of fat_boy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What is going on in the west is not some kind of social darwinianism. It is cultural and genetic suicide. The west is not being displaced by Islam because Islam is somehow culturally superior - it is because the west is under the control of factions who simply will not allow it to fight back. Who actually want it to die because we are all supposed to feel quilty about our success as a culture and as a 'race'. Islam is not conquering with better ideas, culture and techology - it is being given a gift by a minority of western leftists - and the rest of us are considered the real enemy if we do anything other than stand and watch like so many happy idiots.
The "rest of you" haven't much of a record in halting fundamentalist Islam. Some progress in Afghanistan. Regress in Iraq and Palestine and most of the rest of the Islamic world. If the threat to the West is a matter of country vs country, then the West will always win because fundamentalists are always going to be technologically backward in comparison. If it is a matter of demographic change within Western countries, then a list of possible hard-line measures to counter it would include: 1. restrictions on immigration by Muslims, 2. action to encourage a higher birth rate (among non-Muslims, though it would not be necessary to specifically target them), 3. an enforcement of secular education (i.e., eliminating all religious schools) and other steps to promote secular, pluralistic values and the separation of church and state. I am not convinced that any of these is actually necessary in my own country of Australia. I think that, over a generation or two, Muslims living in the West will tend to embrace Western liberal values provided they are treated reasonably, since freedom and democracy are intrinsically attractive. "Reasonable treatment" does not mean accepting or cooperating with the least acceptable aspects of fundamentalist Islam, such as discrimination against women and a lack of freedom of expression. It means generally adopting an attitude of goodwill and a live and let live policy on all matters that don't involve non-negotiable principles. However, a watching brief should be kept on this, and I would support
First of all, very well said John.
John Carson wrote:
I am not convinced that any of these is actually necessary in my own country of Australia. I think that, over a generation or two, Muslims living in the West will tend to embrace Western liberal values provided they are treated reasonably, since freedom and democracy are intrinsically attractive. "Reasonable treatment" does not mean accepting or cooperating with the least acceptable aspects of fundamentalist Islam, such as discrimination against women and a lack of freedom of expression. It means generally adopting an attitude of goodwill and a live and let live policy on all matters that don't involve non-negotiable principles.
Absolutely, and these are principles of the so-called Left that Stan dislikes so much. Stan would prefer that we all embrace a militant Christian stance to fight off the "threat" from the Muslim world. It's the whole "they're out to get us" paranoia. I wonder if he also fears that someday we'll all be forced to listen to Hip-Hop music. :rolleyes: Alvaro
-
legalAlien wrote:
The editor had the courage to stand up to the bull-boy tactics employed by the islamic morons and his cowardly owner fires him for it.
I don't think so. He only reprinted the cartoons. And as an editor, he should have known the impact. I find it irresponsible: if you know that these cartoons will offense many islamic people, then why print them? It's not as if those cartoons are that important. You could describe them of course, you can inform your readers about them. But reprinting them in the full knowlegde that you will only anger people, that's stupid. It has nothing to do with freedom of speach. That's almost the same as shouting "FIRE" in a full theater and create a panic that way. So yes: that idiot should be fired.
So if you offend many islamic people you shouldn't do it? Where does that stop? Women voting? Women driving? Women not covered by veils or burkas? Have you prayed 5 times today? Israel? Time for that to go too? Where is your line in the sand? The fact that they might get mad enough to blow up a pizza parlor is enough for you to toss out rights we regard as fundamental? It has everything to do with freedom of speech. I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
First of all, very well said John.
John Carson wrote:
I am not convinced that any of these is actually necessary in my own country of Australia. I think that, over a generation or two, Muslims living in the West will tend to embrace Western liberal values provided they are treated reasonably, since freedom and democracy are intrinsically attractive. "Reasonable treatment" does not mean accepting or cooperating with the least acceptable aspects of fundamentalist Islam, such as discrimination against women and a lack of freedom of expression. It means generally adopting an attitude of goodwill and a live and let live policy on all matters that don't involve non-negotiable principles.
Absolutely, and these are principles of the so-called Left that Stan dislikes so much. Stan would prefer that we all embrace a militant Christian stance to fight off the "threat" from the Muslim world. It's the whole "they're out to get us" paranoia. I wonder if he also fears that someday we'll all be forced to listen to Hip-Hop music. :rolleyes: Alvaro
-
First of all, very well said John.
John Carson wrote:
I am not convinced that any of these is actually necessary in my own country of Australia. I think that, over a generation or two, Muslims living in the West will tend to embrace Western liberal values provided they are treated reasonably, since freedom and democracy are intrinsically attractive. "Reasonable treatment" does not mean accepting or cooperating with the least acceptable aspects of fundamentalist Islam, such as discrimination against women and a lack of freedom of expression. It means generally adopting an attitude of goodwill and a live and let live policy on all matters that don't involve non-negotiable principles.
Absolutely, and these are principles of the so-called Left that Stan dislikes so much. Stan would prefer that we all embrace a militant Christian stance to fight off the "threat" from the Muslim world. It's the whole "they're out to get us" paranoia. I wonder if he also fears that someday we'll all be forced to listen to Hip-Hop music. :rolleyes: Alvaro
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
someday we'll all be forced to listen to Hip-Hop music.
As a musician and a fan of music in general I find that the words "hip-hop" and "music" do not go well together. But hell the fact that all the real musicians are now in their 50's and 60's simply points out the fact that Gen X and its anticedents have abandoned "music" for "crap" and it ain't getting ant better. The Stones at the superbowl!!!! Will wonders never cease. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is nothing that better encapsulates the stupitidy and insanity of the left than those observation.
No, it encapsulates the stupidity and insanity of fat_boy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What is going on in the west is not some kind of social darwinianism. It is cultural and genetic suicide. The west is not being displaced by Islam because Islam is somehow culturally superior - it is because the west is under the control of factions who simply will not allow it to fight back. Who actually want it to die because we are all supposed to feel quilty about our success as a culture and as a 'race'. Islam is not conquering with better ideas, culture and techology - it is being given a gift by a minority of western leftists - and the rest of us are considered the real enemy if we do anything other than stand and watch like so many happy idiots.
The "rest of you" haven't much of a record in halting fundamentalist Islam. Some progress in Afghanistan. Regress in Iraq and Palestine and most of the rest of the Islamic world. If the threat to the West is a matter of country vs country, then the West will always win because fundamentalists are always going to be technologically backward in comparison. If it is a matter of demographic change within Western countries, then a list of possible hard-line measures to counter it would include: 1. restrictions on immigration by Muslims, 2. action to encourage a higher birth rate (among non-Muslims, though it would not be necessary to specifically target them), 3. an enforcement of secular education (i.e., eliminating all religious schools) and other steps to promote secular, pluralistic values and the separation of church and state. I am not convinced that any of these is actually necessary in my own country of Australia. I think that, over a generation or two, Muslims living in the West will tend to embrace Western liberal values provided they are treated reasonably, since freedom and democracy are intrinsically attractive. "Reasonable treatment" does not mean accepting or cooperating with the least acceptable aspects of fundamentalist Islam, such as discrimination against women and a lack of freedom of expression. It means generally adopting an attitude of goodwill and a live and let live policy on all matters that don't involve non-negotiable principles. However, a watching brief should be kept on this, and I would support
John Carson wrote:
I think that, over a generation or two, Muslims living in the West will tend to embrace Western liberal values provided they are treated reasonably, since freedom and democracy are intrinsically attractive.
But why should they? The notion that you have created a set of cultural principles that are just so intrinsically superior to all others tht all of humanity will just naturally wish to adopt them is ludicrous. That all you have to do is be nice to people and you win is silly. The lesson that the left is teaching the world is not the inherent superiority of liberalism, it is that liberalism leads inevitably to cultural, racial extinction. Guess what, most people are going to reject that kind of lunacy out of hand. They are going to adopt our principles for only so long as it takes for us to die off to the point that they can just sweep us into the dustbin of history along with all of our tolerance and goodwill.
John Carson wrote:
I don't see any real indication that the Republican right has any constructive ideas on this of either the soft-line or hard-line variety.
I don't disagree with that, however. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
First of all, very well said John.
John Carson wrote:
I am not convinced that any of these is actually necessary in my own country of Australia. I think that, over a generation or two, Muslims living in the West will tend to embrace Western liberal values provided they are treated reasonably, since freedom and democracy are intrinsically attractive. "Reasonable treatment" does not mean accepting or cooperating with the least acceptable aspects of fundamentalist Islam, such as discrimination against women and a lack of freedom of expression. It means generally adopting an attitude of goodwill and a live and let live policy on all matters that don't involve non-negotiable principles.
Absolutely, and these are principles of the so-called Left that Stan dislikes so much. Stan would prefer that we all embrace a militant Christian stance to fight off the "threat" from the Muslim world. It's the whole "they're out to get us" paranoia. I wonder if he also fears that someday we'll all be forced to listen to Hip-Hop music. :rolleyes: Alvaro
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Stan would prefer that we all embrace a militant Christian stance to fight off the "threat" from the Muslim world.
I have never even hinted at any such belief. I simply have raised the question about the left's paranoia about Christian Fundamentalism as being a form of insanity given that an entire culture dedicated to Islamic fundamentalism is on a muderous rampage around the planet. Your post, as usual, reinforces the importance of that question. Any sane human being would realize the latter is far and away a more serious threat then the former. BTW - I actually like some hip-hop music. (I wouldn't buy it, but some of it is interesting to listen to) "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself" -- modified at 13:33 Thursday 2nd February, 2006
-
First of all, very well said John.
John Carson wrote:
I am not convinced that any of these is actually necessary in my own country of Australia. I think that, over a generation or two, Muslims living in the West will tend to embrace Western liberal values provided they are treated reasonably, since freedom and democracy are intrinsically attractive. "Reasonable treatment" does not mean accepting or cooperating with the least acceptable aspects of fundamentalist Islam, such as discrimination against women and a lack of freedom of expression. It means generally adopting an attitude of goodwill and a live and let live policy on all matters that don't involve non-negotiable principles.
Absolutely, and these are principles of the so-called Left that Stan dislikes so much. Stan would prefer that we all embrace a militant Christian stance to fight off the "threat" from the Muslim world. It's the whole "they're out to get us" paranoia. I wonder if he also fears that someday we'll all be forced to listen to Hip-Hop music. :rolleyes: Alvaro
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
It's the whole "they're out to get us" paranoia.
They are "out to get" the us Westerners, think of 9/11, the London Bombings, the bombings in Madrid, the hostages in Iraq, the list goes on and on. Imagine if we had been more "paranoid" before 9/11/2001, we just might have stopped a few Islamists with ties to Al-Queda getting on a plane with box cutters and pepper spray. But, I guess that I am just racist and paranoid to even think that people from the Religion of Peace would to such things! "When only the police have guns, it's called a Police State."
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
It's the whole "they're out to get us" paranoia.
They are "out to get" the us Westerners, think of 9/11, the London Bombings, the bombings in Madrid, the hostages in Iraq, the list goes on and on. Imagine if we had been more "paranoid" before 9/11/2001, we just might have stopped a few Islamists with ties to Al-Queda getting on a plane with box cutters and pepper spray. But, I guess that I am just racist and paranoid to even think that people from the Religion of Peace would to such things! "When only the police have guns, it's called a Police State."
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
They are "out to get" the us Westerners, think of 9/11, the London Bombings, the bombings in Madrid, the hostages in Iraq, the list goes on and on.
Yes, but "they" are just a few. The world was with us after 9/11 and again when we went to Afghanistan to hunt down the bastards. And then came Iraq... :sigh:
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Imagine if we had been more "paranoid" before 9/11/2001, we just might have stopped a few Islamists with ties to Al-Queda getting on a plane with box cutters and pepper spray.
Yes, but don't tell that to George. He says there's nothing we could have done.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
But, I guess that I am just racist and paranoid to even think that people from the Religion of Peace would to such things!
No man, just don't group them all in the same bunch, that's all.