DANGEROUS Excerpt: MILO Explains ‘Why Muslims Hate Me’ - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14821398
DANGEROUS Excerpt: MILO Explains ‘Why Muslims Hate Me’

Image

The following excerpts of DANGEROUS by MILO Yiannopoulos come from Chapter 9: “Why Muslims Hate Me.”

9

WHY MUSLIMS HATE ME

“I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad.”

-Alexis de Toqueville


Islam and the Left


During my college talks, I’m often asked what arguments to use when debating with the regressive Left. I always have the same answer: Islam.

There is nothing else which better exposes the modern Left’s rank hypocrisy, their disregard for the facts, and their hatred for the West and all it stands for than their attitude to Islam. Every noble principle the Left claims to uphold, from rights for women to gay liberation, even diversity itself, dies on the altar of its sycophantic defense of Islam.

Karl Marx called religion the “opium of the masses.” If you look at the Left’s attitude to Christianity, you might think they believe in this message. The progressive Left’s comedians and columnists never miss an opportunity to belittle and denigrate conservative Christians, and yet, they defend Islam at the expense of every other minority. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have all been frustrated by this question: Why is the Left refusing to lift a finger against the most radical, dangerous, socially conservative and oppressive religion on earth?

Author Sam Harris sums up the backwards attitude of this group with his characteristic clarity:

These people are part of what Maajid Nawaz has termed the “regressive Left”—pseudo-liberals who are so blinded by identity politics that they reliably take the side of a backward mob over one of its victims. Rather than protect individual women, apostates, intellectuals, cartoonists, novelists, and true liberals from the intolerance of religious imbeciles, they protect theocrats from criticism.

Examples of this behavior are not hard to find.

Charlie Hebdo is a rare example of a leftist newspaper that understood radical Islam to be akin to the radical religious Right. Actually, that’s too mild, it’s really closer to the radical medieval religious Right. I know members of the radical Christian Right in the United States, and they are scary. But nowhere near as scary as Islamic terrorists. They’re the Westboro Baptist Church with machetes.

Charlie Hebdo had the temerity to stand against religious bullies. They published humorous cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, which made them prime targets of al-Qaeda. Charlie Hebdo’s editors correctly understood that allowing people to intimidate artists and writers by threatening violence was the first step on the road to a terrified, censored society.

On January 7, 2015, twelve employees of the newspaper paid for it with their lives, when two armed Muslim siblings forced their way into Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris and opened fire.

Charlie Hebdo is a leftist publication. Marxist, in fact. Their opposition to Islam flows from their opposition to the Right. They are just as strident in their criticism of the National Front as they are of Islam. I may happen to think the National Front deserves a more nuanced approach, but one could never accuse Charlie Hebdo of lacking consistency. They say they oppose bigotry, and they do—whether they perceive it in the European Right or in Islam.

So what did other leftists do when 12 of their comrades were gunned down by religious thugs? Did the old ideal of socialist solidarity finally kick in?

No, of course it didn’t.

As most of the civilized world adopted the slogan “Je Suis Charlie,” The New Yorker published an essay entitled, “Unmournable Bodies,” attacking Charlie Hebdo for “racist and Islamophobic provocations.”

Before the month was out, a number of British student unions, including the University of Manchester, banned Charlie Hebdo under their “safe space” policies, arguing that it made Muslim students uncomfortable.

It made Muslim students uncomfortable? Well, I’m not sure that’s quite in the same league as making non-Muslim cartoonists dead. That, in a nutshell, is the modern Left for you.

There was no collective display of solidarity from the left-wing literary class either. To an ordinary observer, the fact that the prestigious PEN Freedom of Expression Courage Award went to Charlie Hebdo in 2015 would not be particularly surprising news, much less a moral outrage. Yet 204 members of the organization, including established authors like Joyce Carol Oates, Lorrie Moore and Junot Díaz thought so. They boycotted the awards, signing an open letter condemning Charlie Hebdo for making a “marginalized community” feel uncomfortable:

To the section of the French population that is already marginalized, embattled, and victimized, a population that is shaped by the legacy of France’s various colonial enterprises, and that contains a large percentage of devout Muslims, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.

What suffering! What horror! Cartoons, published in a newspaper with a minor circulation that Muslims don’t have to buy if they don’t want to. I’m sure the friends and families of the dead Charlie Hebdo cartoonists feel thoroughly ashamed of their loved one’s actions.

The author Salman Rushdie, who faced an Iran-backed fatwa for the crime of writing about a forbidden area of Islamic theology, summed up the stance that the boycotters had taken.

The massacre of cartoonists, wrote Rushdie, was a…

…hate crime, just as the anti-Semitic attacks sweeping Europe and almost entirely carried out by Muslims are hate crimes. This issue has nothing to do with an oppressed and disadvantaged minority. It has everything to do with the battle against fanatical Islam, which is highly organised, well-funded, and which seeks to terrify us all, Muslims as well as non-Muslims, into a cowed silence.

These… writers have made themselves the fellow travellers of that project. Now they will have the dubious satisfaction of watching PEN tear itself apart in public.

The boycott failed, and Charlie Hebdo got their award, presented to them by Neil Gaiman, who stepped in after other writers pulled out. I have to wonder how he must have felt to see so many of his peers in the left-wing literary establishment choose to attack murdered cartoonists rather than stand against the ideology that created their murderers. Embarrassed for the Left, I hope.

The reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shooting is just one example among many of the Left’s suicidal attitude towards Islam.

When Paris again fell victim to Islamic terrorism in November 2015, with over 100 slain in a series of attacks masterminded by the Islamic State, Salon.com published the extraordinary headline “We Brought This On Ourselves: After Paris, It’s Time To Square Our “Values” With Our History.”

The article blamed the West “behaving horrifically in the Middle East for decades” for the deaths in Paris. In March 2016, after Muslims killed 35 in Brussels, Salon.com allowed the same writer to run virtually the same article under the headline, “We Brought This On Ourselves, And We Are The Terrorists Too.” Liberals blaming the West for the terrorist attacks has become depressingly predictable after each new atrocity.

What really cements the Left’s betrayal of its own values over Islam isn’t so much its opposition to wars in the Middle East, but its opposition to liberal Muslim reformers. Perhaps the best example of this is Maajid Nawaz, one of the few moderate Muslims making an effort to drag his religion kicking and screaming into the modern age. For his work combating extremism, supporting interfaith tolerance, and challenging bigotry in the Muslim community, he is rewarded with polite silence from the Left at best, and scornful disdain at worst.

New heights of absurdity were scaled in 2016 when the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) added Nawaz to a list of 15 “anti-Muslim extremists.” The entire list was ridiculous. It included female genital mutilation survivor and women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Islam critics Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller, and David Horowitz. But the addition of Nawaz, precisely the sort of moderate Muslim that anti-bigotry, anti-intolerance groups like the SPLC ought to be encouraging, summed up just how morally bankrupt the Left’s attitude to Islam has become.

Is there—and perhaps this is just my gallows humor—anything more amusing than a religion so thin-skinned that cartoons designed to provoke it give rise to deadly shootings, as though precisely to prove the point of those French cartoonists?

Is there anything more preposterous than the phrase “The Religion of Peace”?

What an indictment of America’s supposedly “brave” comedians that not a single one dares to tell a decent joke about Islam on prime-time television.
How to Really Fight Bigotry

The Left claims it opposes bigotry. Yet Islam, the most bigoted ideology that exists today, is given a pass.

Here are a few things that Muslims in Britain—who are often portrayed as one of the more integrated western Muslim communities—believe.

A Gallup poll of Muslims in the UK found that not a single Muslim in the 1,001 people polled thought that homosexuality was morally acceptable.

The same poll found that 35% of French Muslims and 19% of German Muslims thought homosexuals were morally acceptable. These polls were taken before Europe’s importation of hordes of young Muslim “rapefugees.”

When it comes to Islamic immigration, assimilation doesn’t seem to be an option. “When in Rome, rape and kill everyone and then claim welfare.”

Andrew Bolt on Sky News Australia, whose show I go on regularly because they get the lighting just right, perfectly encapsulated Islam’s integration problem in the West.

He recalled the case of Dr. Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, the grand mufti of Australia, who gave a speech explaining to Australians that they are wrong to think Muslims can’t integrate into Australian culture. There’s just one problem. The Grand Mufti, one of the foremost Islamic scholars in Australia, delivered the speech in Arabic. He had lived in Australia for 19 years, and his integration speech was in Arabic.

That’s what I call chutzpah.

There were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world as of 2010—roughly 23% of the global population—according to a Pew Research Center estimate. But while Islam is currently the world’s second-largest religion after Christianity, it is the fastest growing one.

The growth of Islam ought to be concerning for liberals. Here is a religion that sanctions forcing women into submission, a religion that sanctions the execution of gays, a religion that sanctions the killing of non-believers. And they’re spreading.

Islam preys on the most vulnerable in society, offering them a sense of higher purpose. It’s no wonder gingers (ahem Lindsay Lohan) convert to Islam in such high numbers. They also have especially high conversion rates in jails, making Islam and dick the two things most likely to penetrate new inmates.

For years, the Left has been tormenting the right with tales of bigotry. We’re supposed to consider frat boys singing lewd songs about women as an example of “rape culture.”

We’re supposed to look at critics of Black Lives Matter as racists.

And we’re supposed to consider Christian bakeries uncomfortable with gay weddings as the leading example of homophobia in society today.

Well, there is a real rape culture in the West. And there is real homophobia in the West. And there is real out-group intolerance in the West. It all comes from Islam.

Never again let the Left tell you they are the ones fighting bigotry. They are, in fact, its greatest defenders. They are the ones standing in the way of Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Douglas Murray, Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and me. All the people who are actually doing something to fight the most intolerant, bigoted ideology in the world today face a constant pushback from the very same people who, if they were true to their own principles, would be on our side.
So Why DO Muslims Hate Me?

Last summer, I annoyingly had to resign myself to the fact that I could not lead a gay pride march through the gay district of Stockholm, as I had been planning for some months. My security team informed me that the risks in Sweden were too great. By that time, I had already been subject to a deluge of Arabic death threats (and one bomb threat) on Twitter (which promptly suspended me for a day).

I have little love for western feminists and leftists, not least for their relentless denial of everyday realities. But at least their willful ignorance rarely comes with a body count, at least not directly (indirectly, in the form of their immigration policies, it certainly does). It is only Muslims who are so fanatically devoted to their 6th-century delusions that they will murder anyone who dares challenge them.

Well, there’s a little phrase I like to say that Muslims had better be prepared to hear more often: Sorry, no offense, but it’s true. With so much of the western media determined to play the ostrich on Islam, don’t be surprised when the public turn to Dangerous Faggots to give them the real story.

The gap between what Muslims believe Islam to be, and how it is actually practiced in many Islamic nations, is so wide that it’s hard to imagine any Islamic reformation taking place in the near future.

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/07/0 ... s-hate-me/

I thought of sharing this chapter of his book because he gives his visions on Islam and talks about the hypocrisy of the left.
#14821400
a religion so thin-skinned

Malta

In 2008, criminal procedures were initiated against 621 people for blaspheming in public.

Germany

In February 2016 a man was fined 500 euro for displaying anti-Christian bumper stickers on his vehicle.

Greece

In December 2003, Greece prosecuted for blasphemy Gerhard Haderer, an Austrian author of an illustrated, humorous book entitled The Life of Jesus, along with his Greek publisher and four booksellers.

Poland

In 2012, pop-singer Dorota "Doda" Rabczewska was fined 5,000 złotys for saying in an interview that the Bible was written by people 'drunk on wine and smoking some kind of herbs'.

etc, etc, etc...


:lol:
#14821405
ingliz wrote:Malta

In 2008, criminal procedures were initiated against 621 people for blaspheming in public.

Germany

In February 2016 a man was fined 500 euro for displaying anti-Christian bumper stickers on his vehicle.

Greece

In December 2003, Greece prosecuted for blasphemy Gerhard Haderer, an Austrian author of an illustrated, humorous book entitled The Life of Jesus, along with his Greek publisher and four booksellers.

Poland

In 2012, pop-singer Dorota "Doda" Rabczewska was fined 5,000 złotys for saying in an interview that the Bible was written by people 'drunk on wine and smoking some kind of herbs'.

etc, etc, etc...


:lol:

Other than Germany, none of those places are considered "western".
#14821408
ingliz wrote:Malta

In 2008, criminal procedures were initiated against 621 people for blaspheming in public.

Germany

In February 2016 a man was fined 500 euro for displaying anti-Christian bumper stickers on his vehicle.

Greece

In December 2003, Greece prosecuted for blasphemy Gerhard Haderer, an Austrian author of an illustrated, humorous book entitled The Life of Jesus, along with his Greek publisher and four booksellers.

Poland

In 2012, pop-singer Dorota "Doda" Rabczewska was fined 5,000 złotys for saying in an interview that the Bible was written by people 'drunk on wine and smoking some kind of herbs'.

etc, etc, etc...


:lol:


Ingliz you quite often attempt to show some kind of reciprocity with Christianism when the excesses of Islam are mentioned. Looking at the examples you cite here you really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel this time.

There is no way you can equate these few feeble reactions to anti-christianism (apparently you had to look at everything in the whole of Europe) with the murderous actions of the islamofascist terrorists and the almost silent acquiescence of the Muslim masses to it.
#14821409
the murderous actions of the islamofascist terrorists and the almost silent acquiescence of the Muslim masses to it.

I note you say nothing of the murderous actions of the christofascist terrorists and the almost silent acquiescence of the Christian masses to it.

Guardian, 07 Oct 2005 wrote:George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

G.W. Bush, Sept 17 2001 wrote:This Crusade is gonna take a while.


:lol:
#14821417
Ter wrote:You are a good example of what is wrong with the leftists, like Milo describes in his book.


Milo is overrated. A communist will always consider both situations equal due to their ideological understanding and there is a merit to this argument.

Milo attempts to make fun of this equation but in reality it has an explanation, at least for communists. Religion is opiate for the masses while Iraq war is basically an imperialistic war so there is no real difference for communists regarding this. Communists also hate any religion, not just Christianity, Islam etc. Inglizes equations here were laughable but the point still remains, communists do not consider Christianity or Islam better, for them, all religions are trash.
#14821420
Milo attempts to make fun of this equation but in reality it has an explanation, at least for communists. Religion is opiate for the masses while Iraq war is basically an imperialistic war so there is no real difference for communists regarding this. Communists also hate any religion, not just Christianity, Islam etc. Inglizes equations here were laughable but the point still remains, communists do not consider Christianity or Islam better, for them, all religions are trash.

In fact, there is very little in Milo's article which a Communist would not agree with. After all, he denounces all religious faiths as superstitious bigoted trash which differ only in the degree of their intolerance and their relative willingness to use violence to impose their bigoted superstitions. His only complaint seems to be that what he calls "the Left" (among he groups such people as Richard Dawkins, bizarrely enough) is not living up to their traditional Marxist ideals and denouncing Islam as one of the "opiums of the masses". In other words, he's complaining that "the Left" is not left-wing enough. So far as that goes, I agree with him.
#14821427
Potemkin wrote:In fact, there is very little in Milo's article which a Communist would not agree with. After all, he denounces all religious faiths as superstitious bigoted trash which differ only in the degree of their intolerance and their relative willingness to use violence to impose their bigoted superstitions. His only complaint seems to be that what he calls "the Left" (among he groups such people as Richard Dawkins, bizarrely enough) is not living up to their traditional Marxist ideals and denouncing Islam as one of the "opiums of the masses". In other words, he's complaining that "the Left" is not left-wing enough. So far as that goes, I agree with him.


Yeah it's weird how Dawkins is in there. Dawkins has been known to criticise Islam.



Also Dawkins recognises Christianity as being much more benign than Islam...



--------------

Dawkins says it outright. One wonders why so few other atheists are speaking out in the same way. Note that he does not hasten to qualify his comment by saying, “Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam.”

Dawkins: “I’m reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I’m pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there.

Narrator: “Why is it more problematic than Christianity, for instance?”

RD: “There is a belief that every word of the Koran is literally true, and there’s a kind of closemindedness which is, I think, less present in the former Christendom, perhaps because we’ve had long – I don’t know quite why – but there’s more of a historical tradition of questioning. There are people in the Islamic world who simply say, ‘Islam is right, and we are going to impose our will.’ There’s an asymmetry. I think in a way we are being too nice. I think that it’s possible to be naively overoptimistic, and if you reach out to people who have absolutely no intention of reaching back to you, then you may be disillusioned.”

Freethought Nation

--------------

Richard Dawkins Sees Islam As a More Severe World Threat than Christianity

Despite spending years criticising Christianity, well-known atheist Richard Dawkins is now admitting that Christianity is much better than Islam.

Dawkins even conceded that "Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world," according to The Gospel Herald.

Dawkins noted that Christianity, unlike Islam, does not make use of violent methods to fulfill its teachings. "There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death," he said.

He admitted that he has "mixed feelings" concerning the decline of Christianity, because this faith-based group might just be "a bulwark against something worse."

The atheist reasoned that he constantly attacked Christianity in the past simply because it is the religion he is most familiar with, having attended Christian schools while growing up. Even though he was born in Africa, Dawkins and his family moved to England when he was nine years old.

His disdain towards the religion might have stemmed from the sexual abuse he encountered in school, although he used to say: "Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

Because of his parents' deep love of science, Dawkins followed suit and pursued the field of biology. Even though Dawkins appears to be a logical-thinking scientist, the atheist argues that he is often misunderstood by the media and the public.

"I seem to be perceived as aggressive and strident and I don't actually think I am strident and aggressive. What I think is that we have all become so accustomed to seeing religion ring-fenced by a wall of special protection that when someone delivers even a mild criticism of religion, it's heard as aggressive when it isn't. I like to think I'm more thoughtful and reflective," he said.


--------------

@Potemkin

Actually I just realised on a re-reading that you and I misread Milo a bit. He said:

Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have all been frustrated by this question: Why is the Left refusing to lift a finger against the most radical, dangerous, socially conservative and oppressive religion on earth?


He wasn't calling Dawkins a leftist or saying he was "refusing to lift a finger" he was saying that Dawkins is among those frustrated by the left's fifth columning for Islam
#14821456
He wasn't calling Dawkins a leftist or saying he was "refusing to lift a finger" he was saying that Dawkins is among those frustrated by the left's fifth columning for Islam

You're right. Lol.

Still, my point stands. He's basically criticising what he calls "the Left" not for being too left-wing, but for being not left-wing enough. And he's right. Or rather, left. Lol. ;)
#14821460
Potemkin wrote:You're right. Lol.

Still, my point stands. He's basically criticising what he calls "the Left" not for being too left-wing, but for being not left-wing enough. And he's right. Or rather, left. Lol. ;)


Problem is that Left in America is not really left. It is a label given to a certain group as a slur which means it did not retain its meaning. Basically he is complaining about left not being left when they have never been left in the first place :| :|
#14821463
It is important not to get lost in definitions and see that the word and the object the word refers to is not the same thing. The so called "left" is not actually communist, it is liberal ideals radically executed. There are similarities between liberalism and communism as they grew out of the same age and time, that is the Age of Revolutions in Europe so they do share similar aspirations and ideals at times, but in the end there are majour differences as well.

To me communism is an enemy as liberalism is, both ideologies seek to destroy the bedrock of western and European civilization, that is Christianity.

As for Milo, he is a gayman so ultimately I do not trust him. So whatever he says I take with a grain of salt. As with women, gaymen more often then not mimic ideas for purpose of bombasity to garner attention.
#14821466
Problem is that Left in America is not really left. It is a label given to a certain group as a slur which means it did not retain its meaning. Basically he is complaining about left not being left when they have never been left in the first place :| :|

Indeed. This makes his article pretty much worthless as a serious political analysis of the current situation. He basically just seems to be signalling to his fellow-travellers on the 'alt-right' that he's one of them and hates "the Left" the same way they do. The 'Left' which he denounces is, of course, not left-wing at all and never has been. It's merely the current form of bourgeois liberalism, and supports the capitalist system just as much as the 'alt-right' does. More so, in fact - the alt-right wants to shut down the free flow of human labour power across national borders, which is one of the mainstays of global capitalism. In fact, objectively appraised, he isn't attacking the 'Left' at all - he's attacking the globalised neo-liberal capitalist order. He just doesn't seem to be aware of it, any more than people like Bannon or LePen seem to be aware of it.
#14821470
Ingliz is perfectly correct to equate Islam and Christianity without cowing to Milo's argument. Religion has, historically, a certain relationship to society as a general rule, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Taoist, etc, etc, etc.

They provide the same functions, and in some regards the treatment of Muslims in the contemporary United States can be paralleled to the way some thought that Jews should be treated in Christian states--that is to say, that it should be perfectly legal to be Jewish or Muslim. We object to the premise of the argument itself. The state does not make someone necessarily religious, and even the emancipation of these different religious beliefs serve mostly to change the function of the state, not the religion. The only real religious emancipation that can take place is for all of these questions to be dropped completely by changing the historical paradigm in which we live.

Marx wrote:We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. Therefore, we explain the religious limitations of the free citizen by their secular limitations. We do not assert that they must overcome their religious narrowness in order to get rid of their secular restrictions, we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions. We do not turn secular questions into theological ones...The question of the relation of political emancipation to religion becomes for us the question of the relation of political emancipation to human emancipation. We criticize the religious weakness of the political state by criticizing the political state in its secular form, apart from its weaknesses as regards religion. The contradiction between the state and a particular religion, for instance Judaism, is given by us a human form as the contradiction between the state and particular secular elements; the contradiction between the state and religion in general as the contradiction between the state and its presuppositions in general.

The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, and, in general, of religious man, is the emancipation of the state from Judaism, from Christianity, from religion in general. In its own form, in the manner characteristic of its nature, the state as a state emancipates itself from religion by emancipating itself from the state religion – that is to say, by the state as a state not professing any religion, but, on the contrary, asserting itself as a state. The political emancipation from religion is not a religious emancipation that has been carried through to completion and is free from contradiction, because political emancipation is not a form of human emancipation which has been carried through to completion and is free from contradiction.

...All emancipation is a reduction of the human world and relationships to man himself.

Political emancipation is the reduction of man, on the one hand, to a member of civil society, to an egoistic, independent individual, and, on the other hand, to a citizen, a juridical person.

Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his “own powers” as social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.


So when a rightwinger comes out and says that we all must fear Muslims, the Marxist shrugs his shoulders and (as Ingliz did) asks why we should fear Muslims more than Christians.

Sam Harris himself is like any 19th century Prussian wondering what to do with the Jews himself; he is a strong believer in the spiritual practice of Dzogchen, but exempts himself from being religious because in his mind, Dzogchen Is true and thus simply science instead of a religious belief. He is, like any other liberal, simply reinforcing an endless paradigm of political emancipation without so much of a thought of human emancipation.

When the reactionary in urine-soaked trousers and wiping tears from his trembling face asks why I am not afraid of Islam, it is because it plays the function today that it was intended to play. The most hardline Islamic faiths were used by the British and French as a weapon in WWI, and then their most draconian political advocates as puppet kings in the aftermath.

When the poor countries began to adopt modernization and secularism in the Soviet form, the United States jumped in and funded, armed, and trained the most radical forms of Islam possible to oppose modernization and secularism.

While it is Islam carrying out the terrorist actions, it is Islam without political emancipation, and certainly without human emancipation.

The solution is to address the problem, not the symptom. If you were to ask me, or most others, why Trump's travel ban is problematic, it's because it reinforces the lack of political emancipation in the broad scope and robs places that need political emancipation of the idea of political emancipation. The exceptions in the ban, most glaringly Saudi Arabia, are states in which the West actively keeps a hand against political emancipation and mitigates the damage of contamination of its idea from infecting the population.

These "solutions" are counterproductive. As are these fear-mongering feelings that are aimed more for calling domestic political opponents hypocrites (which is usually correct) instead of actually addressing the issue at hand.

So, in short, Ingliz is well within his right to make the comparison.

And John Rawls is correct in that the labeling of, "the left," is part of the problem here.

And Potemkin is correct because he's Potemkin, and Potemkin is always right.
#14821508
Ter wrote:So, after you got defeated in the argument in Europe, you equate the Gulf wars with the terrorist atrocities of the Islamists?

Iraq and Libya were resolutely secular and socialist-themed governments. The West destroyed them and empowered religious nuts in the process. (The Manchester bomber was one of the terrorists that destroyed Libya while a citizen of the UK and got support from the British authorities for doing this).

Muslims hate Milo because he's an intellectually lazy and ethnocentric bully who makes him money selling books to people who are ignorant of Muslim and Arab politics.

And the West's violent high-tech attacks on oil-strategic countries that never attacked us.. as well as its funding of terror against the poor... leave it in a position of world cancer. We're not the doctors - we're the disease.
#14821558
QatzelOk wrote:And the West's violent high-tech attacks on oil-strategic countries that never attacked us.. as well as its funding of terror against the poor... leave it in a position of world cancer. We're not the doctors - we're the disease.

With all due respect, that is defeatist clap-trap.
Who gave the Arabs permission to place their countries just above all that oil and gas?
Right, so we also need it.
Takers keepers losers weepers.
Thank you.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 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[…]