The islamisation of the west

[Artful Revealer]

Okay. Wouldn't the decolonisation of the 19th and 20th century be an argument against that?

 

[Helioform]

Okay. Wouldn't the decolonisation of the 19th and 20th century be an argument against that?

Well it's the same situation with the current attempts now with the UN and the EU. They are getting nowhere with the world government plans because the people have caught up with what is happening. Conspiracies do not always succeed like I said earlier, and it was just a theory anyway.

 

[Illuminized]

The RCC has always been neutral in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Evangelicals and WASP are generally allies of Israel, but there are historical and ideological explanations for that.

With regard to alt-rights, they are generally nationalistic, which means support of Jewish nationalism would be the consistent thing to do. At the same time is opposing American Jewry who are generally opposed to American nationalism also the consistent thing to do.

Neutrality is the same thing as siding with them.

Evangelicals have no defense. It's pretty obvious that most of them are plunderers carrying out one big hoax. Most American elite are Irish, not WASPs apparently. Hint: who used to share in mistreatment next to Jews in America? The Irish. No coincidence that JFK was an Irish Catholic who later turned on the elite. Also most Protestants deliberately turn a blind eye to the Palestinian suffering on the basis of dogma alone.

The Alt-Right don't really care about their nation, they just want pre-immigration status quo, if not expulsion of Muslims and non-white people. They complain about the degeneracy when they behave just like those degenerates. It's another form of pacifism. They're reactionaries who give nationalist a bad rep. Of course, I'm not currently a nationalist but I used to be in their camp.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Evangelicals have no defense. It's pretty obvious that most of them are plunderers carrying out one big hoax. Most American elite are Irish, not WASPs apparently. Hint: who used to share in mistreatment next to Jews in America? The Irish. No coincidence that JFK was an Irish Catholic who later turned on the elite. Also most Protestants deliberately turn a blind eye to the Palestinian suffering on the basis of dogma alone.

Wait wait wait ... Are you saying the Irish were, next to Jews, the main culprits of oppression? Or that they together with Jews were the most oppressed? I'm asking because neither is correct.

Re the Evangelicals: Christians, whether Evangelical or not, should appreciate their efforts in defending Christianity. I'm not seeing a lot of it coming from Catholics, Anglicans or Calvinists. I too get annoyed by those tv-evangelists, but then again I dislike pretty much everything on the tube.

The Alt-Right don't really care about their nation, they just want pre-immigration status quo, if not expulsion of Muslims and non-white people. They complain about the degeneracy when they behave just like those degenerates. It's another form of pacifism. They're reactionaries who give nationalist a bad rep. Of course, I'm not currently a nationalist but I used to be in their camp.

I'm not going into a debate about the alt-right. I don't think anyone has succeeded in giving an accurate definition of what it means, and for me the most likely reason would be that they include pretty much all Trump supporters in that camp, which is simply painting them with a too large brush.

 

[Kung Fu]

In the West, if you are not a weak self-loathing person, you're most likely a racist. In the West, a white person cannot be pride of his heritage, cannot be proud of Christianity, cannot be proud of the historical achievements of his ancestors. But if a muslim or a black man is all of these things it's called empowering. A white person cannot criticise other cultures, other beliefs, accuse an entire race for historical events that took place that were detrimental to white people without being called a racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe or whatnot. And that in white majority countries.

I do agree with you that white people do seem to be shamed in showing any kind of pride in their heritage but that's probably due to a lot of their heritage being dependent on stealing from others in the guise of "help" (colonialism). Europe colonized much of the world because they viewed themselves as superior beings thanks to Darwin's theories so much in fact that the French took black people from Africa and placed them in human zoos for the enjoyment of white people because they thought black people were literally the closest things to apes. Colonial Europe ridiculed these co-called "savages" about their identities and their backwardness and now it's happening to Europe. Karma works in funny ways. However, I do believe that white people, I'm half white, should be proud of our accomplishments that doesn't revolve around our ancestors quests in stealing from others.

There's this story about a historical muslim warlord, I don't remember the name or details of this story. There was an Austrian baron or something (again, don't remember the details) who tried to make a deal with the muslim warlord to join forces against his fellow Austrian people. That warlord refused and expressed his disrespect for this traitor baron because he didn't defend his people and culture. The warlord had more respect for those Austrian leaders he met on the battlefield. I expect you'd be the same as that warlord. You definitely don't like weakness (I'm talking about weakness in self-respect and esteem). But I might've been wrong about the self-loathing part. You seem to prefer western people on these forums who dislike their own culture and heritage while bootlicking yours.

Well of course, I would. No one likes a traitor because they can't trusted. On your last sentence. You need to take it easy and relax mate. You read too much into things.

The more I learn about colonialism the less I see it as black and white. Yes, there are certainly black pages of colonial history, but in order to make an ethical judgment we'll have to assess the individual cases. This same reasoning can be so easily turned against you. If invading and stealing from other countries is inherently evil (and I agree that it is) then we have to conclude that the first 8 centuries of Islamic expansion and conquest were inherently evil. But I'm sure this requires historical context. Colonialism, not so much.

What's so difficult about colonialism? They went to other parts of the world set up their own systems, enslaved people, and then stole their shit but what makes it really worse was that they tried to convince themselves that they were doing it to help the people and "civilize" them. Now that's where I would have to draw the line. There's a reason that Afghans get a long with Russians but not the English or America. The Russians came to Afghans and said to their faces that "we don't like you and we're going to fight you". However, with America, the English, French, and etc. they invade your country but tell you that it's for your own good and all the while they r*pe, steal, and occupy.

Uthman or another companion of the Prophet(pbuh) (can't remember the name) said that I wish God would put up a barrier between us, the Muslims and Arabs, and that of the Persians and Romans so that we could live our own lives and stop having to defend ourselves against their attacks. And when the attacks didn't stop the Muslims decided to put at end to it by conquering them. Sounds logical to me.

That would probably change if they started suicide bombing other people. Yes, I think we can both agree that Jews enjoy a certain privilege in our societies and succeed at getting away with it by staying under the radar as much as they can.

Do you know anything of the Jews in England? They bombed the King David hotel in brutal fashion.

It doesn't matter they stay under the radar the fact is that Europeans are hypocrites. You have Jews with their own laws, police, hospitals, and customs within white majority countries but yet no one ever tells them anything while the Muslims who pray are ridiculed and told that they have to integrate. Hypocrisy like that doesn't go unnoticed.

Because I'm not interested in books or theses. I'm interested in facts and arguments. Give one example of systemic racism.

Academics and scholarly work is based on facts otherwise they wouldn't be scholarly or academic. I gave you concrete facts about blacks being discriminated in the justice system and receiving longer sentences than whites for the same crime a while back and you didn't accept that, which is a fact, so why would you accept what I say about Pakistani Muslims being discriminated in similar fashions? Like I keep saying if it doesn't fit your white Christendom Europe imagination it's invalid.

Why would it be contradictory? And which secular states did they prop up? The West wasn't behind the Assad dynasty in Syria, nor were they behind Nasser in Egypt. A lot, if not most secularist nations were formed by homegrown secular nationalists. The West generally seems to have better relationships with Islamic dictatorships like the KSA or Bahrein and Qatar.

Right, we're going to ignore that all the borders set up in the ME wasn't carved up and set by the West during it's colonial and imperial years. Nothing in the last 100 years in the ME is free of Western intervention in some shape or form.

Well yes, because the point was that Islamisation and dechristianisation seems to be the trend following western interventions in the Middle East. What else would I use to support that fact other than religious demographics?!

LOL. Right, people went to war-torn areas and did a survey on the religious backgrounds of the people. You would have to be pretty foolish to believe any of that.

Who says these people are logical? A lot of them come here for genuine reasons of opportunity, or because they're fleeing oppression or persecution in their home countries. But most of them, especially Arabs and Africans, come here because of the social security net. And most politicians encourage it because that way they can appeal to a new voter group who desires more government, which then gives those politicians more power, while those politicians, pundits or people who criticise this uncontrolled immigration tsunami are tagged with the stereotypical labels.

Of course. They're being paid to say that, right?

And how exactly is this leading to the Islamisation of Europe?

I wouldn't be surprised if they were paid to say that. Regardless, Europeans went into other regions of the world and colonized them for centuries and now that you say that it's happening to Europe you're crying foul.

 

[Kung Fu]

Man, I really wonder why you constantly boast about being logical. You're really not that good at logics as you think you are. You keep throwing around causalities and relationships that don't prove anything.

Anyone by now should know the reason why the Ottoman Caliphate was ripped to pieces. I'll let you answer it since I'm pretty sure you know.

Whatever you say mate

 

[Illuminized]

Wait wait wait ... Are you saying the Irish were, next to Jews, the main culprits of oppression? Or that they together with Jews were the most oppressed? I'm asking because neither is correct.

Re the Evangelicals: Christians, whether Evangelical or not, should appreciate their efforts in defending Christianity. I'm not seeing a lot of it coming from Catholics, Anglicans or Calvinists. I too get annoyed by those tv-evangelists, but then again I dislike pretty much everything on the tube.

I'm not going into a debate about the alt-right. I don't think anyone has succeeded in giving an accurate definition of what it means, and for me the most likely reason would be that they include pretty much all Trump supporters in that camp, which is simply painting them with a too large brush.

I'm suggesting that the oppressed peoples have been getting their opportunities for revenge.

I thought you were Gnostic. What do you have to do with the Church?

I'm sure you remember Stride from the previous board. He has been hooked on the Alt-Right for a long time and I fell for that stuff for a while too. The Alt-Right means a lot of things, but ultimately, it's about a return to a specific status quo.

 

[Artful Revealer]

I thought you were Gnostic. What do you have to do with the Church?

What makes you believe a gnostic Christian isn't part of the body of Christ?

 

[Vixy]

But that is the problem. It's people posting threads like these, which shows ignorance towards other cultures, and leaders like Trump who promote hatred and aggression towards Muslim people.

You think that white supremacy ideology can not be an ideology of violence and aggression? What about this event that happened in Canada?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-city-mosque-shooting-what-we-know-so-far/article33826078/

Or this list of islamophobe organizations

https://nowtoronto.com/news/canada-islamophobic-groups/

Canada is part of the West after all. Even if white supremacists supposedly defend white culture, they are sometimes mentally deranged individuals who act out violently because they need to find someone to blame for the problems they may have had during their childhood.

I don't want to support some morons who repeat everything Trump says like a mantra, like "shithole countries" or whatever bigoted ignorant crap they can come up with. I'd rather have immigrants who have better values, and I have known a lot of them.

People in the West usually hate racists because racism is ignorance. It's not a "disease" to hate racism, unlike what the guy with the Templar avatar said.

Better values? Are the crimes the immigrants commit to have "better values"? Wow!

Its people like this that have destroyed my once peaceful country and turned it into the crime center it is today. But I bet you're living in a really calm are where things like these are far away? Its easy to judge from there when not seeing it in real life.

And where do you get off calling Trump supporters racist? That's discriminating!

 

[Vixy]

I believe Vixy is Aylisha.

Omg, get over your paranoia, dude!

 

[Artful Revealer]

I do agree with you that white people do seem to be shamed in showing any kind of pride in their heritage but that's probably due to a lot of their heritage being dependent on stealing from others in the guise of "help" (colonialism). Europe colonized much of the world because they viewed themselves as superior beings thanks to Darwin's theories so much in fact that the French took black people from Africa and placed them in human zoos for the enjoyment of white people because they thought black people were literally the closest things to apes. Colonial Europe ridiculed these co-called "savages" about their identities and their backwardness and now it's happening to Europe. Karma works in funny ways. However, I do believe that white people, I'm half white, should be proud of our accomplishments that doesn't revolve around our ancestors quests in stealing from others.

Can you name an accomplishment? It's been 6 or 7 years and I don't recall you ever mentioning anything good about western civilisation. I've criticised the West's machinations on numerous occasions, and mostly in defence of the Middle East, but the moment I defend the West I'm "crying foul".

This is also about the fourth time that you literally express delight at what's currently happening to Europe as if it were divine justice, and as a European who is watching his civilisation crumble in front of his own eyes (not only due to immigration though) I find that utterly despicable. "Karma is a funny thing" in the face of a child r*pe epidemic that apparently is only happening in right-wing tabloids. Are you only sensitive to the suffering of non-whites?

What's so difficult about colonialism? They went to other parts of the world set up their own systems, enslaved people, and then stole their shit but what makes it really worse was that they tried to convince themselves that they were doing it to help the people and "civilize" them. Now that's where I would have to draw the line.

The enslavement by colonial forces was nothing in comparison to other civilisations, most notably the Islamic ones. Africans and Arabs did most of the actual enslaving, including European women and children centuries prior to the age of discovery, before the Europeans had dared to leave the deserted coast lines of Europe because the raids of berber and Arab pirates had driven the European populations inland. European colonists' acquisition of slaves was principally through bargain, not enslavement, and the Atlantic slave trade started because African slave traders offered the slaves due to lack of other goods. The slave supply came strictly from Africans themselves or the co-operation between African states and the Portuguese colony in Angola. If Europeans would have enslaved their own and sold them to Africans or Ottomans, we would be idiots and hypocrites to criticise Africans and Ottomans for buying the slaves while exonerating Europeans for making them. But here we are.

As an example of the evils of colonialism, here's a more balanced summary void of prejudice and saturated demonisation from the Grand Old Man of India, Dadabhai Naoroji, in 1871 about the British rule:

Spoiler: British Rule for India

The Benefits of British Rule for India:

In the Cause of Humanity: Abolition of suttee and infanticide. Destruction of Dacoits, Thugs, Pindarees, and other such pests of Indian society. Allowing remarriage of Hindu widows, and charitable aid in time of famine. Glorious work all this, of which any nation may well be proud, and such as has not fallen to the lot of any people in the history of mankind.

In the Cause of Civilization: Education, both male and female. Though yet only partial, an inestimable blessing as far as it has gone, and leading gradually to the destruction of superstition, and many moral and social evils. Resuscitation of India's own noble literature, modified and refined by the enlightenment of the West.

Politically: Peace and order. Freedom of speech and liberty of the press. Higher political knowledge and aspirations. Improvement of government in the native states. Security of life and property. Freedom from oppression caused by the caprice or greed of despotic rulers, and from devastation by war. Equal justice between man and man (sometimes vitiated by partiality to Europeans). Services of highly educated administrators, who have achieved the above-mentioned results.

Materially: Loans for railways and irrigation. Development of a few valuable products, such as indigo, tea, coffee, silk, etc. Increase of exports. Telegraphs.

Generally: A slowly growing desire of late to treat India equitably, and as a country held in trust. Good intentions. No nation on the face of the earth has ever had the opportunity of achieving such a glorious work as this. I hope in the credit side of the account I have done no injustice, and if I have omitted any item which anyone may think of importance, I shall have the greatest pleasure in inserting it. I appreciate, and so do my countrymen, what England has done for India, and I know that it is only in British hands that her regeneration can be accomplished. Now for the debit side.


The Detriments of British Rule:

In the Cause of Humanity: Nothing. Everything, therefore, is in your favor under this heading.

In the Cause of Civilization: As I have said already, there has been a failure to do as much as might have been done, but I put nothing to the debit. Much has been done, though.

Politically: Repeated breach of pledges to give the natives a fair and reasonable share in the higher administration of their own country, which has much shaken confidence in the good faith of the British word. Political aspirations and the legitimate claim to have a reasonable voice in the legislation and the imposition and disbursement of taxes, met to a very slight degree, thus treating the natives of India not as British subjects, in whom representation is a birthright. Consequent on the above, an utter disregard of the feelings and views of the natives. The great moral evil of the drain of wisdom and practical administration, leaving none to guide the rising generation.

Financially: All attention is engrossed in devising new modes of taxation, without any adequate effort to increase the means of the people to pay; and the consequent vexation and oppressiveness of the taxes imposed, imperial and local. Inequitable financial relations between England and India, i.e., the political debt of ,100,000,000 clapped on India's shoulders, and all home charges also, though the British Exchequer contributes nearly ,3,000,000 to the expense of the colonies.

Materially: The political drain, up to this time, from India to England, of above ,500,000,000, at the lowest computation, in principal alone, which with interest would be some thousands of millions. The further continuation of this drain at the rate, at present, of above ,12,000,000 per annum, with a tendency to increase. The consequent continuous impoverishment and exhaustion of the country, except so far as it has been very partially relieved and replenished by the railway and irrigation loans, and the windfall of the consequences of the American war, since 1850. Even with this relief, the material condition of India is such that the great mass of the poor have hardly tuppence a day and a few rags, or a scanty subsistence. The famines that were in their power to prevent, if they had done their duty, as a good and intelligent government. The policy adopted during the last fifteen years of building railways, irrigation works, etc., is hopeful, has already resulted in much good to your credit, and if persevered in, gratitude and contentment will follow. An increase of exports without adequate compensation; loss of manufacturing industry and skill. Here I end the debit side.

Summary: To sum up the whole, the British rule has been: morally, a great blessing; politically, peace and order on one hand, blunders on the other; materially, impoverishment, relieved as far as the railway and other loans go. The natives call the British system "Sakar ki Churi," the knife of sugar. That is to say, there is no oppression, it is all smooth and sweet, but it is the knife, notwithstanding. I mention this that you should know these feelings. Our great misfortune is that you do not know our wants. When you will know our real wishes, I have not the least doubt that you would do justice. The genius and spirit of the British people is fair play and justice.

Source

Uthman or another companion of the Prophet(pbuh) (can't remember the name) said that I wish God would put up a barrier between us, the Muslims and Arabs, and that of the Persians and Romans so that we could live our own lives and stop having to defend ourselves against their attacks. And when the attacks didn't stop the Muslims decided to put at end to it by conquering them. Sounds logical to me.

Logics has nothing to do with it; history does. The Sassanids and Byzantines were exhausted from the war. Arabs took advantage of it and invaded (not rebelled) their lands. Muhammad and his companions were not under Persian or Byzantine rule. They were about 1,000 kms removed from the Roman border.

Do you know anything of the Jews in England? They bombed the King David hotel in brutal fashion.

?? The King David Hotel is in Jerusalem and the British were bombed by the Irgun which consisted mainly of Latvian Jews. What do English Jews have to do with this? And it happened 70 years ago. This is entirely irrelevant to the perception of people today.

It doesn't matter they stay under the radar the fact is that Europeans are hypocrites. You have Jews with their own laws, police, hospitals, and customs within white majority countries but yet no one ever tells them anything while the Muslims who pray are ridiculed and told that they have to integrate. Hypocrisy like that doesn't go unnoticed.

Again, false equivalence. There's no major immigration of Jews into Europe and there's no observable Judaisation. In fact, more Jews are leaving Europe. They're now 0.3% of the European population.

People don't have actual problems with migrants of foreign cultures and strange identities and in-group preference to live their own lives. And if there were 0.3% Muslims living their lives in Europe, no one but a fringe group of extremists would be bothered by that. But it's not 0.3%. The migration waves into Europe consists of mostly muslims, millions of muslims while native birth rates remain largely deficient, thus Islamisation is the imperative.

Academics and scholarly work is based on facts otherwise they wouldn't be scholarly or academic. I gave you concrete facts about blacks being discriminated in the justice system and receiving longer sentences than whites for the same crime a while back and you didn't accept that, which is a fact, so why would you accept what I say about Pakistani Muslims being discriminated in similar fashions? Like I keep saying if it doesn't fit your white Christendom Europe imagination it's invalid.

I didn't accept that fact about discrimination against blacks because there is no discrepancy between the rate of black incarceration and black crime. Blacks in the US commit more crime so do more time. This isn't about my preference towards evidence. Evidence stands free from anyone's subjective bias. And the guy who in 6+ years hasn't said anything good about the West's accomplishments nor criticised anything about his own ideology, doesn't get to accuse me of being biased.

Right, we're going to ignore that all the borders set up in the ME wasn't carved up and set by the West during it's colonial and imperial years. Nothing in the last 100 years in the ME is free of Western intervention in some shape or form.

Straw man.

LOL. Right, people went to war-torn areas and did a survey on the religious backgrounds of the people. You would have to be pretty foolish to believe any of that.

Ah, someone's not accepting evidence.

And how exactly is this leading to the Islamisation of Europe?

I wouldn't be surprised if they were paid to say that. Regardless, Europeans went into other regions of the world and colonized them for centuries and now that you say that it's happening to Europe you're crying foul.

There's something morbid about how you relish an injustice because of the injustices committed elsewhere. How far back can people go with this mentality? By those standards, colonialism was karma for the Arab and Berber invasions into Europe. They had it coming so they have no reason to complain about it, nor about Uncle Sam dropping bombs on their homes and families. Just a funny kind of karma, folks!

 

[Helioform]

Better values? Are the crimes the immigrants commit to have "better values"? Wow!

Like I said, most immigrants don't behave this way. Not where I live anyway. You are basing your argument on a very small percentage of immigrants.

But I bet you're living in a really calm are where things like these are far away? Its easy to judge from there when not seeing it in real life.

I am in a fairly crowded neighbourhood with a distribution of immigrants that is similar to most other areas in the city and there are very little problems.

And where do you get off calling Trump supporters racist? That's discriminating

Well Trump IS a known racist, so by simple logic Trump supporters support racism. I never see them condemn it anyway, they usually find excuses instead.

 

[DesertRose]

I don't even get this stuff.

Hey Eta, this has nothing to do with your comment but I wanted to draw your attention to the polarization agenda.
Here are two videos with 2 people (Vicente Fox in one and Jordan Peterson in the other)discussing the polarization agenda and how the radical left and the radical right are both into dirty identity games which will lead to polarization within the west and wars on many lands..
Both sides exaggerate, as will be highlighted in the videos and also maintain outrageous ideologies.
Let them continue they will never profit from it. God willing.
Saner minds need to prevail.
(PS in regards to your comment on ideals.
Vicente Fox discusses the ideals of America that were attractive to the rest of the world and how they are still relevant today. I am aware you espouse different ideals )

Bigots accuse and blame entire peoples that span several continents. I used to do that about the west especially after the Iraq and Afghan wars but I changed thankfully and know we are all occupied nations. Entire populations should not be held accountable for the actions of the few.
This should be repeated. It is crazy to collectively castigate the many for the sins of the the few.
We can only shake our heads and hope that we will eventually get partners for peace and trade.
Like Vicente Fox says in his interview we need Win/Win solutions.
Restricting immigration is sane but the bigotry is astounding.

They will destroy their own countries with their own hands.
Later.

.

 

[Helioform]

I just find it totally ironic that Trump would call these countries shitholes and wanted "more people from Norway" when the US is a "shithole country" itself compared to Norway. Nobody in their right mind there would want to move to the US when they have free healthcare, free education, lower crime rate, beautiful landscape etc.

 

[Kung Fu]

Can you name an accomplishment? It's been 6 or 7 years and I don't recall you ever mentioning anything good about western civilisation. I've criticised the West's machinations on numerous occasions, and mostly in defence of the Middle East, but the moment I defend the West I'm "crying foul".

You've only defended the ME when it suited your agenda. Let's not pretend like you're a fan of Muslims. And it's fine if you don't like Muslims but don't pretend like you defended the ME out of the goodness of your heart.

There's plenty of good things about the West. I love the West and that's why I criticize the bad aspects of it because I would like to see it change. I would love to see the values and culture in which my grandpa grew up return back to Canada once again even if they were classified as Christian values. Believe it or not AR I believe genuine Christian values to be very similar to that of the Muslims and good values like that can only better society.

This is also about the fourth time that you literally express delight at what's currently happening to Europe as if it were divine justice, and as a European who is watching his civilisation crumble in front of his own eyes (not only due to immigration though) I find that utterly despicable. "Karma is a funny thing" in the face of a child r*pe epidemic that apparently is only happening in right-wing tabloids. Are you only sensitive to the suffering of non-whites?

Western civilization isn't crumbling because of Muslim immigration but because of declining moral values and devaluation of their money and resources. I guess without all the stealing and pillaging the West can't really stand on its own. And no, I don't believe there to be this r*pe epidemic. I believe that's all propaganda.

I'm sensitive to the suffering of all races. Injustice is injustice regardless of race. Read my signature for crying out loud.

The enslavement by colonial forces was nothing in comparison to other civilisations, most notably the Islamic ones. Africans and Arabs did most of the actual enslaving, including European women and children centuries prior to the age of discovery, before the Europeans had dared to leave the deserted coast lines of Europe because the raids of berber and Arab pirates had driven the European populations inland. European colonists' acquisition of slaves was principally through bargain, not enslavement, and the Atlantic slave trade started because African slave traders offered the slaves due to lack of other goods. The slave supply came strictly from Africans themselves or the co-operation between African states and the Portuguese colony in Angola. If Europeans would have enslaved their own and sold them to Africans or Ottomans, we would be idiots and hypocrites to criticise Africans and Ottomans for buying the slaves while exonerating Europeans for making them.

Enslavement is only one aspect of colonialism. There's more layers to it than just bringing in slaves. Also, I have said countless times that Arabs and Africans have done some some pretty evil things but in terms of modernity it pales in comparison to what the whites have done. The whites did everything the Arabs and Africans did but on a much larger scale. The English enslaved the Irish.

Logics has nothing to do with it; history does. The Sassanids and Byzantines were exhausted from the war. Arabs took advantage of it and invaded (not rebelled) their lands. Muhammad and his companions were not under Persian or Byzantine rule. They were about 1,000 kms removed from the Roman border.

Absolutely false.

?? The King David Hotel is in Jerusalem and the British were bombed by the Irgun which consisted mainly of Latvian Jews. What do English Jews have to do with this? And it happened 70 years ago. This is entirely irrelevant to the perception of people today.

Again, false equivalence. There's no major immigration of Jews into Europe and there's no observable Judaisation. In fact, more Jews are leaving Europe. They're now 0.3% of the European population.

They were Jews nonetheless. They bombed people while specifically targeting English officials. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy regardless of how you perceive it. Jews are told nothing while Muslims are told they have to integrate. The moment whites hold Jews to the same standard as they do the Muslims then you might have a case.

The reason there's no immigration of Jews is because their population is extremely small and further more whites took land that belonged to the Arabs and who had no involvement in what happened during the second World War and let the Jews colonize it. And whites did this by giving them arms and money. Like I said the ME in a long time has never been free from Western intervention and the minute whites stop interfering with the ME the immigration will stop as well. It's quite simple really.

People don't have actual problems with migrants of foreign cultures and strange identities and in-group preference to live their own lives. And if there were 0.3% Muslims living their lives in Europe, no one but a fringe group of extremists would be bothered by that. But it's not 0.3%. The migration waves into Europe consists of mostly muslims, millions of muslims while native birth rates remain largely deficient, thus Islamisation is the imperative.

Let's forget about whites going into and currently occupying the ME through military bases and proxy governments/royal families and tell me what you want from me. More precisely how are these millions of Muslims getting into Europe and who's allowing them in?

I didn't accept that fact about discrimination against blacks because there is no discrepancy between the rate of black incarceration and black crime. Blacks in the US commit more crime so do more time. This isn't about my preference towards evidence. Evidence stands free from anyone's subjective bias. And the guy who in 6+ years hasn't said anything good about the West's accomplishments nor criticised anything about his own ideology, doesn't get to accuse me of being biased.

If you don't accept academic scholarly peer reviewed work from several of the people I had quoted at the time then there's nothing more to say. Regardless of what you think giving a black man a longer jail sentence than a white man for the exact same crime is down right discriminatory and racist. Are you a racist by any chance? Actually ignore that question not like you'll answer it truthfully.

Ah, someone's not accepting evidence.

Sorry if I don't accept your ludicrous evidence that surveyors went into parts of war torn areas in the ME to ask what religion each person followed lol. Not like those people had anything better to do like try to runaway from bombs, militias, famine, and etc.

There's something morbid about how you relish an injustice because of the injustices committed elsewhere. How far back can people go with this mentality? By those standards, colonialism was karma for the Arab and Berber invasions into Europe. They had it coming so they have no reason to complain about it, nor about Uncle Sam dropping bombs on their homes and families. Just a funny kind of karma, folks!

I don't relish in anything. I'm simply telling it like it is. Just seeing the way things have developed around the world I've come to believe that many people who consider themselves to be white and conservative in nature are closeted racists. I'm not saying you right now, but that opinion is slowly changing due to your statements in the past and especially now, many white conservatives want the good ole colonial and imperial years to come back where every other ethnicity that isn't white know their place in the "civilized" world.

 

[Vixy]

Like I said, most immigrants don't behave this way. Not where I live anyway. You are basing your argument on a very small percentage of immigrants.



I am in a fairly crowded neighbourhood with a distribution of immigrants that is similar to most other areas in the city and there are very little problems.



Well Trump IS a known racist, so by simple logic Trump supporters support racism. I never see them condemn it anyway, they usually find excuses instead.

Fairly crowded with immigrants huh? Where I live its four swedes in two houses. Let me ask what kind of immigrants you have? Doesnr sound like arabs, that for sure.

I have nothing against immigrants if they could behave but they dont in this country. Always the same people to; arabs. The others seem fine except for minor things here and there.

And calling trump a racist...lol! The dudes friggin inviting "dreamers" to the states! Is that racist? Always this damn racisy card. One cannot even take a dump wirhout beibg called racist. Ridiculess!

 

[Vixy]

I just find it totally ironic that Trump would call these countries shitholes and wanted "more people from Norway" when the US is a "shithole country" itself compared to Norway. Nobody in their right mind there would want to move to the US when they have free healthcare, free education, lower crime rate, beautiful landscape etc.

Thats true though. However Norway is also a small secluded country with not much happening so maybe the us would allure with that? But basically the norwegiams have it pretty well over there. Except for everything being extremely expensive.

 

[Helioform]

Fairly crowded with immigrants huh? Where I live its four swedes in two houses. Let me ask what kind of immigrants you have? Doesnr sound like arabs, that for sure.

All kinds, Arabs, Haitians, Europeans, Asians.
Statistically it's as follows: The top ten source countries of newcomers to Quebec are France (8.6%), Algeria (7.8%), China (7.7%), Morocco (7.4%), Haiti (5.1%), Colombia (4%), Romania (3.3%), Lebanon (3.2%), Iran (3%) and Mexico (2.2%).

And calling trump a racist...lol! The dudes friggin inviting "dreamers" to the states! Is that racist? Always this damn racisy card. One cannot even take a dump wirhout beibg called racist. Ridicules

"Inviting dreamers"? The only dreamers he's interested in are from predominantly white countries, hence the shithole comment.

 

[mecca]

The idea that French people might not love back...... that had simply not occured to me. The idea of French people getting caught up in some sort of white nationalism that is against the "colored races" or whatever the term is....... it is for me very difficult to imagine that. I understand there are some white people who don't realize that all people are their brothers and sisters regardless of skin tone...... but I had always pictured French people as being above that sort of thing. I had always thought of Jean-Paul Sartre, Camus, intellectual types.

There's racism everywhere.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/05/rokaya-diallo-france-sees-white-country-170513090436348.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/crystal-fleming/frances-approach-to-fight_b_7231610.html

 

[mecca]

Jordan Peterson ..... lol!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vicente Fox..... lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your reactionary, bourgeosie, patronizing analysis is not appreciated lol.

You're like that older person who tries to be cool and in touch with the younger generation and simply can't lol.

Vicente Fox...... lol.

You and your neoliberal version of Islam..... you can go try to sell it to someone else lol. I'm not buying into your neoliberalism, your Fukuyamaism- any of it.

The fact is you have been consuming way too much reactionary, neo-McCarthyist garbage.

Lewrockwell....... Henry Makow..... lol!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are two degrees of separation between you and the Ku Klux Klan. If you want to find some middle ground with white supremacists, you go ahead lol. That's your business.

You love you some Henry Makow. Henry Makow loves him some David Duke.

You and your simplistic, patronizing analysis..... you can miss me with it.

All I did was write a love letter to France and..... oh I am some dangerous radical lol. I get it. There are times when the older generation isn't able to keep up. I get it.

You think in tired cliches lol.

Che Guevara..... you know nothing about Che Guevara. You know nothing about Latin American politics. Go peddle your second-hand, right-wing, internet-conspiracy-website-derived neoliberalism to Muslims. Che Guevara is out of your depth.

Have you read Sartre? Have you read Fanon?

You are so anti-Fanon. You haven't read a single book of his- correct me if I'm mistaken.

You told me you are anti the Black Panthers. Go to Oakland! Go to Oakland and tell them that!

You'll be laughed out of Oakland. You are out of touch.

You want to find a middle-ground with colonialism. Maybe you can go drink some tea with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

You haven't studied the stuff. Be honest. You haven't read any Marx. You haven't read any Fanon. You haven't read Sartre. You haven't read Che. You haven't seriously studied the ideas you attempt to attack, much less grasped them. I don't think you read much of anything. You read bite-sized, popcorn-sized articles by right-wing David Duke-sympathizers on the internet and pretend to understand politics.

You are a YouTube researcher. In other words, a lightweight in the research department. You are not serious.

I like you and you're a pleasant enough person. But don't patronize me.

You stay enthusing over lightweights like Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson is a lightweight.

You continuously indulge in the consumption of fluff, of light-weight material, intellectual junk food. Junk food from the internet.

Step your game up. Switch to books.

Come talk to me after you've read Hegel. When you've actually read Fanon, when you've actually read Freire, when you've actually read that stuff- then I'll have an interest in what you have to say on those thinkers.

Don't try to dismiss Sartre and Che if you haven't read them. I don't care about hearing a regurgitated David Duke version of history that you picked up from some right-wing conspiracy website.

And have you read Enrique Dussel? The fact is you haven't even grasped the ideas you're trying to attack. Grasp it and then I'll take your viewpoint seriously.

As far as Vicente Fox...... yes I see how he can trick people who know nothing about Mexican politics. Stay to your lane.

DR: "I haven't actually studied what the young people are talking about but let me offer my critique based on cliches I picked up from right-wing conspiracy websites!"

The fact is one minute you are advocating self-determination for Muslims.... and then you attack those who want self-determination for other groups and you are an ally of colonialism. You are seriously lacking when it comes to solidarity. You only care about your own little narrow interest. You are narrow and your analysis is shallow, superficial, based on incorrect premises, based on lack of basic comprehension of that which you presume to critique and based on tired, right-wing cliches. Mind your business and stick to what you know about and understand.

Wow