Islamic Immigrants

[burntheflag?]

Okay, so I'd imagine that their is at least a few Europeans here in the forums.. So question..
How do you feel about immigrants from Islamic countries that bring their viewpoints with them to Europe? Do you feel it a danger, or a threat? If so why? If you don't, try to explain why discontent is growing in Europe about the immigrants.

[Red HalfGuard]

Off to OI with you, young person who's just making a totally innocent inquiry about whether Muslims are here to bring their very dangerous opinions from their exotic brown person homelands.

[Stalinist Speaker]

there is no danger whatsoever, they have all right to live here like everyone else, the only danger are racists and capitalist making the immigrants live in bad quality due to the small amount of money they receive.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I highly doubt you know any muslims if you think that they are a 'threat' to Europe (disregarding that 'they' in this context is a disgusting misnomer used by rightwingers to group and attack completely unrelated people) . In fact, isn't this the same racist conspiracy theory that that fascist who went on a killing spree in Norway went on about? 'Eurabia' or something? :laugh:

'The muslims' are as much a threat to Europe as 'The christians' or 'The jews'. Now I hate the abrahamic religions and don't deny it, but there is a clear fucking difference between your average Sunni or Shia practitioner and bloody Al-Nusra. Going by that ridiculous logic, all christians in America would then be catholic-hunting racial supremacists who dress in halloween clothes.

Also, here's some food for thought: did you know that most of the victims of islamist violence in the modern era are moderate muslims?

[Tim Cornelis]

Demographically there is no 'threat' of Muslims becoming the majority, as some right-wingers believe (there is this video of a few years back which claims muslims are becoming the majority, but this contains demonstrable lies, including the number of EU members, which it claims is 31 iirc - anyway). The 'danger' with migration is that migrants from Africa, Asia, and elsewhere (including Eastern Europe) harbor prejudice against, for example, homosexuals, more often than Western Europeans (or even Latin Americans). However, whether they are in Europe or anywhere else should not matter. Certain right-wingers would claim that muslims are not welcome for their treatment of women or LGBTs but apparently have no problem with mistreatment of women and the LGBT community in, say, Pakistan -- as long as it's out of their sight.

The solution is not closing the border, but facilitating acceptance of LGBT and women's rights.

A Dutch report also shows that the majority of Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands 'accept' homosexuality.

Question: "Homosexual men and women should be able to live their lives as they want/please".

Turks: 60% fully agree; 11% neither agree nor disagree; 23% completely disagree; 6% doesn't want to disclose/no information
Moroccans: 64% fully agree; 11% neither agree not disagree; 17% completely disagree; 8% idem
Urban Dutch: 95% fully agree; 2% neither agree nor disagree; 3% completely disagree

32% of Dutch Turks are negative toward homosexuality, 26% of Moroccans is negative toward homosexuality. 34% of Turks is neutral towards it, 26% positive, 7% completely positive; Moroccans: 7% completely negative, 19% negative, 33% neutral, 30% positive, 11% completely positive.

Source: Monitoring van sociale acceptatie van homoseksuelen in Nederland, Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau Den Haag, september 2007.

There is a clear discrepancy between urban Dutch and migrant minorities, but Moroccans are far more accepting of homosexuality in the Netherlands than they are in Morocco.

There is growing discontent amongst many in Europe regarding immigration for a multitude of factors. Migrants may face social obstacles not faced by non-migrants, which may result in labour market discrimination. They may feel isolated and consequently alienated. This can cause anti-social behaviour in migrant youths. This in turn facilitates more isolation and alienation, and so forth: a vicious circle. Non-migrants may also feel alienated in majority migrant neighbourhoods and in a sense a stranger or foreigner in their own neighbourhood.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In any case, in Europe LGBT people and women have more to fear from the widespread and influential Christian sects than from immigrants. Sure, immigrants often have reactionary ideas, and the stupid response of some sections of the left to anti-immigrant bigotry (tailing the most regressive immigrant strata) exacerbates the problem, but in Europe, the oppressed Moroccan immigrant is an ally of the oppressed woman or LGBT person.

Another factor in anti-immigrant racism is the benefit that undocumented migrants, and ghettoised impoverished minority communities provide to the European bourgeoisie, as well as their status as convenient scapegoats for the economic crisis.

[CyM]

there is no danger whatsoever, they have all right to live here like everyone else, the only danger are racists and capitalist making the immigrants live in bad quality due to the small amount of money they receive.
Please don't stir witch hunts, even as a joke or parody, since tone is impossible on the internet. So far, he's only asking a question about racism.

[TheEmancipator]

We should oppose the nutters like Amjem Chadoury who want to install Sharia Law in Britain as much as we should oppose the Christian Democratic and far right parties across Europe who still take an ancient institutions such as the catholic church seriously when making or breaking laws.

The only difference is the former is a tiny minority while the latter body dominates European politics.

I don't want my political legislation being drawn up by religious nutjobs. That is worse than it being drawn up by the bourgeois-orientated politicians

[Rafiq]

Immigrants of a proletarian nature are ours to recruit and in the mean time support against the right. In principal we should always fight anti immigration rhetoric.

However our competitors, Islamist agitators who have made it their prerogative to recruit them as well are our enemies through and through. Or, if you're a member of the SWP, you can happily cede the Muslim proletariat to the Islamists and form a happy anti islamophobic alliance with the UK's most reactionary organizations.

[brigadista]

where i live many of the people the poster writes of are joining family members who are settled in the country so no problem whatsoever. i dont agree with families being split up because of repressive immigration policies

alternatively many are coming here due to this governments political alliance with the US in western "adventures" for profit in the peoples countries that have forced them to flee so - also no problem .

in general i would reply - no bosses - no borders - no bombs :):)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Please don't stir witch hunts, even as a joke or parody, since tone is impossible on the internet. So far, he's only asking a question about racism.

Oops, I think you quoted the wrong poster by mistake.:lol:

[Red_Banner]

Religion is nonsense.


They should be introduced to science and history upon immigration.

Ie. if you see a lady in a Burqa, give her a copy of the Communist Manifesto.:)

[Decolonize The Left]

Religion is nonsense.


They should be introduced to science and history upon immigration.

Ie. if you see a lady in a Burqa, give her a copy of the Communist Manifesto.:)

Religion is indeed nonsense, but your statement is downright insulting and reeks of bourgeois morality.

Also: OP is probably a troll.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Religion is nonsense.


They should be introduced to science and history upon immigration.

Ie. if you see a lady in a Burqa, give her a copy of the Communist Manifesto.:)

And what if she chooses to wear the burqa on her own accord? so long as any church is not established as a functioning wing of the state and government, it is generally harmless. And people have the right to believe in a god or not.


militant religious extremism is also different than the mere following of a religion or belief in a god.

[Red_Banner]

"And people have the right to believe in a god or not"

Even the right to be ignorant?

I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to wear a Bruqa, but chances are they know little outside their religion.

[Red_Banner]

Religion is indeed nonsense, but your statement is downright insulting and reeks of bourgeois morality.

Also: OP is probably a troll.

There is nothing bourgeois about it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

"And people have the right to believe in a god or not"

Even the right to be ignorant?

I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to wear a Bruqa, but chances are they know little outside their religion.


are you so sure?


the problem with your approach is you are assuming something by the way a person is dressed that is obviously of religious orientation. Then you follow up by proselytizing communism as a cure for 'their ignorance.'

This is both paternalistic and xenophobic.

do you do this to any person with a cross or star of david?

you dont build relationships with people by first assaulting their way of life.


Also, who is to say that an immigrant has no understanding of either science or history?

[Red_Banner]

"This is both paternalistic and xenophobic."

You have no knowledge of my sex, gender, or race(s).

"Also, who is to say that an immigrant has no understanding of either science or history? "

Well if I have an indication that a woman is from a place such as Saudi Arabia, the government there isn't too keen on womens' education or any other rights for that matter.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Understand what white man's burden is and why you should oppose it.

understand that it does not matter whether or not you are of a certain gender to act in a paternalistic manner

understand that you are speaking based on assumption due to ones 'foreignness' or that you should not act on the assumption of a persons image regardless of your own 'identity' simply because you are an atheist/communist of whatever national origin and they are possibly religious or possibly from a part of the world in order to preach marxism like a rabid priest.

I am going to leave you with this because at this point you are either trolling or stubborn. and yes, im being paternalistic ;)

[Red_Banner]

I'm not the troller.

And I do not base it on assumption, I base it on evidence.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm not the troller.

And I do not base it on assumption, I base it on evidence.

Based on your deep immersion within the culture of Muslim women in Pennsylvania?

[Red_Banner]

Yes we happen to have them.

Incase you haven't noticed, not all of PA is backwater, we have cities.

And in one of these cities, Scranton, I have seen a person wearing a Burqa this week.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes we happen to have them.

Incase you haven't noticed, not all of PA is backwater, we have cities.

And in one of these cities, Scranton, I have seen a person wearing a Burqa this week.

Did you give them a copy of the communist manifesto?


"And people have the right to believe in a god or not"

Even the right to be ignorant?Someone can be ignorant or not, they can not have the "right" to be ignorant because then it can be assumed that they are aware of another way of thinking and therefore choose to believe this or that.

People are religious for all sorts of reasons, and often the belief in the supernatural is not the main one. If the supernatural story was the main basis of religion, why would people choose this story over another... something else compels people: community, ritual, tradition.

From a revolutionary perspective, religious ideas in a modern context become problems in two ways. 1) when idealist religious views are placed on movements, but this is not religion itself, it goes for almost any liberal approach about principled pacifism or being more moral than the rich or whatnot. 2) in actual organization, the religious right or conservative religious figures, but again obviously an aetheistic-Tea Partier or Ayn Randite can also organize and try and rally people to oppose strikers or civil rights or whatnot.

Since secular organizations and institutions that sometimes spread ruling class ideologies exist along with religion, I think there's no real reason for religion to be singled out any more than the entertainment industry or higher education or social organizations. From this view religious people can't be painted with a broad brush. Some religious people will fall on one side of the class line and some on the other, that's how they should be approached.

[Dagoth Ur]

@rusty shackleford: Muslim women in the West do choose to wear the burka by and large. Usually they're really conservative women who wouldn't talk to a man by herself not because she was going to be beaten but because she believes women who do [talk to men alone] deserve to be beaten.

Also this thread is bait.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you don't, try to explain why discontent is growing in Europe about the immigrants.Because in times of economic crisis, if you are say a ruling minority sitting on a bunch of money while asking everyone else to tighten their belts, the best way to avert a revolt against you is to make people fight over crumbs and point the finger at each-other. Divide and rule, the oldest trick in the ruling class playbook and anyone who falls in with it is history's dummy and a plaything for the rich.

[Rusty Shackleford]

@rusty shackleford: Muslim women in the West do choose to wear the burka by and large. Usually they're really conservative women who wouldn't talk to a man by herself not because she was going to be beaten but because she believes women who do [talk to men alone] deserve to be beaten.

Also this thread is bait.

So be it if it is their deal. My problem is when people decide to single out a woman in a burqa as someone who needs to be saved.


If they chose to not associate with men in private then so be it. If someone acts on enforcing these things on other people through law or mass organization, it will be or should be opposed.

if there is a case of domestic abuse, it should be intervened on.


who here was exposed to communism by a raving lunatic throwing the manifesto at people.

[Paul Pott]

Immigrants are convenient scapegoats who often lack significant representation in bourgeois civil society. None more so than Islamic immigrants, who are typically working class people from Africa or countries such as Pakistan seeking employment or other sources of income.

So it costs nothing to attack immigrants and benefit politically from the resulting anti-immigration sentiment. This has a long history in bourgeois politics, especially since the late 19th century. It survives because as soon as it gains momentum it becomes a convenient method of distraction. It becomes a social spectacle of rumor, anecdotes, and friend of a friend stories that the average person is not able or willing to challenge. It is the same process of scapegoating that happened to Jews in the 20s and 30s, and it's also happening to the Roma (gypsies) today, which even the French government is encouraging.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Immigrants are convenient scapegoats who often lack significant representation in bourgeois civil society. None more so than Islamic immigrants, who are typically working class people from Africa or countries such as Pakistan seeking employment or other sources of income.

So it costs nothing to attack immigrants and benefit politically from the resulting anti-immigration sentiment. This has a long history in bourgeois politics, especially since the late 19th century. It survives because as soon as it gains momentum it becomes a convenient method of distraction. It becomes a social spectacle of rumor, anecdotes, and friend of a friend stories that the average person is not able or willing to challenge. It is the same process of scapegoating that happened to Jews in the 20s and 30s, and it's also happening to the Roma (gypsies) today, which even the French government is encouraging.

I read somewhere that the Ku Klux Klan grew to their largest level of membership in history (5 million) not because of confed nostalgia, but because of the massive 'americanisation' anti-immigrant fervor that swept the US after WW1.

[Red_Banner]

So be it if it is their deal. My problem is when people decide to single out a woman in a burqa as someone who needs to be saved.


If they chose to not associate with men in private then so be it. If someone acts on enforcing these things on other people through law or mass organization, it will be or should be opposed.

if there is a case of domestic abuse, it should be intervened on.


who here was exposed to communism by a raving lunatic throwing the manifesto at people.

It doesn't have to be the Manifesto, it could be Bakunin, Goldman, Richard Dawkins, or even Thomas Payne.

My goal is to open their mind.

Like with a former friend who turned out to be a Roman Catholic fanatic, I couldn't even get him to consider ideas of other Catholic religions like Eastern Catholocism, Orthodoxy, or Anglicanism, nevermind Protestantism, other relgions, or atheism.

[roy]

It doesn't have to be the Manifesto, it could be Bakunin, Goldman, Richard Dawkins, or even Thomas Payne.

My goal is to open their mind.

Like with a former friend who turned out to be a Roman Catholic fanatic, I couldn't even get him to consider ideas of other Catholic religions like Eastern Catholocism, Orthodoxy, or Anglicanism, nevermind Protestantism, other relgions, or atheism.

Maybe going, 'here, ignorant masses, read some Marx/Bakunin etc.' is not the right way to go about it if you want to change people's minds

Edit: I didn't see rusty said that already pretty much mais bon

[Red_Banner]

So what am I supposed to do, not expose them to other ideas?

I am supposed to pray and hope that they become class conscious on their own?

I came to know about communism and anarchism because of my curiosity and because some people had the good sense to put information out there.

With your attitude, you will accomplish nothing.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So what am I supposed to do, not expose them to other ideas?

I am supposed to pray and hope that they become class conscious on their own?

I came to know about communism and anarchism because of my curiosity and because some people had the good sense to put information out there.

With your attitude, you will accomplish nothing.

generally, telling someone they are ignorant/a fool and telling them you know best isn't the best strategy to get them interested in what you have to say.

And how ironic is it that you want to convert people from their lives of bible, torah and quran reading by instead giving them ancient communist texts to read.

People should be free to choose whether they are religious or not without being branded as some sort of ignoramus by others. If we want to end the travesty that is religion, then we need to do so with the forces of logic, reason and coherent argument and, above all else, showing people that a religion-free world would be one of toleration, decency and respect, three things which you seem to lack in your attitude towards the majority of people in the world (As the majority are religious).

[roy]

So what am I supposed to do, not expose them to other ideas?

I am supposed to pray and hope that they become class conscious on their own?

I came to know about communism and anarchism because of my curiosity and because some people had the good sense to put information out there.

With your attitude, you will accomplish nothing.

There's a difference between exposing them to other ideas and being like read this radical literature dumb prole. Say someone says or does something bigoted, explain to them what's wrong with what they're doing/saying, as opposed to just being like 'communism is the answer!!!' Most people are not gonna be receptive to that.

Btw even if you convert every person you ever meet to a true communist believer or some shit the world will be no closer to communism. Neither you nor I will ever accomplish this. Just try not be a dick

[Comrade Jacob]

I honestly don't care, the people I am worried about are the fascists that are hyping peoples prejudice because they don't understand the nature of capitalism.

[#FF0000]

Yes we happen to have them.

Incase you haven't noticed, not all of PA is backwater, we have cities.

And in one of these cities, Scranton, I have seen a person wearing a Burqa this week.

Scranton is a backwater.

But yeah, it's not as if there there are a ton of muslims in this area, and even fewer people who actually wear a full burqa (we aren't confusing the burqa for other kinds of head coverings, are we?)

In Philadelphia I wouldn't be surprised, though.


So what am I supposed to do, not expose them to other ideas?

Nah that's not the problem. The problem is that it's questionable as heck to, like Rusty Shackleford said, single out muslims women as people who need to be saved by giving them the communist manifesto or something. It's condescending, to say the least.

[Comrade Chernov]

So what am I supposed to do, not expose them to other ideas?

I am supposed to pray and hope that they become class conscious on their own?

I came to know about communism and anarchism because of my curiosity and because some people had the good sense to put information out there.

With your attitude, you will accomplish nothing.

Here's a question, what if their mind is already open, they've heard of other religions and political systems, and they don't like them? What if they think that Allah exists, and don't believe in the idea of Atheism?

Shoving your religion/lack of religion down anyone's throat is rude and uncalled for. I'm an Atheist, just like you, but I have something called respect for the beliefs of others. Yes, you came to Communism and Anarchism because you were curious, but you can't force someone to become curious. So, yes, you ARE supposed to "hope and pray" that they become curious, because it's the courteous thing to do.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

And how ironic is it that you want to convert people from their lives of bible, torah and quran reading by instead giving them ancient communist texts to read.

Not ironic at all, considering how one set of books centers around a critique of modern political economy while the other is the immortalized doctrine of a despotic bronze-age cult.

[Red HalfGuard]

Yay, we're reddit!

[4MyNation]

I do not judge by race or skin color.

However, Islam is a backwards religion! Islam is completely antithetical to liberalism and leftist ideals.

Gay Marriage, Women's rights, Muslims countries don't have allot of that!

Topless Jihad forever.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Yay, we're reddit!

slKULc8W7lM

:p

[bcbm]

Yay, we're reddit!

slKULc8W7lM

:p

verbal warning, lets try to keep it on topic. and don't post videos unless they have relevant information to the topic at hand please.

[Dagoth Ur]

I do not judge by race or skin color.

However, Islam is a backwards religion! Islam is completely antithetical to liberalism and leftist ideals.
Liberalism is cancer. And only Salafism is inherently right-wing.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

FWIW many Muslims don't see themselves as opposed to science. I don't understand this myself but some Muslims believe findings of modern science are prefigured in the Koran.

Also Islam itself is highly diverse. There is the reactionary Wahabi sect of Saudi Arabia, the Sufiism popular in Pakistan and Indonesian Islam which combines elements of Hinduism and animism.

Also the first generation of Muslim immigrants to Britain and France after WWII were not very religious. Its the effects of racism, lack of employment, the collapse of Third world nationalism and identity politics which has increased the role of religion.

Also...good read

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Muslim-Bad-America-Terror/dp/0385515375


Many of the many post-September 11 books probing the causes of Islamic terrorism invoke Samuel Huntington-esque notions about clashes of culture; many of the same books would like to dissociate the "war on terrorism" of the twenty-first century from the more conventional conflicts of the late twentieth century. Both these notions are Mamdani's targets in this book. Politicizing notions of Islam by differentiating between secular, Westernized ("good") Muslims and fanatical, medieval ("bad") Muslims, Mamdani argues, misrepresents the often apolitical character of Islam. It also dangerously ignores cold war-era American complicity in the turbulence of the Muslim world through the waging of proxy wars, particularly the one in Afghanistan in which, says Mamdani, the CIA created Osama bin Laden. Those familiar with Noam Chomsky's recent work will likely find some of Mamdani's arguments familiar, particularly his discussion of imperialistic political violence, racism, and the modern state. Where Mamdani is unique and particularly compelling, however, is in drawing on his African-studies background to back up his assertions about violence, terrorism and Islam

[Alan OldStudent]

Religion is indeed nonsense, but your statement is downright insulting and reeks of bourgeois morality.

Also: OP is probably a troll.

I'm kind of new here, and I see "OP" frequently. What does OP mean?

Regards,
Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm kind of new here, and I see "OP" frequently. What does OP mean?

It means Original Post(er).

[burntheflag?]

I'm not a troll i swear.. It's just that some of what i see from Europe(I'm american so i'd imagine that's the reason) is hate for middle eastern immigrants.. I was simply curious about how many of you Europeans felt about them. I apologize for stirring such controversy

[Red_Banner]

Here's a question, what if their mind is already open, they've heard of other religions and political systems, and they don't like them? What if they think that Allah exists, and don't believe in the idea of Atheism?

Shoving your religion/lack of religion down anyone's throat is rude and uncalled for. I'm an Atheist, just like you, but I have something called respect for the beliefs of others. Yes, you came to Communism and Anarchism because you were curious, but you can't force someone to become curious. So, yes, you ARE supposed to "hope and pray" that they become curious, because it's the courteous thing to do.

I'm not going to be the reactionary pacifist that you are.

People like you are the reason the Dark Ages lasted so long.

People and things must be confronted and questioned.

[#FF0000]

I'm not going to be the reactionary pacifist that you are.

People like you are the reason the Dark Ages lasted so long.

People and things must be confronted and questioned.

The Dark Ages weren't even a thing, homie.

Obviously things that are incorrect ought to be challenged but let's not be tone deaf about this -- Muslims in particular are already under intense scrutiny by the government and society in general thanks to bigoted fearmongers who blame a chunk of the world's problems on Muslims and who blame terrorism on "Islam" in general rather than recognizing it as a "side effect" of Imperialism.

i am drunk but you know what i'm saying here

[Red HalfGuard]

Well they were a thing for a podunk backwater like Europe! For the Muslim world, it was a time of unprecedented scientific advance. Algebra? Invented by Muslims. Bathing? Brought to Europe by Muslims.

[Red_Banner]

"Bathing? Brought to Europe by Muslims."

Not true, the Romans had that before them.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Liberalism is cancer.
I'd prefer liberalism to apologia for religious fundamentalism any day (although, as it has been noted, the two oft go hand in hand with one another).


Liberalism is cancer. And only Salafism is inherently right-wing.

Shia islamism isn't right-wing now?

The leftists who were hung under the Iranian government will rejoice to hear it, I imagine.

[Red HalfGuard]

I do not judge by race or skin color.

However, Islam is a backwards religion! Islam is completely antithetical to liberalism and leftist ideals.


What a coincidence. I'm also antithetical to liberalism, as are most people on this communist message board, you herniated pro-wrestler's sweaty purple taint.

I could point out that Islam has hundreds of millions of followers and you cherry picking the most reactionary parts of it or ignoring that those reactionaries were specifically armed and funded by the imperialist powers is intellectually dishonest but BNP/EDL doofuses like you lack the intellectual subtlety to engage in such distinctions.

I could also point out that without the work of Muslim mathameticians during your 'dark age', computers like the one you're typing on wouldn't exist. Actually I think i'll do that. You wanna live without the influence of Islam? Fine. Throw your computer away and stop bathing.

[Red HalfGuard]

"Bathing? Brought to Europe by Muslims."

Not true, the Romans had that before them.

And forgotten while you honkies decided you'd rather live in mud huts and die of easily preventable diseases.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

And forgotten while you honkies decided you'd rather live in mud huts and die of easily preventable diseases.

What the hell does this racist bullshit have to do with what anything you were talking about? Someone disproves you and you go 'fucking honkeys are filthy'? Are you seven?

I was unaware destitute frankish tribes under the jurisdiction of Roman rule were responsible for the invasion and enslavement of Africa and it's inhabitants. :rolleyes:

If there's anything that makes one cringe, it's a marxist who separates events from their historical context. If we're going to use the logic that you are using right now, then I guess that many ethnic jews were still oppressing local palestinians through racial abuse back in the 1800s and 1900s, and that ethnic manchus still are in positions of massive, racial privilege in Chinese society.

Dumb ahistorical flaming, ahoy!

[Red HalfGuard]

Sorry your butt is hurt, Honky (see that? it's an insult that carries no power because whiteness is a category of supremacy). But the historical facts are clear: Muslim scientists were advancing human knowledge while Europe was a shithole.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Sorry your butt is hurt, Honky (see that? it's an insult that carries no power because whiteness is a category of supremacy).

It certainly wasn't back then, now was it? Au contraire, most non-Romans were enslaved by the empire, with the justification for such acts being that they were 'uncivilised'. This included Frankish tribes, Slav tribes, Basques and the former inhabitants of pre-Roman Europe (which sadly do not have much of a historical legacy).

Again this is just you being an angsty ahistorical dickhead who thinks that the modern societal relations of privilege have stayed practically timeless throughout human history, something that anyone with an inkling of knowledge on the subject would be able to rebuke. I'm not talking about structures of racism in the modern day. I'm talking about the pseudo-racial remarks you made about 'filthy honkeys in mudhuts' who were apparently savages compared to life in the caliphates - the same sentiment the various European powers rejoiced in when they dismantled, raided and made their colonies in West Africa.


But the historical facts are clear:

Muslim scientists were advancing human knowledge while Europe was a shithole.

I never contested the that some rich muslim academics forwarded the scientific pursuit of knowledge throughout North Africa and Mesopotamia (just as some rich christian academics did the same in Europe a few centuries later). I don't know why you're going on about this.

My problem is that you like to use ad hominem when people challenge your positions, and that you made stupid remarks about very poor and starving people who had absolutely no connection with white supremacy today.

[#FF0000]

And forgotten while you honkies decided you'd rather live in mud huts and die of easily preventable diseases.

lmao.

obvious troll account, i think

but holy shit what a great post i love the internet

EDIT:
Well they were a thing for a podunk backwater like Europe!

Nope!

[Crux]

It doesn't have to be the Manifesto, it could be Bakunin, Goldman, Richard Dawkins, or even Thomas Payne.

My goal is to open their mind.

Like with a former friend who turned out to be a Roman Catholic fanatic, I couldn't even get him to consider ideas of other Catholic religions like Eastern Catholocism, Orthodoxy, or Anglicanism, nevermind Protestantism, other relgions, or atheism.
That explains it.
Is your goal really to free their mind or is it to "save" them while resenting them as less intelligent? I oppose religious fundamentalism, because it is without fail reactionary, indeed it is the definition of a reactionary movement.

But so is a discussion about muslim immigrants in Europe becoming a discussion of the fringe cultural practice of the burqa.
That's like a discussion on judaism as a religion and people from a jewish cultural background centering only on the haredim. (Incidentally that is actually an old trick out of the far right hand-book).


Okay, so I'd imagine that their is at least a few Europeans here in the forums.. So question..
How do you feel about immigrants from Islamic countries that bring their viewpoints with them to Europe? Do you feel it a danger, or a threat? If so why? If you don't, try to explain why discontent is growing in Europe about the immigrants.
It's the old divide and conquer tactics of the ruling class at play. The political establishment deliberately cater to anti-immigration rhetoric to try and cover their own asses. And the populist far right parties that have sprung up are essentially the result of the policies of the establishment. A fake opposition. But they do have an audience to play to, which is why they are growing. The liberal end of the political establishment sure as shit can't do much against them other than write a scathing article now and again how "racism is really bad ok?". The growth of the far right also has to do with the present weakness of the left.

[Red HalfGuard]

It certainly wasn't back then, now was it? Au contraire, most non-Romans were enslaved by the empire, with the justification for such acts being that they were 'uncivilised'. This included Frankish tribes, Slav tribes, Basques and the former inhabitants of pre-Roman Europe (which sadly do not have much of a historical legacy).

lol are you seriously still butthurt about being oppressed by the Romans?



Again this is just you being an angsty ahistorical dickhead who thinks that the modern societal relations of privilege have stayed practically timeless throughout human history, something that anyone with an inkling of knowledge on the subject would be able to rebuke. I'm not talking about structures of racism in the modern day. I'm talking about the pseudo-racial remarks you made about 'filthy honkeys in mudhuts' who were apparently savages compared to life in the caliphates - the same sentiment the various European powers rejoiced in when they dismantled, raided and made their colonies in West Africa.

So you see absolutely no difference between European discourse on Africa and me making fun of Anglo-Saxons for not bathing? Boy that's not offensive at all.



My problem is that you like to use ad hominem when people challenge your positions, and that you made stupid remarks about very poor and starving people who had absolutely no connection with white supremacy today.

Yes, those ancient Franks definitely need your help today, because they face just awful discrimination.

[Quail]

I'm going to issue a blanket verbal warning to stay on topic and refrain from silly ad hominems, or else I'll have to close this thread.
(tbh I can't really see it going anywhere productive anyway)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not ironic at all, considering how one set of books centers around a critique of modern political economy while the other is the immortalized doctrine of a despotic bronze-age cult.

It's more the attitude of people in relation to the books.

The ultra-religious live and die by the religious texts of yesteryear, and treat them as gospel.

In much the same way, some dogmatic Marxists treat the works of Marx, Lenin et al. in a similar way, to the point where they lose the ability to critically examine these or other works, instead relying on quotes from these texts to prove their point, rather than debating someone based on context, or common sense, or reasoned argument.

[Crux]

It's more the attitude of people in relation to the books.

The ultra-religious live and die by the religious texts of yesteryear, and treat them as gospel.

In much the same way, some dogmatic Marxists treat the works of Marx, Lenin et al. in a similar way, to the point where they lose the ability to critically examine these or other works, instead relying on quotes from these texts to prove their point, rather than debating someone based on context, or common sense, or reasoned argument.
I'd make the addition that they live by the texts as interpreted by their particular community. The irony of scriptural literalism is that it's a distinctly modern phenomenon.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

^^^Yes exactly. They would rather confer on a text, rather than their own abilities of reason and logic, to seek what their viewpoint on most things 'should be', rather than what they, critically, want it to be.

Interestingly, this could also perhaps be related, in some ways at least, to the general irrelevance of many left sects - their obsession with politics, in the way we've just discussed, doesn't tend to produce the most outwardly social, or open, people, which isn't really good for such organisations as their self-assumed raison d'etre is the leadership of the working class!

[burntheflag?]

Red Banner. I ask you this. Why can people not believe in religion? If we're talking about rights of the comman man, why can they not both be aware of science, and be religious?I myself, have considered myself a Pagan, however i was also aware of science.

[Red_Banner]

Because many of those beliefs contradict science.

Like many Judeo-Christians for example only think Earth is a few thousand years old and that "God" put fake dinosaur bones on the Earth as some sort of sick joke.

While the evidence has shown it has taken many million of years for certain creatures to evolve into what they are now.

I can see and feel the fossils of trilobites.
This "God" however has not made himself evident to me.

Oh sure the Judeo-Christians will say he appeared thousands of years ago, but will come up with all sorts of excuses as to why "God" doesn't come to Earth now.

"Pagan"?

Which kind?

There are many.

I was religious in the past, prayers accomplished absolutely nothing.
I was wasting my time.
I was anxious, paranoid, obsessive compulsive, and it blinded me from the obvious, it was destroying me.

[DasFapital]

I am around a lot of Muslim African immigrants where I live currently. I think that Islam is inherently reactionary but I don't think it is any more inherently reactionary than the nationalistic brand of rural blue collar Christianity that was rampant where I grew up. For some reason many secular islamophobes have no problem making common cause with these people even though they have far more influence on the government.

[TheEmancipator]

I honestly don't care, the people I am worried about are the fascists that are hyping peoples prejudice because they don't understand the nature of capitalism.

Um, you don't care that some people are being subjected to religious law? Isn't the current ultra-Islamist doctrine as much a threat as fascism was in our continent?

We should worry about Islamists as much as the fascists, the difference being that in Europe anyway the bigger threat is still the far right. Islamist terrorist attacks account for about 1% of all terrorist attacks the others being dominated by national liberation movements and, surprise surprise, the far right.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yo, Islam and stuff is pretty neat guyz.

[synthesis]

Isn't the current ultra-Islamist doctrine as much a threat as fascism was in our continent?

No, not in the West, obviously, but more importantly, active anti-Islamism in the West can only ever manifest meaningfully as support for imperialism in the Muslim world.

[Rafiq]

No, not in the West, obviously, but more importantly, active anti-Islamism in the West can only ever manifest meaningfully as support for imperialism in the Muslim world.

Yeah, it's not like there's significant Muslim working class population that Islamists target in the west.

[DasFapital]

Islam is a bunch of seventh century patriarchial bullshit but Western imperialism is killing far more people and is only driving the Muslim world towards more reactionary views. In the early twentieth century many Muslin countries were far more open and tolerant than they are now.

[synthesis]

Yeah, it's not like there's significant Muslim working class population that Islamists target in the west.

But it's not comparable to fascism in that those are national minorities.

[Sea]

So be it if it is their deal.People who believe that women who talk alone to men ought to be beaten are our enemies through and through. The fact that the person saying this is a woman in a burqa makes no difference whatsoever. The disgusting content of a religion is not to be met with hostility because of its origin in a given religion, it is to be met with hostility because of its being reactionary. Likewise, Islam isn't to be met with hostility by virtue of its being Islam, reactionary elements of anything are to be met with hostility by virtue of their being reactionary. We are to combat reactionism. We are not, however, to judge this reactionism on its broad "character", be it Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or secular, or anything else. To do so implies the consideration of the religion or lack thereof as an ideological entity independent from the myriad of other factors at play -- natural environment, economics, etc. A religion cannot be bottled up and hated at. That is to say, we are not to combat Islam on the grounds of it being Islam. We are to combat Islam on the grounds of it being reactionary. And we are not at all to combat Muslims for the sake of their being Muslims. This is Islamophobia and nothing more.
Islam is a bunch of seventh century patriarchial bullshit but Western imperialism is killing far more people and is only driving the Muslim world towards more reactionary views. In the early twentieth century many Muslin countries were far more open and tolerant than they are now.Yeah, it seems Christians in the Christian-dominated West get a free pass. Though their religion is just as disturbing, material conditions neccesitate that they ignore or even combat some of its elements. Much of the reactionism encoded in (not neccesarily originating from) Christianity exists plentifully in our "modern" world, and yet many Christians put on airs.