Meanwhile, in Bangladesh, Muslims are burning Hindus alive. There are quite a lot of Hindus there, certainly more than 10 million, there is a lot of work.
Its summer here in Texas, and hot, but in the summer, I get to go to see summer Shakespeare, which is a tradition in many of the cities where I've lived. Shakespeare is a gift to the world from the British, and it's sad to see that once great land decline into what it is today. Who voted in the UK or in the USA for mass immigration? It was against the law the whole time. Not enforcing the laws is how they got to this sorry state. How many atrocities committed by migrants will get the lazy government to enforce it's own laws? They've had train bombings, beheadings, car attacks, mass rapes of white girls, knives every day of the week, and now, cold blooded murder of children. The patterns is there but the UK government did nothing about it. Mark Steyn has written about this for years. The troubles there lying squarely in the laps of the UK governments that refused to protect their own citizens, whom they have many unattractive labels for. As in the US, the UK needs to break up not into England, Scotland and Wales, but into those that want to live and love their own culture, and those (often childless cat ladies) people who hate themselves and their own culture and would prefer to see it subsumed by immigrants.
I can't discern from the article who exactly the author wants to put in jail. Is it native rioters or immigrant criminals? Or both?
Either way it's no mystery how to deliver maximal safety. They must spend however much it takes to build up enough well-trained, highly competent police officers (along with the rest of the justice system) to secure every block of every city in the nation, with Tokyo safety levels, by enforcing all laws large and small.
I’ve visited London twice in my life. The first time was in 2001 and the second was in 2020. The change in those 19 years was almost unbelievable. I think a tipping point was reached and exceeded. Unfortunately I don’t see anyway to fix it.
Let's not take it for granted as self-evidently true that "Islam is a great world religion, and most of its tenets are easily compatible with British values". What percentage of Muslims around the world believe it should be legal to make fun of their religion? How many think cartoons of their prophet are rude—but regardless of that fact—must be protected by the legal system? Because in Western, secular societies, no one's religion gets special status. In our culture, you can hate the people who make fun of what you consider sacred, but if you use violence to censor those people, then you are not welcome. So no, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are on board with Western secularism—I'm going to need to see some actual evidence for that claim.
Serious question: Is Islam one of the world's great religions?
I've read texts from a number of different religions, and have never found anything coming out of Islam interesting. A fair amount of it seems to foster pride, ego, and worldly greed.
They do make beautiful art. So there must be something there.
Not to be facetious, but what moral standard are you using to call ego pride and greed sinful? You're using a Judeo-Christian worldview. Can you imagine a moral framework where killing infidels is moral? That's Islam. In the West we are totally blind to the fact that our own worldview is largely based on the New Testament of the Bible, though without the specific spiritual instruction on worship, faith or prayer.
Rather clumsily I'm trying to make the point that every moral framework has to have an anchor in a faith system. And I mean every moral framework. Secular humanists like to think that they can invent morality (i.e. moral relativism) but if there is no absolute morality then their moral framework is the divine right of Kings to do whatever the heck they want ("Might makes right"?). Islam uses the Koran as their faith system, so for them, killing infidels is 'moral'. We rightly regard that as abhorrent, but my subtext is that the reason we find killing innocent foreigners immoral is 2000 years of Christian history. If you had been born in, say, Somalia in the current time, or born back in Roman days pre-Christ, you would find killing foreigners to be good if your warlord or slave master told you to. We don't have a morality without the New Testament - or at least not one that works. So why is what you think to be not ok, not ok? Because Jesus said "Thou shalt not kill", and added that getting in a rage or resenting or unforgiveness is a sin. Anglophone morality is steeped in the practice of Christianity, which is a historical fact. We just don't say that out loud very often because some people might find it 'not inclusive'.
Yes of course. But Jesus quoted Moses as we find it in Matthew's gospel, and then extended it from 'law' to personal application. Critically, without Jesus being born, would not the West still have an eye-for-an-eye and a tooth-for-a-tooth as the fairest justice system? Yes, the whole Bible reveals that judgement is to be tempered with mercy. (David honored King Saul when he could have killed him, for instance. Yet Samuel was outraged that Saul had disobeyed and spared some of the Amalekites.) But Jesus, ministering as a Rabbi, in full agreement with the Torah, taught that "Don't murder" doesn't go far enough. Jesus said that if you hate your brother it's the same guilt as killing him. Our whole Western understanding of justice, forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration are because Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the Torah and as Isaiah's Suffering Servant, earned the right to become our Savior. But thanks for pointing that out! I'm humbled to be discussing such holy words with you.
My world view is based in Judaism and Buddhism. These moral positions are not only held in the West but also Eastern spiritual traditions as well. The problem you are trying to solve and the questions you are asking lead you to different places.
In Judaism the question is: How do we heal the world?
In Buddhism it is: How do we relieve suffering of all living beings?
I like these questions. I don't know what the question is in Islam.
Very interesting. I imagine Mohammed viewed the corruption of the emerging post-Roman and decadent-Christian worldview in 600AD as given over to license. Probably an accurate view. Leveraging a waking vision he received from Allah, he decided to enforce a morality on everyone, raised an army, invaded Mecca, and appointed himself as Prophet and his followers as the enforcers of world righteousness. So I guess Islam's question is "How can we end corruption?"
The fallacy (dare I say it) is that the place to start on righteousness is in your own heart, which unfortunately Islam completely neglects.
Instead, the Christian question is "How can I be free from the burden of sin?"
If the question for Islam is, as you suggest, "how can we end corruption?", then it has been an abysmal failure. I am not excusing or suggesting that the West does not suffer from some corruption, but not on the scale seen in most Middle Eastern and other countries. Corruption is precisely one of the mechanisms to obtain and secure power. Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical Islamic groups, are supported by a highly corrupt government, Iran. And, rather than use their funds to better their people, they instead build tunnels, buy munitions, and otherwise engage in jihad. Let me suggest, that just being a nonbeliever does not mean that you are corrupt. Perhaps Islam needs to look in its own mirror and perhaps engage in a reformation before pointing the finger elsewhere.
To a Muslim, anything that leads away from Islam is corruption. It can be people, laws, institutions, art, anything. To them, our Western definition is only a tool to use against infidels and their works.
Then they ought not come here and be tempted. Moreover, they need to answer for why their corrupt leaders do not use the funds provided by others to build schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure to benefit the people, but instead steal it and use it to build tunnels, buy weapons, and deliberrately install military installations in and under civilian populations making them human fodder - is that not the definition of corruption?
'An emergency national effort, akin to our vaccine rollout'. So the government needs to lie to everyone and coerce them into something that for a segment of the population was more likely to harm than help? Seems like a poor example.
The big issue is the 2-tier policing and treatment of protests/portestors. Labour and London's Metropolitan Police (and other police dept) have taken the side of Muslims to the detriment of Christians, Hindus, Jews. This is amply clear.
Wait, what is the positive sentiment in this statement?
"One only has to look at the strides being made toward integration, from the personal to the geopolitical, in the Middle East itself. The UAE just jailed a large number of Bangladeshi migrant workers for rioting on the principle of law and order, without race or religion being involved."
I empathize with the young Nadhim Zahawi being called Paki. However, I think we often confuse racism with lazy a$$hole. Kids and a$$holes will latch onto whatever is the easiest target to hit. As a kid, I was publicly made fun of for severe acne and being tall and gangly - pizza face or Ichabod Crane were regular taunts. Did these kids have a deep-rooted hatred for people with pimples or characters from 19th century literature? Or... were they just punching down in whatever way required the fewest brain cells?
There are a$$holes and there are racists. Many racists are a$$holes. Some racists are closeted and hide their shallow misconceptions quite well. I could make a venn diagram of these groups if that would be of benefit.
Thanks for completely missing my point. Lazy and hateful will go for whatever is the biggest target. Race, weight, complexion - it doesn’t matter. Some folks will call someone ‘Paki’ because they’re racist. Others will because it’s easy. I 100% believe this holds up to scrutiny.
It's not hard. A racist is someone who believes attributes are assignable by race and not by individual choices. Often, this leads folks to believing some races are superior or inferior to others. My personal opinion is that this is the refuge of intellectually lazy people or insecure people.
Let's go back to my example based on personal experience. Did the kids who called me Icabod Crane or Pizza face hate tall thin people with bad complexion? Or, were they just trying to cause hurt? How would these same kids attack an overweight person, or a brown person? I believe by grabbing whatever convenient attribute presented itself. Does that make them racist or just an all-around POS? Every one of us has negative interactions with losers. Personally, I think it would be reassuring to people of color to realize that some of their negative interactions were not due to their color but simply because the person causing them distress is just an all-around useless POS. Please note the word *some* in the previous sentence. It's critical to the point I'm re-re-making. Nowhere have I said racism does not exist. Simply that some people attribute racism to what is actually the general purpose a$$hole we've all had to deal with at times.
Thanks Mickel. but I don't accept your definition.
Being called a 'racist' is one of the worst pejoratives you can be called. Why?
There is nothing intrinsically evil in believing that some races are superior to other races in some physical metric. Science shows that to be true, as does the 'eye test' that white men are crap dancers compared to many other ethnicities, and that most basketball players are black. But I'm being flippant, but it's the stereotyping of "probably" to "definitely" that is the error.
The evil arises from falsely assigning bad characteristics such as *criminality* or intellectual ability as a stereotype to a particular race. Being afraid that Mexicans or Blacks (or whatever color immigrants) will take your jobs is *not* racist. It's a valid concern for any citizen of any nation facing immigrants. Believing that all Blacks or Mexicans are more criminal minded than whites, that is racist. It was the criminality aspect that created Hitler's fascism against the Jews (and Slavs, for that matter). Hitler, borrowing extensively from the philosopher Hegel, defined Aryans as 'ubermenschen' and Slavs as 'untermenschen' because he claimed that they would subvert 'good Germans'. Stories like "To Kill a Mockingbird" arose because blacks were considered unable to control their more primitive urges - completely false, even if statistics might show that more blacks were committing crimes than whites. The evil arises when that belief becomes coded in law, and justice is perverted and marginalization denies a race or ethnicity of human rights.
The actions of those boys calling you names was evil. Perverting justice is evil. Believing that there are differences between races should not affect the justice system which should be blind to race, but not to professions of intent like "Death to Jews".
Keep in mind that as successful as Singapore has been economically and to some extent (multi-)culturally, it isn't terribly democratic. Jokes about going to jail for littering aside, it was never big on political dissent - and it seems the rest of the developed world is headed in its direction.
No, it was two stores on Tennyson, one was a woman's clothing-department store, the other across the street was a dollar-store type discount store. My daughter bought a house near there, and I needed to find clothes pins for those temporary paper window coverings you use when painting.
Of course the Carniceria was exclusively Spanish speaking too, but I expect that at a Carniceria.
This is by design you know. Watch just who is funding all the immigration, its Soros, the wealthiest fund manager ever. The guy who ran hedge funds from somewhere in the Caribbean where the clients names are hidden by law. This is the guy who broke the UK pound.
What is his next move? I'm pretty certain it involves Klaus Schwab, who is pushing for The Great Reset, after which: the useless people will own nothing, live in a 15 minute city, eat ze bugs, and be happy.
What stands in the way of The Great Reset? The UK, USA, Canada, other free thinking nations. How to break their backs, just flood them with lawless people funded on public funds, breaking the governments financially, disproportionate policing to break the people's trust of government.
What is the end goal? According to Klaus Schwab, in The Great Reset, we'll replace democratic stakeholders with financial stakeholders. Which I take to mean, we'll replace democratic leadership selection with corporate leadership. Thus, I see this as global socialism, where we'll have a union of soviets, which will really be a union of corporations running the global economy. But first the only obstacles standing in the way need to be removed, and that is freedom loving people of the US and UK.
I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing (I can't stand Soros). But, my question is, why? What's the real motivation here? I ask because ... I'm trying to get a sense for how this theory would/could relate to an average Joe without them simply passing us off as "conspiracy theorists."
Because in a vacuum, what you're saying could sound rational. But, what's the human component here? Soros is an old man and will be dead soon - where's his motivation for uprooting the whole of western civilization? His son will be taking up the reigns soon, but he too is simply a mortal man that will one day die. I'm just trying to understand (if what you say is true) why someone would go through that trouble to build their legacy on such toxic ideologies?
Is it all purely greed, is it truly that simple? Again, not saying it's not, I'm just also looking for the soft underbellies of their will vs the purely hard, tangibles of economics.
The answer is blatantly obvious to me but I'll spell it out anyway. Power. The world used to run on slavery, and in many places still does. Western Civilization has thrived on the Judeo-Christian concept of individual responsibility - distribution of power (as in autonomy) as widely as possible. People making their own decisions and being responsible for the outcome of those decisions, good or bad. Think about it. True freedom is being able to make a choice and reap the rewards or penalty of that choice. Contrast that with systems where all the power is sucked upwards into a cabal, or leadership oligarchy or simply a dictator. That's intoxicating if you are that leader. Kim Jong Il has the intoxicating ability to control every single one of NK's 25 million inhabitants, even controlling their emotions. The Left believe in a utopian vision where an establishment elite can make all the important decisions for the whole world. Standing in the way are people who want to make their own decisions where and how they live. Those people can be crushed by the government if they are tagged as insurrectionists rather than dissenters.
George Soros is literally 93 years old - what type of "power" is he going to have in a year or so? Again, as I said, yes, of course we can talk about the "blatantly obvious" concepts behind these types of political maneuvers like money and power - but I'm trying to find evidence of a deeper meaning. What's the 'human condition' aspect behind this? You can't take money and power to the grave, and at the end of the day all you have is your legacy. And why you would want to go down in history as someone ushering in anti-utopian hellscapes - well - that's just beyond my comprehension. Maybe Soros is just ignorant of the history behind said ideologies? I don't know.....
I think you underestimate the intoxication of power for its own sake - but for Soros, it's spending his billions to "make a difference". Utopians don't think they will make a hellscape. It may be ignorance, but it's willful ignorance. The desire to be king over the earth is adopted sincerely as being in the best interests of the peasants. It was always thus. Behind this pride is a spiritual evil that seeks the destruction of all that is good and holy. Jesus Christ called him the Father of Lies. He is the author of humans seeking power over the earth, and he often manifests his control over others as 'higher wisdom'.
Maybe I just don't get it, because "power" sounds awful. Spiderman was right, with great power comes great responsibility. Eek, who the hell wants that? I'd much rather focus on me and my own and make my own space greater, as well as those around me. I'm an atheist so the religious angle has no bearing on me (other than render onto Cesar what is Cesar's).
But I do think if Soros is so unbelievably myopic to not be able to see what his influence has wrought (which should be clear in any inner-city) than the guy is either truly evil or beyond stupid.
I see Soros' motivation as purely his love of the technical aspect. Being an old hacker, there is nothing I love more than to spin an elegant hack. Soros' career was to manipulate markets to enrich his clients. He started out learning to successfully manipulate security's, then entire markets, then entire economies, now he manipulates entire populations ... that's his elegant hack.
There are a lot of people who believe the ultimate goal of mankind is a global socialist government ala Marx. Me, I think this is stifling, whatever. People have their various beliefs on socialism. There are of course people who aspire to control governments, again not me, but there are people who aspire to this goal. Likewise there are people who aspire to lead global socialist governments and they'll stop at nothing to see their goals fulfilled.
Why??? Just today I started reading Ted Kaczynski's manifesto—yes thats the Unabomber's Manifesto—and it is a surprisingly good read. He starts out explaining human motivations, that once securing food, shelter, & clothing became easy, mankind aspires to more, and requires a surrogate activity in which to strive.
If, as the author claims, most Muslims oppose the radical Islamist, terror-supporting, Jew-hating version of their faith, it is past time for this silent majority to make their preferences known.
No that's absurd. I know many peaceable Muslims. But that's because they differentiate "fundamentalist" from the other kind, where the other kind must pick through the holy book and follow the parts that actually work in a Western liberal setting. But these peaceful Muslims are in a horrible Catch-22 because a "good Muslim" is still one who believes the whole book, and that gives them cognitive dissonance which they can't resolve. The paradox is only resolved by logically concluding that Islam is a false religion, false in the sense that it doesn't produce good outcomes, so it can't be true, because we don't have a God whose book doesn't work, but a God whose book does work.
Great! Can you please tell them to go out and counter-demonstrate against the radicals? Maybe hold signs saying "we just want a Palestine to live side-by-side with Israel," and "down with Hamas!" or something like that? Really be nice if if we saw that.
Meanwhile, in Bangladesh, Muslims are burning Hindus alive. There are quite a lot of Hindus there, certainly more than 10 million, there is a lot of work.
Its summer here in Texas, and hot, but in the summer, I get to go to see summer Shakespeare, which is a tradition in many of the cities where I've lived. Shakespeare is a gift to the world from the British, and it's sad to see that once great land decline into what it is today. Who voted in the UK or in the USA for mass immigration? It was against the law the whole time. Not enforcing the laws is how they got to this sorry state. How many atrocities committed by migrants will get the lazy government to enforce it's own laws? They've had train bombings, beheadings, car attacks, mass rapes of white girls, knives every day of the week, and now, cold blooded murder of children. The patterns is there but the UK government did nothing about it. Mark Steyn has written about this for years. The troubles there lying squarely in the laps of the UK governments that refused to protect their own citizens, whom they have many unattractive labels for. As in the US, the UK needs to break up not into England, Scotland and Wales, but into those that want to live and love their own culture, and those (often childless cat ladies) people who hate themselves and their own culture and would prefer to see it subsumed by immigrants.
I can't discern from the article who exactly the author wants to put in jail. Is it native rioters or immigrant criminals? Or both?
Either way it's no mystery how to deliver maximal safety. They must spend however much it takes to build up enough well-trained, highly competent police officers (along with the rest of the justice system) to secure every block of every city in the nation, with Tokyo safety levels, by enforcing all laws large and small.
So sad what has happened to the UK.
I’ve visited London twice in my life. The first time was in 2001 and the second was in 2020. The change in those 19 years was almost unbelievable. I think a tipping point was reached and exceeded. Unfortunately I don’t see anyway to fix it.
Let's not take it for granted as self-evidently true that "Islam is a great world religion, and most of its tenets are easily compatible with British values". What percentage of Muslims around the world believe it should be legal to make fun of their religion? How many think cartoons of their prophet are rude—but regardless of that fact—must be protected by the legal system? Because in Western, secular societies, no one's religion gets special status. In our culture, you can hate the people who make fun of what you consider sacred, but if you use violence to censor those people, then you are not welcome. So no, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are on board with Western secularism—I'm going to need to see some actual evidence for that claim.
Serious question: Is Islam one of the world's great religions?
I've read texts from a number of different religions, and have never found anything coming out of Islam interesting. A fair amount of it seems to foster pride, ego, and worldly greed.
They do make beautiful art. So there must be something there.
Not to be facetious, but what moral standard are you using to call ego pride and greed sinful? You're using a Judeo-Christian worldview. Can you imagine a moral framework where killing infidels is moral? That's Islam. In the West we are totally blind to the fact that our own worldview is largely based on the New Testament of the Bible, though without the specific spiritual instruction on worship, faith or prayer.
Confused by your comment. Do you think it’s ok that some believe that killing infidels is moral? Because I certainly don’t find that to be ok.
Rather clumsily I'm trying to make the point that every moral framework has to have an anchor in a faith system. And I mean every moral framework. Secular humanists like to think that they can invent morality (i.e. moral relativism) but if there is no absolute morality then their moral framework is the divine right of Kings to do whatever the heck they want ("Might makes right"?). Islam uses the Koran as their faith system, so for them, killing infidels is 'moral'. We rightly regard that as abhorrent, but my subtext is that the reason we find killing innocent foreigners immoral is 2000 years of Christian history. If you had been born in, say, Somalia in the current time, or born back in Roman days pre-Christ, you would find killing foreigners to be good if your warlord or slave master told you to. We don't have a morality without the New Testament - or at least not one that works. So why is what you think to be not ok, not ok? Because Jesus said "Thou shalt not kill", and added that getting in a rage or resenting or unforgiveness is a sin. Anglophone morality is steeped in the practice of Christianity, which is a historical fact. We just don't say that out loud very often because some people might find it 'not inclusive'.
Well, you’re wrong since it wasn’t Jesus who said that. G-d said that to Moses way before Jesus was born.
Yes of course. But Jesus quoted Moses as we find it in Matthew's gospel, and then extended it from 'law' to personal application. Critically, without Jesus being born, would not the West still have an eye-for-an-eye and a tooth-for-a-tooth as the fairest justice system? Yes, the whole Bible reveals that judgement is to be tempered with mercy. (David honored King Saul when he could have killed him, for instance. Yet Samuel was outraged that Saul had disobeyed and spared some of the Amalekites.) But Jesus, ministering as a Rabbi, in full agreement with the Torah, taught that "Don't murder" doesn't go far enough. Jesus said that if you hate your brother it's the same guilt as killing him. Our whole Western understanding of justice, forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration are because Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the Torah and as Isaiah's Suffering Servant, earned the right to become our Savior. But thanks for pointing that out! I'm humbled to be discussing such holy words with you.
My world view is based in Judaism and Buddhism. These moral positions are not only held in the West but also Eastern spiritual traditions as well. The problem you are trying to solve and the questions you are asking lead you to different places.
In Judaism the question is: How do we heal the world?
In Buddhism it is: How do we relieve suffering of all living beings?
I like these questions. I don't know what the question is in Islam.
Very interesting. I imagine Mohammed viewed the corruption of the emerging post-Roman and decadent-Christian worldview in 600AD as given over to license. Probably an accurate view. Leveraging a waking vision he received from Allah, he decided to enforce a morality on everyone, raised an army, invaded Mecca, and appointed himself as Prophet and his followers as the enforcers of world righteousness. So I guess Islam's question is "How can we end corruption?"
The fallacy (dare I say it) is that the place to start on righteousness is in your own heart, which unfortunately Islam completely neglects.
Instead, the Christian question is "How can I be free from the burden of sin?"
I don't know. They seem to talk a lot about justice.
If the question for Islam is, as you suggest, "how can we end corruption?", then it has been an abysmal failure. I am not excusing or suggesting that the West does not suffer from some corruption, but not on the scale seen in most Middle Eastern and other countries. Corruption is precisely one of the mechanisms to obtain and secure power. Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical Islamic groups, are supported by a highly corrupt government, Iran. And, rather than use their funds to better their people, they instead build tunnels, buy munitions, and otherwise engage in jihad. Let me suggest, that just being a nonbeliever does not mean that you are corrupt. Perhaps Islam needs to look in its own mirror and perhaps engage in a reformation before pointing the finger elsewhere.
To a Muslim, anything that leads away from Islam is corruption. It can be people, laws, institutions, art, anything. To them, our Western definition is only a tool to use against infidels and their works.
Then they ought not come here and be tempted. Moreover, they need to answer for why their corrupt leaders do not use the funds provided by others to build schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure to benefit the people, but instead steal it and use it to build tunnels, buy weapons, and deliberrately install military installations in and under civilian populations making them human fodder - is that not the definition of corruption?
... but that would make them Christian ;-)
'An emergency national effort, akin to our vaccine rollout'. So the government needs to lie to everyone and coerce them into something that for a segment of the population was more likely to harm than help? Seems like a poor example.
I thought the same thing!
Brilliant!
What I wonder is what the UK elite (and everyone else's elite) think they are doing with large-scale immigration.
I have a feeling that the elite has No Clue. And never had since the end of WWII.
The big issue is the 2-tier policing and treatment of protests/portestors. Labour and London's Metropolitan Police (and other police dept) have taken the side of Muslims to the detriment of Christians, Hindus, Jews. This is amply clear.
https://x.com/aaronsibarium/status/1820832214214447416
Wait, what is the positive sentiment in this statement?
"One only has to look at the strides being made toward integration, from the personal to the geopolitical, in the Middle East itself. The UAE just jailed a large number of Bangladeshi migrant workers for rioting on the principle of law and order, without race or religion being involved."
I empathize with the young Nadhim Zahawi being called Paki. However, I think we often confuse racism with lazy a$$hole. Kids and a$$holes will latch onto whatever is the easiest target to hit. As a kid, I was publicly made fun of for severe acne and being tall and gangly - pizza face or Ichabod Crane were regular taunts. Did these kids have a deep-rooted hatred for people with pimples or characters from 19th century literature? Or... were they just punching down in whatever way required the fewest brain cells?
There are a$$holes and there are racists. Many racists are a$$holes. Some racists are closeted and hide their shallow misconceptions quite well. I could make a venn diagram of these groups if that would be of benefit.
Well, let's do the logic:
If you use "Paki", then you are racist. If you don't use "Paki", then you are not racist.
Not sure that holds to scrutiny,
Edit- quotation marks
Thanks for completely missing my point. Lazy and hateful will go for whatever is the biggest target. Race, weight, complexion - it doesn’t matter. Some folks will call someone ‘Paki’ because they’re racist. Others will because it’s easy. I 100% believe this holds up to scrutiny.
So define racist, please?
It's not hard. A racist is someone who believes attributes are assignable by race and not by individual choices. Often, this leads folks to believing some races are superior or inferior to others. My personal opinion is that this is the refuge of intellectually lazy people or insecure people.
Let's go back to my example based on personal experience. Did the kids who called me Icabod Crane or Pizza face hate tall thin people with bad complexion? Or, were they just trying to cause hurt? How would these same kids attack an overweight person, or a brown person? I believe by grabbing whatever convenient attribute presented itself. Does that make them racist or just an all-around POS? Every one of us has negative interactions with losers. Personally, I think it would be reassuring to people of color to realize that some of their negative interactions were not due to their color but simply because the person causing them distress is just an all-around useless POS. Please note the word *some* in the previous sentence. It's critical to the point I'm re-re-making. Nowhere have I said racism does not exist. Simply that some people attribute racism to what is actually the general purpose a$$hole we've all had to deal with at times.
Thanks Mickel. but I don't accept your definition.
Being called a 'racist' is one of the worst pejoratives you can be called. Why?
There is nothing intrinsically evil in believing that some races are superior to other races in some physical metric. Science shows that to be true, as does the 'eye test' that white men are crap dancers compared to many other ethnicities, and that most basketball players are black. But I'm being flippant, but it's the stereotyping of "probably" to "definitely" that is the error.
The evil arises from falsely assigning bad characteristics such as *criminality* or intellectual ability as a stereotype to a particular race. Being afraid that Mexicans or Blacks (or whatever color immigrants) will take your jobs is *not* racist. It's a valid concern for any citizen of any nation facing immigrants. Believing that all Blacks or Mexicans are more criminal minded than whites, that is racist. It was the criminality aspect that created Hitler's fascism against the Jews (and Slavs, for that matter). Hitler, borrowing extensively from the philosopher Hegel, defined Aryans as 'ubermenschen' and Slavs as 'untermenschen' because he claimed that they would subvert 'good Germans'. Stories like "To Kill a Mockingbird" arose because blacks were considered unable to control their more primitive urges - completely false, even if statistics might show that more blacks were committing crimes than whites. The evil arises when that belief becomes coded in law, and justice is perverted and marginalization denies a race or ethnicity of human rights.
The actions of those boys calling you names was evil. Perverting justice is evil. Believing that there are differences between races should not affect the justice system which should be blind to race, but not to professions of intent like "Death to Jews".
Keep in mind that as successful as Singapore has been economically and to some extent (multi-)culturally, it isn't terribly democratic. Jokes about going to jail for littering aside, it was never big on political dissent - and it seems the rest of the developed world is headed in its direction.
No, it was two stores on Tennyson, one was a woman's clothing-department store, the other across the street was a dollar-store type discount store. My daughter bought a house near there, and I needed to find clothes pins for those temporary paper window coverings you use when painting.
Of course the Carniceria was exclusively Spanish speaking too, but I expect that at a Carniceria.
This is by design you know. Watch just who is funding all the immigration, its Soros, the wealthiest fund manager ever. The guy who ran hedge funds from somewhere in the Caribbean where the clients names are hidden by law. This is the guy who broke the UK pound.
What is his next move? I'm pretty certain it involves Klaus Schwab, who is pushing for The Great Reset, after which: the useless people will own nothing, live in a 15 minute city, eat ze bugs, and be happy.
What stands in the way of The Great Reset? The UK, USA, Canada, other free thinking nations. How to break their backs, just flood them with lawless people funded on public funds, breaking the governments financially, disproportionate policing to break the people's trust of government.
What is the end goal? According to Klaus Schwab, in The Great Reset, we'll replace democratic stakeholders with financial stakeholders. Which I take to mean, we'll replace democratic leadership selection with corporate leadership. Thus, I see this as global socialism, where we'll have a union of soviets, which will really be a union of corporations running the global economy. But first the only obstacles standing in the way need to be removed, and that is freedom loving people of the US and UK.
I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing (I can't stand Soros). But, my question is, why? What's the real motivation here? I ask because ... I'm trying to get a sense for how this theory would/could relate to an average Joe without them simply passing us off as "conspiracy theorists."
Because in a vacuum, what you're saying could sound rational. But, what's the human component here? Soros is an old man and will be dead soon - where's his motivation for uprooting the whole of western civilization? His son will be taking up the reigns soon, but he too is simply a mortal man that will one day die. I'm just trying to understand (if what you say is true) why someone would go through that trouble to build their legacy on such toxic ideologies?
Is it all purely greed, is it truly that simple? Again, not saying it's not, I'm just also looking for the soft underbellies of their will vs the purely hard, tangibles of economics.
The answer is blatantly obvious to me but I'll spell it out anyway. Power. The world used to run on slavery, and in many places still does. Western Civilization has thrived on the Judeo-Christian concept of individual responsibility - distribution of power (as in autonomy) as widely as possible. People making their own decisions and being responsible for the outcome of those decisions, good or bad. Think about it. True freedom is being able to make a choice and reap the rewards or penalty of that choice. Contrast that with systems where all the power is sucked upwards into a cabal, or leadership oligarchy or simply a dictator. That's intoxicating if you are that leader. Kim Jong Il has the intoxicating ability to control every single one of NK's 25 million inhabitants, even controlling their emotions. The Left believe in a utopian vision where an establishment elite can make all the important decisions for the whole world. Standing in the way are people who want to make their own decisions where and how they live. Those people can be crushed by the government if they are tagged as insurrectionists rather than dissenters.
George Soros is literally 93 years old - what type of "power" is he going to have in a year or so? Again, as I said, yes, of course we can talk about the "blatantly obvious" concepts behind these types of political maneuvers like money and power - but I'm trying to find evidence of a deeper meaning. What's the 'human condition' aspect behind this? You can't take money and power to the grave, and at the end of the day all you have is your legacy. And why you would want to go down in history as someone ushering in anti-utopian hellscapes - well - that's just beyond my comprehension. Maybe Soros is just ignorant of the history behind said ideologies? I don't know.....
I think you underestimate the intoxication of power for its own sake - but for Soros, it's spending his billions to "make a difference". Utopians don't think they will make a hellscape. It may be ignorance, but it's willful ignorance. The desire to be king over the earth is adopted sincerely as being in the best interests of the peasants. It was always thus. Behind this pride is a spiritual evil that seeks the destruction of all that is good and holy. Jesus Christ called him the Father of Lies. He is the author of humans seeking power over the earth, and he often manifests his control over others as 'higher wisdom'.
Maybe I just don't get it, because "power" sounds awful. Spiderman was right, with great power comes great responsibility. Eek, who the hell wants that? I'd much rather focus on me and my own and make my own space greater, as well as those around me. I'm an atheist so the religious angle has no bearing on me (other than render onto Cesar what is Cesar's).
But I do think if Soros is so unbelievably myopic to not be able to see what his influence has wrought (which should be clear in any inner-city) than the guy is either truly evil or beyond stupid.
I see Soros' motivation as purely his love of the technical aspect. Being an old hacker, there is nothing I love more than to spin an elegant hack. Soros' career was to manipulate markets to enrich his clients. He started out learning to successfully manipulate security's, then entire markets, then entire economies, now he manipulates entire populations ... that's his elegant hack.
There are a lot of people who believe the ultimate goal of mankind is a global socialist government ala Marx. Me, I think this is stifling, whatever. People have their various beliefs on socialism. There are of course people who aspire to control governments, again not me, but there are people who aspire to this goal. Likewise there are people who aspire to lead global socialist governments and they'll stop at nothing to see their goals fulfilled.
Why??? Just today I started reading Ted Kaczynski's manifesto—yes thats the Unabomber's Manifesto—and it is a surprisingly good read. He starts out explaining human motivations, that once securing food, shelter, & clothing became easy, mankind aspires to more, and requires a surrogate activity in which to strive.
If, as the author claims, most Muslims oppose the radical Islamist, terror-supporting, Jew-hating version of their faith, it is past time for this silent majority to make their preferences known.
Brief, concise and right on the money!!!
They are like the good Germans who were not Nazis, but did nothing to oppose that regime. In the end they are irrelevant.
Bingo. So silent we never, ever hear from them. Because they don't really exist.
No that's absurd. I know many peaceable Muslims. But that's because they differentiate "fundamentalist" from the other kind, where the other kind must pick through the holy book and follow the parts that actually work in a Western liberal setting. But these peaceful Muslims are in a horrible Catch-22 because a "good Muslim" is still one who believes the whole book, and that gives them cognitive dissonance which they can't resolve. The paradox is only resolved by logically concluding that Islam is a false religion, false in the sense that it doesn't produce good outcomes, so it can't be true, because we don't have a God whose book doesn't work, but a God whose book does work.
Great! Can you please tell them to go out and counter-demonstrate against the radicals? Maybe hold signs saying "we just want a Palestine to live side-by-side with Israel," and "down with Hamas!" or something like that? Really be nice if if we saw that.