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

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

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14821844
skinster wrote:Ter appears to be sadface because leftists don't/won't hate Muslims like he does.

That is a strange conclusion.
But knowing where you came from, maybe not.

The Immortal Goon wrote: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.

What? Killing leftists? Which leftists might those be?
We seem not to be able to talk on the same frequency and you did not address any of my arguments about Islam being a problem for the West and Europe. That includes terrorism, backward mores and demographic aspects.
The Immortal Goon wrote: 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.

Your convoluted language does not impress me. I see you still stick to the attack on emotions... without addressing the issues raised.
For instance: are you denying that leftists and Muslims demonstrate together for open borders?
#14821846
AFAIK wrote:Do you know what definition of rape they use?
,
Correction.

It is the FBI-UCR but, as the FBI definition changed in 2013 and the paper was written in 2002, it is the old definition.

“carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

Ter wrote:Which leftists might those be?

Ba'athists
#14821849
@Ter

He is. He's been saying that for fucking ages and yet you have been refusing to address it. He even wrote it in Hulk speech, Hulk speech for crying out loud! Hulk speech is easy to fuck up so you should have fun taking his points out of context at the very least. Yet you ignore his points completely without even acknowledging them. He explains directly to you how the right and Islamism are actually together and not the left and Islamism.
#14821853
Ter wrote:We seem not to be able to talk on the same frequency and you did not address any of my arguments about Islam being a problem for the West and Europe. That includes terrorism, backward mores and demographic aspects


Terrorism and backward mores associated with Islam are problems. Same as terrorism and backward mores from Hindus and Christians--both groups have taken over part of my state in the last half century, and neither have led me to collapse into a ball of victimhood and tears. Mostly because I know that the causes weren't Christianity and Hinduism.

You seem intent on ignoring why these problems exist. For the most radical interpretation of Islam, this occurred because of rightwing Cold War funding.

Image

By means or comparisons, look at the evil society Reagan took these assholes under wing to destroy:

Image

Then there's Dulles and other CIA ops to make sure Pakistan got the bomb.

And that's not getting into the French and the UK founding these states like the Saudi regime in part to fight the commies.

If you want to address the backwardness and terrorism of any group, let's go look at why. Then we can begin to address the problems from a rational place with concrete solutions instead of a panicked temper tantrum.

Smearing people, anyone, that wants to look at the roots of these issues as a leftist involved in an inexplicable conspiracy between the "hardline anti-communist rightwing guerrillas" and the "hardline anti-rightwing guerilla communist academic" is an emotional knee-jerk reaction that on its face is absurd.
#14821946
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.


You know it is the right who want open borders? Free markers mean a free market in goods, services and labour. Without the capitalists there would be no such thing as open borders. East Germany and the Soviet Union ordered their border guards to shoot to kill if they saw people illegally crossing a border.

Once more the right proves they live in a fantasy world rather than the real one.
#14821957
But Decky, what about companies like Wal-Mart, Phillip-Morris, Johnson and Johnson, JP Morgan Chase, and British Petroleum?

Surely these sterling rightwing companies (most of which Trump has stock in) would crawl all over themselves to close off their markets and pay adults instead of children to make things out of the kindness of their hearts, right?

I mean, look at these enthusiastic words about free trade given by Engels:

Engels wrote:Free trade has become a necessity for the industrial capitalists. But if it should reject Free Trade and stick to Protection, in order to cheat the socialists out of the expected social catastrophe, that will not hurt the prospects of socialism in the least. Protection is a plan for artificially manufacturing manufacturers, and therefore also a plan for artificially manufacturing wage laborers. You cannot breed the one without breeding the other.

The wage laborer everywhere follows in the footsteps of the manufacturer; he is like the "gloomy care" of Horace, that sits behind the rider, and that he cannot shake off wherever he go. You cannot escape fate; in other words, you cannot escape the necessary consequences of your own actions. A system of production based upon the exploitation of wage labor, in which wealth increases in proportion to the number of laborers employed and exploited, such a system is bound to increase the class of wage laborers, that is to say, the class which is fated one day to destroy the system itself. In the meantime, there is no help for it: you must go on developing the capitalist system, you must accelerate the production, accumulation, and centralization of capitalist wealth, and, along with it, the production of a revolutionary class of laborers. Whether you try the Protectionist or the Free Trade will make no difference in the end, and hardly any in the length of the respite left to you until the day when that end will come. For long before that day will protection have become an unbearable shackle to any country aspiring, with a chance of success, to hold its own in the world market.


It's almost as if rightists like the Waltons of Wal-Mart love expanding their markets and labour sources and leftists like Frederick Engels want to destroy the mechanics behind capitalist system.

But that can't be correct...Ter has a baseless feeling that CIA-sponsered anti-leftists are in a super-secret conspiracy with leftists.
#14821966
Decky wrote: East Germany and the Soviet Union ordered their border guards to shoot to kill if they saw people illegally crossing a border.

Yes that is true, especially shooting anyone trying to leave the proletarian paradise.
When I mentioned open borders I meant masses of migrants coming in undocumented.

Oxymandias wrote: He explains directly to you how the right and Islamism are actually together and not the left and Islamism.

The people I see demonstrating together with the Muslims are lefties, not rightists. The rightists are demonstrating against the massive flows of undocumented economic migrants. It is you and TIG who are ignoring what I have to say.
By the way I do not deny that Reagan used the mujahedin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets but that does not suddenly explain the problems we have with Muslim populations both in their own countries and in the West.
#14821968
Yes that is true, especially shooting anyone trying to leave the proletarian paradise.
When I mentioned open borders I meant masses of migrants coming in undocumented.


It's both in and out actually, the Soviets were not fond of spies infiltrating the workers paradise. The left is pro closed borders, the right wants to import as many new workers as it can to weaken unions and drive down wages.

You can pretend I am wrong like you always do when confronted by facts but mass immigration is a capitalist phenomenon, it only happens in capitalist nations, the USA, the UK, Germany, France etc. It is something that does not happen in the socialist world.
#14821971
The Immortal Goon wrote:By means or comparisons, look at the evil society Reagan took these assholes under wing to destroy:


Posting pictures of scantily dressed women in Kabul proves absolutely nothing, TIG. What a few members of the elite do and rest of the population does are two entirely different things.

Decky wrote:You can pretend I am wrong like you always do when confronted by facts but mass immigration is a capitalist phenomenon, it only happens in capitalist nations, the USA, the UK, Germany, France etc. It is something that does not happen in the socialist world.


Obviously, because people want to escape socialist hellholes and migrate to capitalist countries where they can actually make a decent living.
Last edited by Rugoz on 10 Jul 2017 02:17, edited 1 time in total.
#14821973
Decky wrote:The Soviets were busy forcing that mode of dress onto the whole population before the Republicans and their Jihadist buddies managed to kick the Soviets out and put the Taliban in.


Yes, communism as a progressive force has been really successful in the Soviet Union. Russia is the best example. :excited:

You commies are a lot like neocons. Equally delusional.
#14821974
Yes, communism as a progressive force has been really successful in the Soviet Union. Russia is the best example


Have you been asleep for several decades? Russia has not been communist for many years. It was successful as a progressive force in the Soviet Union, obviously the Russians went back to treating women like shit after capitalism came back and the civilising influence of Communism receded. They are slavs for gods sake, what else would they have done, communism can hardly be blamed for that.
#14821976
Decky wrote:Have you been asleep for several decades? Russia has not been communist for many years. It was successful as a progressive force in the Soviet Union, obviously the Russians went back to treating women like shit after capitalism came back and the civilising influence of Communism receded. They are slavs for gods sake, what else would they have done, communism can hardly be blamed for that.


Yes, clearly Russians completely changed their attitudes towards women, gays etc. in a single decade. All because of capitalism.

Stop smelling your own farts.
#14821977
Communism sent Russian women into space, capitalism sees them being sold as slaves and trafficked to brothels in western Europe, that is the only freedom that exists west of the iron curtain, the freedom to be owned by a capitalist.
#14821978
Decky wrote:Communism sent Russian women into space, capitalism sees them being sold as slaves and trafficked to brothels in western Europe, that is the only freedom that exists west of the iron curtain, the freedom to be owned by a capitalist.


Yes, the Soviets sent their token woman into space. Commies are easily impressed by Potemkin villages.

Here's a list of female astronauts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_astronauts
#14821983
Decky wrote:ou can pretend I am wrong like you always do when confronted by facts but mass immigration is a capitalist phenomenon, it only happens in capitalist nations, the USA, the UK, Germany, France etc. It is something that does not happen in the socialist world.

I am aware that it would be in the interest of the capitalists to let in huge numbers of people from poor countries so they could work for lower wages and in inhuman conditions.
So how come it is the "progressives" who are shielding those illegal immigrants in the US and it is Trump and company that wants them deported and the borders under control?
I have discussed this same paradox several times already.
I can see that fighting for the illegal immigrants and granting them citizenship will result in more votes for the democrats but is it really about that ?
#14821985
@Ter

Your assertion is that the left has always sided with "DA EVIIILLL MUSLIMS" and that the left has openly supported Islamism in the Middle East. This is wrong and there is evidence that shows that the right were the ones who supported Islamism and radical Islam in the Middle East evidence that @The Immortal Goon gave you not just once but in Hulk speech as well. Also how the fuck are a bunch of undocumented immigrants who are often poor going to get plane tickets to a country that has immigration laws? With mexican immigrants they can at least go over the border. You can't do that when there's thousands of miles of sea between you and your destination.

The West supports religious fascists. Religious fascists want authoritarian regimes which the West let's them have. Authoritarian regimes hold absolute control over how people think, act. What people see, hear. Therefore it is perfectly viable to see Middle Easterners in Middle Eastern countries to be acting in relatively violent ways since the government encourages such violence. These governments are supported by pretty much every major power that has major stake in the MidEast.

In terms of actions of Muslims in the West, first off the actions of ISIS aren't the actions of all refugees from the MidEast. And before you say that refugees are still the same as terrorists, I will have you know that terrorists have other motives for moving to the West while refugees only seek refuge in the West. Second, almost all of the refugees that go to the West are from Syria which is literally in Anarchy. Furthermore, many of these refugees come from the more decisive areas of Syria where there is no clear authority and where authorities there are more focused on fighting to keep their territory and less on actual administration.

So in Syria there are no repercussions for your actions at all. You can do anything you want and have no consequences for doing so. It isn't going from an authoritarian state to a freer state, it's going from an anarchic state to a state with actual laws. However do not be worried, a majority of Syrian refugees get along fine with laws, it's just a couple of people who can't adjust. Furthermore many of these "Syrian refugee terrorists" are actually second generation immigrants who lived in ghettos and are alienated by their own country because Europe sucks at assimilation.
#14821986
Ter wrote:The people I see demonstrating together with the Muslims are lefties, not rightists.


I addressed this in saying that any leftist I've ever seen demonstrating with Muslims tend to be addressing the root of the problems, not your personal feelings about Muslims. Perhaps you have other examples that you are keeping secret. Until you make these clear, there is nothing much to add.

Ter wrote:The rightists are demonstrating against the massive flows of undocumented economic migrants.


This has nothing specifically to do with Islam. This was true of any undocumented economic migrant. The right, however, tends to point panicked to the migrant him or herself. The left points out that this is a symptom and that the right's masters are the one laughing all the way to the bank about your panic.

Ter wrote: It is you and TIG who are ignoring what I have to say.


I'm trying my best to counter anything you say, but it seems to be mostly your feelings instead of any facts or figures.

Ter wrote:By the way I do not deny that Reagan used the mujahedin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets but that does not suddenly explain the problems we have with Muslim populations both in their own countries and in the West.


What about Reagan as an example, one of many, that goes back to at least WWI when the British stirred up Islamic attacks against the Young Turks?

The Left policy, before and after, has been clear: secularize and modernize the Islamic world. The right has been to fight that at every inch. This whole process was in no way something that, "suddenly" occurred, but part of a historic and material process that is well documented. If you think that well-armed Islamic extremists are something that, "suddenly," happened—surely you have some theory as to why it did. Would you care to explain what caused this, "sudden," change if it was not related to history?

Rugoz wrote:Posting pictures of scantily dressed women in Kabul proves absolutely nothing, TIG. What a few members of the elite do and rest of the population does are two entirely different things.


Oh, it wasn't like that. The Saur Revolution was the big step in Afghanistan. And before this, Afghanistan was still well in the Soviet sphere, conceded by the US in exchange for the Americans having their big friend of the radical Muslims Pakistan placated:

PBS wrote:After World War II, as both the United States and the Soviet Union competed for global power, Afghanistan increasingly turned to the Soviet Union for support after the United States established military ties with Pakistan in 1954, according to an October 2001 report from Human Rights Watch.

The Soviets in return used the strategic location of Afghanistan, at the juncture of Asia and the Middle East, to counter the U.S. alliance with Pakistan and the surrounding Persian Gulf states.


John Ryan via Hartford wrote:On April 27, 1978, to prevent the police from attacking a huge demonstration in front of the presidential palace, the army intervened, and after firing a single shot from a tank at the palace, the government resigned. The military officers then invited the Marxist party to form the government, under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a university professor.

This is how a Marxist government came into office -- it was a totally indigenous happening -- not even the CIA blamed the U.S.S.R. for this. The government began to bring in much-needed reforms, but with restraint and prudence. Labour unions were legalized, a minimum wage was established, a progressive income tax was introduced, men and women were given equal rights, and girls were encouraged to go to school. On September 1, 1978, there was an abolition of all debts owed by farmers. A program was being developed for major land reform, and it was expected that all farm families (including landlords) would be given the equivalent of equal amounts of land.

Everywhere life seemed peaceful and there were few police and soldiers on the scene. This was a genuinely popular government and people looked forward to the future with great hope. Admittedly, the issue of women's rights and education for girls was controversial, and fundamentalist mullahs conducted campaigns against this. It was these people and their converts, along with landlords, who migrated to Pakistan, as refugees.

But there was a much more powerful opponent to the government -- that was the U.S., which objected to it because it was Marxist. The CIA, along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, almost immediately began to provide military aid and training to the Muslim extremists.

Afghan Marxists have claimed that one of their countrymen, Hafizullah Amin, while on visits to the U.S., had been converted by the CIA and became their agent in the Taraki government. He worked his way to the top, and, as defence minister, in September, 1979, carried out a coup, took over the government, and had Taraki killed. All his loyal supporters were killed, jailed, or exiled. He then proceeded to undermine and discredit the Marxist government. He enacted draconian laws against the Muslim clergy, to purposefully further alienate them. Progressive reforms were halted and thousands of people were jailed.

Meanwhile, the CIA's trained and armed mujahedeen came in by the thousands to attack parts of the country. In a matter of three months, Amin had essentially destroyed the Marxist government and had planned to surrender to the mujahedeen, and become the president of a fundamentalist Islamic state. But at the end of December, 1979, Amin was overthrown by the remnants of Taraki supporters, and, under the leadership of Babrak Karmal (who had been in exile in the U.S.S.R.), they invited the U.S.S.R. to send in a contingent of troops to help ward off the well-armed mujahedeen invaders, many being foreign mercenaries.


The IMT, which is far from a Tanky organization, wrote:It would not be wrong to point out that Saur Revolution was imposed from the top in a revolutionary military uprising with organisational and political weaknesses - it was not a classical socialist revolution from a Marxist standpoint. However no other event in the history of South Asia struck such a blow to the region’s feudal drudgery, tribal primitiveness, religious oppression and exploitation by capitalism and imperialism. This was a revolution by decree, which was immediately supported by millions of oppressed Afghans. These decrees were directed at the most extreme forms of coercion that prevailed within society. Decree no. 6 cancelled debts, loans, mortgages and revenues due from peasants to the usurers and big landlords (in most cases this was debt inherited from generation to generation). The decree fully exempted “landless persons who work on a landowner’s land as a peasant or hireling [wage (day)-labourer]” from paying any dues and usury to the landowners and usurers. Decree no. 7 was “to ensure equality of rights between women and men in the domain of civil law, to eliminate unjust patriarchal feudal relations between wife and husband”. It also criminalized: 1- Girls’ marriage based on exchange for money and goods; 2-Forced marriage; 3- Acts that either prevent a widow, because of family or tribal kinship, from wilfully re-marrying or forcing them into an unwanted marriage. It further fixed the age for engagement and marriage at 16 for women and 18 for men, thus, effectively banning child marriage.

Decree no. 8 confiscated lands owned by the feudal lords and the deposed royal family without compensation and their redistributed it among landless peasants and peasants with small land holdings. The decree’s aim was first and foremost “to eliminate feudal and pre-feudal relations from the social and economic order of the country.”

Some of the other radical policies pursued by the Saur revolution were: cancellation of revenue dues, equitable distribution of water and the establishment of peasant cooperatives. Major literacy programs were launched (by 1984 one and half million people had finished literacy courses and in the same year 20,000 literacy courses were functioning throughout the country enrolling 377,000 people. The target was to eradicate illiteracy by the year 1986 in urban areas and by 1990 all over Afghanistan. In the period prior to the Saur Revolution, only 5,265 people had finished literacy courses. The leadership of PDPA (Khalq) initiated these decrees before the intervention of the Russian forces. They had to overthrow the system, the oligarchy of capital and the state to begin introducing reforms. The Saur revolution proved yet again that in the neo-colonial countries not even the basic tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution can be commenced under the rule of the rotten colonial bourgeoisie.

Such radical measures sounded the death knell for imperialist interests and the capitalist/feudal system in the whole region. This sent tremors through the corridors of power from Islamabad to Riyadh, London and Washington.


Ter wrote:I am aware that it would be in the interest of the capitalists to let in huge numbers of people from poor countries so they could work for lower wages and in inhuman conditions.
So how come it is the "progressives" who are shielding those illegal immigrants in the US and it is Trump and company that wants them deported and the borders under control?
I have discussed this same paradox several times already.


I cannot speak for liberal progressives. My guess would be because it's a completely pointless battle to yell at illegal immigrants though. Like trying to yell at the spots on your hands instead of getting your liver taken care of should you have liver problems.

Trump wants them deported because he has a shit-ton of business in China, where all the labour will be spent to line his pockets:

Here's a bunch of sources from a bunch of different ideological orientations:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... hics-video

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... -for-visas

http://www.timesofisrael.com/family-of- ... nvestment/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ing-comey/

http://www.breitbart.com/news/sister-of ... nvestment/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ng-plants/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/busi ... .html?_r=0

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartande ... 8da8e01dc8

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/07/busi ... visas.html

It's exactly what happened with the Chinese Exclusion Act—the businesses and jobs went to China. It doesn't matter a fig to your masters—they're going to get you all crying in fear and rage while they take your wallet. You yourself admit that it is in their interests to get this shit all made as cheaply as possible.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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[…]