Why Do Fascists Hate Christianity? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14475719
Rei Murasame wrote:I'm tired of even hearing counter-arguments. Just stop trying to defend Christianity. I'm tired of hearing all the ridiculous and ever-more convoluted ways that you try to defend this rubbish. Just get over it.


You tell 'em. As for the "elusive benevolent dictator"great accomplishment requires going against the popular will, and inevitably involves killing.
#14475792
blackjack21 wrote:So are you ready to acknowledge that "...endowed by their Creator" is where the idea of human rights came from and that rejection of that idea doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity goes away, but human rights somehow stay?


I have no idea how to parse that question.

The idea of human rights came from several places, and while I do not know if they were based partly on Christian teachings, I would not be surprised to find out that modern Western human rights are partly based on a more progressive version of Christian thought. I do not assume that human rights were invented by the authors of the US Declaration of independence.

The idea that human rights are based partly on Christian teachings supports my claim that fascists do not actually like Christianity.

bj wrote:Oh boy... more Canada as Anglo-Saxon heaven... See Rei? There are virtually no social problems in Canada. If the world just adopted the Canadian model, we'd have universal peace and prosperity.

Terrorism in Canada
    The Canadian government has banned nearly 40 native organizations, including Al Qaeda, the Armed Islamic Group, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Palestine Liberation Front, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah,[1] Kahane Chai, the Taliban, the Blackfoot, International gourd of Islam, Westboro Baptist Church, and Mujahedin e-Khalq.


Since none of these groups are trying to take over Canada, you fail to rebut my point.

bj wrote:Canada is overhwelmingly white, with a small Asian population too. Try importing the population of Haiti to Montreal, and see what happens...


Mississauga (a minority majority city in Canada) also exists, and has better economy, more social cohesion, a distinct lack of mass rapes, a distinct lack of bloody rioting, more rights for women, a distinct lack of Buddhist monks being attacked, and is generally doing better.

My point was that Canada seems to have a better handle on its Muslim population than Burma does. You have failed to rebut that point.
#14475831
Godstud wrote:Muslims in Canada tend to be of the more secular variety, for some reason.

No, it's just that you all like to pretend that it is so, and I got bored of challenging that ridiculous notion, because I don't believe that Canadians actually believe that. They just like saying it because it makes them feel nice.

Meanwhile:
National Post, 'Islamist extremists radicalizing Canadians at ‘a large number of venues,’ secret report reveals', 03 Jan 2013 wrote:Image

Islamist extremists are now radicalizing Canadians at “a large number of venues,” according to a secret intelligence report released to the National Post under the Access to Information Act.

While mosques with hardline imams are often singled out for spreading violent Islamist ideology, the study found that radicalization has been taking place at a much longer list of locales.

“Radicalization is not limited to religious centres,” says the Canadian Security Intelligence Service report, titled Venues of Sunni Islamist Radicalization in Canada.

The heavily censored report identifies the role of prisons, the Internet and foreign travel in turning some Canadians into extremists who wage or support violence. But it also points a finger at the family home.

“Parents have radicalized children,” reads the Intelligence Assessment, “husbands have radicalized wives (and some wives have radicalized or supported their husbands) … and siblings have radicalized each other,” it says.

“As this assessment has demonstrated, a large number of venues have been, and continue to be used to further Islamist extremist ideology. … As radicalization is usually a social process, it can occur wherever humans interact, in the real world or virtual ones,” it says.

Since al-Qaeda’s attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, an increasing number of Canadians have become lured into Islamist extremism, an intolerant, anti-democratic and virulently anti-Western worldview that preaches that violence against non-Muslims is a religious duty and a path to paradise.

Several Canadian extremists have travelled abroad to countries such as Pakistan and Somalia with the intention of engaging in what they call jihad, while others have plotted mass casualty attacks in Canada, although none has succeeded.

[Scribd: Link / PDF]
#14475838
Godstud wrote:Muslims in Canada tend to be of the more secular variety, for some reason.


Maybe it's because they are not being targeted for brutal oppression due to their religion.

Rei Murasame wrote:No, it's just that you all like to pretend that it is so, and I got bored of challenging that ridiculous notion, because I don't believe that Canadians actually believe that. They just like saying it because it makes them feel nice.

Meanwhile:
...


I never claimed that Canada was immune to this. I claimed that you do not have to brutally oppress Muslims in order to avoid having your nation taken over by them. This document actually supports my point. Even when a minority of them are thinking about it, we do not need to oppress all of them in order to maintain our security and freedom.
#14475839
Indeed, one merely needs to invite even more of them into your country and treat them with warmth and respect, and all will be well. You claim.

It makes total sense, this document in no way impacts your ideological position. It's said that people derive what they want to derive.
#14475843
Rei Murasame wrote:Indeed, one merely needs to invite even more of them into your country and treat them with warmth and respect, and all will be well. You claim.


Please quote where I claim that. Thank you.

It makes total sense, this document in no way impacts your ideological position. It's said that people derive what they want to derive.


Do we agree that the document states that some people are trying to create violence and anti-gov't attacks by making more Canadians into radical (i.e. violent) Muslims? Do we agree that this poses a threat to Canada? I think we do.

Now, how successful have they been? How many successful terrorist attacks have occurred on Canadian soil? None.

So, if we agree that the threat is real, and we agree that the actual harm is none, and we agree that Muslims in Canada are not being oppressed as in Burma, then we must agree that you do not need to oppress Muslims in order to make their threat ineffective.
#14475845
I wasn't being sarcastic in my previous post, I was being completely serious. If you invite Muslims into your country in large numbers and you fetch and carry behind them and do as they want, then there will be no conflict because they will not have a reason to fight you.

This would however require you to place harmony with Muslims above any other agenda that you have on the priority list, and since you seem okay with doing that, it would actually be a pretty peaceful existence. To go even further, theoretically, the ultimate peace could be attained if everyone converted to Islam.

For some people however, that arrangement is not desirable.
#14475846
Rei Murasame wrote:I wasn't being sarcastic in my previous post, I was being completely serious. If you invite Muslims into your country in large numbers and you fetch and carry behind them and do as they want, then there will be no conflict because they will not have a reason to fight you.

This would however require you to place harmony with Muslims above any other agenda that you have on the priority list, and since you seem okay with doing that, it would actually be a pretty peaceful existence.

For some people however, that arrangement is not desirable.


Since that is not the arrangement I want nor is it the one you want, it is irrelevant to this debate.

Since you have ignored the rest of my post (i.e. my actual argument), I will assume that you find no flaw in its logic.
#14475847
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since that is not the arrangement I want nor is it the one you want, it is irrelevant to this debate.

Using a word like 'want' assumes a level of enduring attachment to the fate of the western society that I don't necessarily have, though. My stance is changeable depending on what is happening on the ground. If it should emerge that the west will eventually embrace Islam, then I'd just wipe my feet at the door and leave you all to it, since what I 'want' would no longer be relevant at that stage.

I'd just be like "turns out that the west was weak after all, fuck it, I'm out of here".

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you have ignored the rest of my post (i.e. my actual argument), I will assume that you find no flaw in its logic.

Some things require testing in order to find out what will happen. I would say that we need to see more testing in Canada before we can determine what the appropriate course of action is for Asian countries.

Asian countries should continue to try the repress-and-expel method, and western countries can try the invite-and-embrace method, and then we can fast forward a couple decades and see how it looks. Sadly, none of us will be here in 200 years to check back again on how it's going though.

But basically I would nominate Canada, Norway, Netherlands, and Sweden as the testing grounds for Muslim migration. They have the bravery and the ideological conviction to carry out this great experiment, and so by all means they should carry out the experiment. That's one of the great things about having lots of states in world, everyone is free to run social experiments in their own states. Heh heh heh.
#14475850
Rei Murasame wrote:Using a word like 'want' assumes a level of enduring attachment to the fate of the western society that I don't necessarily have, though. My stance is changeable depending on what is happening on the ground. If it should emerge that the west will eventually embrace Islam, then I'd just wipe my feet at the door and leave you all to it, since what I 'want' would no longer be relevant at that stage.

I'd just be like "turns out that the west was weak after all, fuck it, I'm out of here".


Sure.

My point was that this arrangement you brought up is irrelevant. Can we move on?

RM wrote:Some things require testing in order to find out what will happen. I would say that we need to see more testing in Canada before we can determine what the appropriate course of action is for Asian countries.

Asian countries should continue to try the repress-and-expel method, and western countries can try the invite-and-embrace method, and then we can fast forward a couple decades and see how it looks. Sadly, none of us will be here in 200 years to check back again on how it's going though.

But basically I would nominate Canada, Norway, Netherlands, and Sweden as the testing grounds for Muslim migration. They have the bravery and the ideological conviction to carry out this great experiment, and so by all means they should carry out the experiment. That's one of the great things about having lots of states in world, everyone is free to run social experiments in their own states. Heh heh heh.


So far, these countries are doing better than Asian nations.

And, it also seems that you do not need to oppress Muslims in order to make their threat ineffective.
#14475852
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure.

My point was that this arrangement you brought up is irrelevant. Can we move on?

Yep, we can move on.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So far, these countries are doing better than Asian nations.

Not better at things that I'm interested in doing better at, though.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And, it also seems that you do not need to oppress Muslims in order to make their threat ineffective.

But since my aim is in fact to oppress Muslims, you are arguing that I do not need to oppress Muslims in order to oppress Muslims? That makes no sense.
#14475855
Rei Murasame wrote:But since my aim is in fact to oppress Muslims, you are arguing that I do not need to oppress Muslims in order to oppress Muslims? That makes no sense.


No. You can oppress Muslims as much as you want (actually, you can't because laws, heh) and if you do so , you must realise that you are more likely to have even more problems with Muslims, and thus you will be inspiring a (rather large) group of people to hate you so much that they will be violent towards you.

Like I said, it seems like an anti-survival belief.
#14475858
Maybe you just don't understand it. I always viewed killing people as the final solution to a problem, survival tends to go hand in hand with killing the opponents at some stage. Dead people generally can't harass you, can they?

Regarding 'what if we fail and get killed by them', that's not really a concern that I have, so that's the only sense in which my outlook is 'anti-survival', the fact that I don't care about the damage caused by war. I would love to have a fight with these people who you seem to be so afraid of, sometimes I have dreams about civilisational war.

My aim is not to avoid problems with Muslims, my aim is to exacerbate them on purpose.
#14475859
Rei Murasame wrote:Maybe you just don't understand it. I always viewed killing people as the final solution to a problem, survival tends to go hand in hand with killing the opponents at some stage.


That may be true in some scenarios, but not all. If you go around attacking people all the time, you will be killed. And if you consider all people your opponents, that will happen.

Regarding 'what if we fail and get killed by them', that's not really a concern that I have, so that's the only sense in which my outlook is 'anti-survival'. I would love to have a fight with these people who you seem to be so afraid of, sometimes I have dreams about civilisational war.


And the last time ethnic nationalists tried that, they got their asses handed to them.
#14475862
Pants-of-dog wrote:That may be true in some scenarios, but not all. If you go around attacking people all the time, you will be killed. And if you consider all people your opponents, that will happen.

Well, all people are not opponents.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And the last time ethnic nationalists tried that, they got their asses handed to them.

Most of them never got to see the defeat though, at least, not in this world, since they weren't thinking about that at the moment of their deaths.
#14475863
Rei Murasame wrote:Well, all people are not opponents.


It seems that Fascists often think that anyone is an opponent if they propose an alternate power structure (such as organised churches) or are minorities of any stripe.

RM wrote:Most of them never got to see the defeat though, at least, not in this world, since they weren't thinking about that at the moment of their deaths.


Since we are discussing survival, the fact that they died indicates they lost, for the purposes of our discussion.
#14475865
Pants-of-dog wrote:It seems that Fascists often think that anyone is an opponent if they propose an alternate power structure (such as organised churches) or are minorities of any stripe.

It's possible to have alliances of convenience with others.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since we are discussing survival, the fact that they died indicates they lost, for the purposes of our discussion.

You'll have to have that discussion with someone else then, since I'm not really interested in that kind of discussion. For me, I already know what we are supposed to be doing in life, and I already know what will happen upon death, and so from my perspective, we are only required to keep doing what we are doing until further notice, without concern for questions like 'what if we lose?'

That question has no meaning to me, and there's no real discussion that you can have with me about it.

When I finally get to die (hopefully in the manner of my choosing), I'll welcome it with a glad heart, because I will have finally arrived. I won't worry about what else is happening around me at that time. So let's have war, and let's have it soon.
Last edited by Rei Murasame on 14 Oct 2014 19:54, edited 1 time in total.
#14475866
Rei Murasame wrote:It's possible to have alliances of convenience with others.


It's possible, but it is also possible that thermodynamic miracles will occur. I don't stake my self-interest on what is possible.

RM wrote:You'll have to have that discussion with someone else then, since I'm not really interested in that kind of discussion. For me, I already know what we are supposed to be doing in life, and I already know what will happen upon death, and so from my perspective, I am only required to keep doing what I am doing until further notice, without concern for questions like 'what if we lose?'

That question has no meaning to me, and there's no real discussion that you can have with me about it.

When I finally get to die (hopefully in the manner of my choosing), I'll welcome it with a glad heart, because I will have finally arrived. I won't worry about what else is happening around me at that time.


That's nice.

I am discussing more than just your own survival. I am discussing the survival of whole communities and of humanity in general.
#14475867
As I said, you've come to the wrong person for that conversation. I'm not interested.

The agenda is to fight, and fight as well as you can. And if you lose, then you lose. This applies to communities and to humanity as much as to individuals.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]