A Literal Attack on British Democracy

[Pannonian]

I'm not sure they do. I think they are just suspicious of the right and its habit of picking simplistic enemies.

Orwell disliked both the far left and far right. That he disliked the far right is self-explanatory, having taken up arms against them in Spain and volunteering again in 1939. He also disliked the far left for taking the stance I described above, and consequently taking orders from the USSR (who also despised these "useful idiots"). He recognised a small c conservatism among the English that guarded against both, and found a streak of liberalism in English traditions that he reckoned was worth cultivating against revolutionaries and reactionaries. That progressivism is the moderate left that he argues for, something that has been generally ascendant for the past couple of centuries. Note his quote about the working class throwing off their chains.

[Sarmatian]

Muslims can't agree on the nature of islam, I am much more interested in why leftists defend the islam by default. I think I know why, leftism is a religion as well and leftists are in fact deeply religious. Christianity is a competer with the leftist church, islam an ally just because it's different

It depends. I guess the main reason is that Islam (or whatever other religion) doesn't really affect their lives nearly as Christianity does.
Some probably believe that we can't impose our values by force to people in other countries, they must (and eventually will) reach "enlightment" themselves. Some probably think that we (Europeans) have a debt to pay for mistreating many Muslims during our rule.
There are those that are doing it by inertia, because in their mind it is a liberal thing to do, without really understanding the core of the issue.

There are many possible reasons.

I see Islam as an extra-national state as the problem. If British Muslims think of themselves as British first and Muslim second, as just about every other culture in Britain does, then the worst aspects of conservative Islam are ameliorated. If they think of themselves as Muslim first and overwhelmingly, then they're well on the way to becoming a problem.

Jew are often seen as being like that, and yet there's no outcry. We ridicule the people who dare to voice those concerns.

[Greyblades]

What's that? Right-wing fanaticism? Maybe we should focus on repressing that. As the proverb goes, better a dog in the backyard than a bear in the kitchen.

The bear doesnt want me dead and wants to kill the dog for savaging it's family. That it is the only one who wants to do anything about the violent dog our of everyone present makes me think I should let the bear into the yard.

Your analogy is as weak as your arguments. Claims of antagonistsm sound hollow when you take into account any of the abuses of justice we have allowed muslim communities to get away with.

Polarized? If this is the result of apathy perhaps we should want them to be polarized. Best our muslim citizens be divided between the loyal and the antagonistic, so the antagonistic cannot help but stand out instead of being hidden in the mass of the uncaring.

Or do you belive that the majority of muslims would polarize towards ISIS? If that is the case I would think that would prove the right wing fanatics right.

Islamic religious institutions are generally most vocal opponents of terrorism. Making sure they have less means to get their voice heard is not a smart idea.

The wahhabist mosques and schools that foreign powers fund are our greatest source of radicalization. Even the germans know this.

Those feeling disenfranchised by the society are indeed easier to incite to violence against the society so it might have some effect, would be hard to say how much. Even with that though, it would be impossible to make sure that the message doesn't come some other way.

Perhaps, but at the moment our prisons are hotbeds of radicalization. Leaving it like it is will only increase our problems.

Exile is problematic because you need A) to find a country willing to accept them (terrorists are not very popular in Muslim countries) and B) even when you do, you may just provide them with a lot more people to spread their message to, the thing you're trying to avoid.

Yes, but they wouldnt be doing it here, which is my main concern. Putting yet more wahhabi preachers in saudi arabia or qatar will change nothing. We can dump them on the coast for all I care.

?

Rotheram... the case where a paedophile sex ring was allowed to operate for years because the police were more concerned about looking racist than preventing the molestation of children. How have you not heard of it?

You'd have to seriously change the legal system for this to work. At this day and age, it's not up to reporter of a potential crime to decide whether it is an actual crime. Courts do that. That's pretty much their only purpose.

No we wouldnt, merely treat accusations of racism like we do lible and slander. If you cannot substantiate the claim you must pay for the losses incured by the accusation.

Baiting people into committing violence is never a good solution, but even if we put that aside, that's a great way to make sure those prone to violence get together with their like minded friends for a few nights in the slammer and start talking. Not enough solitary confinement areas for each.

There are people on british streets who will accost any woman who approaches thier turf not in modest dress.

I would have the police treat them like they would drug dealers: get them to commit the same crime they do on everyone else on or within sight of a undercover cop and arrest them for it, no special provocation.

You're demanding them to renounce their faith and at the same time insult every other member of their faith?

If all that would incite them to renounce citizenship and run away to saudi arabia is the promise of a mere five grand, yes.

The "stupider" elements will listen to those who incite them to violence. The "smarter" elements would be aware that it doesn't matter. You'd be desecrating the dead for no good reason and invoke a totally justified backlash from pretty much the entire world.

No the stupider elements will think to themselves "his promise of paradise is worthless if we are buried in the skin of an unclean animal" and not agree to suicide bomb people.

The rest of the world, those that dont allready want us dead, wont care what we do to the bodies of a suicide attacker.

Up until this last point I may have been persuaded that you've actually given some thought to this in an attempt to provide an actual solution, but this is pathetic.

What's pathetic is your understanding of the situation in the UK, yet you continue to act like an authority.

Just for reference: In order to access to Heaven, in the Muslim Faith, you are supposed to arrive complete (reason why Muslim Warriors used to cut a part of a enemy body. I was witness of this in Bosnia, by the way). So, blowing yourself-up is de facto a ban to go in Heaven (in case of bits missing). Didn't stop one of them to do so.
The problem is studies (can link one if your read French) shows that the "foot-criminals" of this faith have NOT A CLUE of Islam and Quran. They are lead by ones who have, so they are not Uleman nor Doctors of the Faith. The ones in France would be completely unable to READ the Quran, to understand it or comment it.

Then we should exploit this reliance on islamic teachers and propaganize one who is willing to say into the camera "you will go to hell if they bury your body incomplete or in a pig skin".

I say pig skin because the concept of it being an unclean animal the foot soldiers do know and would thus give it extra weight.



I had to take a few days off to study. Husar's next.

[Pannonian]

Jew are often seen as being like that, and yet there's no outcry. We ridicule the people who dare to voice those concerns.

When was the last Jewish terrorist attack on Britain? 1948? Heck, I'm willing to give the Irish republicans something of a pass, and their terrorism is within my living memory.

[Greyblades]

Are you calling your opposition in this thread insane and sociopathic without even explaining WHY you think so?

I would have thought it would be obvious from the bit you didnt put in bold; that considering "an attack on the tribe by self declared outsiders should holds as little weight as an accident" is what is insane.

To me this looks like tribalism since you even use the word tribe yourself. A return to such outdated structural thought patterns does not appeal to me at all, especially not when the "tribe" I'm supposed to associate with is the size of a nation. I only associate with people as "my tribe" when I've personally vetted them and to that end I already know of quite a few people in this nation who I don't want to be associated with...

You are ignorant on the concept of the tribe if you think it is outdated. Settle yourself in for a lesson in human nature.

All forms of civilization are tribes, tribalism expanded to a greater group through fealty, religion or identity. The whole point of those bindings are to expand the tribe beyond the 150 odd people the human brain is capable of maintaining individual relationships with. I know I am of the same tribe as PVC without having to include him in my life in any meaningful way because we both share the identity as british to differing extent. Because we can do this humans can create tribes of massive size without sacrificing cohesion and thus we can expand the capabilities of our society to a degree that make the limits of species like chimpanzees seem absolutely miniscule.

This all relys on the shared identy, we can mostly keep working together regardless of our differences because we all identify and conform to the same group; the kings men, good christians, British what have you. We split into subgroup along religion, race, ideology, these are subtribes, but as long as that main tribe is seen as supreme in it's member's eyes it lets us put those aside, or at least keeps us from killing eachother. When the main identity is weak it will be subverted by lower identities, such as how the unity of christendom was subverted by the ambition of kings or yugoslavia devolved into it's component nations.

It does not surprise me that you believe such things outdated; your main tribe is one that has become notoriously shy and subject to subversion from more abstract and intolerant tribes, ones based not on blood and soil but on religion and ideological ties and are highly intollerant to dissent. Whether it be to islamism, communism, progressivism their members all decry the national identity as worthless, attacking it with accusations of tribalism while ignorant or uncaring that they have merely traded one top tribe with another more fickle and less centralized one.

Members of my tribe have been killed by people who declare themselves as part of another tribe. It would be insane for me to think I should let it stand.

As others have said, moderate muslims often report on the crazy ones. By removing all carrots and treating the moderate ones like criminals, you remove their incentive to do so. You're also creating an artificial divide between yourself and the moderates that evidently doesn't exist for them at the moment as they're obviously trying to help us all fight the crazies. You're making the situation worse for everyone because you try to turn a complicated situation into one where you can easily separate people based on religion or travel destination etc.

Tell me, where have I advocated removeing the carrots? Is outside funding a carrot we've offered them? Sharia police? Ghettos? Easily retractable self exile to a terrorist hotspot?

I asked where it is coming from, not where it is going to. To put it in your words, I'd like to see a few of your primary sources on racism accusations being used as a weapon. And what is "on the part of law enforcement"? It sounded like you were accusing the police of false reporting of hate crimes.

I refer to the climate of suppression that was the main culprit of the rotheram scandal where by city officials suppressed the existance of a report on pakistani paedophiles, and whose response to an investigator bringing a report to the council was to book her on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to "raise her awareness of ethnic issues"

As for origin of this climate, I point to the common response to criticism of islam and pakistani people by the press and politicians of the last two and a half decades, encapsulated rather nicely by the entirety of ex EDL leader Tommy Robinson's experience with public attention. And before you go on about deserved or not; it is irrelevant, the point is the intensity of the reaction this man and his movement produced was highly disproportitionate to his actual influence for the sole reason of being openly xenophobic.

And where to? As Fragony likes to say, a lot of our good people tend to move away when muslims move into the neighborhood. What makes you think they would want to subsidize such movement with their taxes? Of course we don't have a problem with xenophobia as saying that would be self-flagellation. (Or maybe it's time to stop pretending that we're not a superficial society with some xenophobia problems)

I would have them dispersed into the general population, with a limit on muslims per square kilometer. The point is to softly dismantle the sheild against assimilation that is the muslmi ghettos, with incentive to leave and regulation against returning the enclaves should bleed population until dispersed completely. As for funding I am sure that people would be willing to pay to know that the phenomenon that caused them to move in the first place may never appear again.

That's only partially true as they have certainly not been privileged by their "fellow citizens", who gave them lower chances of employment, worse jobs, strange looks, insults, sometimes violent attacks and so on. The other part that is only half true is "their members" as it insinuates that all muslims are somehow in a group with the crazies. Even the parents often disagree with their children on these things. It would be more worthwhile to think about why that could be the case rather than disenfranchise the parents as well, no?

The group is a religion not a race, one whose membership is theoretically voluntary that has horrendously hostile members while recieving both direct and indirect legal priveledges that rotheram proved was for a time enough to far outweigh the costs you refer to, costs that are actively discouraged from occuring by the powers that be. They are a priveledged group in society every way you look at it, and increasingly are resented for it as a result.

Yes, and if we were talking about taxes, you'd blame the failure of the government instead of the taxpayers. But when it comes to muslims, questioning the attempts of the government somehow stops as we already know it's the fault of the muslims alone?

You dont see the absurdity of saying this when quoting a passage of me questioning the government's policy?

Wow...So the fact they can still vote somehow justifies a tyranny of the majority? That's like saying Christians, Kurds and journalists can still vote in Turkey, why don't we let them into the EU already? Surely you'd agree based on how Turkey shares all your democratic values?

Funny, I thought those were humanist values. Or western values. Or republican values. Or christian values.
My point is that democratic values is a vague term that could refer to all sorts of things and has only one constant; the voting system. I have no idea what you meant beyond that, and they can vote.

Yeah, well, social change and reform usually didn't come around within a short timeframe historically. To some extent it took us 40-50 years to disenfranchise the local muslims and notice that those abroad hate us a lot. Now you expect it all to be rolled back in a timeframe of around 15 years when a bit of thinking may tell you that it's much quicker to inflict a wound than to heal it or to destroy something than to repair it. Also consider that oppressive methods as you suggest them tend to widen the wound instead of healing it.

They are repeatedly inflicting wounds on us despite us being non oppresive, if any social change is to succeed it must be completed before the wounds get so heavy the people give up trying and remove them by force. Pussyfooting around wont give the speed needed.

You're also once more dividing people into arbitrary groups you made up just so you can use neat, straight lines. That's how your ancestors already ruined Africa and the Middle East and here you are doing it again, thinking it will work this time...

They failed not because of the lines but because your war made us leave before they could become stable dominions. And it's not an arbitrary line; it's a voluntary faith, few lines are so natural.

So they need to be treated like children by a nanny state?

Bit of a tone shift from this:

Once more you only care about the concerns of the majority and see them as the standard for any action to be taken. That is the same approach that people like Putin and Erdogan as well as many Middle Eastern dictators take. Suppress minority concerns until they're too intimidated to complain or revolt. That's not democratic or fair, it's just another kind of oppression. You're also stating a lot of things that you have not proven at all. That a lack of consequence encourages those who are on the fence for example. Or that it encourages them more than oppression would. Or that inaction was even suggested by anyone as a viable alternative to your ideas...

The first two is covered under human nature of which before this post I was under the impression you understood. As for the third, Hi Idaho.

I'd much rather work towards a society where differences like those in religion matter less rather than more and where social mobility goes up and the wealth divide down. By making them matter less, you actually tear down the differences that make people feel disenfranchised and remove the incentive to listen to fanatics to improve their lot in life. And by giving people more incentive to work towards an improvement and an actual hope of getting somewhere, you further remove the incentive to blame someone else for their problems.
Of course this whole "blame yourself" idea is already a thing, but as I see it, it's a fake thing at the moment that is used to oppress people.

A nice utopia, but a utopia requires everyone to agree to play along; a group that defines themself by a religion stands out for being exceptionally resistant to it, violently so at times, so what do you do?

Useless rhetoric that sounds like you copied it from alt-right propaganda.

Keep going as is and right wing dominance is assured with all that entails. Islamic terrorism is in no way inevitable consequence of western civilization. You accusation of rhetoric is an excuse for a lack of meaningful answer to those statements.

I just had to delurk for this - I cant believe no one else brought Greyblades to task for such utter ignorance.

1) There are no "Sharia courts" in the UK. There are Sharia councils who offer arbitration but their rulings are not law and have no legal standing in actual courts.
2) They are not the only religious councils offering arbitration - the Jewish community has had its own (the Beth Din) for centuries and other Christian councils are also in existence.

As husar demolished you for me, you might want to relurk.

Beskar and Idaho are next, in the morning.

[Husar]

I would have thought it would be obvious from the bit you didnt put in bold; that considering "an attack on the tribe by self declared outsiders should holds as little weight as an accident" is what is insane.

And why is that insane? That's still not an explanation, I don't find any of this insane. Eating a banana to get from London to Peking is insane, how does this compare?

You are ignorant on the concept of the tribe if you think it is outdated. Settle yourself in for a lesson in human nature.

All forms of civilization are tribes, tribalism expanded to a greater group through fealty, religion or identity. The whole point of those bindings are to expand the tribe beyond the 150 odd people the human brain is capable of maintaining individual relationships with. I know I am of the same tribe as PVC without having to include him in my life in any meaningful way because we both share the identity as british to differing extent. Because we can do this humans can create tribes of massive size without sacrificing cohesion and thus we can expand the capabilities of our society to a degree that make the limits of species like chimpanzees seem absolutely miniscule.

This all relys on the shared identy, we can mostly keep working together regardless of our differences because we all identify and conform to the same group; the kings men, good christians, British what have you. We split into subgroup along religion, race, ideology, these are subtribes, but as long as that main tribe is seen as supreme in it's member's eyes it lets us put those aside, or at least keeps us from killing eachother. When the main identity is weak it will be subverted by lower identities, such as how the unity of christendom was subverted by the ambition of kings or yugoslavia devolved into it's component nations.

It does not surprise me that you believe such things outdated; your main tribe is one that has become notoriously shy and subject to subversion from more abstract and intolerant tribes, ones based not on blood and soil but on religion and ideological ties and are highly intollerant to dissent. Whether it be to islamism, communism, progressivism their members all decry the national identity as worthless, attacking it with accusations of tribalism while ignorant or uncaring that they have merely traded one top tribe with another more fickle and less centralized one.

Members of my tribe have been killed by people who declare themselves as part of another tribe. It would be insane for me to think I should let it stand.

That's just a load of BS that waters down a tribe to the level of any arbitrary group. I might as well claim your tribe of alt-rightists is attacking my tribe of leftists. Given your definition, what would make the word tribe distinct from the word group?

Tell me, where have I advocated removeing the carrots? Is outside funding a carrot we've offered them? Sharia police? Ghettos? Easily retractable self exile to a terrorist hotspot?

What are you talking about? Carrot in this context refers to something that makes it attractive for them not to despise us or to leave the ghetto etc.

I would have them dispersed into the general population, with a limit on muslims per square kilometer. The point is to softly dismantle the sheild against assimilation that is the muslmi ghettos, with incentive to leave and regulation against returning the enclaves should bleed population until dispersed completely. As for funding I am sure that people would be willing to pay to know that the phenomenon that caused them to move in the first place may never appear again.

Since we were just on the topic of insanity...
How would you enforce a muslim per square kilometer ratio and would you separate families to enforce it etc.?
Do you seriously think it would encourage them to assimilate? Do you force them to live in areas where they can't afford the rent? Will the neighbors gladly pay their rent?

The group is a religion not a race, one whose membership is theoretically voluntary that has horrendously hostile members while recieving both direct and indirect legal priveledges that rotheram proved was for a time enough to far outweigh the costs you refer to, costs that are actively discouraged from occuring by the powers that be. They are a priveledged group in society every way you look at it, and increasingly are resented for it as a result.

That's bullshit, it's well-proven that they're less likely to get jobs and so on. Some government measures alone do not make a group privileged. As for religious membership being voluntary and the related bullshit, why do we have freedom of religion in modern democracies then? It's also just an a-hole move to say on the one hand that the group is oppressing some of its members to conform to its values and then to justify group punishments based on group membership being voluntary...

You dont see the absurdity of saying this when quoting a passage of me questioning the government's policy?

You weren't advocating punishing the government but the muslims for the failed government initiatives, there is no absurdity to be found in questioning that. If your point is that the muslims are so terrible that the government's great ideas didn't work on them, then you're not questioning the government...otherwise why punish the muslims for that?

Funny, I thought those were humanist values. Or western values. Or republican values. Or christian values.
My point is that democratic values is a vague term that could refer to all sorts of things and has only one constant; the voting system. I have no idea what you meant beyond that, and they can vote.

That's also bullshit, how can a democracy work well if a significant part of the voters is oppressed? A dictatorship of the majority is not a true democracy. HoreTore already explained this numerous times. A simple Google search also results in several sources on the subject of core democratic values.

They are repeatedly inflicting wounds on us despite us being non oppresive, if any social change is to succeed it must be completed before the wounds get so heavy the people give up trying and remove them by force. Pussyfooting around wont give the speed needed.

That's a simplified and biased view. Your country conquered most of theirs and still wages war down there for its own interests. So you keep hurting them just as well. How much one-sided islamic terrorism existed in Europe before colonialism? The whole scary scenario about the people rising against them sounds more like a threat or something you hope for than something that people who can distinguish between normal muslims and islamic terrorists would actually do.

They failed not because of the lines but because your war made us leave before they could become stable dominions. And it's not an arbitrary line; it's a voluntary faith, few lines are so natural.

Arrogant colonialist bullshit. Your country ruined half the planet with its glory-searching conquest parade and now you try to blame others for the result.

The first two is covered under human nature of which before this post I was under the impression you understood. As for the third, Hi Idaho.

Your impression is irrelevant, your explanation makes no sense.

A nice utopia, but a utopia requires everyone to agree to play along; a group that defines themself by a religion stands out for being exceptionally resistant to it, violently so at times, so what do you do?

Perhaps NOT throw all the social achievements of the last 300 years over board to give in to some arbitrary fear and your shitty tribalist ideals?

Keep going as is and right wing dominance is assured with all that entails. Islamic terrorism is in no way inevitable consequence of western civilization. You accusation of rhetoric is an excuse for a lack of meaningful answer to those statements.

You have to prove those statements first before I need to answer them. As long as you're just bullshitting around I don't need any meaningful answers as you can't even prove your bullshit. "the doom of inacion is a certainty" is not only so vague that you could weasel out of almost any reply by saying you meant something else, it is also just a statement that you can't prove. Hence useless rhetoric.

[Fragony]

@Sarmatarian, affecting their lives would make sense for the older generation but not for mine. My sister is a prime example of a leftie with a blind spot, ridiculing everything christian is the hight of intellect but ohohoh if you say anything bad about the islam you could as well have skinned a kitten alive. It's just xenophilae I'd say

[Idaho]

Way before my time then. My only experience of non-Islamist terror is the IRA, and by the time I'd grown up to notice the news, they'd progressed to specifically targeted attacks, and nuisance bombings preceded by phoned warnings. Other than Omagh, nothing as indiscrimnatory as the Islamists, and unlike the republican response to Omagh, the Islamist response to 7/7 was an attempted repeat a few weeks later.

They bombed indiscriminately during the 70s. The switch to warnings and property damage occurred after negotiations started after the Brighton bomb where they almost took out much of the cabinet. THAT was an attack on democracy. Yet the press response was muted, cautious and referred to it as a criminal act.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing

Compare that to one nutter running over some people and killing a policeman.. An act that some of those with a tendency to hysteria are claiming is a sign of the end times. Please.

[Pannonian]

They bombed indiscriminately during the 70s. The switch to warnings and property damage occurred after negotiations started after the Brighton bomb where they almost took out much of the cabinet. THAT was an attack on democracy. Yet the press response was muted, cautious and referred to it as a criminal act.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing

Compare that to one nutter running over some people and killing a policeman.. An act that some of those with a tendency to hysteria are claiming is a sign of the end times. Please.

The republicans eventually stopped, didn't they? Who do we talk to to get the Islamists to stop?

[Idaho]

Orwell disliked both the far left and far right. That he disliked the far right is self-explanatory, having taken up arms against them in Spain and volunteering again in 1939. He also disliked the far left for taking the stance I described above, and consequently taking orders from the USSR (who also despised these "useful idiots"). He recognised a small c conservatism among the English that guarded against both, and found a streak of liberalism in English traditions that he reckoned was worth cultivating against revolutionaries and reactionaries. That progressivism is the moderate left that he argues for, something that has been generally ascendant for the past couple of centuries. Note his quote about the working class throwing off their chains.

The republicans eventually stopped, didn't they? Who do we talk to to get the Islamists to stop?

Why did they stop?

How long did negotiations go on for?

What were their grievances?

Which grievances have been resolved?

Was there further violence after agreement?

Read the history, understand the situation and don't be a knee jerk, driven to emotional over reaction by the press and demagogues.

[Sir Moody]

As husar demolished you for me, you might want to relurk.

Beskar and Idaho are next, in the morning.

Husar rightfully pointed out there are problems with religious arbitration (which I agree with completely) - nothing he said disagrees with what I said - your statements were just wrong.

oh and on the "Sharia police" thing - can you point to where this is happening - I didn't mention it in my previous post because I literally cannot find any reliable source on it being an actual thing in the UK - there were cases in Germany but nothing outside of the usual Papers for here.

edit

I have finally found some sources on it - it seems to be related to several groups in East London.

Here I can agree whole heartily with you -these patrols are wrong and should be clamped down on harder than it seems we are currently (3 convictions and 2 antisocial orders are the only punishments I can find).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The left have traditionally been supportive of freedom of thought and conscience. The right have traditionally mandated a "main culture" (that of the ruling majority) and claimed that this culture was under siege.

That's true for the last, what, 50 years in the Anglo-American context.

It's not true in the immediate Post-War situation, further back it's hardly true at all because the concept of "Main Culture" was not a matter of Concern for the Anglo-American peoples. On the other hand, one can point to Revolutionary France or post-Revolutionary Russia where it was the Left which violently suppressed "deviant" minorities. Hell, the Left in France still supports repression far more than any other Left-ist movement I can think of.

Repression is not an inherently Left or right-Wing attribute.

[Idaho]

In application, I agree. In theory or belief, I think the left at least gives lip service to tolerance and multiplicity. The right is often ideologically suspicious of different.

[Pannonian]

In application, I agree. In theory or belief, I think the left at least gives lip service to tolerance and multiplicity. The right is often ideologically suspicious of different.

The moderate centre practices tolerance and multiplicity. The radical fringes, whatever lip service they give to liberal ideals, dehumanise actual people in favour of abstract theory. Well, the far left does. The far right fetishises individuals.

[Idaho]

And yet centrist capitalism slowly grinds the poor to be poorer and inexorably focuses power and wealth to a small clique.

[Husar]

The moderate centre practices tolerance and multiplicity. The radical fringes, whatever lip service they give to liberal ideals, dehumanise actual people in favour of abstract theory. Well, the far left does. The far right fetishises individuals.

And yet centrist capitalism slowly grinds the poor to be poorer and inexorably focuses power and wealth to a small clique.

But then capitalism is a far right ideology since it fetishises individuals and their greed. And at the same time it is far left since it dehumanises all the individuals who are losers to favor abstract theories like trickle down and growing pies.
Does that make it centrist or just buddhist yin/yang?

[Pannonian]

And yet centrist capitalism slowly grinds the poor to be poorer and inexorably focuses power and wealth to a small clique.

Read Orwell's essay on the working class and their chains.

But then capitalism is a far right ideology since it fetishises individuals and their greed. And at the same time it is far left since it dehumanises all the individuals who are losers to favor abstract theories like trickle down and growing pies.
Does that make it centrist or just buddhist yin/yang?

The far right fetishises Great Men. Not individuals in theory (that's liberalism). Specific individuals.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In application, I agree. In theory or belief, I think the left at least gives lip service to tolerance and multiplicity. The right is often ideologically suspicious of different.

I think the Left and Right just view the "other" through a different lens.

For the Right the "Other" is from a different geographical place, for the Left a different social strata.

Five minutes on the comment section of the Guardian should illustrate that - I actually saw someone once say "I have no shared humanity with Tory scum".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But then capitalism is a far right ideology since it fetishises individuals and their greed. And at the same time it is far left since it dehumanises all the individuals who are losers to favor abstract theories like trickle down and growing pies.
Does that make it centrist or just buddhist yin/yang?

No,it makes it moronic, like all "isms"

[Beskar]

As husar demolished you for me, you might want to relurk.

Beskar and Idaho are next, in the morning.

As ominous as that sounds, you probably actually agree with me far than that you actually appear to do. I think some of your 'hard line' talk is just fluff, trying to turn the situation black and white instead of the 50 shades of grey.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Read Orwell's essay on the working class and their chains.

This is bad practice for forum about discussion. Could you please reference the title and at least give the main point with a link to the text?

[Pannonian]

This is bad practice for forum about discussion. Could you please reference the title and at least give the main point with a link to the text?

The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius. Context: written at a time when Britain were standing alone against a German-conquered continent, who were in cahoots with their Soviet allies (pre-Barbarossa). Orwell disliked both Fascists and Communists, at a time when these terms were formal descriptions.

[Idaho]

I think the Left and Right just view the "other" through a different lens.

For the Right the "Other" is from a different geographical place, for the Left a different social strata.

Five minutes on the comment section of the Guardian should illustrate that - I actually saw someone once say "I have no shared humanity with Tory scum".

That's minor compared to the front pages of the right wing press screaming about the poor or foreign being sub human.

The guardian isn't really left wing. It's smug, middle class and blairite.

[Fragony]

That's minor compared to the front pages of the right wing press screaming about the poor or foreign being sub human.

The guardian isn't really left wing. It's smug, middle class and blairite.

Not subhuman but hostie, don't pretend you don't know that. Feel free to think as you do, but should you, and perhaps you have everything wrong, if it's just a thought it's no accusation no

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's minor compared to the front pages of the right wing press screaming about the poor or foreign being sub human.

The guardian isn't really left wing. It's smug, middle class and blairite.

You mean the Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Fail?

They're just, bluntly, rags for idiots to confirm their prejudices. They're significantly less "Right Wing" than the Guardian is "Left Wing".

Your point of Comparison is the Torygraph, which while being anti-mass immigration does not treat foriegners as "sub human".

[Husar]

Aren't they all/mostly owned by rich white foreigner anyway? A rich white foreigner who claims Downing Street does whatever he wants....
As a German political comedian recently said, it's no wonder that the rich are getting richer and noone cares or changes that if people always read the business part of newspapers owned by rich people.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aren't they all/mostly owned by rich white foreigner anyway? A rich white foreigner who claims Downing Street does whatever he wants....
As a German political comedian recently said, it's no wonder that the rich are getting richer and noone cares or changes that if people always read the business part of newspapers owned by rich people.

Well, that depends on whether you consider an Australian "foreign" I suppose. Probably don't, really, in the UK.

I take your point though, the rich control the press.

[Greyblades]

How does hardline policy on immigration resolve homegrown terrorism?

Adrian Russell Ajao (Later: Khalid Masood) was born in 1964 within a non-Muslim family. He was brought up in a seaside resort of Rye in a £300,000 house and later on moved to upmarket Tunbridge Wells, Kent. He was not raised in socioeconomic poverty or have any background with Islam. It was approximately 41 years later that he converted to Islam, in 2005 (suspected).

My words was a response to the idea that islamic terrorism was a "cost of doing business" of a western culture. This is false due to the unavoidable fact that if it werent for the presence of a wholey imported religion such events would not occur here. If we had not allowed islamic adheirants into our country this would not have been happening; this 50+ year old's conversion would have been extremely unlikely and his radicalization unthinkable.

On another note "lack of response" is inaccurate as the the government has the CONTEST strategy in place, with elements such as PREVENT which involves schools, hospitals, etc. I am even duty bound by my workplace to report terrorism concerns to safeguarding and I am not in any branch of the security services.

I am aware of the government's anti-terror efforts; it is the main reason why we havent really had any successful paris style terrorist attack.

However what they have failed to do, in the eyes of the public, is counter the need for such efforts. in the past 4 years there have been at least thirteen terror plots concieved and foiled from the british muslim community, the ghettos have continued to fester unabated and intergration is still stalling because of it.

As for "If British muslims as a group do not moderate thier own", Khalid Masood was not known by his local Muslim community, even whilst he lived near one. Even then, the Muslim community do moderate their own and I know this second-hand from people who are actually Muslims and tell me these things, who also openly condemn the attacks.

And yet we still have to police thier areas and combat thier dissidents to a much greater extent than any other minority group.

If they are infact trying to policing themselves to the degree that is needed then their competence is clearly abysmal.

So much for "Doom of Inaction". There are approximately 3 million Muslims in the UK. If there was a grand islamic conspiracy, 3 million people can do a lot of damage. But instead, we get 1 guy who has a known violent history (including stabbings) before even becoming a Muslim, known by Mi5, who decided to wake up and murder some people. Your response? we should condemn everyone of those 3 million and label them as Barbarians.

I name thier religion barbarious, tiaxes, their personal civility is dependant on thier ability to reject that which makes thier religion barbarous.

Regardless you have missed my point; the doom isnt ours Tiaxes. Bloodshed will come in time should the muslims not improve and whne it comes the blood spilled will be thiers; the frankly near unparalelled tolerance of the british people is not infinite and should no civil alternative to the status quo present itself there will be a breaking point where the natives choose keeping them is no longer worth the cost in blood.

Best case scenario; mass eviction, police brutalization and deportation reserved only for the ne'redowells, but we both know the bear can rarely so easily distunguish the tame and the rabid.

This view also seems to completely ignore far-right terrorism which is also on the significant rise. From the supposed 'culturally superior' western folk as you're alluding to.

Far right terrorism is about as prevelant in England as unicorns, and is absolutely dwarfed when compared to the islamic variety. The constant referral in these matters to what is currently an insignificance is the diversion of those who do not want to acknowledge the greater concern of radical islam.

Congratulations on this parade of personal foolishness.

Thank you, and may I express my condolances for your testacles, I know social eunuchs are fasionable among the left wing social scene but it's still a pity you had to take it quite so literally.

[Greyblades]

And why is that insane? That's still not an explanation, I don't find any of this insane. Eating a banana to get from London to Peking is insane, how does this compare?

That's just a load of BS that waters down a tribe to the level of any arbitrary group. I might as well claim your tribe of alt-rightists is attacking my tribe of leftists. Given your definition, what would make the word tribe distinct from the word group?

There isnt one in this context, that's the point; your identifying with a group called liberal or progressive or whatever, produces the same behavior as to those who identify with the group called british. Both nation and all the other groupings of humanity hold and produce the same tendancy and capacity towards moderation, extremism, support for the fellow and hostility to the dissenter.

Trying to lable the national idenity as an "outdated structural thought pattern" is an arbitrary dismissal by one who has fooled himself into believeing that the protection his national identity providee is no longer needed.

In more modern terms, I am a briton, I am obligated to do my bit and even die to defend my countrymen in their time of need because I know that every member would do the same for me.

It is because it is the national identity that provides the greatest protection to myself that to allow such ambivilence at the fate of a tribesman in myself is insane. It will only encourage such reluctance among my fellow tribe members thus weaken the tribe's structure a whole and undermine it's ability to protect me. It is insane because undermining it goes against the human survival instinct.

What are you talking about? Carrot in this context refers to something that makes it attractive for them not to despise us or to leave the ghetto etc.

If being intolerant of sharia police, ghettos and easily retractable self exile to a terrorist hotspots are viewed as sticks to them 0then I dont want them here.
Also, what, subsidizing their buying of new homes isnt a carrot for leaving the ghetto?

Since we were just on the topic of insanity...
How would you enforce a muslim per square kilometer ratio and would you separate families to enforce it etc.?
Do you seriously think it would encourage them to assimilate? Do you force them to live in areas where they can't afford the rent? Will the neighbors gladly pay their rent?

I would deny them the priveledge to buy housing in areas that have reached a predetermined limit of muslim households. The assimilation encouragment comes from no longer living in a place where not assimiliating is an easy option, where not knowing the language or the customs of the locals is as hard a status to maintain as it is for every other minority group.

I think you are mistaking "Thought mutti merkel forbade" for insanity, again.

That's bullshit, it's well-proven that they're less likely to get jobs and so on. Some government measures alone do not make a group privileged. As for religious membership being voluntary and the related bullshit, why do we have freedom of religion in modern democracies then? It's also just an a-hole move to say on the one hand that the group is oppressing some of its members to conform to its values and then to justify group punishments based on group membership being voluntary...

Why are you so certain the reasons they are less likely to get jobs are not caused at least in part by thier own behavior and customs? For example if they cant speak english, as 22% of muslim women in the UK cannot, it is ludicrous think the burden of fault is on racism that these people would have trouble getting jobs in an english society. I find your assumption of one sided fault on the local's part for the muslim community's state as shallow and ideologically motivated.

Priveledge: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
"education is a right, not a privilege"
synonyms: advantage, right, benefit, prerogative, entitlement, birthright, due;

They recive tolerances that no other group recieves from the government and society, intentionally and otherwise, by definition they are priveledged.

You weren't advocating punishing the government but the muslims for the failed government initiatives, there is no absurdity to be found in questioning that. If your point is that the muslims are so terrible that the government's great ideas didn't work on them, then you're not questioning the government...otherwise why punish the muslims for that?

Punishment indicates retaliation, these measures are not retaliatory but precautionary. I acknowledge the theoretical nature of islam being voluntary in the post you quote but what remains is a group whose majority reject any internal and external attempts to amend the philosophy which regularly drive members to violence.

The government failed, and was replaced by one who promised to try harder than the previous. The muslims are the constant, their communities uncooperative, members often abusive to eachother and everyone around them. Occasionaly they turn violent, even treasonous.

Such a state is intolerable, the public's patience is finite and their eventual retaliation is unpleseant to contemplate. I would avoid such a break by undermining that which prevents integration, if I have to suspend their indulgeances so be it, to do otherwise would be to accept eventual bloodshed and if they do not like it they can leave.

That's also bullshit, how can a democracy work well if a significant part of the voters is oppressed? A dictatorship of the majority is not a true democracy. HoreTore already explained this numerous times. A simple Google search also results in several sources on the subject of core democratic values.

It is a strange form of democratic oppresion that does not impede their ability to partake the democratic process.

That's a simplified and biased view. Your country conquered most of theirs and still wages war down there for its own interests. So you keep hurting them just as well. How much one-sided islamic terrorism existed in Europe before colonialism? The whole scary scenario about the people rising against them sounds more like a threat or something you hope for than something that people who can distinguish between normal muslims and islamic terrorists would actually do.

There wasnt any significant amount of islam in western europe to commit islamic terrorism before colonialism. You mistake acknowledgement of a course of action's inevitable outcome for desire, if I and those like me wanted it to happen we would merely have to keep our mouths shut and watch the west march towards the precepice.

Arrogant colonialist bullshit. Your country ruined half the planet with its glory-searching conquest parade and now you try to blame others for the result.

Petty, post colonial, borderline marxist, twaddle.

Do you miss the atlantic slave route? The arabian slave markets? The Baraby corsairs? The French Empire?

The Third Reich?

The USSR?

Your impression is irrelevant, your explanation makes no sense.

Come now man, a child knows that the lack of consequence to a taboo only encourages indulgance, though they'd say it with less eloquence, like "who cares, noones watching".

Perhaps NOT throw all the social achievements of the last 300 years over board to give in to some arbitrary fear and your shitty tribalist ideals?

Well your lack of action is making tolerance is going the way of the dodo, so I'd say your utopia is screwed.

You have to prove those statements first before I need to answer them. As long as you're just bullshitting around I don't need any meaningful answers as you can't even prove your bullshit. "the doom of inacion is a certainty" is not only so vague that you could weasel out of almost any reply by saying you meant something else, it is also just a statement that you can't prove. Hence useless rhetoric.

How out of touch are you that I need to prove that the right wing is dominant due to left wing obstinance? That Islamic terrorism isnt some component part of the western democracy?

Have you heard of le pen? She's kind of a big deal these days.

[Dâriûsh]

I would deny them the priveledge to buy housing in areas that have reached a predetermined limit of muslim households. The assimilation encouragment comes from no longer living in a place where not assimiliating is an easy option, where not knowing the language or the customs of the locals is as hard a status to maintain as it is for every other minority group.

Hi. I filled out my Muslim-housing-application-form, mister Greyblades. Can I please live in your neighbourhood?

I happen to know that old Fakhruddin passed away last week, and I know that the elder child of the Hamid family is moving to Stockholm to study next month. So if my girlfriend and I moves in, that should balance the Muslim-budget, right? We sincerely hope our presence will not offend or frighten you too much.

One thing, though. Our cat might be Muslim. Will this upset the balance?