Multiculturing Interculters Cross Cultures

[jillian]

Liberalism sees the West, and its capitalist system, as the source of the world's evils.

Conservatism sees the West, and its secular society, as the source of the world's evils.

As we can see, grotesque generalisations apply equally to both sides of the political spectrum.

That's actually a mischaracterization of both sides' pov.

Conservatives see *government* as the source of the country's evil, and believe the function of government is defense. Conservatism as espoused by the religious right where government is evil except when it interferes in our private morality is a relatively new (and hopefully short-lived) phenomenon.

Liberals tend to believe that government should be used for good and that it should stay out of our private morality.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your second paragraph is why I asked the question previously, how many govts have Muslims taken over recently? And where in recent history have Muslims gone from being a minorty to a majority.

Of course different cultures will have an affect, but not much of an affect. Muslims have been in Britain for over 40 years now and they have hardly had any political effect at all. I mean they have MPs and are represented on councils, and they are a majority in some municipalities but they are not having a profound adverse affect as far as I know.

Any recent Muslim takeovers are mostly in more primitive African areas and the scorecard changes too frequently there for me to wish to do the necessary research to accurately identify the numerous incidents in which that has occurred. But in any case, however, this is a non sequitur in this discussion.

The point being made by me and others here is that Islamic rule does not lead to more human rights but to fewer, does not lead to more religious tolerance but less. The most extreme of Islamic 'oppression' to human rights and religious freedom was seen in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Saudi Arabia is also quite extreme in administration of Sharia law. On the more free end of the spectrum you find Turkey with Egypt and Indonesia both being somewhat less accommodating to human rights and religious freedom.

And you seem to keep ignoring the fact that I and others have no problem with Muslims perse', and have readily acknowledged that Muslim minorities here and there in the free world are not a problem.

What some of us have been discussing, and which you seem determined to keep sidetracking, is what happens when the Islamic minorities become majorities in the social fabric and government in a nation in the free world? Do you think such Islamic majorities would preserve the constitutions and policies of those countries that afford the people human rights and personal freedoms? Or would we see those constitutions partly or mostly dismantled as Sharia law is imposed?

The Islamic world is not all that friendly to other cultures and other religions. CAIR for instance is on record as wanting the United States to become a Muslim country.

I think any nation that does not see the implications of this phenomenon is wearing serious blinders that could put them at risk.

 

[Shogun]

Of course Muslim people in the UK become Europeanized just as Muslim people in the United States become Americanized. But they are not governmed by Islamic law either, and as Europeans or Americans, they are free to be whomever they want to be.


holy god, what an epiphany!


Having a discussion about changing cultures is not alarmism. To ignore or deny the fact that a new substantial majority of a different culture will significantly bring about changes in the existing culture, however, is both naive and tunnel visioned, often the name of political correctness. Historically, that has particularly happened everywhere that Muslims have become a new majority in any area or where Muslims have been able to take control of a government.

or, uh, TOLERANCE for the cultural makeup of the people that come to make up an evolving society MUCH LIKE the german, italian, spanish, and french influence on American culture? Oh GOD! the TRAVESTY!

show me ONE example of how muslims "historically" sweep in and impose sharia law onto western nations. Notice how quiet Doug got when prompted for specific examples. I notice that you seem to follow the same pattern.

Perhaps you are right that it will never happen in the UK and perhaps you are right that Muslims are more limited in popular names which accounts for the disproportionate number of boys named Mohammed there. But the fact remains that the demographics are changing or the name Mohammed would not be steadily moving up on the popularity scale.


the popularity of the name Mohammed has about as much a connection with the application of Sharia law as the name Chin has with the applications of chincese communism. Unless, of course, you care to provide any examples.


So the question remains: how much can this trend continue before Great Britain or the UK becomes a predominantly Muslim nation? And if this should happen, would the unique British culture be diminished or changed to something very different from what it is now? (Historically, that has happened every time an area has become dominated by Islam.)

And if that happened, would that be a good thing or bad thing?

Of COURSE their society changes. I take it you don't sport tri-bill hats, wigs and pantaloons on any given day? Gosh, what on EARTH would the founding fathers say about that!

Again, if you are going to throw the word "historically" around why don't you provide a corresponding example of such. I'm betting that its the same reson we haven't heard hide nor hair from doug in this thread today.


It would bea GOOD thing because it shows the strength of western democracies versus the forced hemogeny of non-democratic systems. I tellya, nothins says "spread democracy" quite like making it CLEAR that muslims are the only nations expected to accept change.. espeically if the change is a product of MUSLIM culture.

 

[Shogun]

Any recent Muslim takeovers are mostly in more primitive African areas and the scorecard changes too frequently there for me to wish to do the necessary research to accurately identify the numerous incidents in which that has occurred. But in any case, however, this is a non sequitur in this discussion.

The point being made by me and others here is that Islamic rule does not lead to more human rights but to fewer, does not lead to more religious tolerance but less. The most extreme of Islamic 'oppression' to human rights and religious freedom was seen in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Saudi Arabia is also quite extreme in administration of Sharia law. On the more free end of the spectrum you find Turkey with Egypt and Indonesia both being somewhat less accommodating to human rights and religious freedom.

And you seem to keep ignoring the fact that I and others have no problem with Muslims perse', and have readily acknowledged that Muslim minorities here and there in the free world are not a problem.

What some of us have been discussing, and which you seem determined to keep sidetracking, is what happens when the Islamic minorities become majorities in the social fabric and government in a nation in the free world? Do you think such Islamic majorities would preserve the constitutions and policies of those countries that afford the people human rights and personal freedoms? Or would we see those constitutions partly or mostly dismantled as Sharia law is imposed?

The Islamic world is not all that friendly to other cultures and other religions. CAIR for instance is on record as wanting the United States to become a Muslim country.

I think any nation that does not see the implications of this phenomenon is wearing serious blinders that could put them at risk.

And I think that claiming a paranoid projection is NOT being alarmist conveys where the blinders are. HOw many Americans, conservative or liberal, are going to stand aside while the bill of rights is dismantled in favor of sharia law? How many liberals are going to let themselves be imposed upon my muslims when they refuse the same from christians? Being tolorant of muslim influence on culture is not the same as bending over for forcefed burkas. Sorry, I know it feels good when dougy makes silly comments that fuel a chicken little arguement but, so far, this thread is completely void of anything beyond conjecture. Like Iv'e said, no laws are being changed in order to accomidate muslims that break the law. None.

unless, of course, you have examples that I am not aware of. The fact remains, NORTH AFRICA IS NOT THE UNITED STATES.

 

[Dr Grump]

This site is really beginning to fuck me off

 

[Foxfyre]

And I think that claiming a paranoid projection is NOT being alarmist conveys where the blinders are. HOw many Americans, conservative or liberal, are going to stand aside while the bill of rights is dismantled in favor of sharia law? How many liberals are going to let themselves be imposed upon my muslims when they refuse the same from christians? Being tolorant of muslim influence on culture is not the same as bending over for forcefed burkas. Sorry, I know it feels good when dougy makes silly comments that fuel a chicken little arguement but, so far, this thread is completely void of anything beyond conjecture. Like Iv'e said, no laws are being changed in order to accomidate muslims that break the law. None.

unless, of course, you have examples that I am not aware of. The fact remains, NORTH AFRICA IS NOT THE UNITED STATES.

When conservatives and liberals are in the minority, they will not have as much voice. A majority determined to despise the freedoms, checks, and balances of the Constitution plus being in charge of the military can quite easily override the Constitution and set it aside.

You can call this alarmist conjecture if you wish, but should it happen, I'm guessing that you would be at the front of the line angrily demanding to know how we could have missed seeing this coming. This would be just before you were silenced as no Islamic majority allows free speech to the degree we enjoy that in the USA, UK, most European nations, and a few other places.

 

[Alucard]

That's actually a mischaracterization of both sides' pov.

Conservatives see *government* as the source of the country's evil, and believe the function of government is defense. Conservatism as espoused by the religious right where government is evil except when it interferes in our private morality is a relatively new (and hopefully short-lived) phenomenon.

Liberals tend to believe that government should be used for good and that it should stay out of our private morality.

What a crock of shit.....pov

 

[William Joyce]

Cultures are not static things. Britain in, say, 1950 had a different culture than it had in 1850, and a very different culture than it had in 1650.

For one thing, the reality of the rule of law had grown enormously. The concept was very definitely present in 1650, but it was weak. Those who are interested in this are urged to read Thomas Babbington Macaulay's History of England, which is actually a history of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. (I know this sounds mind-numbingly dull, but please take my word for it -- it isn't. The book is as gripping as any Tom Clancey novel, and you will get some idea of where our -- American -- deep concepts of liberty come from. You will see, laid out by a skilfull writer, the actual process of struggle among competing groups which led to certain fundamental values becoming deeply established in our Anglo-Saxon culture. And these values are now accepted, in reality in the rest of Europe and perhaps less in reality but on paper, elsewhere.)

So, what is the problem that can arise if Britain becomes a nation of Mohammeds?

One problem is this: Muslim culture seems resistant to the idea of the rule of law. And the rule of law, more so than democracy, is a quintessential ingredient for a civilized society based upon democratic freedoms. I say "resistant" and not "totally hostile to", because the rule of law is such an attractive idea for all except the strongest (who find themselves restrained by it), that it has begun to permeate non-European cultures too. At first, only lip service is paid to it. But this is a first step.

However, Islam itself is not a religion which is very congenial to the idea of secular law being the supreme decider in most political matters. The concept of the rule of (secular) law runs against the grain of Islam as it is actually practiced. (I should stress "as it is actually practiced" -- I don't assume that because the Koran has various blood-curdling passages in it, that this defines the actual essence of Islam. Jews and Christians learned long ago to simply ignore the similar horrible passages in the Bible which conflict with their modern desires, and with Enlightenment values. Few Christians, for example, give a fig for the Biblical injunction against divorce.)

So the fear is, as Muslims grow in numbers and influence in Britain, so also will these backward Islamic values grow. Already, writers in Britain are afraid to satirize Islam, for fear of both murderous Muslim retaliation against them, and the actions of the Politically-Correct Thought Police here. (And this, despite Britain having a rich tradition of anti-religious satire -- remember the brilliant Life of Brian. A similar film making fun of Mohammed is now utterly inconceivable.)

Liberals, who have been at the forefront of defending individual freedoms, certainly more so than conservatives, should, by logic, be the first to be concerned about this. After all, Islamists share a number of socially-conservative positions with Christian fundamentalists. Both might be happy with a strict censorship that prevented satirization of religion.

But to believe that would be to ignore another component of liberalism: its deeply-rooted anti-Western assumptions, which see the West, and its capitalist system, as the source of the world's evils.

Thus liberals try to ignore the growth of Islamic power in Europe, despite its deeply illiberal character, as we have seen in this thread.

Truly, as James Burnham noted half a century ago, liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

A masterful post. I should check out the Macaulay book.

I would say that the reason Anglo-Saxons valued a 'rule of law' and Islamicts don't is partly, if not heavily, rooted in evolutionary adaptation. Culture is but a reflection of race, and race is a function of evolution. Peoples and groups developed cultureways that fit their enviroments over time. There's a good reason why middle easterners place such a high value on hospitality -- you'd die in the desert without that. The psychology professor Kevin MacDonald created a chart on the differences between Anglo-Saxon or northern European cultureways and middle eastern ones. The former favor two-parent nuclear families with high rates of investment in children, while the latter favor extended families. This has political consequences.

But even if one were to reject all the foregoing, there's another reason to reject multiculturalism: there's no goddamn NEED for it. The desert is fucking huge. Why must every Mohammad move to that little green island? To suck it dry of the resources they never could make themselves to begin with.

Likewise with the Hispanic takeover of America. I promise you that an America of 100 million Jose's and Rosa's won't be a first world nation anymore. It'll look like the shithole that is Mexico. It's already starting to.

 

[midcan5]

A masterful post. I should check out the Macaulay book.

"The concept of the rule of (secular) law runs against the grain of Islam as it is actually practiced. (I should stress "as it is actually practiced" -- I don't assume that because the Koran has various blood-curdling passages in it, that this defines the actual essence of Islam. Jews and Christians learned long ago to simply ignore the similar horrible passages in the Bible which conflict with their modern desires, and with Enlightenment values. Few Christians, for example, give a fig for the Biblical injunction against divorce.)" Doug

Curious how myopic we become when our prejudices cloud our reason. In the quote above you can substitute Catholic for Islam easily. William would have made the same arguments against Catholicism (or some other out group) at one time and may still. Took a while for a Catholic to become president, today, similar narrow minded people argue against a Mormon. Culture is not religion unless the infrastructure of the society is religion. Just like America survived Catholics, Britain will survive Islam. People change when they are educated. Cultures are more than one aspect. Check this out if you want a sane point of view.

http://www.poptech.org/popcasts/popcasts.aspx?lang=&viewcastid=131

 

[Doug]

Some wishes:

(1) that some more able liberals would contribute to this debate. I would like to hear Jillian's views, for example, at more length. I think that the Left is not well represented at present in this thread, at least. I know that thoughtful readers will see through the demagogic imputation of beliefs to us that neither Foxfyre nor I hold.

(2) that William Joyce were a typical racist and anti-Semite, whose misguided views could be put down to ignorance, instead of the intelligent man that he is. What a shame!

(3) that Foxfyre will contribute more. Very impressive.

Some questions for the no-problem-that-I-can-see folks:

(1) Do you recall the very funny film, Life of Brian, which satirized Jesus Christ? It upset a lot of Christians -- I recall seeing a debate between two leading Christians in Britain, and one of the film's makers, who made them look like fools. Were someone to propose making a similar film here about Mohammed, what do you think would happen? Do you think there is any chance at all that it would get made? If not, why not?

(2) Is there anything in Islam as it is practiced by the majority of Muslims today that is in tension with the idea of secular democracy? I am not talking about the Islam of Osama Bin Laden, but mainstream Islam -- say as practiced in Pakistan, or the Sudan, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia?

(3)Is it your belief that democratic freedoms, once established, cannot, under social and economic stresses, be overturned by an aggressive and determined minority?

And an answer: the city I was in (I am back in the UK now) was Moscow. Contrary to what I stated, Moscow does not yet have a Muslim majority, although it has the largest number of Muslims of any European city. Muslims at present account for 10 to 20% (most commentators I have read think the latter figure is closer to reality), up from just 1 percent twenty years ago. It will be a few more years before Moscow has a Muslim majority, but, unless some sort of violent nationalist reaction occurs, this change is inevitable.

Needless to say, both a violent nationalist reaction, which would probably bring a really scary, neo-fascist regime to power in Russia after a huge blood purge, on the one hand, and the Islamisation of Russia, on the other, are deeply worrying prospects.

Those who are interested in the creeping Islamisation of Russia will be interested in this article:

========================================================

THE COMING MUSLIM MAJORITY: On February 28, Russia expert PAUL GOBLE, vice dean of social sciences and humanities at Concordia-Audentes University in Tallinn, Estonia, gave a briefing at RFE/RL's Washington office. Goble said ethographers predict Russia will have a Muslim majority "within our lifetime." Since 1989, Russia's Muslim population has increased by 40 percent, Goble said, rising to some 25 million self-declared Muslims. He said 2.5 million to 3.5 million Muslims now live in Moscow, gving Moscow the largest Muslim population of any city in Europe. Russia today has more than 8,000 mosques, up from just 300 in 1991. By 2010, experts predict, some 40 percent of Russian military conscripts will be Muslims.
Goble noted that these changes have been accompanied by a "rising tide" of anti-Muslim prejudice. Public-opinion surveys reveal that up to "70 percent of ethnic Russians" express sympathy with xenophobic slogans. Goble warned that heavy-handed state efforts to "contain Islam" could backfire and cause groups to move underground, "radicalizing people who are not yet radicalized."

==========================================
Source: Radio Free Europe website.

So we have a potential problem. The people who believe we are being rightly punished for the sins of the Conquistadores can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

Those who think that because Western Christendom so quickly slid into the culture of narcissistic self-indulgence and sexual permissiveness, that all other cultures must also, have a slightly stronger case to answer, but only a slightly stronger one.

The fact is that no one knows much about how cultures change, and how the interplay of a dozen other factors is going to influence the social and political evolution of Europe's growing Muslim population. No one can predict the future.

I promised some answers to the statistical questions asked above, which I see that no one from the Left has dared to approach. That must wait until tomorrow. In the meantime, here is what I consider to be the most important single statistic, or pair of statistics, in the 20th Century:

Germany, contrary to certain popular prejudices, had a rich democratic tradition. Had the 1848 Revolutions been successful, a newly-united Germany would probably have evolved naturally into some sort of democracy, possibly a constitutional monarchy, like the other Nordic countries. But these Revolutions were defeated, and Germany instead followed a path to unification (around Prussia, instead of including Austria) which was less favorable to democracy. And yet, even along the reactionary Prussian-led path, democracy grew in Germany.

But ... in 1928, the German National Socialist Workers Party received a trivial 2.8% of the vote. Four years later, they were, with nearly 40%, the largest single political party in the country. And that was enough to bring them to power.

So far, in this discussion, none of us from the "alarmist" camp have offered a positive proposal to deal with the threat of Islamisation in Europe. We have just tried to establish that serious democrats should not avert their eyes from it. In future posts it is incumbent upon us to try to outline how the problem should be dealt with.

 

[Annie]

Curious how myopic we become when our prejudices cloud our reason. In the quote above you can substitute Catholic for Islam easily. William would have made the same arguments against Catholicism (or some other out group) at one time and may still. Took a while for a Catholic to become president, today, similar narrow minded people argue against a Mormon. Culture is not religion unless the infrastructure of the society is religion. Just like America survived Catholics, Britain will survive Islam. People change when they are educated. Cultures are more than one aspect. Check this out if you want a sane point of view.

http://www.poptech.org/popcasts/popcasts.aspx?lang=&viewcastid=131

Just an idea. Could it be remotely possible that the Morman, the woman, and the black are discounted for reasons beyond or regardless of their being a Mormon, woman, or black?

 

[William Joyce]

misguided views

Well, fill me in on where they're wrong. I know you're better than just screaming "racist" and huffing off. In my last post in this thread I discussed racial-evolutionary reasons for why multiculturalism/multiracialism is doomed to fail. Is that what you're talking about?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, fill me in on where they're wrong. I know you're better than just screaming "racist" and huffing off. In my last post in this thread I discussed racial-evolutionary reasons for why multiculturalism/multiracialism is doomed to fail. Is that what you're talking about?

I think some do not want to see Islam as any different from Catholics or Mormons or any other group. The point is, that the Mormons did create at least an expectation of a theocracy of Mormonism when they set up camp in Utah. They of course do not enforce that as a matter of law now and have modified their politics and tactics to be much more accommodating neighbors to other groups. And they accomplished this within a relatively short period, mostly because they were a minority and were required to do so in order to live in the United States.

The history of Roman Catholicism should make it crystal clear that if a religious group wants to institute that particular religion in an area and has sufficient military might to accomplish that, that is exactly what happens. The long history of the Crusades and the Inquisition provide exquisite testimony of the results of an acquired majority of a militant religion. That history spans many generations in Western Europe and western north Africa. Did those civilizations survive all that? Yes they did. But it took the cultural revolution of the Renaissance that changed the minds of many of the Catholic leaders in order for the Reformation to throw off the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church.

Modern day Catholics now are pretty good neighbors to everybody and cannot be judged by their less-attractive history, but we can and should learn the lessons to be learned from that history.

Now we are faced with a growing militant extremist Islam that is on record as being committed to bringing the world to its knees in worship of Allah. As their numbers grow in any area, they gradually begin exercising more political clout. Wherever a Muslim majority is achieved, they gradually begin bringing the people, however enlightened and peace loving, under more and more strict Sharia law which, by its very nature, requires restrictions of religious freedoms and civil rights.

Yes England will survive a Muslim majority. But I am pretty sure it would no longer be the England we have all known and loved.

 

[William Joyce]

I don't disagree with most of what you say. I just tend to think of religion as being a quasi-proxy for race and ethnicity. Yes, there are overlaps, i.e., white kids who run out to become Johnny Jihad, but they are true aberrations.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't disagree with most of what you say. I just tend to think of religion as being a quasi-proxy for race and ethnicity. Yes, there are overlaps, i.e., white kids who run out to become Johnny Jihad, but they are true aberrations.

I don't think you can necessarily equate religion with race and ethnicity as a general rule, however. All the world's great religions include multiple races and ethnic groups and most have abandoned their forcibly aggressive ways. Militant Islam also spans many nations and many races and ethnic groups, but unfortunately has not abandoned forcibly aggressive ways.

 

[midcan5]

Some wishes:

Some questions for the no-problem-that-I-can-see folks:

Doug,

'wishes'

1 - You mean you'd like someone in your corner. Sorry, those of us who study these issues and have some experience in life are never going to agree with your narrow minded ideological view. You can be assured people are very similar and their religion is only one piece of their makeup.

2 - How do you know that? There are racists with PhD, was Hitler a dummy? Just as you stereotype Muslims, you stereotype racists and assume they are different from you or from other people.

3 - The proof is in the pudding.

'questions'

(1) When you are in power you can countenance criticism, you may not like it but it is a fact that strength gives us more tolerance of difference. When weak and cornered you react differently, that can and will change as it has changed in our image of Blacks in America. Today you actually see ads where they are made fun of, when we grew up you didn't even see them on TV.

(2) Of course, there will always be issues that religion and secular society disagree on, consider gay marriage for instance. But these change too, remember Blue laws.

(3) They can, the wide separation in America between the haves and have nots is a concern. Consider the effect of another worldwide depression. Not many years ago people were ready to kill each other over gas, so yes, democracy can be fragile but when everyone considers themselves heard and recognized and a part of society that concern lessens. Alienation is a powerful tool for terror.

Your last point: If people feel they are excluded from power, that their ideas don't matter, then we have the groundwork for riot. Again a little history should suffice, the race riots of the sixties - remember those.

 

[midcan5]

Just an idea. Could it be remotely possible that the Morman, the woman, and the black are discounted for reasons beyond or regardless of their being a Mormon, woman, or black?

Sure, but then we would need to name them and not use a word that includes the good the bad and the ugly.

 

[Shogun]

When conservatives and liberals are in the minority, they will not have as much voice. A majority determined to despise the freedoms, checks, and balances of the Constitution plus being in charge of the military can quite easily override the Constitution and set it aside.

uh, and in this tinfoil projection of your doomsday scenario does the CONSTITUTION get repealed? Liberals and Conservatives are NOT the source of our common liberty. This is why you and doug run like a feather in the wind when being asked for SPECIFIC Examples instead of paranoid alarmism. I hate to break it to you but LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES didn't give us our Constitution.

But, I'll ask again since I don't see that you answered my question to you nor Doug his:

WHAT, EXACTLY, is one example of a right and/or liberty that people of WESTERN DEMOCRACIES have lost with an influx of muslims? Please, tell me how, in accordance with Doug's stupid post, LIBERALS sat by and legalized the slaying of theo Van Gogh. Please, shoot me down here. Give me ONE example of your liberty being muted because the next fashion in baby names is *GASP*& mohammed instead of david.

For real, this thread has gone 7 pages and I have yet to see a single example of this chicken little bullshit.



You can call this alarmist conjecture if you wish, but should it happen, I'm guessing that you would be at the front of the line angrily demanding to know how we could have missed seeing this coming. This would be just before you were silenced as no Islamic majority allows free speech to the degree we enjoy that in the USA, UK, most European nations, and a few other places.


No, Ill be at the front of the line demanding the preservation of our liberties regardless of what ethnic population sits at the helm.. Shit, you seem to think it takes white people to make democracy function. Your position is no better than that which was also scared to fucking death at the idea of woman and minority voters, catholic presidents and desegregation. Every one a beacon for similar ignorant projection into some doomsday scenario based more on a fear of losing social prerogative than faith in our salespitch democracy.

Don't give me worthless projection from the ravings of a scared, paranoid mind. Give me EVIDENCE and EXAMPLES or begone.

 

[Shogun]

Some wishes:
(1) that some more able liberals would contribute to this debate. I would like to hear Jillian's views, for example, at more length. I think that the Left is not well represented at present in this thread, at least. I know that thoughtful readers will see through the demagogic imputation of beliefs to us that neither Foxfyre nor I hold.

Maybe if you untucked your tail from between your legs where it quivers, scared, next to the neutered emptiness between your legs...

Say, I notice you didn't respond to my tossed gauntlet, dude... Why on EARTH would that be? Find it hard to find support for your stupid claims? Gosh, whoda thunk it? Indeed, I hope someone else comes in here stops manhandling your position too. You know, maybe somone a little less interested in evidence when rhetorical bullshit will suffice.





(3) that Foxfyre will contribute more. Very impressive.
Some questions for the no-problem-that-I-can-see folks:
(1) Do you recall the very funny film, Life of Brian, which satirized Jesus Christ? It upset a lot of Christians -- I recall seeing a debate between two leading Christians in Britain, and one of the film's makers, who made them look like fools. Were someone to propose making a similar film here about Mohammed, what do you think would happen? Do you think there is any chance at all that it would get made? If not, why not?

In a WESTERN NATION? Yes. That is, of course, unless the UN sweeps in and forces all of us white westerners to sit, Clockwork Orange style, through a re-education program illustrating why western nations suspend national laws for the sake of sharia law all of a sudden.




(2) Is there anything in Islam as it is practiced by the majority of Muslims today that is in tension with the idea of secular democracy? I am not talking about the Islam of Osama Bin Laden, but mainstream Islam -- say as practiced in Pakistan, or the Sudan, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia?

Do you even realize how much Islam and CHRISTIANITY have in common? do you even realize how stupid such a question is when today, as a matter of absolute fact, are numerous examples of CHRISTIANIY having tension with the idea of secular democracy? For real, are you fucking brain dead? Would you like a list of current issues that CHRISTIANS have with a SECULAR DEMOCRACY? Hey, you can always run away like a crying child from my retrot, dude... but you can't stop looking like a fool with each new ignorant post.


(3)Is it your belief that democratic freedoms, once established, cannot, under social and economic stresses, be overturned by an aggressive and determined minority?

It is my belief that the Constitution does not require any specific ethnicity or culture to survive and serve whoever makes up the demographics at any given point in time. Again, Do you wear pantaloons? Do you, in any way, reflect the same people who stood in your same place 150 years go? No? Funny how that works, eh? I heard the same shit from your kind when scared whitey thought blacks would rally and sweep in post-desegregation. The same thing when the idea of a Catholic president was taboo. The same thing when letting women vote. Are you a fan of WESTERN DEMOCRACY or YOUR DOMINANCE OF WESTERN DEMOCRACY?



And an answer: the city I was in (I am back in the UK now) was Moscow. Contrary to what I stated, Moscow does not yet have a Muslim majority, although it has the largest number of Muslims of any European city. Muslims at present account for 10 to 20% (most commentators I have read think the latter figure is closer to reality), up from just 1 percent twenty years ago. It will be a few more years before Moscow has a Muslim majority, but, unless some sort of violent nationalist reaction occurs, this change is inevitable.

Contrary to what you stated. You dont say.

Indeed, It's completely fathomable that MOSCOW will become the new Tehran. Hell, Don't you know that everyone always suspends all law as soon as muslims become the majority? You know those muslims.. always looking to take over just like every one of your example... er, wait a minute.. EVEN YOUR EXAMPLE WAS PROJECTED BULLSHIT...

clearly you need to sit at a lower stakes table. Maybe you'dbe better suited at our 5 dollar max bet table?


So we have a potential problem. The people who believe we are being rightly punished for the sins of the Conquistadores can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

No, sir.. YOU have the problem. The same problem Archie Bunker had with George Jefferson about black moving into his white neighborhood. Don't blame muslims for Movin' on Up just because you want to preserve your chokehold on a majority.



Those who think that because Western Christendom so quickly slid into the culture of narcissistic self-indulgence and sexual permissiveness, that all other cultures must also, have a slightly stronger case to answer, but only a slightly stronger one.


So, is there a point when you are going to stop acting like a wannabe professor and actually do what proffs do and SUPPORT THEIR ranting? Or, is it easier to avoid the discussion when having your position pushed in the mud?


The fact is that no one knows much about how cultures change, and how the interplay of a dozen other factors is going to influence the social and political evolution of Europe's growing Muslim population. No one can predict the future.


Yea, especially those who totally ignore the historic pattern of every other ethnic group moving into the US as long as doing so bursts their xenophobic bubble. But, hey, don't let that keep you from pouring on the rhetorical bullshit. Indeed, you sure as hell weren't so sure about not being able to predict the future EARLIER in this thread. I guess this is what happens when you have absolutely no support for your stupid opinion.


I promised some answers to the statistical questions asked above, which I see that no one from the Left has dared to approach. That must wait until tomorrow. In the meantime, here is what I consider to be the most important single statistic, or pair of statistics, in the 20th Century:

HA! ironic that YOU, of all people, accuse anyone of avoiding a proposition.



Germany, contrary to certain popular prejudices, had a rich democratic tradition. Had the 1848 Revolutions been successful, a newly-united Germany would probably have evolved naturally into some sort of democracy, possibly a constitutional monarchy, like the other Nordic countries. But these Revolutions were defeated, and Germany instead followed a path to unification (around Prussia, instead of including Austria) which was less favorable to democracy. And yet, even along the reactionary Prussian-led path, democracy grew in Germany.
But ... in 1928, the German National Socialist Workers Party received a trivial 2.8% of the vote. Four years later, they were, with nearly 40%, the largest single political party in the country. And that was enough to bring them to power.
So far, in this discussion, none of us from the "alarmist" camp have offered a positive proposal to deal with the threat of Islamisation in Europe. We have just tried to establish that serious democrats should not avert their eyes from it. In future posts it is incumbent upon us to try to outline how the problem should be dealt with.



HAHAHA!

so mulims are NAZIS now! Holy SHIT that's fucking awesome! Way to finally get around to Godwin's law. Indeed, why don't you go back over the rise of Nazi'ism and take a look at the pattern of demonization for the sake of a preserved uniform culture and come back and remind me which side your argument falls on. Hell, you even managed to recite something that reaks of Nordicism and the belief of superiority of nordic countries. Good job! Yes, let's make them know that they are not wanted here. Hell, if they refuse to leave we can always create some camps to put them in until they become refugees and no one wants them. Then, if you are REALLY paying attention, we can get Payer to develop a final solution because, lets face it, NO ONE likes it when an ethnic minority comes into a homegenous nation and starts *gasp* influencing the culture to the point of erasing the previously held ethnic dominance! I mean, we INVENTED democracy and that makes us its MASTERS, right?


Face it doug, I'm like a rampaging chupacabra sucking out the blood of your stupid argument. Maybe it's time for you to figure out why you'd rather avoid me than chokeslam my rebuttal with your own powerful, thor's hammer-like rebuttal.

 

[Doug]

Shogon: Life is short, time is valuable, and my abilities in debate are modest. My main interest on this Board is to exchange information with other conservatives, and also, perhaps, to influence them a bit on certain questions where we disagree among ourselves; as a secondary interest, I enjoy debating with certain thoughtful non-conservatives -- in theory I hope to push them rightwards a little, but in practice I have to admit to engaging with them just for the pleasure of the mental exercise, like playing tennis against a good player.

Now, in theory, I know I should always do someone who attacks my views the courtesy of paying attention to them and replying. But I am afraid I will often fall short here, if I think that there is little of substance in their attack, or if I think that they lack seriousness about the views the purport to hold. But you may parse this as, "if I think that their attack is so devastatingly brilliant that I am unable to answer it, and must retreat before it in stunned silence".

I also note that we seem to be at the opposite ends of the ages of man, and what interests and impresses the slow-moving elderly, probably bores restless adolescents. So we would have a communication problem in any case. I do not mean to discourage you from engaging in political debate, though: our country needs its young people to be involved in politics.