[Pants-of-dog]

I confess to not being completely serious. But there is the question of how to respond if Europeans as a group are being mistreated. Does it matter which group someone is identified with? Shouldn't we oppose prejudice regardless? Or is that just silly humanist logic? Of course getting the sort of Muslim that perpetrates derogatory acts toward Europeans to own up to their behaviour being wrong is about as easy as it is to get fascists to own up to their wrong doing.

I think it matters what group someone is identified with if it helps us understand the problem of terrorism in such a way that we have a way of stopping it. If terrorists are targeting European civilians because they see the civilians as empowering the governments that bomb them, then that helps us understand what terrousts are thinking and hopefully allows us to prevent or avoid these attacks.

Yes, we should oppose prejudice. But we should also be careful about forcibly projecting our morality onto other people. In some cases, (e.g. if you have the chance to stop some KKK guys from lynching an innocent black kid, or the chance to stop any of the attacks in the O.P.) it is obvious that we should step in and do something. In other cases, like the Canadian residential school system, or the ongoing regime changes in the Middle East and North Africa, it is clear that imposing our moral code ends up making things worse. So, while it is a good idea in general to oppose prejudice, we should have serious discussions about doing so when it comes to imposing our moral code on minorities, as that very goal is often used to justify prejudice.

[foxdemon]

@foxdemon

Been like that for several centuries.
First Islamic empire in the far east was the Malacca empire in the late-14th century and 15th century.
If you're wondering, no, middle eastern empires never reached those places. Islam spread there through trade and much larger number of Muslims live in those regions than anywhere else in the world.


Actually no, the Persian empire hasn't been in conquest of Arabian lands since atleast 5 centuries. So no Persian control there.
And the Ottomans only controlled the western coastlines and even most of those areas were self governing with their own armies.
Most Arab tribes including the ones who created the gulf states today, were independent with no foreign control.


The Mohgul empire was rather a multi-cultural multi-religious empire that actually had a majority hindus and ran on what can be said to be a proto-federal system.
The Persian empire was the one doing the conquest and killing, then the local nations took control after the Persian retreat.


Indeed that balance is rapidly decreasing. Nevertheless westerners are the only ones constantly threatening destruction and even flirting with the idea of nuclear war.
Donald Trump, his campaign and media representatives, and his recent stances are a good example.

Asiatic nations and empires were indeed very violent in their history, but in the past several centuries,since before Europeans came along, most became more and more tending towards trade oriented and economic expansion. Rather than military and conquest oriented empires.

You can see that very clearly if you looked at the type of policies and reforms being done across all Asian empires in the 14-16th centuries. China was the first to follow such path, then others started following. So i doubt there would be much violence and destruction with Asian nations since they've been turning away from that path since a good amount of time.


Europe was late in the turning from hard power to soft power, indeed due to its young age. The US on the other hand is still not doing the conversion, rather its turning more and more towards hard power.

And if we were to take a look at violence in response to certain conditions. Last time the conditions applying right now in the middle east, applied in Europe. The Nazis rose up and started all out genocide.
And we were to take it in regard of poverty for example, we can take a look at the US with level of violence rising the higher the poverty rates goes.
So in general, the point that somehow Europeans and westerners are less violent is at best stupid. Since the human psychology works just the same across the world and westerners have the exact same response to harsh conditions as other nations did, and in many cases even more violent due to higher capability.

You might have a good point. Possibly it is the young age, in civilizational terms, that accounts for European aggression. And they became very powerful relative to the older civilisations very quickly. Youth and power don't mix well.

We see that Chinese, ME empires and others were all violent early in their histories. We also see a rise of moral consciousness among the Westerners in recent decades. There is a lot of domestic resistance to Western militarism within Western countries. And a genuine desire amongst many to be more open to people from other cultures. So maybe that trend is a sign of a potential for European maturity as a civilisation?

Is there hope that one day a peaceful pan-Eurasian civilisation could emerge in the image of 15th century Asia? Why couldn't a grown up Europe be part of it?

Alas, those troglodytes from ISIS desire to exploit the newly emerged peaceful ones amongst the Europeans. In truth, ISIS is more interested in dominating other Muslims and the attacks in the West are really intended to alienate Westerners and Muslims from each other. Tribalism (in the acedemic sense) is about creating both and in-group and an out-group. The out-group is there to invoke a unity forming hatred toward, while the aim of the leaders is to control that unified in-group. White racism is no different in structure than ISIS method of control.

I think this sort of politics should been seen for what it is regardless of who is doing it. Would you agree?

[anasawad]

@foxdemon

We see that Chinese, ME empires and others were all violent early in their histories. We also see a rise of moral consciousness among the Westerners in recent decades. There is a lot of domestic resistance to Western militarism within Western countries. And a genuine desire amongst many to be more open to people from other cultures. So maybe that trend is a sign of a potential for European maturity as a civilisation?

Is there hope that one day a peaceful pan-Eurasian civilisation could emerge in the image of 15th century Asia? Why couldn't a grown up Europe be part of it?

Europe is indeed entering a new age for it self and its ditching the arrogance and pride that usually comes with a civilization hitting its peak of power. This is mainly due to world war 2 and its represented mainly by multiculturalism as Europeans are starting to push more and more towards not only accepting other cultures and civilizations but going as far as wanting to integrate with them.
This in my opinion is in many ways problematic and would cause lots of problems in the future.
After Europe has reached its peak and began stabilizing its position, it should've gone through a period of semi-isolationism to form a consistant rational identity and cultural base for it self, with connections to other civilizations being generally through trade and with gradual increase.
Otherwise, the rapid openness of Europe to other cultures and civilizations is the ground work for an identity crisis and possibly a significant wave of violent response similar to that of the 20th century.



An integration between Europe an Asia is already taking place, however i would say it would only increase the tensions in Europe as we're already seeing with the gradual rise of far right and far left movements. That would be due to the fact that Asian cultures and identities are far more well-established for their people than those of European ones. Namely that for most Asian cultures, they came to accept other cultures before any type of integration began to happen and well after they reached their peak. While for Europeans, they're going through the integration phase before the acceptance phase and all while still under the overt sense of better-ness and superiority gained by their former but recent rise to power. This would inevitably lead to feelings of enmity, anger and a sense of loss and decline. Which all in all would lead to conflict arising.

(Edit: Side note, this also is one of the factors in the Arab world crises and divide in the current times, though in a very different context and came late as it was suppressed by the empires controlling the Arab world and central Asia, being an identity crises for the Arabs and others as most of their cultures are pushing further and further away from the Islamic traditions under empirial influence mainly by the Ottoman and Persian empires, a wave of "traditionalists" -if so to call them- started rising as a response and in attempt to counter that influence and restore the traditional culture. This is what Salafism is, the word come from the root Salaf, which means the ancestral tradition, and the general movement seeks to restore what they call Al-salaf Al-saleh, meaning the righteous or great ancestral tradition.)

Alas, those troglodytes from ISIS desire to exploit the newly emerged peaceful ones amongst the Europeans. In truth, ISIS is more interested in dominating other Muslims and the attacks in the West are really intended to alienate Westerners and Muslims from each other. Tribalism (in the acedemic sense) is about creating both and in-group and an out-group. The out-group is there to invoke a unity forming hatred toward, while the aim of the leaders is to control that unified in-group. White racism is no different in structure than ISIS method of control.

I think this sort of politics should been seen for what it is regardless of who is doing it. Would you agree?

True, It should and must.

[noir]

Bassam Tibi does account well for the motivations of many Muslim men. That is an accurate description. But let's note two things. First, Tibi is Muslim and proves not everyone in the faith is unenlightened. Second, it is European cultural ignorance that prevents any rational response.

A few more points: slavery is culturally acceptable in ME Muslim communities. Also there is a strong notion of cultural supremacy (ie: racism). This is displayed toward Asian guest workers and Africans as well as toward Westerners.

Many of these refugees come from a very difference culture from modern Europeans and it seems unlikely for there not to be a clash. If Europeans couldn't be bothered asserting their modern values, why should mysogynist Arab men in Europe not assert their dominance over their historical enemies? The Muslim colonists may as well just enslave all the European weaklings and sell them off.

I mean, POD, you don't like white people, right? Wouldn't it be fitting to sell them into slavery (after raping their young women)?

You can see in this thread, ZN, who lives in the Middle East and experience it on the first hand, gave the accurate explanation about the culture background of the Muslims rapers, yet the Western Muslim in this thread dismiss his accurate reason because it's not PC. The PC corrupted our understanding of Islam and they use it.

[foxdemon]

@foxdemon

Europe is indeed entering a new age for it self and its ditching the arrogance and pride that usually comes with a civilization hitting its peak of power. This is mainly due to world war 2 and its represented mainly by multiculturalism as Europeans are starting to push more and more towards not only accepting other cultures and civilizations but going as far as wanting to integrate with them.
This in my opinion is in many ways problematic and would cause lots of problems in the future.
After Europe has reached its peak and began stabilizing its position, it should've gone through a period of semi-isolationism to form a consistant rational identity and cultural base for it self, with connections to other civilizations being generally through trade and with gradual increase.
Otherwise, the rapid openness of Europe to other cultures and civilizations is the ground work for an identity crisis and possibly a significant wave of violent response similar to that of the 20th century.



An integration between Europe an Asia is already taking place, however i would say it would only increase the tensions in Europe as we're already seeing with the gradual rise of far right and far left movements. That would be due to the fact that Asian cultures and identities are far more well-established for their people than those of European ones. Namely that for most Asian cultures, they came to accept other cultures before any type of integration began to happen and well after they reached their peak. While for Europeans, they're going through the integration phase before the acceptance phase and all while still under the overt sense of better-ness and superiority gained by their former but recent rise to power. This would inevitably lead to feelings of enmity, anger and a sense of loss and decline. Which all in all would lead to conflict arising.

(Edit: Side note, this also is one of the factors in the Arab world crises and divide in the current times, though in a very different context and came late as it was suppressed by the empires controlling the Arab world and central Asia, being an identity crises for the Arabs and others as most of their cultures are pushing further and further away from the Islamic traditions under empirial influence mainly by the Ottoman and Persian empires, a wave of "traditionalists" -if so to call them- started rising as a response and in attempt to counter that influence and restore the traditional culture. This is what Salafism is, the word come from the root Salaf, which means the ancestral tradition, and the general movement seeks to restore what they call Al-salaf Al-saleh, meaning the righteous or great ancestral tradition.)

I think you are right about that. They do need to hold back and strengthen their own identity for some time. Asian identities are much stronger.

I think the reason for the imprudence is the nature of European liberal thought. Though it is this and their humanist reasoning that is moving them toward a moral consciousness, it is the economic side of liberalism that is at the heart of the impatience. Liberalism arose in the context of the commercial faction triumphing over the aristocracy. Thus liberalism retains significant justification for getting rich quick and regardless of the consequences. The desire of the economic elites to disempower the labouring classes led them to build part of their ideology around objecting to immigration being condemned.

Generally speaking, most of the West's problems can be traced back to the ideas the Western elite use to retain their power.




Regarding the Salafi, they regard reform and revival as throwing out innovation and trying to recreate a distant time. That sort of primitivism can only result in them digging themselves into a hole.

Modernity has been let lose and it can't be stopped. A curious thing is that the Europeans think they are modern and no one else is. Though modernity, well at least the science that became part of it, gave the Europeans the power they had over the older cultures, it was only temporary. The 20th century saw that scientific way of thinking spread to Asia via modern education. Today Asian nations are looking more modern that Western nations. Modernity is no longer Western Modernity.

I think the Salafi aren't likely to find a place in this new modern Asian world.

True, It should and must.

So you don't mind if we keep dropping bombs on them, then?

You can see in this thread, ZN, who lives in the Middle East and experience it on the first hand, gave the accurate explanation about the culture background of the Muslims rapers, yet the Western Muslim in this thread dismiss his accurate reason because it's not PC. The PC corrupted our understanding of Islam and they use it.

Political correctness needs to be defined. An ideology which is adopted by an elite will involve some form of indoctrination. That is what political correctness is: I docrination and the associated behaviour to prevent that indoctrination being challenged. Any evidence that threatens that ideology by contradicting the system of indoctrination will invoke a negative response from the indoctrinated and those who guard knowledge. There is nothing unusual about this.

[anasawad]

A curious thing is that the Europeans think they are modern and no one else is.

Yup, thats what i was referring to when saying the arrogance and pride that comes with a civilization reaching its peak.

I think the Salafi aren't likely to find a place in this new modern Asian world.

Already on their way out as they're spilling their final breaths.

So you don't mind if we keep dropping bombs on them, then?

I don't mind killing the violent ones that go around in killing sprees. But you don't just target those, you target everyone in an area where majority are not extremists.
That pushes more people towards them as you paint your own self as an enemy that everyone must unite against, while they draw them selves as the hero that is fighting to protect everyone.

This battle needs to be fought on the ground and not just militarily but rather socially, culturally and economically. Which is why there shouldn't be foreign intervention but locals need to fight it.
The more you (as in western powers) intervene and attack and kill not only them but them and the ones fighting them. You make them stronger while weakening those who fight them.

[foxdemon]

I return to find the Europeans have abandoned their thread. Have they nothing to add to a discussion on their place in the world? Have they thought about it? Will they leave it to non-Europeans to decide for them? Maybe they really don't care?

Oh well, I guess the Muslims will get them after all. Back to the idea of selling them off into slavery.

[Rugoz]

For the savageness comment. Thats just hypocritical since when the same conditions that apply now in many places of the middle east and the type of disputes present in Asia, Europeans responded to them much much much more violently and aggressively than pretty much anyone else.

Organized violence is civilization.

Seriously though, you missed my point entirely. Every country in Europe could blame another one for their misfortune. At some point people have to stop whining because history happened to them.

Which is why there shouldn't be foreign intervention but locals need to fight it.

Hell freezes over, I agree with anasawad.

Namely that for most Asian cultures, they came to accept other cultures before any type of integration began to happen and well after they reached their peak.

Nonsense. East Asians are extremely xenophobic. In 2016 10'901 refugees sought asylum in Japan, the country accepted 28.

There is a lot of domestic resistance to Western militarism within Western countries. And a genuine desire amongst many to be more open to people from other cultures.

While there's arguably some domestic resistance to "Western militarism", there's certainly no desire to be more open to people from other cultures. Europeans are overwhelmingly opposed to more immigration.

A curious thing is that the Europeans think they are modern and no one else is.

No European I know ever made that claim. Not even on Pofo.

I return to find the Europeans have abandoned their thread. Have they nothing to add to a discussion on their place in the world?

Why? The entire discussion boils down to "weak equals good" or silly armchair psychology.

[foxdemon]

While there's arguably some domestic resistance to "Western militarism", there's certainly no desire to be more open to people from other cultures. Europeans are overwhelmingly opposed to more immigration.

Why do you think being open to other cultures implies immigration? You could try travel, language study or history. So it is about getting an idea of how they see things. It is a shame the PC culture has ruined open thought in Europe.

No European I know ever made that claim. Not even on Pofo.

'Western Modernity' Hello! Maybe you haven't met Europeans who think this way, but the existence of the term does imply Europe is modern in contrast to the outside world, and someone had to coin the phrase. Possibly the current generation of Europeans have cultural amnesia.

Why? The entire discussion boils down to "weak equals good" or silly armchair psychology.

Actually we were discussing how Europe might fit in with the emerging world order. Any ideas?

[anasawad]

@Rugoz

Nonsense. East Asians are extremely xenophobic. In 2016 10'901 refugees sought asylum in Japan, the country accepted 28.

As said above. Accepting other cultures and systems doesn't necessitate migration or ethnic mixing.
Acceptance is an entirely different idea. I'm not sure I'll be explaining in a clear way in English so I'm going to give an example to explain to show it.
In regard of Japan, South Korea, China, etc. They do have a strong cultural strife where they have a strong feeling of self determination and cultural unity in their perspective countries and they act and make policy based on it.
However, in the same time, they can make dealings in all sorts of matters with other cultures and systems and nations in general in relative ease, as they accept that other nations also have their own cultures in which each has the right to preserve it. They don't try to impose their culture on others, and they work with pretty much everyone in equal manners and respect.
In short, they accept others.

On the other hand, my point about western cultures is that after they reached their peak and height of power, they don't accept other cultures and civilizations and don't respect the right of each nation to have its own culture. Thats why you'd see western nations with large influence constantly trying to impose their cultures and standards and ideals on others around the world. This is one of the number of reasons hostilities and tensions rise between populations (governments not always) of many countries and western populations.
Westerners simply don't accept others. Even those SJWs who are rising all over the place don't act in sense of acceptance but rather in sense of superiority and lack acceptance to others as they're constantly trying to change everyone to their image.

Now, with An already fractured and not so well established cultural identity due to the past but recent events in Europe specially world war 2 and the surrounding events. Those migrants would be the ones who move the cultural norms towards their native ones not themselves moving towards the native culture of the host country. Which means you'll get many of the native people feeling their culture and way of life is under threat, which leads to rising tensions and fractions between the natives and migrants and you start having problems.
The more the situation continues, the bigger the problems get.

Europe should've gone through a period of semi-isolation to redefine it self and re-establish its identity after world war 2. Since that war wasn't just a destructive war, but its also the one where all European empires fell apart and Europe lost the upper hand in pretty much everything around the world. And that means that it now became forced to accept other cultures and civilizations as it could no longer impose itself on others.
If you don't do that, you get an identity crisis that could evolve into violence. i.e like whats happening right now.

Welcome to what happened to the Arabs centuries earlier. The only difference is that the Arabs were suppressed by larger imperial forces from the outside and they were having basically two identity crises in one one being with Islamic traditions and the other with native pre-Islamic cultures re-emerging (i.e the nationalism part) , so the violence part of the identity crisis came to surface in the 20th century when those empires collapsed.

Seriously though, you missed my point entirely.

Then what was the point ?

Every country in Europe could blame another one for their misfortune. At some point people have to stop whining because history happened to them.

Except there is a difference between "history happened to them" and "history is happening to them now", yes ?

When people from the middle east complain or "whine", they're not talking about 100s of years ago. They're talking about everyone intervening and making their problems worse right now.
Europe solved its problems on its own. Most of Asia solved its problems on its own.
Leave the Arabs (and most of Africa as well BTW) to solve their own problems so progress can be made. You keep intervening and suppressing the issues, they'll just dwell inside and grow bigger and bigger. And when you cant control it anymore, it'll explode in violence all over.
Thinking about it, it is exploding in violence everywhere over these issues in the Arab world. It appears your strategy of "containing" these issues and suppressing them has failed.
Who knew!.

[Rugoz]

In short, they accept others.

Nonsense. Japan was an imperial power that occupied half of East Asia. So much for "acceptance" . Your "acceptance" is just another term of being too weak to impose one's will on others.

You could argue the West has been more ideologically motivated than other powers (if you count the Soviet Union as Western, which is a bit silly given the origin of the term "West"). Debatable.

Now, with An already fractured and not so well established cultural identity due to the past but recent events in Europe specially world war 2 and the surrounding events. Those migrants would be the ones who move the cultural norms towards their native ones not themselves moving towards the native culture of the host country. Which means you'll get many of the native people feeling their culture and way of life is under threat, which leads to rising tensions and fractions between the natives and migrants and you start having problems.

Europe has not been a global power since WW2, but it has done perfectly fine without it (granted, with American protection from the Soviets). I don't see any remaining identity crisis caused by the loss of empire in Europe, other than in England/France and Russia to some degree. The tensions and fractions you speak of exist because there has been a huge surge of immigration into Europe in the past decades. Hereby not all immigration groups cause problem, but Muslims and Arabs in particular do, because their values are largely incompatible with existing European ones.

[One Degree]

@anasawad makes a very good point. Instead of dwelling on 'we are all equal', we need to add that we have equal rights to our differences. Legislating a common morality can never work. A common morality must be allowed to evolve. The more you try to force it, the more people will rebel. We must allow 'separate but equal ' and see where it leads.

[noir]

Cynicism

Swedish media indoctrination

[jessupjonesjnr87]

We're only allowing these immigrants in so we can have a slave labour underclass to clean our toilets and stack our supermarket shelves.

The west brought war to the nations these immigrants are coming from, not random terrorist attrocities but full scale armed invasions that has wreaked havoc and brought down nations.

The west holds all the cards, we're dealing the hands that has caused the chaos and while we keep the blinkers on it isn't going to change.

[Frollein]

You don't believe that any of those people "more precious than gold" (Martin Schulz, Social Democrat, hopes to be our next chancellor) is going to clean a toilet? They don't even clean their own toilets in the "refugee" reception centers, they have to hire cleaning companies to shovel their shit away

No, no, they're all still waiting for their own house, their mercedes, and their blonde woman delivery. After all, they are Mrs. Merkel's guests, and are entitled to those things.

[noir]

The Intifada of the Palestinians against Israel has already reached western Europe - at least its methods. Attacks with knives and cars against defenceless civilians are now being perpetrated almost worldwide by terrorists.

[Zionist Nationalist]

This is the difference between us

While Israel invent new technologies Palestinians invent new methods of terrorism

[noir]

They thought it will not reach them.

Barcelona mayor, Ada Colau Ballano, supports BDS

The leader of Pals Arab's Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini started his boycott under the influence the early Nazi boycott in 1933 while the Arab League boycott initiated in 1945. Today to dupe the gullible Westerners they use the words "anti racism", "human rights" and Apartheid.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/no ... -apartheid

Barcelona votes to be free of Israeli apartheid
Nora Barrows-Friedman Activism and BDS Beat 20 April 2017

Barcelona city council passed a historic declaration on Wednesday upholding the right to boycott Israel over its violations of Palestinian rights.
The motion condemns Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, calls for the immediate end to the decade-long Gaza blockade and ensures that the city’s public procurement policies exclude companies that profit from Israel’s human rights abuses.
It also admonishes Israel for its intransigence in the face of repeated warnings from the international community to stop its illegal colonization of Palestinian land, according to the Catalan daily Ara.
The council recognizes “nonviolent campaigns promoted by Palestinian and international civil society for defending international and human rights law in Palestine” – a clear nod to the BDS movement.
The city joins dozens of Spanish municipalities which have declared themselves “free of Israeli
apartheid.”
A coalition of Spanish and Catalan boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) groups welcomed the vote.
“We celebrate this victory because we believe it to be a great step forward in raising the awareness of the role of local government in the defense of human rights and in breaking the complicity that inherently bolsters apartheid and the occupation of Palestine,” the groups state.
“This resolution is an institutional recognition of civil society demands for an end to complicity in violations of international law through nonviolent struggle, as practiced by the BDS movement,” the groups add.
The city’s recognition of the right to engage in Israel boycott activism, at a time when more European governments move to protect such activism, “is a triumph for free speech and democratic rights in Europe,” said Rafeef Ziadah of the Palestinian BDS National Committee.
“It gives further recognition to BDS as an inclusive, inspiring, anti-racist movement rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that upholds the basic principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity,” Ziadah added.
Israel worries
For years, Spanish and Catalan activists have engaged in direct action against academic and cultural partnerships with Israeli-backed institutions.
In 2014, dozens of activists occupied the offices of Catalan government representatives to protest a wave of newly signed academic collaboration deals between the autonomous region and Israel.
The action forced the representatives to agree to examine proposals aimed at ensuring the new deals do not benefit institutions and companies that participate in Israel’s occupation.
More than 350 Catalan academics and university staff backed the action, calling for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
The Israeli government, meanwhile, has expressed worry over the growing popularity of BDS activism in Spain, especially as larger cities such as Barcelona, led by left-wing mayor Ada Colau, vote to support Palestinian rights.
A 2016 cable from the Israeli embassy in Spain described “the phenomenon of anti-Israeli activity in Spain” as “bothersome and worrisome, but in the past was centered in small cities.”
But the cable warned that Barcelona city council members were considering canceling a sister-city agreement with Tel Aviv, according to The Jerusalem Post.
After Wednesday’s city council vote, David Bondia Garcia, a professor of international law and president of the Institut de Drets Humans de Catalunya, a human rights organization, asserted in the newspaper el Periódico that a break in the twinning agreement with Tel Aviv would be the next logical step.
The Barcelona motion comes just two months after pro-Israel groups in Spain filed charges against Palestine solidarity activists for calling on a music festival two years ago to cancel a performer who has used his celebrity to fundraise for the Israeli army and to support anti-Palestinian causes.
Omar Barghouti, a Palestinian human rights activist and co-founder of the BDS movement, called the charges “legal intimidation.”

[skinster]

While Israel invent new technologies Palestinians invent new methods of terrorism

Did you learn that from this Israeli app?

[Zionist Nationalist]

Did you learn that from this Israeli app?

I didn't even know about its existence