Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Jul 16, 2016.
Nope, I just find it interesting. You don't?
Douglas Murray's new book is genius.
Judaism is not a missionary religion; it does not seek converts. Thus Jewish is used interchangeably to refer to someone who is of Jewish ancestry or Jewish faith because people of Jewish faith are rarely not of Jewish ancestry. The term agnostic Jew is used to refer to Jews that don't practice Judaism. Treating Muslims as a race is like treating Christians as a race. Then you have the retarded argument that certain people treat Muslims as race, none of them being Muslims. First of all, that is just assuming the worst of the general population. Second, that doesn't change the definition of the word. I don't plan to have racists redefine a word or a hand gesture. Third, here are some entries in the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage.
But you are just going call me Nazi.
Do you want to argue what Jews are or what the Nazis actually saw in them? It doesn't matter how many definitions you throw around, nationalism and antisemitism of the early 19th century used almost the exact same arguments against jews and judaism that you see today against Islam. That's a historical fact. Stuff like "They will outbreed us" and "they are people following a violent religion which doesn't belong to Europe".
If you're trying to explain to me that religion is not a race, then you're preaching to the chor, because I know that and I agree with that. Doesn't stop people from throwing all 'muslims' in the same basket, not making a difference between the different schools inside of Islam while they demand that people keep the 'diversity' of christianity in mind.
The point is, that you can declare any religion or any group as a problem if you're looking deep enough, regardless how well assimilated or adabted those people are in a society, and this goes for any group or minority. I hate Islam, as Idea but I don't hate muslims.
I detest religions in general, be it Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam. They all work on the principle of superstition, that you throw out reason and logic, while accepting anything 'supernatural'. Are some ideas worse than others? Absolutely. But the basic principle is the same.
Uneducated moslem full of false sense of self-importance claiming very funny shit as „Jesus war ein Moslem!” in Munich. This has nothing to do with any ideology, this is great example of stupidity, ignorance, and complete obliviousness of his own history on very personal level.
Reminds me of those who claim Moses was christian. This kind of stuff always confuses me, how in the name of fuck can people believe in something yet know so very little?
Know less, believe more
Believe less, know more
Because the whole purpose of religion is to foster obedience without proof, AKA, FAITH. The reason why the two main religions have been so successful has a direct correlation with how it was spread. Islam and Christianity for example, used whatever force was necessary.
Religion also is vague on purpose, as in there is often no single established meaning.
Lastly, it adds into the US vs THEM mentality. One does not necessarily need to know the ins and outs of said religion. One merely needs to follow basics and dogma and voila, one instantly belongs.
I will never understand why religion was able to co opt the golden rule, or, how it manages to still stay so relevant in many parts of the world. For fucks sakes, treat others as you would have done unto you is basic common fucking sense.
I guess people love stability and rituals, and religion can do just that. I mean taky any of the big ones, like Islam and Christianity and it is full of stuff that you can or can't do, songs to sing and this event and it is an endless string of ceremonies ... I mean people really crave such stuff, when ever you replace religion with some other ideology, be it fascism or communism or what ever, they do the same, it's just called a military parade or a congress or what ever.
I love how this guys starts a discussion:
"How are you guys doing today?" "Pretty good. I'm an atheist"
I had a discussion with an old school mate over facebook, who kinda found his way to god or something and he's always posting prayers and shit. We got in a discussion, all pretty civil, but it kinda ended with "I believe that it is right, because the book says it. How I know the book is right? Because I am a believer!". I simply don't understand it, because I lack the spirit to do it. Well, I take that as compliment actually.
Well, religion has always been used as a shield to justify a persons own righteousness. Now, I am a selfish, pro-US hegemony motherfucker, but at least I am honest about it. Thing is, people often do not want to admit they are selfish, so they cloak their own ambitions or those of the state under the trappings of religion and god.
I mean, its not that I want to make money hand over fist. I do not want to lead, I do not want to be influential or effect heads of state. GOD wants me to have money. God wants me to lead. GOD doesn't mind that I am influential or effect heads of state.
God wants me to push HIS religion, a religion that coincidentally, demands that it be spread, otherwise non-believers will go to hell. In order to sell this religion better, besides the hell issue, I am going to steal a common sense idea and take it as my own.
Teach somebody a skill so they can make a living? Turn it into a Jesus fish parable. Don't be a murdering, raping asshole. Let us give God or Jesus credit for a golden rule. Do not fuck too much, eat too much, be too greedy, be too lazy, be too hateful, be too envious or prideful. this should be common sense but we will call it the seven deadly sins.
You are already working on the assumption that the people today are just as bad as Nazis which means you could attach any ridiculous pseudo-science to them.
Antisemitism in Europe isn't a result of terrorist attacks committed by Jews. It is a result of pre-existing hatred of the Jews for the execution of Christ and how people perceived Jews hording the wealth of their countries. Unlike the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism isn't above asking for interest. The violence is part of Nazi propaganda that Zionist do ritualistic human sacrifice and dip baby blood into their bread. No such fabrication is needed to convince people that Muslims are violent.
Muslims have a bigger population than Jews. It isn't comparable. That is because Judaism doesn't seek coverts and they don't impose their laws to non-Jews. Look at the number Muslim majority countries vs the number of Jewish majority countries.
The Jews are a race for the reasons that I gave. Muslims don't consider themselves as a race.
Being of a certain religion isn't the same as being of a certain race. You can change your religion. You can change religion. When two people of different religions reproduce, they don't have a offspring of half of both religions. You can have no religion. You can't change your race. Ideas are not inherently tied to race. You can't be a Muslim while not believing that Mohammad is God's prophet.
That is like saying all crime has equal severity.
You're really good at missunderstanding my points.
That excuse stops working after while.
You agreed that Muslim isn't a race.
You used Jews as a example of people conflating religion with race.
You ignore the reasons why Jews are considered a race while Muslims are not.
You try compare people's perception of Muslims to the Nazi's perception of Jews.
If it makes you feel better, I don't believe in religious test. However, you can make the distinction between religious Islam and political Islam to draw a line in the sand. A country run by Jesus won't last very long even with his economy destroying magic.
BTW: In relation to the "Jesus was a Muslim" thing, the Nazis also tried to retcon Jesus into an Aryan instead of a Jew.
I am just tired of always repeating my self, while no new arguments are brought up. Either it's a language thing ... or I dont know you're obtuse on purpose? What do you expect from me? To explain my position for the fourth time now? I will try it for the last time in the hope that it becomes more clear what my intention is, after that I won't bother anymore.
You're missing the points I wanted to make here, while you're obsessed with some kind of "1. bla bla, 2. bla bla 3 ..." as like those definitions matter to what I am trying to say here. You for example ignored the fact how I said that jews have been perfectly integrated in to Germany and german culture, jews fought in WW1, and many jews had no conection with judaism at all, outside of the fact that it was their 'religion'.When you're talking about 'political' Isla, then we're talking about criticism and the idea and concepts that are inside the Islamic religion, which is a whole different topic for it self. But I am talking about the prejudice that muslims experience on a daily basis in the US and Europe.
What matters, is how a population feels about something, in that sense people can and will distort everything to fitt a certain narrative. We see this alle the time. In the Sovietunion it happend with Lysenkoism (rejecting of gnetics in their science as western propaganda), and the nationalism of the late 19th century had a very strong antisemitic underdone which was based on the idea of race, despite the fact that the jews have been one of the best assimilated group inside of western Europe, in France and Germany they have been French and German, for centuries but that didn't stop people to sperate them due to their religion based on some pseudo-science.
To 'hate' on Islam as idea and to reject it, is absolutely fine but it happens that many people hate 'muslims' in general, as an people simply because they are muslims.
One example that shows how this kind of 'racism' thing is true for SOME(!) people, is when you see what some Sikh experience on a dily basis in the US for example, simply because some associate turbans with muslims, even though Sikh have absolutely no conection with Islam at all.
Well, Hitler himself admitted that he took inspiration from the U.S. Bosque Redondo reservation for his concentration camps. Yet, America was not full of "bad" people because of how its citizen dealt with the natives.
Humans are never just "bad". But long-term "bad" situations turn normal people into monsters, and bad situations can still happen, even if I'm naïve enough to believe that we wised up a little bit since the war. Ask everyone's lovely, sweet aunt (we all have that aunt who wouldn't hurt a puppy) how they'd deal with someone who'd dare rape their daughters. You'd witness some of the most fucked up torture scenarios possible, and bear with me, our kind hearted aunts would actually do it, given the proper "push".
Give a whole country two decades of international instability, isolation, constant propaganda, fatherly figures preaching fucked up conspiracy theories and an abstract feeling of humiliation due to powers outside of the immediate perception (blame them on the population that is the least capable of defending itself in public, easy). Wait for a few years, your country would be filled with "good" people who turned into our lovely aunts in constant berzerk mode.
In the context of nazi Germany, the argument of terrorist attacks was mostly replaced by the communism threat (The Tzars spent a lot of effort trying to discredit jews, blaming them for the social unrest prior to the revolution. That propaganda simply traveled west, and the fact that a few jewish people did take part in the revolution served as an excuse for justifying that conspiracy theory). In essence, communism and terrorism were treated just the same : the risk of an armed group, trying to weaken a government in order to impose a foreign, alien ideology. So while jewish people never comitted terrorist attacks in Europe whatsoever, the Tzar antisemitic propaganda tied them to the communist threat in the general opinion, and that was pretty much the same for the regular Joe.
And let's be honest, Western countries didn't wait for ISIS to have tensions with muslims. Terrorist attacks are irrelevant anyway. In France, we had terrorist attacks from nationalists in Corse for DECADES, launching rockets into police stations, blowing up businesses, kidnapping business men etc. Before that, we had royalist terrorists shooting at cops and plotting to overthrow the government. We almost had a military coup by the foreign legion generals in the 60's... UK had the IRA. Italia had the red brigades. They were serious threats, much more capable in inflicting mass casualties than ISIS, and we didn't care much about them. Racial tensions may use terrorism as an excuse or a fuel for propaganda, but let's be honest, they would exist even if there was no terrorism at all.
Jewish population in Poland before the holocaust was about 9.5%. That's exactly the same proportion of muslim people in France today, for example. That's about twice the current proportion of muslims in Germany today. Having a large part of the population from a specific group doesn't automatically protects them from harm, is what I'm saying.
But then, yes, Jewish people were systematically harmed in all of the countries they were in at some point, which is not the case for muslims. That's the main big difference, but in terms of pure numbers in Western countries, the situation is not -that- different from pre-war Germany.
Not today, but that it wasn't always an absolute rule. Judaism had a VERY long period of proselytizing too. They still faced existential threats, wether they were seeking converts or not. I don't think that this was ever connected to racial tensions whatsoever, to be honest. Immigration is far more relevant in terms of numbers and psychological effects that the anecdotical, ridiculously low muslim conversion rate in western countries. Even populist, far right parties don't really use that as an argument as far as I know.
Now, I don't think that muslim people are currently facing the same dangers the jewish people faced in nazi Germany. They may face some similar racism (to a certain degree) in some places, but not the same existential threat. First big difference, there are big muslim countries in the Arab world, in north Africa and in South Asia. Jewish people did not have big hebrew nations capable of taking action for their defense or for sheltering them, and that's a huge difference.
Yet, the comparison with the context of pre-war Germany actually stands, in terms of arguments used by far-right parties and demographic numbers in western nations.
I'm glad someone gets it, so it's not a language thing.
Can I hate USA as an 'idea'? Or to take to a more conceptual level, can I hate the 'manifest destiny' that US is founded upon? Or the US constitution? Or colonialism?
That wasn't my point. I'm sure that even in the Nazi party there were some good people. That is why there is a trial. Assuming the worst of people would only give you one perspective.
This happened in Auschwitz. Let's get the armchair psychologists here to discuss human nature.
I meant as a whole. It was inline with the whole Muslim isn't a race thing.
I'm sure 9/11 didn't sway people.
Absolute rule? No, I said that they don't seek converts. They do convert some people and it has happen in the Old Testament.
And you ignore how I said that people consider Jews as a race specifically other Jews. Also, Jews that had no connection with Judaism outside it being part of their religion in scare quotes? What the hell does that suppose to mean? How do I put it? Jews refer to a race and a group of people in a religion in a similar way to how orange refers to a fruit and a color. Muslims are not that.
And I'm saying that you shouldn't pretend to know how millions of people feel and think. The Media was so sure that Hillary Clinton would win; and now, everyone is going full armchair psychologists on an entire country. Assuming most people treat Muslims as a race is like assuming that any animosity between a Black person and a White person is racially motivated.
People use the word Islamophobia which switches between Muslims and Islam. It wasn't called Muslimophobia and you have people like this
Let me ask you. What is there to gain from treating Muslim as a race?
At least @mithrap read my posts.
I think we've all talked up a storm about what we really think should happen to deplorable people - more so when it's personal. You could put the perpetrator before the vindictive party and they'd probably start having second thoughts about killing the person.
The reason why Nazi's are so vilified is because the people doing these acts were ordinary people like us before the outbreak of the war. People are scared of the fact that an ordinary schoolteacher can become a murderer over a period of time - but that's nothing new if people payed attention during Lord of the Flies.
You should read Browning's Ordinary Men: https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068
If you don't seperate Muslims from Islam, then I would make the argument that it is working on the similar principle like 'racism', in other words simplifying people to one and only one characteristic. And that it isn't very far away from the nationalist argumentation against jews in the early 20th century.
Even some of the comparisions a few make today, are almost exactly the same as back then. You remember? No refugees, because you would not eat from a jar of skittles if one was poisoned? This same argument was made with jews by the Nazis in the 1940s ('the poisonous mushroom' by Julius Streicher) and similar analogies can be found trough the whole history of nationalism in Europe, long before the Nazis got in to power.
You can't denny that things like those happen:
And they are still confused by many as ... muslims. Who would have thought ... So yes, go and pretend like this 'racism' thing isn't 'possible' because it's about religion, as it seems that at least a substantial number of people doesn't give a flying fuck about that, and thinks everyone with a Turban is a muslim, and is frightened of them. Of course Religion isn't a race! But the population is used to think in terms that are very similar to it.
See, the whole idea of racism is actually build on pseudo science anyway - look at the Nazis as the best example. So the idea that you use religion here as the basis, isn't that far fetched. The Nazis had to do quite some mental gymnatics to go for ALL of the Jews here (see movie above, the Eternal Jew), if you consider how long Jews have been present in Europe - at the very least since medieval times. So you had people, which have been for all intents and purpose, Germans, living German lives and celebrating German culture, finding them self in a concentration camp in the late 1930s.
This really isn't a rare nor any exceptional thing. It is build on the idea of "us" vs. "them", it always boils down to that, a sense of tribalism or protectionism, which can get pretty ugly if you don't keep an eye on it. We are actually hard wired to think like that.
I don't want to tell you how millions of people think right now, I am just saying that there is some historical presedence (acutally a lot of it) to the situation we experience right now, where a lot of stuff is thrown around, mixed together, facts with bigotry and fear used to manipulate certain opinions. That doesn't mean that everyone is a racist, in fact only very few people, maybe only 5% of the population are actually racist. But many people fall for their arguments, because of the broad generalisation that's going on right now - see the so called 'Muslim bann' as the best recent example.
While you seem to fail to understand mine.