[Sonsowey]

^ Long term though, I'm betting on Islam as the winner. How can you not? One clearly has more fight in it than the other.

[rudebwoy]

(11-11-2014 12:32 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

@Sonsowey:

I do believe that it is a mistake for the Europeans to abolish the death penalty and throw away 2000 years of legal precedent that permitted it. Properly applied, it has its place.

Of course I don't believe people should be "executed" for their political beliefs. If you read my earlier posts, all I said was that terrorists and criminals needed to be hit hard, and the death penalty "implemented where needed." I never said anything about political parties, so don't try to play these SJW games with me.

But I do think that Europe is sinking into a morass of sickness and that certain ideologies, people, and parties are pushing Europe into the abyss. Europeans have a right to defend themselves. And vigorous action should be taken to counteract this threat.

Do you believe Europe has a right to defend itself? Do you? Do you believe this can be done with delicacies and appeals to humanity? Do you think it's OK if the cradle of Western culture is overrun with putrid barbarians?

I'd like to hear your answer, Sonsowey. I don't mind waiting.

Maybe they should be defending themselves from within.
Who are the "European" politicians who are allowing unchecked immigration into these countries.
It's easy to lay blame but people have to look at the root of the problem.
Immigration is supposed to be about keeping certain types out, doesn't seem to be working.

[mikado]

(11-11-2014 01:01 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Mikado, I single out Muslims deliberately and without remorse. Some things that need to be understood:

Not all religions are equal, in theory or in practice. Muslims believe the Quran is literally the word of God, handed to a single person. There's zero room for interpretation, and it's why so many throughout the world take it word-for-word. There's no free thought or debate in Islam, either you believe it and live it, or you don't. Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspired, but not handed directly from God through a single prophet. Enormous difference. Any direct comparison of passages from those books ("Well, in Christianity it says eye for an eye!") is fundamentally flawed, given the role the Bible plays within the religion compared to Islam. Christians haven't beheaded anyone or stoned anyone to death in the name of the religion (key part) for centuries, while Muslims continue the practice in vastly disproportionate numbers compared to any other religion even today.

I mean for fucks sake, the fact that something like ISIS even exists in this century is proof the problem lies with the religion and it's followers. Slavery, rape, murder, complete rejection of science and technology, music, etc. It's stone age shit and no ideology that leads to those things is welcome in the West.

Not all cultures are equal, in theory or in practice. Western culture is a result of the Enlightenment, free thought, free debate, and the tolerance of multiple ideas and perspectives that don't infringe upon others (Islam does). Our values cured diseases, invented the automobile, airplane, computer, internet, lightbulb, nuclear power, satellites, cell phones, you name it. There's no loyalty or obedience to man-made laws or governments within Islam. Eastern Europeans integrate and adopt native values. So do Asians, South Americans, North Americans, Africans (non-Muslim), Indians, the list goes on and on. If you look at any country in Europe with societal friction, it's a result of a very specific group of people and no amount of hamsterization can hide it at this point. The cat's out of the bag.

Mikado, you are a perfect example of why many in Europe dislike Muslims (not you personally, I don't mean this in an insulting way, just look at the greater context). You're here as a Muslim to learn game and improve your chances with women, primarily Western white women. Please go to a club and tell me how many Muslim girls you see. Then compare to the number of Muslim men you see (in my experience, 30-40% of a club in Germany) Try acting like a white Westerner and then hitting on a Muslim girl, or sleeping with one. You'll have 16 brothers and uncles knocking on your door. Muslims are notorious for sleeping around and taking European women, while hiding their own sisters and daughters, keeping them strictly off limits. Taking all the benefits and offering nothing in return is the exact opposite of integration.

You expect us to watch our culture and values erode away to accommodate you, while you maintain your heritage and culture? I don't think so.

I will leave the debate of Islam against Christianity because the thread would derail.
But the last part made me chuckle.
Because this is exactly the opposite of what I have been witnessing.
That difference lies within ONE fact:
It is valid for people of Arab descent.
It is way less the case for Non-Arab

In my old days of debate with Teedub we already pointed out that fact:
those who oppose you are not opposing you because they are Muslims.
They do it because it's in the Middle East culture to do so.
The exact same thing that would happen to you, will happen to me as well.
Because they do not like people of black skin.

On the contrary, I see countless girls of African descent(whatever their religion is) hooking up with white guys without any problem from their family(at least, no physical beating or harassment).

Guess which one is the problem here?

[Helmutnl]

It's an uphill cultural battle in Europe, you've got those PC native people standing by all immigration waves, the good and the bad ones, and they try relentlessly to silence any patriots who want to debate these flows of foreigners no matter what happens, and also they play the racism card every once in while, demonizing every nationalistic voice like Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden or Front National in France..

[Phoenix]

(11-11-2014 01:26 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

There is certainly no shortage of enablers of the West's ongoing destruction, many of whom I would not hesitate to label traitors and saboteurs outright, others who fall more on the spectrum of useful idiots, but all of whom deserve an appointment with the business end of a rope in my opinion for their personal contributions toward Western decline.

Lol, love it, epic diplomatic wording. I'm just imagining a Monty Python skit about this now. 'Excuse me, I have an appointment with The Rope'. 'Careful old chap, that's the business end'.

[Glaucon]

There is nothing to struggle for in the west. We have too comfortable lives. Use it or lose it is the true mechanics of evolution.

It will crash and burn just as Rome did, for the same reason: it's success was the seed of its own demise.

Everything is cyclical, but throughout the ages people thought history is a one way street. When we will learn? Does it happen ever?
The fundamental question to me at this point is: how far will we fall when the west collapse? Will we have another dark age, or just a speed-bump?

[scorpion]

(11-11-2014 01:33 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Religion isn't the guardian of morals.

It just so happens that religions like Christianity, for instance, are old, and old morals were conservative (or more accurately today: right-wing).
Christianity does not, however, explain why these morals are right. It just says 'obey or go to hell'. That isn't thorough enough to stand up to intellectuals and to be part of rational debate. Religious leaders, who are often at the forefront of debates around abortion, marriage, traditional values, moral behavior etc, simply do not have the grounding to defeat the supposedly 'new and fresh' Leftist ideas. The Leftists are using new stuff which they are making up themselves. The Priests only have their old book.

Just because many of the morals of Christians are right (e.g. 'no abortion, marriage between men and women only, gender roles etc'), doesn't mean they are the best group to defend them. They are very poor at explaining why those things are moral, without saying 'god said so'.

The Swedes already have the natural instincts of 'territorialism' and 'self-interest' in them. Its just damped out by the multiculturalist BS they've all been swallowing.
It should be sufficient to simply stoke those instincts and aggressively attack multiculturalism simultaneously.

That's because in the absence of God it is not just difficult but literally impossible to define objective morality. The type of social engineering the left has accomplished over the last few decades would not be possible in a culture that was strongly Christian. When people become untethered from Christian teaching that morality is absolute and defined by God, they suddenly become vulnerable to all sorts of destructive nonsense. People like to point to the widespread atheism of the Scandinavian countries as being some kind of virtue or evidence of their intellectual superiority. But in fact, such widespread atheism has only acted to accelerate their cultural destruction. Even if you do not personally believe in God or identify as a Christian, it's important for men to recognize that Christianity, if nothing else, functions as a strong cultural immune system that prevents destructive and degenerate elements from taking hold in society.

[mikado]

(11-11-2014 01:26 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Quintus is laying out some hard truths in here.

Watered down Islam, which is practiced very loosely by a small number of immigrants and which does not take its own teachings seriously, is not a threat. But that is not real Islam. That's like calling the guy who goes to church on Christmas and sits in the very back pew playing on his iPhone the whole time a Christian.

You have absolutely no right to apply your personal view about the "true Islam" to everyone else.


The problem with Islam is that moderate Muslims are absolutely unwilling to do anything about the fundamentalists in their ranks. The result is that even if the majority of Muslims are not actively supporting the expansion of Sharia law and Muslim dominance in the West, they certainly are not opposing it, and their tacit support acts to enable the boldness of their more radical fellow believers. Quintus is absolutely correct to identify this is an external threat that must be addressed.
Because we do not want to have anything to do with these, and just want to live our own lives without others refering to us by our religion. Further, there are already a lot of divergences, like I said in different groups of Muslims to succesfully carry out a coordinated movement against fundamentalism.

Personally, I support expelling all Muslims from Europe back to Muslim-majority countries in Middle East or Africa. Is that harsh? Most certainly. However, it's not nearly as harsh as what will happen within the next few decades if Islam is allowed to continue growing in Europe. In that case, you will ultimately reach a breaking point that results in widespread massacres and possibly civil war.
So where do you relocate people who were born in the West, grew up there and have adopted the cultural values? To countries they don't know, have never set a foot in, and do not identify with?

[Phoenix]

(11-11-2014 01:41 PM)Glaucon Wrote:  

The fundamental question to me at this point is: how far will we fall when the west collapse? Will we have another dark age, or just a speed-bump?

Nope, the East is fine. If the West falls the world will keep puttering on. The only problem I've seen here is that men don't have the same creative and individually assertive vibe as men in the West. The world would be a lot better off in the long run if the West was still strong instead of collapsing into a big mess.

[scorpion]

(11-11-2014 01:33 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

^ Long term though, I'm betting on Islam as the winner. How can you not? One clearly has more fight in it than the other.

And this is exactly why the problem must be addressed, and addressed in the most bold and vigorous terms. The major reason why Islam currently has more fight is because far too many Westerners are more interested in equivocating and pussyfooting around than they are in recognizing harsh truths, while our enemies have no such problems. The enemies of the West, both Islamic and Marxist, are radicals and true believers, thoroughly convinced of their own righteousness to the extent that they are willing to destroy the greatest and highest achieving culture in the history of the world as a sacrifice to their twisted supremacist ideologies.

The time for conciliation and debate has passed. The future is literally a battle for the survival of the West. You can't negotiate with a man who is shooting a gun at you and shouting over and over, "I'm going to kill you!" At that point you must fight or die.

[Wreckingball]

(11-11-2014 10:20 AM)mikado Wrote:  

Lay off the Muslim hate for another religion thread. We are discussing immigration primarily, not Islam.

I don't think you can separate them when talking about Sweden.

[Quintus Curtius]

Yes, it is with a heavy heart that I have to admit that the fecundity of the simple can often overwhelm the gentility of civilization. Europe may indeed find itself deluged with a tidal wave of foreign elements which have no respect for the culture and traditions of the states they seek to inhabit, in the same way that the Germanic barbarians had little respect for the Greco-Roman culture they helped destroy.

But is not necessarily inevitable. Europe may yet rally. Remember that Hadrian's Wall in England did keep out Picts and Scots for a time, and the Great Wall of China did keep out barbarian tribes for a long time. It can be done. All that is required is the will to do it.

Europe has been enfeebled by degenerate leftist, multicultural ideologies that have left it naked before the tides of Middle Easterners, Africans, Eastern Europeans, and Asians. Anyone who denies this is simply delusional.

And yes, religion is very, very important. I'm not talking about theology. I'm talking about educating and disciplining the young, providing a codified moral scheme, and teaching people that there is more to life than just your iPhone.

By dismantling all of these bulwarks, the Europeans have exposed themselves to conquest. And that is the only word for it, if present trends continue.

[Sonsowey]

(11-11-2014 01:01 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Muslims are notorious for sleeping around and taking European women, while hiding their own sisters and daughters, keeping them strictly off limits. Taking all the benefits and offering nothing in return is the exact opposite of integration.

Are you saying if you fucked a few more Muslim girls you'd be cool with them since they shared and shared alike?

[Phoenix]

(11-11-2014 01:42 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

That's because in the absence of God it is not just difficult but literally impossible to define objective morality.

That's not true. Morality stems from human nature, especially due to the social nature of the species. A statement like this runs into the same old unanswered question: if one bible says X, and another says Y, and both refer to a god, which is correct? A religious-based moral code is the least objective one there is.

People do not refrain from killing and raping each other because of a god. They do so because of the retaliation instinct of others (they don't want to have an appointment with the business end of a rope made for them ).

The objective moral code is 'that which causes maximum human flourishment in the long run'.

[scorpion]

mikado, I simply want Muslims to live in their own countries, where they can thrive under their own Islamic culture and legal system. Europe is not a place for Muslims or Sharia law. Europe is not a place where you should walk down the street and see dozens of women wearing hijabs, or packs of young Muslim men wandering around harassing non-Muslim women. Europe is the house that Western man built, and Western man has no obligation to tolerate guests that want to trash his property. It's as simple as that.

[lskdfjldsf]

"Because we do not want to have anything to do with these, and just want to live our own lives without others refering to us by our religion. Further, there are already a lot of divergences, like I said in different groups of Muslims to succesfully carry out a coordinated movement against fundamentalism."

Then why are Muslims the only religious group, aside from Orthodox Jews, who choose to display their religion through clothing or appearance when they are in the minority? You can probably count on one hand the number of Muslim men without beards in the entire world. It's the first things converts do. Lots of women choose to go out with their hair free, but the majority wear the niqab or hijab, oftentimes in instances when having an outward physical identity is a matter of legal obligation. What would happen if a man walked into a bank, or participated in a courtroom, with everything covered but his eyes?

In a crowd, you would never recognize even the most devout Christians. It's a more individualistic religion, rather than a complete set of laws and governance of daily life as with Islam. It's precisely this combination of moral/religious integrity at the individual level and free market capitalism at a societal level, both operating simultaneously, that allowed the West to grow and prosper.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I don't have anything against Muslims, have lots of Turkish friends and live next to a country of peaceful Muslim people, but I gotta say that "You have absolutely no right to apply your personal view about the "true Islam" to everyone else." is quite a weak argument. Muslims simply do have a deserved bad rap in some places, and personal views or not, that's just not going to change. Isn't it better to just peacefully point out that you're not like them?

[Sonsowey]

(11-11-2014 01:55 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Europe is the house that Western man built, and Western man has no obligation to tolerate guests that want to trash his property. It's as simple as that.

Hey there's always Belarus.

[mikado]

(11-11-2014 01:55 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

mikado, I simply want Muslims to live in their own countries, where they can thrive under their own Islamic culture and legal system. Europe is not a place for Muslims or Sharia law. Europe is not a place where you should walk down the street and see dozens of women wearing hijabs, or packs of young Muslim men wandering around harassing non-Muslim women. Europe is the house that Western man built, and Western man has no obligation to tolerate guests that want to trash his property. It's as simple as that.

That unique Islam region you are advocating does not exist
Because we do not define ourselves by religion only, but also by our roots, the country we are living in.

I am as different from a Saudian as you are from an Asian. Even if we believe in the same God.
I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, as Senegalese and French Christian friends do. However we share a lot of values in common.
Why would I have to share a country with someone who have way different values than me?

Further, the harassment , as I said it already, is mainly not provoked by Muslims,but by people of Arab descent/ upbringing.
Why should all the other Muslims pay for that?

to finish:
Sharia is mainly advocated by Arab people (or others who had some terrorist influence, like Nigeria/Boko Haram)
The rest follow their laic country's law.
Why do you want us to believe that all Muslims want Sharia?

[scorpion]

(11-11-2014 01:54 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 01:42 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

That's because in the absence of God it is not just difficult but literally impossible to define objective morality.

That's not true. Morality stems from human nature, especially due to the social nature of the species. A statement like this runs into the same old unanswered question: if one bible says X, and another says Y, and both refer to a god, which is correct? A religious-based moral code is the least objective one there is.

People do not refrain from killing and raping each other because of a god. They do so because of the retaliation instinct of others (they don't want to have an appointment with the business end of a rope made for them ).

The objective moral code is 'that which causes maximum human flourishment in the long run'.

I'm not going to derail this thread with an extended debate on the philosophy of morality, but make no mistake, you are entirely incorrect. If you don't believe me, then believe your eyes. The destruction of Christian morality in the West has occurred exactly in line with the rise of cultural Marxism and all sorts of degeneracy within society. That is not a coincidence, but is rather an entirely predictable sequence of cause and effect.

Defining morality as "That which causes maximum human flourishment in the long run" obviously begs the questions, "For what humans? And what do you define as flourishment?" Would it be moral for white people to exterminate all non-white people off the face of the Earth? Would that not ensure that white people continue to flourish? Does that make it moral? Would it be moral for a superintelligent AI to kill off 95% of humanity in order that the remaining 5% might "flourish"? Or what if I have a farm, and a group of roving nomads without food decides they are entitled to mine? Do I have the right to defend myself, or does their right to sustenance trump my right to property since they are the greater mass of humanity ("maximum flourishment")?

In short, your argument that objective morality exists outside of God is specious, and obviously not something you have given much thought to. You can google around to read more about why objective morality cannot exist without God, or PM me, but like I said I don't want to derail the thread with a debate.

[Lemmo]

(11-11-2014 01:42 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 01:33 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Religion isn't the guardian of morals.

It just so happens that religions like Christianity, for instance, are old, and old morals were conservative (or more accurately today: right-wing).
Christianity does not, however, explain why these morals are right. It just says 'obey or go to hell'. That isn't thorough enough to stand up to intellectuals and to be part of rational debate. Religious leaders, who are often at the forefront of debates around abortion, marriage, traditional values, moral behavior etc, simply do not have the grounding to defeat the supposedly 'new and fresh' Leftist ideas. The Leftists are using new stuff which they are making up themselves. The Priests only have their old book.

Just because many of the morals of Christians are right (e.g. 'no abortion, marriage between men and women only, gender roles etc'), doesn't mean they are the best group to defend them. They are very poor at explaining why those things are moral, without saying 'god said so'.

The Swedes already have the natural instincts of 'territorialism' and 'self-interest' in them. Its just damped out by the multiculturalist BS they've all been swallowing.
It should be sufficient to simply stoke those instincts and aggressively attack multiculturalism simultaneously.

That's because in the absence of God it is not just difficult but literally impossible to define objective morality. The type of social engineering the left has accomplished over the last few decades would not be possible in a culture that was strongly Christian. When people become untethered from Christian teaching that morality is absolute and defined by God, they suddenly become vulnerable to all sorts of destructive nonsense. People like to point to the widespread atheism of the Scandinavian countries as being some kind of virtue or evidence of their intellectual superiority. But in fact, such widespread atheism has only acted to accelerate their cultural destruction. Even if you do not personally believe in God or identify as a Christian, it's important for men to recognize that Christianity, if nothing else, functions as a strong cultural immune system that prevents destructive and degenerate elements from taking hold in society.

That seems highly questionable. The societies that have managed to preserve to some extent ethnicity-based national identities and citizenship are non-Christian (e.g., Korea, Japan, China). And at least in the US Christians, especially Catholics, have been consistent proponents of open borders and redistribution of wealth to migrants. Christianity and leftism are VERY compatible.

[Helmutnl]

(11-11-2014 01:58 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

"Because we do not want to have anything to do with these, and just want to live our own lives without others refering to us by our religion. Further, there are already a lot of divergences, like I said in different groups of Muslims to succesfully carry out a coordinated movement against fundamentalism."

Then why are Muslims the only religious group, aside from Orthodox Jews, who choose to display their religion through clothing or appearance when they are in the minority? You can probably count on one hand the number of Muslim men without beards in the entire world. It's the first things converts do. Lots of women choose to go out with their hair free, but the majority wear the niqab or hijab, oftentimes in instances when having an outward physical identity is a matter of legal obligation. What would happen if a man walked into a bank, or participated in a courtroom, with everything covered but his eyes?

In a crowd, you would never recognize even the most devout Christians. It's a more individualistic religion, rather than a complete set of laws and governance of daily life as with Islam. It's precisely this combination of moral/religious integrity at the individual level and free market capitalism at a societal level, both operating simultaneously, that allowed the West to grow and prosper.

You are absolutely right Blick Mang, Christianity is much more about inner feelings and with far more personal space and openness, even if one was very pious and devout, that is almost absolutely contrary to average muslims..

[Sawyer]

Quote:

And at least in the US Christians, especially Catholics, have been consistent proponents of open borders and redistribution of wealth to migrants. Christianity and leftism are VERY compatible.

That is because the West was defeated and changed its religion to reflect its defeat more than its religion was leftist to begin with.

[Sonsowey]

(11-11-2014 02:07 PM)mikado Wrote:  

That unique Islam region you are advocating does not exist
Because we do not define ourselves by religion only, but also by our roots, the country we are living in.

He's right. Just look at recent history.

Serbia had a huge Muslim Albanian population. Serbs wanted to keep their whole territory and expell the Muslim Albanians. Instead they lost land and Kosovo, a new "muslim country" was formed.

Syria has traditionally had large Christian communities. Likely these communities will be diminished if ISIS has anything to say about it.

Hell, many Muslim countries in the gulf are populated by foreigners. Isn't it something like 10-15% of the people in Qatar are Qatari, and the rest are foreigners who are from all over the world?

Central Asian countries, which are majority Muslim, have large Russian Christian communities.

The world is not so simple as Muslim countries and Christian countries.

[mikado]

(11-11-2014 01:58 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

"Because we do not want to have anything to do with these, and just want to live our own lives without others refering to us by our religion. Further, there are already a lot of divergences, like I said in different groups of Muslims to succesfully carry out a coordinated movement against fundamentalism."

Then why are Muslims the only religious group, aside from Orthodox Jews, who choose to display their religion through clothing or appearance when they are in the minority? You can probably count on one hand the number of Muslim men without beards in the entire world. It's the first things converts do. Lots of women choose to go out with their hair free, but the majority wear the niqab or hijab, oftentimes in instances when having an outward physical identity is a matter of legal obligation. What would happen if a man walked into a bank, or participated in a courtroom, with everything covered but his eyes?

In a crowd, you would never recognize even the most devout Christians. It's a more individualistic religion, rather than a complete set of laws and governance of daily life as with Islam. It's precisely this combination of moral/religious integrity at the individual level and free market capitalism at a societal level, both operating simultaneously, that allowed the West to grow and prosper.

The fact that they do it has no relevance in how they perceive the culture of their country.

Second: covering everything is not an Islamic law per se. It is the traditions from Afghanistan that have reached over Europe. Only the hidjab was prescribed. and you can recognize a woman with the hidjab only.

I still see not discordance between wearing a beard/hidjab and sharing citizen values with a country.
I do however recognize that I am a bit biased because I don't have a beard/do not wear traditional clothes, and is extremely moderate with religion.