Xenophobism: Not just the darling of the right any longer.

[CanOWorms]

I've been saying for years that the ideals of the far-right are being adopted by the mainstream and left in Europe. Anyone can notice the trend getting worse and worse.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I've been saying for years that the ideals of the far-right are being adopted by the mainstream and left in Europe. Anyone can notice the trend getting worse and worse.

Dude, what the hell. I specifically put "(particularly in Europe)" in the thread summary for you, and it took you 25 replies to get in here? WHY DON'T YOU LOVE?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: piasabird
Too bad the people that live in Europe do not have that same view. The Muslims do not have this view.

I have plenty of aquaintences in Europe who are feeling the pinch of the Muslim minority. They're taking over, one day at a time. Screaming for tolerance towards their faith, but then shunning others. Rioting in the streets over cartoons making fun of their god.

I have plenty of acquaintances (note the correct spelling) in the US who think people like you are dumb xenophobes.

I am European, and most people here understand there is only a small group of extremists which cause the problems, just like like we understand that not all Americans are as extremistic as Bush and his followers.

I have a lot of friends who are Muslims, male and female alike. And guess what... The women are not forced to cover themselves, and are allowed to make their own decisions. Most Muslims are not just like Al Qaida or like the fundamentalist Christian movements in the US (not much of a difference between those). I understand that not all Americans are racist religious extremists, and most Muslims are not either. And yes, the world would be better off without those that are extremists.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

And btw, unlike the US (where you have the religious right and the slightly-less-religious slightly-less-right) we actually have more than two parties here, and we have non-religious parties too. So 'right-wing' does not have to mean Bible-beaters, and nor does left-wing have to mean anti-religious. We have leftwing parties which are Christian based (seeing that Jesus was a socialistic hippy this is not entirely strange), and we have non-religious right-wing parties which support abortion, euthanasia and want to scrap the 'right to not be discriminated' out of the constitution.

 

[Triumph]

The definitions of right and left are continuously eroding precisely because of inconsistencies like this. Multiculturalism preaches tolerance, but how can you be tolerant of another culture whose own culture teaches proselytization? And I'm not even just speaking of Islam here. Take the Bible for instance, there are many groups throughout history who have interpreted the Bible to mean that they must convert all of humanity to Christianity, by convincement or force. It does not matter if they are incorrect in their interpretation. It is what they choose to believe, and multiculturalism tells us that who are we to question what anyone else chooses to believe? Multiculturalism is a very all-or-nothing approach, there is no gray area open for discussion. How can there be when the core principle relies on not accepting any one culture as being more "correct" than another? Two cultures at odds may be able to negotiate with one another, but they will invariably be losing something of themselves in the process. Negotiate a peace between differing opinions if you choose, but don't claim to be upholding the principles of multiculturalism.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Nebor

And yet, Shiites have had plenty of contact with Sunnis, and they continue to massacre one another. Yet the whites and blacks in America get along fine. Islam is an affront to the civilized world, and must be stomped out.

And yet, Catholics had plenty of contact with Protestants, and they massacred one another for centuries. Christianity must have been an affront to the civilized world and should have been stomped out.

Sigh.

That portion of christianity has been stamped out. Look around, how many christians bomb other christians in the name of christianity?

The last major holdout to use such tactics was the IRA.

The commone tactic of bringing up chrisitanity's failures from 500 years ago and trying to justify Islams failures today is silly.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The common tactic of bringing up chrisitanity's failures from 500 years ago and trying to justify Islams failures today is silly.

Agreed. However, it is fair to look back at history to put things in perspective.

Using that history as justification or exemption for the Islamofascists, however, is not.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Genx87


The commone tactic of bringing up chrisitanity's failures from 500 years ago and trying to justify Islams failures today is silly.

To me it means that Islam is about 500 years behind Christianity in its evolution. Muhammad lived from 570 to 632 AD, Jesus lived from well, year zero I guess. So roughly 600 years between their beginnings and 600 years between their evolutions. Interesting?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: yllus
In Defence Of Herouxville

Far from conservatives themselves, these people nonetheless drew a line against unfettered acceptance of incoming cultures. I guess the question is whether this is a good thing, bad thing or neutral thing. Being somewhat paranoid of organized religion myself, I can't say that non-acceptance of an intolerant culture is something that I am against - the whole bit about if you sense injustice, it's every citizen's duty to bring it to light. However, it looks like overreactions and an absence of dialogue is the way we're going.

It is called saturation. IMO, modern technology has made the world a smaller place. It used to be an epic journey to simply cross the United States for the gold rush and settlement. There were also less people coming in.

Things change, now we grow by well over a million immigrants every single year AND our birth rate is completely stagnant. There is NO population growth without immigrants, our birth rate is merely keeping pace with our death rate. Therefore, all our population growth is imported.

This degree of saturation causes new foreign cultures to encompass entire towns, counties, and very soon entire states in this nation. Forever leaving our culture removed from our previously owned lands. With a change in culture comes a change of values and rule of law. If you hold our nation and our culture in high regard (Bill of Rights), then this change can only mean less respect and upholding of those values and the import of alternatives.

Of course, if you?re incapable of counting the massive volume, or if you don?t respect our culture, I can see why someone wouldn?t care about such things as the flight of Americans from states like California. Check the price of a moving truck to enter and leave that state. Leaving it costs 5x as much because it is in such high demand. We are fleeing disasters where our culture is lost by this flood.

All you have to do is read of certain plans drawn up and taught by our own universities.

Estudiantes Contemporáneos del Norte
Dedicated to the Chicanos del Norte in the hope of recovering their lost sovereignty and assuming their place among the independent nations of the world.

Then the concept of us losing our land becomes clearer still.

There is no problem with immigration on simply the basis of itself, the problem is the volume of it saturating our nation and breaking down the melting pot. If you are in favor of a melting pot, how can you possible be in favor of what is currently taking place? We are being assimilated instead of assimilating, and that is the United State?s problem with immigration.

Of course our detractors want to simply call it ?hating brown people?. A simplified, stereotypical train of thought of easier to combat when the facts are insurmountable. We can crush those evil Xenophobes.