- 11 Apr 2009 06:41
#1866142
Leftism and the West
by Stalfos Conner
http://www.[No advertising]/news/viewarticle.php?id=11
According to leftists, drug abuse should be legal, alongside prostitution; while freedom of speech should be restricted, in order for it not to be used to insult others based on their religious beliefs, and taxes should be increased to stimulate economic growth. Obviously, not all leftists support the same things, as there are multiple forms of leftism. Whether it's socialism, such as Nazism in Germany, communism in North Korea or liberalism in the West, it's all leftism; and all forms of leftism want to restrict freedoms to themselves and to those they support, but not to opposing parties. This is known as "political correctness" in the West.
Back in the days before the Second World War, leftists considered criticism of Nazism and associated fascist parties to be an act of racism because it implied that you were critical of a "race's" ideology. After all, "Nazi" stands for "National Socialism", so criticizing such an ideology automatically meant criticizing the "nation" and "socialism". Yet leftists claimed to support freedoms; and, in their minds they did because the "freedom" they believed in was to be constricted. There was to be no criticism of one's race, religious beliefs or whatnot.
Today, Nazism is associated with extreme rightism in the West and put in the same category as the American enslavement of Africans or the Apartheid of South Africa.
Unfortunately, due to the constant "twisting" and "shifting" of the leftist stances on issues, it becomes confusing to fully understand leftism. Anything in support of high government control ("big government") and the constriction of freedoms to support equality (among specific groups) is leftism.
For example, the original meaning of "liberalism" did not refer to the current leftist ideology of liberalism but to the present day meaning of libertarianism, which is therefore also called "classical liberalism". In the same way, fascism became known as an extreme form of rightism because the leftists shifted from supporting equality and big government only for specific nations (nationalism) to supporting the same things for all (except those in disagreement with their ideology). In other words, instead of supporting nationalism, which is also supported by rightism (only without race based discrimination), the leftists shifted to support, in particular, those they previously attacked and those in agreement with them. They turned against the real nationalists - the rightists - resulting in the very European fascism, which caused World War 2, being classified as "extreme rightism".
Communism is yet another branch of socialism, with the only difference between it and fascism being the larger size and bigger control of the government involved. Socialism itself implies support for social equality (for people of one particular race, such as in fascism; or for people of one particular religion, such as in Islam; or for people in agreement with each other, such as in liberalism) and collective ownership.
Interestingly, the Asian World War 2 version of Nazism, Imperial Japan, is usually not so much considered to have been a fascist nation as Germany was. No, Japan was nuked by rightists in the Second World War in order to end the war. The non-white leftist attacker became the victim of the white rightist attacker. As of that point, it was no longer about the war crimes committed by the Japanese during the Second World War, according to the leftists, in general. No, it became about the "reckless" white man. And what other country is known better for conservatism than the white dominated country of the USA?
These are the same people who once enslaved Africans and some other non-whites. After all, whites colonized almost all of Africa at one point, as well as even some other parts of the world such as South America, Asia and Australia. Whites have also imposed Apartheid in South Africa (more specifically, Germanics, the inventors of Nazism). Now that the Second World War is fortunately over and the (white) fascists have lost in Europe, political correctness tells us that we should be the opposite of the fascists and since whites were yet again to blame, we should, according to leftism, impose equality on all.
Whether one is a doctor, scientist, priest, cleaner, etc, one should be considered to be equal to everyone else. In other words, a scientist is to be considered to be equal to a drug-addicted high school dropout. Of course, since the liberals in the West are white themselves, it seems as if regret of their history makes them obligated to prove themselves to be at most equal to the ones they only recently saw as inferiors. After all, equality for "all" is the opposite of "equality" for "superiors" (which was the way it was defined by Nazism and Apartheid).
The war against Iraq by the USA in the early 2000s, which was most supported by the self proclaimed "Republicans" within the American government, is one such an example of "white" aggression against non-whites. The war was, by international laws, completely illegal and rightfully so. President Bush, at the time, claimed the regime of Iraq had many connection to "international terrorism" and had weapons of mass destruction. Little such evidence has been found.
Interestingly, approximately 4 years prior to the war against Iraq, the USA also violated international laws by waging war against Yugoslavia. Strangely, the leftists did not seem to care. No, the alleged "war crimes" committed by the Serbs against their ultra-religious theocratic fascist enemies to prevent them from proclaiming independence in areas recognized internationally as Serbian territory, under the banner of rightism and socialism, were far worse than breaking the laws, in the eyes of the leftists. In 1999, after bombing Serbian civilian targets and forcing a Serbian withdrawal from Kosovo (the historical heartland and key province of Serbia), they occupied it. During the NATO occupation tens of thousands of Serbs were attacked and forced out of their homes and countless Serbian businesses and other institutions (including even Serbian Orthodox Churches) were destroyed. The USA and its allies once again violated international laws nine years after their war against Yugoslavia by turning the Serbian province of Kosovo into an "independent" "nation", totally ignoring the Serbs. Once again, the leftists didn't care.
Serbs are white and the majority of them are also rightists. They are (and have always been) too proud to allow themselves to be viewed as the victims, leave alone become victims. Their enemies, primarily the Albanian Muslims, are "less white", ultra-religious and excellent at "screaming" blood and murder to achieve independence from the Serbian "oppressors". It is arguably safe to say that leftists, who are working very hard to not become like their white fascist predecessors, who oppressed religious people, would never support or care for anything or anyone but those who fit their description of "innocence". It's not about Albanian Muslims who claim ownership of a historically Serbian province. It's not about land, in the leftist view. After all, patriotism is a component of Nazism, so anything opposing patriotism is welcomed by the leftists. Race is also not the most important issue. After all, Nazism implies racism as well.
It's all about equality but not the same as the "equality" represented by Nazism (as in Germany) or communism (as in the Soviet Union). Such "equality" is supported only for particular groups in both ideologies. Since that has failed, the liberals (the people currently in power in Western Europe and the rest of the West), support equality between all, except themselves, in order to prevent history from being repeated.
Imagine if a "White College Fund" was created in the USA. There would be worldwide demonstrations, including massive demonstrations (and most likely riots) in the USA. Yet, there already exists a "Negro College Fund" and that is considered to be perfectly "okay", because in the eyes of the leftists, the white man has oppressed the black man. So the oppressed become the superior and the inferior must become equal to the superior in order to conform to the new "equality" supported by the left. Thence, "affirmative discrimination" or "positive discrimination" (as it is called in Europe). It is no longer called "fascism" because the ones who support it no longer claim to be fascists or racists. No, they call themselves "liberals" or "socialists". Instead of calling race discrimination "racism", it's called "affirmative action" when it comes to the non-whites and "racism" when it comes to whites.
Now, theocratic fascists, under the banner of Islam, commit acts of terrorism, such as in the cases of September 11, 2001 (USA), July 7, 2005 (UK), March 11, 2004 (Spain), etc. Despite the fact that Islam explicitly instructs for terrorism to be committed against those who don't follow it (all non-Muslims) and despite the fact that the Quran is littered with such commands and "teachings", as in the case of Quran 8:60, which states: "Prepare against the non-Muslims whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah (non-Muslims), and others besides them not known to you. Whatever you spend in Allah's Cause will be repaid in full, and no wrong will be done to you", the leftists reject these facts and point out that the Christians are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades and so on – totally ignoring another fact, namely, the Christian religion does not instruct for terrorism to be committed against non-Christians.
We are reminded once again by political correctness, as we were when we criticized Nazism and got blamed for racism, that it is wrong to criticize Muslims based on their religion. And if that isn't enough, the Muslims constantly remind us of the same fact, with the "minor" difference that they do so through mass demonstrations, riots and death threats against anything they consider insulting to their religion, such as the Danish Mohamed Cartoons and the teddy bear that got named "Mohamed" by a British teacher in Sudan (who, according to the Muslims in question, should be punishable by execution because "Mohamed" is also the name of their prophet).
If we don't listen to the demands of the "peaceful" Muslims, then the "violent" Muslims issue a "Fatwa" - a death sentence under Islamic law - against us. Yes, Islam is not only a religion but a culture and a political ideology as well.
Yet, no matter what they do, we must make sure to remain (and/or become) equal to them and not the other way around. After all, there isn't "superiority" and "inferiority" anymore, if we are to believe the liberals. Now there is only "equality" and either we conform to it, or we, well, basically we don't have much of another choice.
We have to tolerate the endless parades of anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western propaganda in the Arab media, ranging from cartoons to television shows. We also have to tolerate the intolerance of Muslims, while not being allowed to even criticize them or their religion, Islam.
If there is no other way to disprove arguments exposing Islam as a violent political ideology and religion, Islam is portrayed as a race, and thus, anyone criticizing it automatically becomes a "racist". In another case, Islam is portrayed as being "misinterpreted" by those who follow it as literally as possible (the terrorists and their supporters) and "interpreted correctly" by those who are Muslim only by family/culture and the local mosque they visit.
While leftists reject the idea that the nature of Islam is violent, they have colorfully invented new ways to label the "version" (in their view) of Islam they reject as "radical Islam", "fundamentalist Islam", etc. And collectively, we need to embrace "Islam" because it's the faith of well over one billion people. And as with democracy (a leftist form of government), it's about the majority according to liberalism.
Yet, no "Fatwa" has been issued against any known Islamic terrorist in the world. "Fatwas" have been issued against the cartoonists that drew the Mohamed cartoons, Geert Wilders (creator of the movie Fitna) and countless others who have, according to Islamic rules, "insulted" Islam.
If Islam is peaceful, are the people who use Islam to justify terrorism not the biggest insult to Islam? Is the answer to that question not important for leftists? As mentioned previously, it's not about anything but equality and enforcing equality on everybody and everything, even on Islam if needed. Though Muslims do not support the leftists, leftists are in support of their "differences" under the banner of "support" for "multiculturalism" and equality based on support thereof, in particular the democratic notion that whatever the majority wants is better than whatever everybody else wants. Obviously, Muslims have less reasons to fight leftists than they do those who criticize Islam. After all, Islam is also a form of socialism (equality is restricted to Muslims).
How does liberalism and leftism in general really differ from its leftist predecessors such as the Nazis and Apartheid supremacists?
When Europeans accepted the Germanic ideology of "equality" under the banner of Nazism (as in "equality" between Germanics only), despite their prominent role in the First World War, the result was the Second World War. When Blacks accepted the Germanic ideology of "equality" under the banner of "Apartheid" (as in "equality" between the Germanics only), South Africa became enrolled into a major cultural and racial conflict with countless casualties. When the Chinese accepted the Japanese ideology of "equality" under the banner of "Imperial Japan", the result was the Second World War in Asia.
When has any form of "equality" that is restricted to particular groups of people ever worked? The Nazis didn't support equality for all, just for Germanics; the Black Panthers don't support equality for all, just for blacks; the KKK doesn't support equality for all, just for whites; the liberals don't support equality for all, just among themselves (those who agree with them) and those in the majority (and if the liberals are not in the majority, they will rebel against it until they become the majority, as in the case of the hippie movement. The liberals literally made it "hip" to be against the majority (hence the term "hippie")).
The leftist notion that the white man is responsible for more crimes against humanity than any non-whites is as ignorant as it is disrespectful. The white man was and still is either the biggest or one of the biggest contributors to civilization and science, despite his flaws.
It is exactly for that reason that the white man was able to expand his knowledge in science, politics and have great influences therein.
Islam has been around for almost 1400 years - roughly 1150 years longer then the USA. Despite having over 1.3 billion followers so far, it has contributed to the destruction of mankind in the Middle East, North Africa and some parts of Asia, more than anything or anyone else. There is no excuse for the widespread poverty in Islamic countries. Neither is there an excuse for the torture of non-Muslims and women in Islamic countries. Islam has never been equal to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or the majority – if not all – of other religions.
Leftism has been around for centuries. Despite constantly preaching its version of peace, tolerance and whatnot, as evident by the history of communism and socialism, from the Soviet Union to the Chavez regime in present day Venezuela, it has contributed to the destruction of mankind at least just as much as Islam. Liberalism is no exception, as it is just another version of leftism.
Corrupt "rightists" (in the case of the USA, they are the majority of Republicans), shift from right to left and vice versa whenever they see fit, in order to advance their purely capitalist agenda for the sake of money, are no better - and by no means are they rightists. Their "war on terrorism" is not an actual war on terrorism, but a campaign to profit economically from anything they can get away with. After all, they have been "democratically" chosen.
Democracy, a leftist political system, is as flawed as leftism itself. Clearly, the majority of Germans were in support of Nazism in Nazi Germany, as Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Hugo Chavez, the dictator of Venezuela, was also democratically elected. Robert Mugabe, a black supremacist and dictator of Zimbabwe (who helped drive British colonists out of Zimbabwe) was democratically elected too.
One of world's biggest and most dangerous terrorist groups in the world, the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas, was democratically chosen by Arabs in Israel (who call themselves "Palestinians", a name given to the Jews by the Romans, and later on, was adopted by Muslim squatters in Israel, in order to falsify history to create the notion that they were the Palestinians, in order to gain support for their cause to overthrow the Israeli government and establish a theocratic fascist state).
Muslims are already voicing their interests to implant Shariah in Western states, as their religion instructs them to do. Democracy allows this. Democracy doesn't protect our countries from being overthrown by theocratic fascists (such as Muslims) or fascists (such as the Nazis), but it does allow for "political correctness" to be imposed on us. Democracy is a leftist political system based on the liberal view of "equality".
How can we allow for freedom of speech to be limited, in order to prevent people from insulting unproven beliefs, and at the same time claim to support freedom of speech? Our ancestors fought communism and fascism so that we wouldn't have to live in a society where equality counts only for a particular group of people. They gave us freedom of speech, and they fought communism and fascism to allow us to keep freedom of speech. Scores of lives were lost for that reason. Was it their intention to have us loose our freedom of speech to theocratic fascism or another form of leftism?
Why should we accept democracy or "political correctness"? It doesn't protect our countries from being overthrown by our enemies. Whether you are an alcoholic high school drop out, a doctor or a Hamas terrorist, in a democracy, you are considered to be equal in every way. That's what leftism wants for us. Right now, all of this is happening: the West, like Rome and countless of others before it, is collapsing. In its regret over its past and its constant failure to combat leftism, the West has started to collapse, both economically and politically.
--------------------------------------------------
The Anti-Terrorism Coalition (ATC)
http://[No advertising]/
by Stalfos Conner
http://www.[No advertising]/news/viewarticle.php?id=11
According to leftists, drug abuse should be legal, alongside prostitution; while freedom of speech should be restricted, in order for it not to be used to insult others based on their religious beliefs, and taxes should be increased to stimulate economic growth. Obviously, not all leftists support the same things, as there are multiple forms of leftism. Whether it's socialism, such as Nazism in Germany, communism in North Korea or liberalism in the West, it's all leftism; and all forms of leftism want to restrict freedoms to themselves and to those they support, but not to opposing parties. This is known as "political correctness" in the West.
Back in the days before the Second World War, leftists considered criticism of Nazism and associated fascist parties to be an act of racism because it implied that you were critical of a "race's" ideology. After all, "Nazi" stands for "National Socialism", so criticizing such an ideology automatically meant criticizing the "nation" and "socialism". Yet leftists claimed to support freedoms; and, in their minds they did because the "freedom" they believed in was to be constricted. There was to be no criticism of one's race, religious beliefs or whatnot.
Today, Nazism is associated with extreme rightism in the West and put in the same category as the American enslavement of Africans or the Apartheid of South Africa.
Unfortunately, due to the constant "twisting" and "shifting" of the leftist stances on issues, it becomes confusing to fully understand leftism. Anything in support of high government control ("big government") and the constriction of freedoms to support equality (among specific groups) is leftism.
For example, the original meaning of "liberalism" did not refer to the current leftist ideology of liberalism but to the present day meaning of libertarianism, which is therefore also called "classical liberalism". In the same way, fascism became known as an extreme form of rightism because the leftists shifted from supporting equality and big government only for specific nations (nationalism) to supporting the same things for all (except those in disagreement with their ideology). In other words, instead of supporting nationalism, which is also supported by rightism (only without race based discrimination), the leftists shifted to support, in particular, those they previously attacked and those in agreement with them. They turned against the real nationalists - the rightists - resulting in the very European fascism, which caused World War 2, being classified as "extreme rightism".
Communism is yet another branch of socialism, with the only difference between it and fascism being the larger size and bigger control of the government involved. Socialism itself implies support for social equality (for people of one particular race, such as in fascism; or for people of one particular religion, such as in Islam; or for people in agreement with each other, such as in liberalism) and collective ownership.
Interestingly, the Asian World War 2 version of Nazism, Imperial Japan, is usually not so much considered to have been a fascist nation as Germany was. No, Japan was nuked by rightists in the Second World War in order to end the war. The non-white leftist attacker became the victim of the white rightist attacker. As of that point, it was no longer about the war crimes committed by the Japanese during the Second World War, according to the leftists, in general. No, it became about the "reckless" white man. And what other country is known better for conservatism than the white dominated country of the USA?
These are the same people who once enslaved Africans and some other non-whites. After all, whites colonized almost all of Africa at one point, as well as even some other parts of the world such as South America, Asia and Australia. Whites have also imposed Apartheid in South Africa (more specifically, Germanics, the inventors of Nazism). Now that the Second World War is fortunately over and the (white) fascists have lost in Europe, political correctness tells us that we should be the opposite of the fascists and since whites were yet again to blame, we should, according to leftism, impose equality on all.
Whether one is a doctor, scientist, priest, cleaner, etc, one should be considered to be equal to everyone else. In other words, a scientist is to be considered to be equal to a drug-addicted high school dropout. Of course, since the liberals in the West are white themselves, it seems as if regret of their history makes them obligated to prove themselves to be at most equal to the ones they only recently saw as inferiors. After all, equality for "all" is the opposite of "equality" for "superiors" (which was the way it was defined by Nazism and Apartheid).
The war against Iraq by the USA in the early 2000s, which was most supported by the self proclaimed "Republicans" within the American government, is one such an example of "white" aggression against non-whites. The war was, by international laws, completely illegal and rightfully so. President Bush, at the time, claimed the regime of Iraq had many connection to "international terrorism" and had weapons of mass destruction. Little such evidence has been found.
Interestingly, approximately 4 years prior to the war against Iraq, the USA also violated international laws by waging war against Yugoslavia. Strangely, the leftists did not seem to care. No, the alleged "war crimes" committed by the Serbs against their ultra-religious theocratic fascist enemies to prevent them from proclaiming independence in areas recognized internationally as Serbian territory, under the banner of rightism and socialism, were far worse than breaking the laws, in the eyes of the leftists. In 1999, after bombing Serbian civilian targets and forcing a Serbian withdrawal from Kosovo (the historical heartland and key province of Serbia), they occupied it. During the NATO occupation tens of thousands of Serbs were attacked and forced out of their homes and countless Serbian businesses and other institutions (including even Serbian Orthodox Churches) were destroyed. The USA and its allies once again violated international laws nine years after their war against Yugoslavia by turning the Serbian province of Kosovo into an "independent" "nation", totally ignoring the Serbs. Once again, the leftists didn't care.
Serbs are white and the majority of them are also rightists. They are (and have always been) too proud to allow themselves to be viewed as the victims, leave alone become victims. Their enemies, primarily the Albanian Muslims, are "less white", ultra-religious and excellent at "screaming" blood and murder to achieve independence from the Serbian "oppressors". It is arguably safe to say that leftists, who are working very hard to not become like their white fascist predecessors, who oppressed religious people, would never support or care for anything or anyone but those who fit their description of "innocence". It's not about Albanian Muslims who claim ownership of a historically Serbian province. It's not about land, in the leftist view. After all, patriotism is a component of Nazism, so anything opposing patriotism is welcomed by the leftists. Race is also not the most important issue. After all, Nazism implies racism as well.
It's all about equality but not the same as the "equality" represented by Nazism (as in Germany) or communism (as in the Soviet Union). Such "equality" is supported only for particular groups in both ideologies. Since that has failed, the liberals (the people currently in power in Western Europe and the rest of the West), support equality between all, except themselves, in order to prevent history from being repeated.
Imagine if a "White College Fund" was created in the USA. There would be worldwide demonstrations, including massive demonstrations (and most likely riots) in the USA. Yet, there already exists a "Negro College Fund" and that is considered to be perfectly "okay", because in the eyes of the leftists, the white man has oppressed the black man. So the oppressed become the superior and the inferior must become equal to the superior in order to conform to the new "equality" supported by the left. Thence, "affirmative discrimination" or "positive discrimination" (as it is called in Europe). It is no longer called "fascism" because the ones who support it no longer claim to be fascists or racists. No, they call themselves "liberals" or "socialists". Instead of calling race discrimination "racism", it's called "affirmative action" when it comes to the non-whites and "racism" when it comes to whites.
Now, theocratic fascists, under the banner of Islam, commit acts of terrorism, such as in the cases of September 11, 2001 (USA), July 7, 2005 (UK), March 11, 2004 (Spain), etc. Despite the fact that Islam explicitly instructs for terrorism to be committed against those who don't follow it (all non-Muslims) and despite the fact that the Quran is littered with such commands and "teachings", as in the case of Quran 8:60, which states: "Prepare against the non-Muslims whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah (non-Muslims), and others besides them not known to you. Whatever you spend in Allah's Cause will be repaid in full, and no wrong will be done to you", the leftists reject these facts and point out that the Christians are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades and so on – totally ignoring another fact, namely, the Christian religion does not instruct for terrorism to be committed against non-Christians.
We are reminded once again by political correctness, as we were when we criticized Nazism and got blamed for racism, that it is wrong to criticize Muslims based on their religion. And if that isn't enough, the Muslims constantly remind us of the same fact, with the "minor" difference that they do so through mass demonstrations, riots and death threats against anything they consider insulting to their religion, such as the Danish Mohamed Cartoons and the teddy bear that got named "Mohamed" by a British teacher in Sudan (who, according to the Muslims in question, should be punishable by execution because "Mohamed" is also the name of their prophet).
If we don't listen to the demands of the "peaceful" Muslims, then the "violent" Muslims issue a "Fatwa" - a death sentence under Islamic law - against us. Yes, Islam is not only a religion but a culture and a political ideology as well.
Yet, no matter what they do, we must make sure to remain (and/or become) equal to them and not the other way around. After all, there isn't "superiority" and "inferiority" anymore, if we are to believe the liberals. Now there is only "equality" and either we conform to it, or we, well, basically we don't have much of another choice.
We have to tolerate the endless parades of anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western propaganda in the Arab media, ranging from cartoons to television shows. We also have to tolerate the intolerance of Muslims, while not being allowed to even criticize them or their religion, Islam.
If there is no other way to disprove arguments exposing Islam as a violent political ideology and religion, Islam is portrayed as a race, and thus, anyone criticizing it automatically becomes a "racist". In another case, Islam is portrayed as being "misinterpreted" by those who follow it as literally as possible (the terrorists and their supporters) and "interpreted correctly" by those who are Muslim only by family/culture and the local mosque they visit.
While leftists reject the idea that the nature of Islam is violent, they have colorfully invented new ways to label the "version" (in their view) of Islam they reject as "radical Islam", "fundamentalist Islam", etc. And collectively, we need to embrace "Islam" because it's the faith of well over one billion people. And as with democracy (a leftist form of government), it's about the majority according to liberalism.
Yet, no "Fatwa" has been issued against any known Islamic terrorist in the world. "Fatwas" have been issued against the cartoonists that drew the Mohamed cartoons, Geert Wilders (creator of the movie Fitna) and countless others who have, according to Islamic rules, "insulted" Islam.
If Islam is peaceful, are the people who use Islam to justify terrorism not the biggest insult to Islam? Is the answer to that question not important for leftists? As mentioned previously, it's not about anything but equality and enforcing equality on everybody and everything, even on Islam if needed. Though Muslims do not support the leftists, leftists are in support of their "differences" under the banner of "support" for "multiculturalism" and equality based on support thereof, in particular the democratic notion that whatever the majority wants is better than whatever everybody else wants. Obviously, Muslims have less reasons to fight leftists than they do those who criticize Islam. After all, Islam is also a form of socialism (equality is restricted to Muslims).
How does liberalism and leftism in general really differ from its leftist predecessors such as the Nazis and Apartheid supremacists?
When Europeans accepted the Germanic ideology of "equality" under the banner of Nazism (as in "equality" between Germanics only), despite their prominent role in the First World War, the result was the Second World War. When Blacks accepted the Germanic ideology of "equality" under the banner of "Apartheid" (as in "equality" between the Germanics only), South Africa became enrolled into a major cultural and racial conflict with countless casualties. When the Chinese accepted the Japanese ideology of "equality" under the banner of "Imperial Japan", the result was the Second World War in Asia.
When has any form of "equality" that is restricted to particular groups of people ever worked? The Nazis didn't support equality for all, just for Germanics; the Black Panthers don't support equality for all, just for blacks; the KKK doesn't support equality for all, just for whites; the liberals don't support equality for all, just among themselves (those who agree with them) and those in the majority (and if the liberals are not in the majority, they will rebel against it until they become the majority, as in the case of the hippie movement. The liberals literally made it "hip" to be against the majority (hence the term "hippie")).
The leftist notion that the white man is responsible for more crimes against humanity than any non-whites is as ignorant as it is disrespectful. The white man was and still is either the biggest or one of the biggest contributors to civilization and science, despite his flaws.
It is exactly for that reason that the white man was able to expand his knowledge in science, politics and have great influences therein.
Islam has been around for almost 1400 years - roughly 1150 years longer then the USA. Despite having over 1.3 billion followers so far, it has contributed to the destruction of mankind in the Middle East, North Africa and some parts of Asia, more than anything or anyone else. There is no excuse for the widespread poverty in Islamic countries. Neither is there an excuse for the torture of non-Muslims and women in Islamic countries. Islam has never been equal to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or the majority – if not all – of other religions.
Leftism has been around for centuries. Despite constantly preaching its version of peace, tolerance and whatnot, as evident by the history of communism and socialism, from the Soviet Union to the Chavez regime in present day Venezuela, it has contributed to the destruction of mankind at least just as much as Islam. Liberalism is no exception, as it is just another version of leftism.
Corrupt "rightists" (in the case of the USA, they are the majority of Republicans), shift from right to left and vice versa whenever they see fit, in order to advance their purely capitalist agenda for the sake of money, are no better - and by no means are they rightists. Their "war on terrorism" is not an actual war on terrorism, but a campaign to profit economically from anything they can get away with. After all, they have been "democratically" chosen.
Democracy, a leftist political system, is as flawed as leftism itself. Clearly, the majority of Germans were in support of Nazism in Nazi Germany, as Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Hugo Chavez, the dictator of Venezuela, was also democratically elected. Robert Mugabe, a black supremacist and dictator of Zimbabwe (who helped drive British colonists out of Zimbabwe) was democratically elected too.
One of world's biggest and most dangerous terrorist groups in the world, the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas, was democratically chosen by Arabs in Israel (who call themselves "Palestinians", a name given to the Jews by the Romans, and later on, was adopted by Muslim squatters in Israel, in order to falsify history to create the notion that they were the Palestinians, in order to gain support for their cause to overthrow the Israeli government and establish a theocratic fascist state).
Muslims are already voicing their interests to implant Shariah in Western states, as their religion instructs them to do. Democracy allows this. Democracy doesn't protect our countries from being overthrown by theocratic fascists (such as Muslims) or fascists (such as the Nazis), but it does allow for "political correctness" to be imposed on us. Democracy is a leftist political system based on the liberal view of "equality".
How can we allow for freedom of speech to be limited, in order to prevent people from insulting unproven beliefs, and at the same time claim to support freedom of speech? Our ancestors fought communism and fascism so that we wouldn't have to live in a society where equality counts only for a particular group of people. They gave us freedom of speech, and they fought communism and fascism to allow us to keep freedom of speech. Scores of lives were lost for that reason. Was it their intention to have us loose our freedom of speech to theocratic fascism or another form of leftism?
Why should we accept democracy or "political correctness"? It doesn't protect our countries from being overthrown by our enemies. Whether you are an alcoholic high school drop out, a doctor or a Hamas terrorist, in a democracy, you are considered to be equal in every way. That's what leftism wants for us. Right now, all of this is happening: the West, like Rome and countless of others before it, is collapsing. In its regret over its past and its constant failure to combat leftism, the West has started to collapse, both economically and politically.
--------------------------------------------------
The Anti-Terrorism Coalition (ATC)
http://[No advertising]/
- By Skynet
- By Rancid
- By Tainari88
- By litwin