DANGEROUS Excerpt: MILO Explains ‘Why Muslims Hate Me’ - Page 3 - 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

#14821709
skinster wrote:The US, UK, France & Western-allies in the region, Israel & Saudi Arabia, amongst others, have their fingerprints all over the destruction of Syria.

Oh, I see, blame the West for the atrocities committed by Muslims on Muslims.
That is easy.
You forgot to mention Iran and Hezbolla also being involved... how come?

The Immortal Goon wrote:I should have realized the the right would act as illiterates and not bother going through any conceptual points addressed. Perhaps if I say the same with Hulk-Speak, their fragile minds will comprehend the argument.

Your song about fragile feelings is getting old, TIG.
Quote us some more texts from Marx and Lenin to enlighten us.
You constantly evade discussing the issues, you just spew insults.
#14821718
@Ter

I ask again, who caused the current situation? Muslims killing Muslims or the West which funding Muslims killing Muslims?

What part of his post did he not discuss any issues? He provided a good insight to how American Conservatives act and the actual situation of the Middle East and the interaction between the Middle East and American Conservatives.
#14821720
Oxymandias wrote:I ask again, who caused the current situation? Muslims killing Muslims or the West which funding Muslims killing Muslims?

It is so easy to blame the West for everything that is wrong in Muslim countries.
Isn't Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbolla, Qatar, Turkey, the Kurds and Russia also involved in the Syrian quagmire? Those are all non-Western groups and countries.
To accuse the West of causing the Syrian civil war is in my opinion not correct. A segment of the Syrian population wanted to overthrow Asad from power and Asad fought back, that is how it started. And it never ended.
The pro and anti Asad elements got help from various sources but certainly not exclusively from the West. And now there are so many groups fighting each other or helping each other, it is so complicated that nobody has a solution any more. But the killings are done by Muslims, you can not deny it.
#14821732
Milo seems to be confused, he is criticising middle class people not the left. The left has nothing to do with middle class suit wearers, it explicitly exists to crush them (along with wierdy beardy religious nutters).
#14821735
@Ter

I never blamed the entirety of the problems with the Middle East on the West or even mentioned the West at all. I admit that lots of things were due to the fault of other people within Middle Eastern countries as well.

Yes, that was my point. However the West was also involved in Syria and very involved with Iraq. Not only that, but Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran aren't focused on Syria at the moment as they were before simply because attempting to influence Syria is worthless. Turkey itself isn't trying to influence Syria at all either. They are only involved in Syria simply due to Rojava which is a faction that plans on creating Kurdistan.

That is true. However to assume that the West was not involved in making the Syrian situation worse and that the only reason for the situation in Syria is solely due to Syrians is naive and ignorant.

And what is the significance of them being Muslims? They're being of Muslims has no hold on their own political ideologies which is what actually governs their actions. Rojava has a majority Muslim population yet their form of government is democratic confederalism. Many Syrian factions are also not Islamic but nationalist i.e. Baathist. Also yes Baathism isn't a form of Islam you stupid idiot so if you see something about Baathism it isn't about Islam.

Their political ideologies influence their own actions more than their religion does. At most Islam can effect how war takes place but this does not change the motives for that war which is what we are really discussing.

It is less complicated than you think. You just have to stop generalizing people and understand that there are many interlocking relationships between tribes, ideologies, and ethnicities. Once you start to solve conflicts through isolating each of these relationships you'll find that the way to solve these problems is very, very easy to do. The conflicts themselves are fairly simplistic and have very easy solutions.
#14821761
Ter wrote:Oh, I see, blame the West for the atrocities committed by Muslims on Muslims.
That is easy.
You forgot to mention Iran and Hezbolla also being involved... how come?


Your song about fragile feelings is getting old, TIG.
Quote us some more texts from Marx and Lenin to enlighten us.
You constantly evade discussing the issues, you just spew insults.


But I did all that and you completely ignored it until I used Hulk Speak to boil it down to an emotional crassness that you did respond to.

Because of this and your seeming acceptance of Milo's emotional blubbering devoid of any facts, what else am I supposed to conclude beyond your inability to understand anything that isn't based on your feelings? :?:

Oxymandias wrote:From what I can understand from your post, you are arguing that the reason for radical Islam is due to a lack of political and economic self-determination?


This is part of the conclusion. My initial post was an attempt to go through why Islam itself was no different than any other religion that reactionaries have complained about since the first monkey pledged devotion to the sun. It, in itself, is not that interesting or important. Certainly there is no vast conspiracy between the left and Islam for no apparent reason.

But if we are to take why this imagined importance of Islam becomes important, it is certainly related to economic self-determination. This became very clear during the Russian Revolution which proved Uneven and Combined Development; that is to say, that there is a world economic system that does not apply evenly everywhere. The initial theories, like those of Kautsky held, more or less held that there were stages of development everybody would go through confined to various borders as the world came together under capitalism. The Bolsheviks (especially being in backward Russia) challenged this, things would not advance so cleanly:

Lenin wrote:Let us assume that all the imperialist countries conclude an alliance for the “peaceful” division of these parts of Asia; this alliance would be an alliance of “internationally united finance capital”. There are actual examples of alliances of this kind in the history of the twentieth century—the attitude of the powers to China, for instance. We ask, is it “conceivable”, assuming that the capitalist system remains intact—and this is precisely the assumption that Kautsky does make—that such alliances would be more than temporary, that they would eliminate friction, conflicts and struggle in every possible form?

The question has only to be presented clearly for any other than a negative answer to be impossible. This is because the only conceivable basis under capitalism for the division of spheres of influence, interests, colonies, etc., is a calculation of the strength of those participating, their general economic, financial, military strength, etc. And the strength of these participants in the division does not change to an equal degree, for the even development of different undertakings, trusts, branches of industry, or countries is impossible under capitalism. Half a century ago Germany was a miserable, insignificant country, if her capitalist strength is compared with that of the Britain of that time; Japan compared with Russia in the same way. Is it “conceivable” that in ten or twenty years’ time the relative strength of the imperialist powers will have remained unchanged? It is out of the question.


The Middle East, largely, is what Lenin there refers to as Asia, and his scenerio is exactly what happened years ago.

The Middle East is no different. And, like Russia and other backward places, it was given the chance and oppertunity to have a revolution and join a socialist system. Many of them did.

But few ever came close to succeeding. Because of this, the best kind of liberation that was possible was the strictly liberal conception of emancipation from religion that Marx described in my first post; which did not come close to addressing (nor, incidentally, did the Soviets) the full idea of human emancipation that could have only been achieved in fully breaking out the economic reality upon which its base was built upon--which had been global.

Regardless, the British, French, and Americans are not stupid. And should these divisions they set down and countries they built start to challenge their imperialism by becoming socialist atheists, who then would they turn to? Certainly religious traditionalists. And they did.

The result is obvious, tragic, and what Milo and others are complaining about. But they are complaining about a symptom while waving their hand to the actual causes of their fanatical fear.

As for Ingliz, this ahistorical example might illustrate:

Let us say that Texas breaks off from the Union after the Civil Rights Act (or whatever). Looking for an ally against a US trying to isolate the country, it establishes trade with Cuba.

The CIA, looking for an ally in Texas, finds the religious nature of many Texans and tries to leverage that against collaboration with the Cubans, and by proxy, the Soviets.

The CIA does this by finding the most fanatical in Texas, who happen to be extreme Christians, and give the Branch Davidians weapons, training, maps, propaganda in nearby areas, local support, etc, etc, etc. In attempting to crush the Branch Davidians, Texas commits atrocities, which makes more rally to the Branch Davidians who end up taking control along with their ilk. This means child sex, violence against women, getting rid of non-believers, etc, etc, etc.

Would it not be easy to trace a line through Christianity back to at least the Munster Revolt and say that this was inherent in Christianity?

The Christians in this scenerio are not evil because they are Christians, or even because Christianity is somehow backward. This is a situation that developed because of a lot of issues.
#14821763
The Immortal Goon wrote:Because of this and your seeming acceptance of Milo's emotional blubbering devoid of any facts, what else am I supposed to conclude beyond your inability to understand anything that isn't based on your feelings?

The problem with Islam is acute, relevant and urgent.
The comparisons with Christianism might be theoretically correct but are not helpful in finding solutions for the Islamic terrorism, the demographic transformation in Europe and the clash of civilisations that is under way.
I don't see any feelings involved here.
#14821768
Ter wrote:The problem with Islam is acute, relevant and urgent.
The comparisons with Christianism might be theoretically correct but are not helpful in finding solutions for the Islamic terrorism, the demographic transformation in Europe and the clash of civilisations that is under way.
I don't see any feelings involved here.


I can provide many examples of any religion acting like complete asshats, and I think you know that.

I can provide many examples of the West, especially rightwingers, promoting the most asshat-y part of Islam. To this day, the Saudis are complete asshats getting a lot of money from the US and UK to keep their regime up. A regime, incidentally, that Donald Trump thinks is great despite being complete asshats.

What you imagine is, "accute, relevant, and urgent," isn't very clear.

Is it Milo saying that people he imagines on college campuses inexplicably love Islam?

While there are always fools everywhere, mostly I see people on campuses opposing the same stupid policies that aided Middle Eastern Cold War proxies based on the biggest Islamic assholes in the regions. Milo, at least, is being very preoccupied with how he feels at the end of this string of events without following the string to its origin. Having seemingly no information about this string of events, or at least doing nothing to include it in his analysis, I have absolutely no idea what he's basing his analysis upon beyond his feelings.

The title of the chapter points at something even more deluded: That the entire issue is about him. That, somehow, the emotions Muslims have (hate) have to personally do with him.

His evidence seems to be that he read the title of a New Yorker article once, but failed to read that the article was actually a rallying cry for more free speech that claimed that free speech was not just under attack by Muslim terrorists, but by Western States and anybody that tried to step on the press:

The New Yorker wrote:The killings in Paris were an appalling offense to human life and dignity. The enormity of these crimes will shock us all for a long time. But the suggestion that violence by self-proclaimed Jihadists is the only threat to liberty in Western societies ignores other, often more immediate and intimate, dangers. The U.S., the U.K., and France approach statecraft in different ways, but they are allies in a certain vision of the world, and one important thing they share is an expectation of proper respect for Western secular religion. Heresies against state power are monitored and punished. People have been arrested for making anti-military or anti-police comments on social media in the U.K. Mass surveillance has had a chilling effect on journalism and on the practice of the law in the U.S. Meanwhile, the armed forces and intelligence agencies in these countries demand, and generally receive, unwavering support from their citizens. When they commit torture or war crimes, no matter how illegal or depraved, there is little expectation of a full accounting or of the prosecution of the parties responsible.


And it dares to put this in a historical context that goes back beyond Milo's feelings:

Ibid wrote:Western societies are not, even now, the paradise of skepticism and rationalism that they believe themselves to be. The West is a variegated space, in which both freedom of thought and tightly regulated speech exist, and in which disavowals of deadly violence happen at the same time as clandestine torture. But, at moments when Western societies consider themselves under attack, the discourse is quickly dominated by an ahistorical fantasy of long-suffering serenity and fortitude in the face of provocation. Yet European and American history are so strongly marked by efforts to control speech that the persecution of rebellious thought must be considered among the foundational buttresses of these societies. Witch burnings, heresy trials, and the untiring work of the Inquisition shaped Europe, and these ideas extended into American history and took on American modes, from the breaking of slaves to the censuring of critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom.


This same appeal to emotion continues. "The left claims to abhor bigotry," Milo says, and then cites stats that claim most Muslims in Britain don't accept homosexuality.

What exactly is the proposal here? That we should be water boarding Muslims that don't like gays? Should we extend this to Christians? Atheists? Hindus? In order to be against bigots, we should round up everyone that disagrees with Milo's feelings on any given moment and force them to agree with him?

The left, in the broadest sense, would propose that whatever a Muslim's precious feelings about buttsex happen to be is completely irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as Milo's feelings about those feelings.

But no, apparently I need to take Milo's feelings into consideration instead of following the very clear historical and material record back to what happened and why.

Somewhere the right became a bunch of postmodernist blubbering victims. Get the fuck over it because, ultimately, your whining isn't going to change a damn thing. Even if you get your waterbording of people based on feelings upon feelings, eventually reality has a way of winning in the end.
#14821770
During a previous discussion Layman linked to a wikipedia article about rape in India that included a gov't study that showed Muslims suffering the highest rates of rape.

By religion, Buddhist and Jain women reported the lowest prevalence of sexual violence in their lifetime (3 and 4 percent), while 5% of Sikh women, 6% of Christian women and 8% of Hindu women reported experiencing sexual violence. The highest prevalence rate (11%) of lifetime sexual violence was reported by Muslim women.[71]
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/201601 ... vey_report

Perhaps there's a 100 year old essay on marxists.org that that proves this statistical analysis of the current situation is actually moot. I eagerly await the wall of text.
#14821791
in India... The highest prevalence rate (11%) of lifetime sexual violence was reported by Muslim women.

In the US, the highest prevalence rate (34%) of lifetime sexual violence was reported by married women.

Prevalence of Wife Rape and Other Intimate Partner Sexual Coercion in a Nationally Representative Sample of Women wrote:Findings from a 1997 national probability sample revealed that 34% of women were victims of some type of sexual coercion with a husband or partner in their lifetime. Of these women, 10% experienced rape by a current partner. This rate increased to 13% when only victims of rape by a current husband were included, which is consistent with previous studies on wife rape.


:eek:
Last edited by ingliz on 09 Jul 2017 11:05, edited 1 time in total.
#14821813
skinster wrote:Israel is a racist colonialist state that segregates and discriminates against millions of Palestinians (including Christian Palestinians) for the simple fact that they weren't born Jewish, plus that bizzinezz of military occupation and the continuation of ethnic-cleansing of the natives to this very day, has a tendency to cause harsh judgment.
How does that explain the misery in the greater part of the Middle East? Do you belief that it is the result of these (alleged) practices by Israel?

Btw, in due time Israel proper will cease to be a colonial state if that is not already the case for the simple fact that eventually nearly all of its citizens will be born and raised there. To insist that they are colonists would be like insisting that today's Americans are colonists or that the offspring of migrants to the West are foreigners that should 'return'. This is also precisely why Jewish settlements in the West Bank are a mortal threat to the livelihood of a Palestinian state if left unhindered. If blame has any meaning, blame the United Nations for its ineffective measures, AIPAC and the US for shielding Israel from effective repercussions, and Arab states for allowing the continuation of these practices under their noses rather than bashing all Israelis as colonists.
#14821828
@ingliz
Do you know what definition of rape they use? The full blurb includes this statement;

Other findings reveal that women had unwanted sex with a current spouse or partner in return for a partner's spending money on them (24%), because they thought it was their "duty" (43%), after a romantic situation (29%), after the partner begged and pleaded with them (26%), and after their partner said things to bully them (9%). The importance of examining a continuum of sexual coercion is discussed and findings are compared and contrasted with other prevalence rates for sexual coercion in marriage.

I doubt many Indians complain about having sex with a spouse out of a sense of duty or following a romantic situation. Sometimes I do things I don't like doing after my wife is nice to me. Should I call the police?
#14821829
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Ter

Do you have any evidence that the left supports Islamists, or that progressives do?

I do not have evidence like in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
But I see leftists and Muslims together demonstrating for open borders, against Western interests in the Middle East. I see feminists argue that niqabs should be accepted, and indeed I see leftists arguing against anyone who points out that Islam is a serious problem for the West . We don't have to go much further than this thread to see that.
I see progressive countries like Sweden and Germany hiding facts about criminal acts committed by Muslim refugees and migrants.
Any protest against the massive inflow of Muslim migrants into Europe is considered racist and strongly counteracted by the leftists.
Leftist NGOs are helping thousands of fresh Muslim migrants to enter Europe on a daily basis, they even work together with people smugglers.

So yes, I see leftists and Muslims acting together very often.
Leftists and Muslims = one front
#14821835
Do you know what definition of rape they use?

Yes

"Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

:)
#14821836
Ter wrote:We don't have to go much further than this thread to see that...Leftists and Muslims=One Front"


Please explain how the Western right funding, supporting, arming, and training the most radical Islamic tendencies in an effort to kill as many leftists possible equates to Islam having a common front with the left.

Remaining completely unaddressed is the OP, and participants in this thread, that seem to think their feelings about Islam now is more important than the foundational influences and material causes in the conflict. As nobody has been able to come up with a historic counter-narrative, I can only conclude that it is conceded that the right is simply using its tiresome narrative of emotional self-victimmongering and shouting that anybody attempting to contextualize their feelings is involved in a conspiracy that even said rightists admit makes no sense.

To which I must say :lol:
#14821837
:lol:

Ter appears to be sadface because leftists don't/won't hate Muslims like he does. :D

Still, I'm glad a thread on the little wanky twat, Milo Whatever, has become interesting. Except the part where AFAIK is trying to downplay sexual abuse/rape when it happens in non-brown countries.

Cookie Monster wrote:How does that explain the misery in the greater part of the Middle East? Do you belief that it is the result of these (alleged) practices by Israel?


You seemed bothered by people complaining about Israel and I explained why. And they're not alleged practices, but actual practices, some of which are written in Israeli law. As for your further questioning, take it to the I/P forum. :)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

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

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

I (still) have a dream

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