Jump to content

Final Call to Islam


Elijah Muhammad
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's nothing to argue, Muhammad was a vile human and ISIS are also vile. The main reason they do what they do is so they can be more like Muhammad. 

 

"ISIS are the DOGS OF HELL, killing them and you will be rewarded and if you are killed by them you will be rewarded."

This sort of nonsense is exactly what inspires Islamic fanatics like ISIS, "if you do something you will be rewarded". No you won't, there is no reward. 

So you're saying it isn't good to kill ISIS?

Also, then why is it that Muslims are dying on the front lines to fight ISIS while your sorry ass is here being a keyboard warrior?

IYT09l4.png

Ex-Archduke of Defence for BK

3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

@Lelouch Vi Britannia - BK needs you, but they really don't deserve you.  Thanks for the dankness.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII

4313339.jpg

 

Nah but on a more serious note, it´s just that some regions in the middle east are stuck with a mindset people in europe used to have a century ago.

i say live and let live.... people who plan acts of terror / perform acts of terror (or generally do crimes) should be imprisoned/ dealt with accordingly (i am against the death sentence on a sidenote),  people who don´t can pray

to whoever they want to. And on another note, people should stop pretending as if terrorism was a huge problem for the western civilasation. Cause it isn`t. This may make me sound like an ass, but the number of people who die due to acts of terror in western countries is absolutly insignificant. But it is just way easier to say:" Hurr Durr, we have to fight terrorism, it`s such a huge deal, hurr durr" and blow that whole thing out of proportion instead of tackeling the "real" threats to western civilisation like climate change, various ilnesses, obesity, nuclear weapons,... because people would have to actually change their lifestyles to solve these major issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While in general I agree with your statement that "white" America isn't some massive race-based voting block that plows people of color, I do have a massive bone to pick with discrimination of Eastern Europeans/Catholics and how that has been used as evidence of America's periodic dislike of immigrants not having a race component to it. 

 

But that's off topic. 

 

 

We all live in a post God-is-dead world, why can't we all just be absurdists and leave theology to history buffs and corpses? Also, terrorism isn't new. Fast, cheap commercial travel is. 

 

Even if you want to look historically, religion is the foundation of why we didn't get along with Mexico and how we unraveled its social fabric to the point of exploiting its immigrant population.  When Mexico declared independence from Spain, it didn't follow our precedent of establishing separation of Church and State.  Along with this, because Catholicism prohibited slavery as shown in the Valladolid Debate, Sublimus Dei papal bull, and Salamanca School reform of Spanish colonization ever since the testimony of Dominicans such as Bartolome de las Casas and Francisco de Vittoria, it did so as well.  When Americans immigrated to Texas, they were expected to convert to Catholicism and were given a time table to relinquish their slaves, but when that clock ended, the Texans renounced their supposed conversion.  From here, Texas received our support to declare independence from Mexico, and the casus belli was planted to justify our Manifest Destiny into western Mexican lands.

 

The same thing applies to our treatment of Native American populations in contrast to how the French dealt with them such as during the French and Indian War as well as during France's ownership of Louisiana.  As Catholics, they recognized the Councils of Paderborn and Frankfurt which demand respect for pagan populations around the world and prohibited witchhunting.  In fact, Quebec in contrast never had a history of persecuting Native Americans. 

 

Aside from Hispanics, Native Americans, and Africans, what immigrant populations are you saying America had a periodic dislike of? 

Edited by Argotitan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you want to look historically, religion is the foundation of why we didn't get along with Mexico and how we unraveled its social fabric to the point of exploiting its immigrant population.  When Mexico declared independence from Spain, it didn't follow our precedent of establishing separation of Church and State.  Along with this, because Catholicism prohibited slavery as shown in the Valladolid Debate, Sublimus Dei papal bull, and Salamanca School reform of Spanish colonization ever since the testimony of Dominicans such as Bartolome de las Casas and Francisco de Vittoria, it did so as well.  When Americans immigrated to Texas, they were expected to convert to Catholicism and were given a time table to relinquish their slaves, but when that clock ended, the Texans renounced their supposed conversion.  From here, Texas received our support to declare independence from Mexico, and the casus belli was planted to justify our Manifest Destiny into western Mexican lands.

 

The same thing applies to our treatment of Native American populations in contrast to how the French dealt with them such as during the French and Indian War as well as during France's ownership of Louisiana.  As Catholics, they recognized the Councils of Paderborn and Frankfurt which demand respect for pagan populations around the world and prohibited witchhunting.  In fact, Quebec in contrast never had a history of persecuting Native Americans. 

 

Aside from Hispanics, Native Americans, and Africans, what immigrant populations are you saying America had a periodic dislike of? 

 

Bone-Picked Mode Activated.

 

 

Like, literally every country in East Asia. Also, immigrant hate spikes when immigrants are seen threatening American way of life, real or perceived. I would argue economics plays a larger role than religion, religion is just the justification for the hate. Take Mexicans for example. They were sitting on prime-time real estate. After said real estate was purchased fairly through the use of several thousand federal troops, only the south western states had issues with Mexicans, since they were largely seen as white Europeans. The south western states were annoyed by how they took jobs. Jobs that, in the post Civil War era, no average white American would do anyway. 

 

This is also evidenced by the quota system during the 1920s. The 1920s quota system, and the numbers the US assigned to individual countries, is quite indicative of which region of the world the US doesn't want people from. Mexico didn't fall anywhere near nations like Italy, or the Balkan countries, or heaven-forbid, Asia. Again, largely because they were seen as white Europeans from the good side of the alps. 

 

"Well, what about today's spat with Mexicans then?" you might ask. Ironically, the 1965 act was responsible. Signed by the champion of 20th century liberalism LBJ, it equalized the quotas from all countries. This ironically meant that Mexico, who naturally had a larger migrant laborer population due to its proximity to developing states and loss of job opportunity in Mexico, was limited to the few thousand people that England or China could send over in a year. The 1965 act overnight turned roughly 30,000 people into criminals, their only crime is existing on the wrong side of a line in the sand. It's a great campaign slogan when Trump says people are "illegal," and uses a small percentage of actual violent criminals to justify the removal of several thousand people. So why is Latino-phobia rearing it's ugly head again? Economics, more or less perceived. Mexicans take jobs (again, jobs that most Americans won't do anyway). Our current racial climate regarding Mexicans hasn't changed so much since the 20th century, only a new piece of legislation that allows Fox News to justify exporting them. 

 

Also, Native Americans are not immigrants. They are "emigrants," either to a small piece of inhabitable land that nobody wanted or 6 feet under the ground. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4313339.jpg

 

Nah but on a more serious note, it´s just that some regions in the middle east are stuck with a mindset people in europe used to have a century ago.

i say live and let live.... people who plan acts of terror / perform acts of terror (or generally do crimes) should be imprisoned/ dealt with accordingly (i am against the death sentence on a sidenote),  people who don´t can pray

to whoever they want to. And on another note, people should stop pretending as if terrorism was a huge problem for the western civilasation. Cause it isn`t. This may make me sound like an ass, but the number of people who die due to acts of terror in western countries is absolutly insignificant. But it is just way easier to say:" Hurr Durr, we have to fight terrorism, it`s such a huge deal, hurr durr" and blow that whole thing out of proportion instead of tackeling the "real" threats to western civilisation like climate change, various ilnesses, obesity, nuclear weapons,... because people would have to actually change their lifestyles to solve these major issues.

 

Islam and mass immigration are the biggest threats to western civilization which is deeply connected to terrorism and higher rates of crime. No point solving other issues if you can't enjoy the world. I'm a firm believer in people reaping what they sow so if you think terrorist attacks aren't a problem then no one will mind if the next one kills you as its not a big deal. 

 

 

So you're saying it isn't good to kill ISIS?

Also, then why is it that Muslims are dying on the front lines to fight ISIS while your sorry ass is here being a keyboard warrior?

 

It would be good to kill a lot of bad Muslims, not just ISIS as a lot of Muslims hate gays, treat women and minorities terribly. Bad people fighting other bad people (ISIS) is a win win situation. 

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bone-Picked Mode Activated.

 

 

Like, literally every country in East Asia. Also, immigrant hate spikes when immigrants are seen threatening American way of life, real or perceived. I would argue economics plays a larger role than religion, religion is just the justification for the hate. Take Mexicans for example. They were sitting on prime-time real estate. After said real estate was purchased fairly through the use of several thousand federal troops, only the south western states had issues with Mexicans, since they were largely seen as white Europeans. The south western states were annoyed by how they took jobs. Jobs that, in the post Civil War era, no average white American would do anyway. 

 

This is also evidenced by the quota system during the 1920s. The 1920s quota system, and the numbers the US assigned to individual countries, is quite indicative of which region of the world the US doesn't want people from. Mexico didn't fall anywhere near nations like Italy, or the Balkan countries, or heaven-forbid, Asia. Again, largely because they were seen as white Europeans from the good side of the alps. 

 

"Well, what about today's spat with Mexicans then?" you might ask. Ironically, the 1965 act was responsible. Signed by the champion of 20th century liberalism LBJ, it equalized the quotas from all countries. This ironically meant that Mexico, who naturally had a larger migrant laborer population due to its proximity to developing states and loss of job opportunity in Mexico, was limited to the few thousand people that England or China could send over in a year. The 1965 act overnight turned roughly 30,000 people into criminals, their only crime is existing on the wrong side of a line in the sand. It's a great campaign slogan when Trump says people are "illegal," and uses a small percentage of actual violent criminals to justify the removal of several thousand people. So why is Latino-phobia rearing it's ugly head again? Economics, more or less perceived. Mexicans take jobs (again, jobs that most Americans won't do anyway). Our current racial climate regarding Mexicans hasn't changed so much since the 20th century, only a new piece of legislation that allows Fox News to justify exporting them. 

 

Also, Native Americans are not immigrants. They are "emigrants," either to a small piece of inhabitable land that nobody wanted or 6 feet under the ground. 

 

I used to agree that economics was the primary motivator until realizing a few things:

 

1) Human nature isn't necessarily rational.  The profit motive doesn't necessarily apply.

2) Even when the profit motive applies, what matters is the conversion of wealth to memorable experience.  If you can make less money but live a happier lifestyle, you should do so as a rational person. 

3) On top of that, values influence workplace chemistry as well as potential for technological and logistical research and development. Running a successful business isn't just about throwing money at a problem.  It's about how you do so which is a mysterious process that needs to be discovered.  Without values, profit decays over time. This is something recognized by William Deming who's a renowned expert in strategic management.

4) Rules of engagement are important in determining the properness behind property rights.  Even if you own a lot of property, you can still be exploited by others who determine what you can and should do with it.  Even businessmen understand the power of lawyers, and lawyers understand the value of culture in society in determining legal language.  Religion is a prime determinant of culture that determines legal language.

 

Regarding East Asia, you don't really have an argument because Confucianism was comparable to the Protestant Work Ethic which Chinese adhered to during early Californian development.  What took place there was a battle between multiple people who believed in the same thing.  They simply accepted the consequences of what they believed in. The Japanese weren't discriminated against either until WW2.  Before that, yes, you had the insistence of progressivism that opposed traditionalist Japanese ways of life, but even that's religiously grounded in the Protestant Social Gospel which is similar to how Taft intervened in Mexico's economy.

 

At best, you can argue about the Philippines, but the Philippines agreeably converted to Catholicism beforehand under Spain before Protestant America took over, something the country still embraces today.  You can even contrast it against Vietnam which was colonized by the French who didn't prioritize religion and were internally usurped instead of requiring a foreign power to reform their way of life.

 

The western half of North America wasn't known to be prime real estate in advance.  Nobody discovered oil yet, most of it was just barren and disconnected from the infrastructure that already existed in the east, and there was no Panama Canal to provide easy access to California.  The only motive for Manifest Destiny at that point was so pioneers could homestead on their own, but why did that matter?  Why weren't pioneers embraced where they lived?  The answer again is the Protestant work ethic.  People were judged in their homeland as not performing good works to represent a predestined calling to show they were chosen by God to be elected for salvation.  They were outcast for supposedly being condemned, so they needed somewhere to go.  

 

In fact, this is even the motive behind the Irish Potato Famine that happened decades before Manifest Destiny was established from how the Protestant Ascendancy took over land throughout the country following Henry VIII's plantation of Ireland, Cromwell's conquest of the Catholic Confederation, and the Williamite War during the Glorious Revolution.  The English judged Irish Catholics as obviously being inferior people, so they compelled them to follow the English's lead or leave their own country.  On top of this, when they arrived in America, they hated having to fight in the Civil War for what amounted to the same reason, and even revolted in what's known as the New York City draft riots.  Even after the Civil War ended, they attacked Canada in the Fenian Raids for believing the English provoked them into fighting despite leaving their homeland due to how the English continued trading cotton for guns with the Confederacy.

 

Your explanation of the 1920s quota system abusing Mexico doesn't make sense either because if you've studied Mexican history, then you know the country was enduring a revolution at the time.  Obviously, they wouldn't want immigrants coming from an unstable country.  In fact that revolution preceded something called the Cristero War which persecuted Catholics in the country.  The same thing applies to Eastern European countries affected by instability following the end of WW1.

 

As for calling Native Americans immigrants, obviously, they were compelled to emigrate from their homelands when they were displaced.  I'm calling them immigrants in how they previously hadn't lived in America's jurisdiction before living in it.

 

As for Fox News, I doubt you'll ever hear anything I've said here on there, or that most if any Fox News viewers even know what I'm talking about.

Edited by Argotitan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam and mass immigration are the biggest threats to western civilization which is deeply connected to terrorism and higher rates of crime. No point solving other issues if you can't enjoy the world. I'm a firm believer in people reaping what they sow so if you think terrorist attacks aren't a problem then no one will mind if the next one kills you as its not a big deal. 

 

 

 

It would be good to kill a lot of bad Muslims, not just ISIS as a lot of Muslims hate gays, treat women and minorities terribly. Bad people fighting other bad people (ISIS) is a win win situation. 

 

Don't forget globalist cucks!

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to agree that economics was the primary motivator until realizing a few things:

 

1) Human nature isn't necessarily rational.  The profit motive doesn't necessarily apply. Which is why there is an irrational fear of Mexicans taking jobs in America. I agree with this statement. 

2) Even when the profit motive applies, what matters is the conversion of wealth to memorable experience.  If you can make less money but live a happier lifestyle, you should do so as a rational person. Great personal philosophy, terrible politics. 

3) On top of that, values influence workplace chemistry as well as potential for technological and logistical research and development. Running a successful business isn't just about throwing money at a problem.  It's about how you do so which is a mysterious process that needs to be discovered.  Without values, profit decays over time. This is something recognized by William Deming who's a renowned expert in strategic management. Again, great business policy, terrible politics. 

4) Rules of engagement are important in determining the properness behind property rights.  Even if you own a lot of property, you can still be exploited by others who determine what you can and should do with it.  Even businessmen understand the power of lawyers, and lawyers understand the value of culture in society in determining legal language.  Religion is a prime determinant of culture that determines legal language. Disagree. If law is so closely tied with religion, why is the Justinian Codex word for word from a pagan Roman republic? What about Chinese law (unless you consider Confucianism to be a religion more than a political philosophy)? If so, what about legalism of the Qin dynasty? The eye-for-an-eye rule of the Steppelanders? What about the king's laws where the king is not the primary religious figurehead? 

 

Regarding East Asia, you don't really have an argument because Confucianism was comparable to the Protestant Work Ethic which Chinese adhered to during early Californian development. Take this from someone who actually read minutes from Californian and Federal Congressmen, they probably didn't have any idea what Confucianism was, let alone how that affected the Chinese-american cultural attitude. Besides, railroads. No employer wanted to hire white people when Chinese worked 2 times harder for half the pay. That's about as "Protestant Work Ethic" as it gets. What took place there was a battle between multiple people who believed in the same thing.  They simply accepted the consequences of what they believed in. The Japanese weren't discriminated against either until WW2.  No. Just no. No no no no no no no. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Before that, yes, you had the insistence of progressivism that opposed traditionalist Japanese ways of life, but even that's religiously grounded in the Protestant Social Gospel which is similar to how Taft intervened in Mexico's economy. 

 

At best, you can argue about the Philippines, but the Philippines agreeably converted to Catholicism beforehand under Spain before Protestant America took over, something the country still embraces today.  You can even contrast it against Vietnam which was colonized by the French who didn't prioritize religion and were internally usurped instead of requiring a foreign power to reform their way of life. Or, you can call it an American imperialistic stronghold that opened up large markets in Asia for American goods to be exported to, an extension of the closing frontier in the west and desire for American economic presence in the far east. I'm sure it's just Catholics though, which is why America currently occupies the Vatican today. 

 

The western half of North America wasn't known to be prime real estate in advance.  Nobody discovered oil yet, most of it was just barren and disconnected from the infrastructure that already existed in the east, and there was no Panama Canal to provide easy access to California.  The only motive for Manifest Destiny at that point was so pioneers could homestead on their own, but why did that matter?  Why weren't pioneers embraced where they lived?  The answer again is the Protestant work ethic.  People were judged in their homeland as not performing good works to represent a predestined calling to show they were chosen by God to be elected for salvation.  They were outcast for supposedly being condemned, so they needed somewhere to go.  Go read literally any history of american economics book, westward expansion has been the answer to any stagnation in the economy. The closing of the frontier is closely related to America's bid for imperialism in the late 19th early 20th century. 

 

In fact, this is even the motive behind the Irish Potato Famine that happened decades before Manifest Destiny was established from how the Protestant Ascendancy took over land throughout the country following Henry VIII's plantation of Ireland, Cromwell's conquest of the Catholic Confederation, and the Williamite War during the Glorious Revolution.  The English judged Irish Catholics as obviously being inferior people, so they compelled them to follow the English's lead or leave their own country.  On top of this, when they arrived in America, they hated having to fight in the Civil War for what amounted to the same reason, and even revolted in what's known as the New York City draft riots.  Even after the Civil War ended, they attacked Canada in the Fenian Raids for believing the English provoked them into fighting despite leaving their homeland due to how the English continued trading cotton for guns with the Confederacy.

 

Your explanation of the 1920s quota system abusing Mexico doesn't make sense either because if you've studied Mexican history, then you know the country was enduring a revolution at the time.  Obviously, they wouldn't want immigrants coming from an unstable country.  In fact that revolution preceded something called the Cristero War which persecuted Catholics in the country.  The same thing applies to Eastern European countries affected by instability following the end of WW1. U misread, I'm talking about the 1965 Act. The 1920s quota system actually let in a much larger quota compared to eastern europeans. 

 

As for calling Native Americans immigrants, obviously, they were compelled to emigrate from their homelands when they were displaced.  I'm calling them immigrants in how they previously hadn't lived in America's jurisdiction before living in it. 

 

I hate going all Milton on ya, but u left me with sooooo much. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for calling Native Americans immigrants, obviously, they were compelled to emigrate from their homelands when they were displaced.  I'm calling them immigrants in how they previously hadn't lived in America's jurisdiction before living in it.

 

So your saying there was some jurisdiction here before the Natives of North America laid claim to the land when they arrived?

No matter how you spin it there is evidence to show the Natives were in North America thousands- thousands as in more than three or more, thousands of years before the arrival of the Vikings let alone the Chinese. Trying to call out the spin of the Native not being native is a meager attempt, though it may not be a conscious attempt, at justifying past actions against the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why there is an irrational fear of Mexicans taking jobs in America. I agree with this statement. 

 

Perhaps, but rationality =/= reasonability.  Rationality deals with efficiently pursuing objectives.  Reasonability deals with understanding the faculty of how rationality is exercised.  What's rational in the moment isn't necessarily reasonable over the long run.

 

I mean even under Reagan, there was consideration to give immigrants amnesty just to get jobs done which was a contributing factor to the paleocon/neocon debate.  Priority number one should be about relating with the means of production which includes understanding how labor reproduces over time.  If we don't recognize this, then we're not appreciating the well-being of children who randomly don't choose to be born in our own country or how language is absorbed organically during childhood development. 

 

On the other hand, you could argue there is good reason to allow Hispanics into our country due to how Hispanics are Catholic while America is Protestant, especially in light of how the Protestant work ethic was pushed upon Latin American countries that even later believed in Catholic liberation theology.  The problem is Catholic heritage has been degraded throughout Latin America for generations now, and just because Hispanics are brought into America doesn't mean they would solely target the problematic elements of American society.

 

Great personal philosophy, terrible politics. 

 

Again, great business policy, terrible politics. 

The political is personal.

 

 

 

Disagree. If law is so closely tied with religion, why is the Justinian Codex word for word from a pagan Roman republic? What about Chinese law (unless you consider Confucianism to be a religion more than a political philosophy)? If so, what about legalism of the Qin dynasty? The eye-for-an-eye rule of the Steppelanders? What about the king's laws where the king is not the primary religious figurehead? 

Paganism is religion, and in fact, Catholicism deliberately tolerates natural pagans as just describing the same ideas in different words.  It's an internationalist religion after all.  That said, I never said culture's influence on legal language was limited to religion.  I merely said that religion is a prime determinant, not the only determinant.

 

 

 

Take this from someone who actually read minutes from Californian and Federal Congressmen, they probably didn't have any idea what Confucianism was, let alone how that affected the Chinese-american cultural attitude. Besides, railroads. No employer wanted to hire white people when Chinese worked 2 times harder for half the pay. That's about as "Protestant Work Ethic" as it gets. 

 

The question isn't whether or not Americans appreciated Confucianism.  The question is how the Chinese assimilated into American society.  The Confucianism they followed was compatible with the Protestant work ethic, so there isn't a problem with how they were treated.  

 

 

 

No. Just no. No no no no no no no. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

When were the Japanese discriminated against before WW2 outside of what I said about progressivism ignoring their traditionalist ways of life?  I'm not saying that discrimination was justified, but that discrimination had nothing to do with economics.  It had to do with hasty judgments in foreign policy that ignored how Japanese-Americans weren't associated with their homeland's ideology.

 

 

 

Or, you can call it an American imperialistic stronghold that opened up large markets in Asia for American goods to be exported to, an extension of the closing frontier in the west and desire for American economic presence in the far east. I'm sure it's just Catholics though, which is why America currently occupies the Vatican today. 

 

The Philippines were never a large market, and they were eventually freed from American control.  What are you talking about?

 

I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic about America controlling the Vatican either, especially considering the Pope is an Argentine who believes in liberation theology.

 

 

 

Go read literally any history of american economics book, westward expansion has been the answer to any stagnation in the economy. The closing of the frontier is closely related to America's bid for imperialism in the late 19th early 20th century. 

 

Yes, but why did the economy stagnate before that?  Human capital could and should have been developed otherwise by embracing people within the society they were born.

 

 

 

U misread, I'm talking about the 1965 Act. The 1920s quota system actually let in a much larger quota compared to eastern europeans. 

Your first point was:

 

This is also evidenced by the quota system during the 1920s. The 1920s quota system, and the numbers the US assigned to individual countries, is quite indicative of which region of the world the US doesn't want people from. Mexico didn't fall anywhere near nations like Italy, or the Balkan countries, or heaven-forbid, Asia. Again, largely because they were seen as white Europeans from the good side of the alps.

 

I ignored what you said about the 1965 act because you ignored how its purpose was to prioritize skilled workers and those who already had family members in the country.  It wasn't about manipulating equality like you suggested.

 

_____________

 

In any case, you ignored a lot of the other points I made, so I'm really tempted to simply claim victory and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your saying there was some jurisdiction here before the Natives of North America laid claim to the land when they arrived?

 

No.  If anything, this was the problem Native Americans had.  Their refusal to formalize sovereignty made them vulnerable.

 

No matter how you spin it there is evidence to show the Natives were in North America thousands- thousands as in more than three or more, thousands of years before the arrival of the Vikings let alone the Chinese. Trying to call out the spin of the Native not being native is a meager attempt, though it may not be a conscious attempt, at justifying past actions against the race.

 

Yea... you really haven't read through this thread.  I never said the Natives weren't native.

Edited by Argotitan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but rationality =/= reasonability.  Rationality deals with efficiently pursuing objectives.  Reasonability deals with understanding the faculty of how rationality is exercised.  What's rational in the moment isn't necessarily reasonable over the long run.

 

I mean even under Reagan, there was consideration to give immigrants amnesty just to get jobs done which was a contributing factor to the paleocon/neocon debate.  Priority number one should be about relating with the means of production which includes understanding how labor reproduces over time.  If we don't recognize this, then we're not appreciating the well-being of children who randomly don't choose to be born in our own country or how language is absorbed organically during childhood development. 

 

On the other hand, you could argue there is good reason to allow Hispanics into our country due to how Hispanics are Catholic while America is Protestant, especially in light of how the Protestant work ethic was pushed upon Latin American countries that even later believed in Catholic liberation theology.  The problem is Catholic heritage has been degraded throughout Latin America for generations now, and just because Hispanics are brought into America doesn't mean they would solely target the problematic elements of American society.

 

The political is personal.

 

Paganism is religion, and in fact, Catholicism deliberately tolerates natural pagans as just describing the same ideas in different words.  It's an internationalist religion after all.  That said, I never said culture's influence on legal language was limited to religion.  I merely said that religion is a prime determinant, not the only determinant.

 

 

The question isn't whether or not Americans appreciated Confucianism.  The question is how the Chinese assimilated into American society.  The Confucianism they followed was compatible with the Protestant work ethic, so there isn't a problem with how they were treated.  

 

 

When were the Japanese discriminated against before WW2 outside of what I said about progressivism ignoring their traditionalist ways of life?  I'm not saying that discrimination was justified, but that discrimination had nothing to do with economics.  It had to do with hasty judgments in foreign policy that ignored how Japanese-Americans weren't associated with their homeland's ideology.

 

 

The Philippines were never a large market, and they were eventually freed from American control.  What are you talking about?

 

I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic about America controlling the Vatican either, especially considering the Pope is an Argentine who believes in liberation theology.

 

 

Yes, but why did the economy stagnate before that?  Human capital could and should have been developed otherwise by embracing people within the society they were born.

 

Your first point was:

 

This is also evidenced by the quota system during the 1920s. The 1920s quota system, and the numbers the US assigned to individual countries, is quite indicative of which region of the world the US doesn't want people from. Mexico didn't fall anywhere near nations like Italy, or the Balkan countries, or heaven-forbid, Asia. Again, largely because they were seen as white Europeans from the good side of the alps.

 

I ignored what you said about the 1965 act because you ignored how its purpose was to prioritize skilled workers and those who already had family members in the country.  It wasn't about manipulating equality like you suggested.

 

_____________

 

In any case, you ignored a lot of the other points I made, so I'm really tempted to simply claim victory and move on.

 

Fine, u win. GG son. Revel in your glory. I literally give no shits anymore. God, I actually miss Roz, at least he was tolerable. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can get into white American is lazy...I'm currently playing pnw in my bed. Fun fact, religion has everything to do with religon. The war on terrorism is targeted to Islamic countries/extremist groups. It's fair to wonder if the extremist label has been put on certain groups for peaceful protests for their religon.

With this being said, I'm not endorsing his message either. 

If anyone is calling another person a racist in this convo, they probably didn't do enough research prior to making such a claim...which is as bad as trumps politics. (I support some of his ideas, but not his delivery)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can get into white American is lazy...I'm currently playing pnw in my bed. Fun fact, religion has everything to do with religion. The war on terrorism is targeted to Islamic countries/extremist groups That certainly explains the massive amount of right-wing domestic extremists with terror crimes. It's fair to wonder if the extremist label has been put on certain groups for peaceful protests for their religion.

With this being said, I'm not endorsing his message either. 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rise of right-wing domestic terrorism has religious roots that go back to how the Protestant work ethic was used to justify slavery and discrimination.

 

Starting with abolitionism and continuing with progressivism, the PWE was flipped in saying that ethnic minorities had obviously proven their worth, so they shouldn't be discriminated against any longer.  Ethnic minorities were not recognized as deserving to be treated with respect based on who they are on the inside that counts.  This was done so those who discriminated against ethnic minorities in the past could discriminate against their own kind into the future.  Discriminators don't want to stop discriminating.  They just want another group to discriminate against.  This idea was later applied to feminism as well, especially when seen how feminists despise the Catholic Church which advocates universal grace in light of how the Church appeased experiential personalities by saying women weren't allowed to become clergy in conjunction with the tradition of Jesus and his apostles since none of them were women.  Protestantism presented itself as a path to liberation despite how in reality, it wasn't and isn't.  

 

As time went by, this created two problems.  The first is that many people had compromised on universal idealism in the past to adhere to the particular pragmatism of work ethic in discriminating against others.  These compromisers were betrayed because the result of how people were treated was the same as what universal idealists advocated in the first place.  In essence, work ethic advocates had wasted time and delayed what universal idealists wanted in the first place.

 

The second was that these particularly pragmatic work ethic advocates now actively discriminated against universal idealists just because they worked differently.  They worked smart instead of working hard which work ethic advocates didn't like, so they judged them as not performing sufficient good works to represent a predestined calling.  On top of this, work ethic advocates don't believe in universally idealistic appreciations of rights and responsibilities, and they started to mock universal idealists by advocating affirmative activism and politically correct negligence of civic responsibility.  When historically oppressed demographics behaved badly, these advocates failed to hold them responsible for their actions.

 

The implication is that you had lots of frustrated people who originally intended on treating people with respect, but were now disrespected not only by those who they would have respected in the past, but also by those who were disrespectful towards those who they would have respected.  

 

In essence, what you have here is a massive provocation project with sides flipping over time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII

The rise of right-wing domestic terrorism has religious roots that go back to how the Protestant work ethic was used to justify slavery and discrimination.

 

Starting with abolitionism and continuing with progressivism, the PWE was flipped in saying that ethnic minorities had obviously proven their worth, so they shouldn't be discriminated against any longer.  Ethnic minorities were not recognized as deserving to be treated with respect based on who they are on the inside that counts.  This was done so those who discriminated against ethnic minorities in the past could discriminate against their own kind into the future.  Discriminators don't want to stop discriminating.  They just want another group to discriminate against.  This idea was later applied to feminism as well, especially when seen how feminists despise the Catholic Church which advocates universal grace in light of how the Church appeased experiential personalities by saying women weren't allowed to become clergy in conjunction with the tradition of Jesus and his apostles since none of them were women.  Protestantism presented itself as a path to liberation despite how in reality, it wasn't and isn't.  

 

As time went by, this created two problems.  The first is that many people had compromised on universal idealism in the past to adhere to the particular pragmatism of work ethic in discriminating against others.  These compromisers were betrayed because the result of how people were treated was the same as what universal idealists advocated in the first place.  In essence, work ethic advocates had wasted time and delayed what universal idealists wanted in the first place.

 

The second was that these particularly pragmatic work ethic advocates now actively discriminated against universal idealists just because they worked differently.  They worked smart instead of working hard which work ethic advocates didn't like, so they judged them as not performing sufficient good works to represent a predestined calling.  On top of this, work ethic advocates don't believe in universally idealistic appreciations of rights and responsibilities, and they started to mock universal idealists by advocating affirmative activism and politically correct negligence of civic responsibility.  When historically oppressed demographics behaved badly, these advocates failed to hold them responsible for their actions.

 

The implication is that you had lots of frustrated people who originally intended on treating people with respect, but were now disrespected not only by those who they would have respected in the past, but also by those who were disrespectful towards those who they would have respected.  

 

In essence, what you have here is a massive provocation project with sides flipping over time.  

nice shitpost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything's nonsense, it's what kids learn growing up now as the real cause of prejudice in society.

 

They get brainwashed by a politicized public education system that's run by feminist teacher unions and has no consideration towards instilling genuine discipline.

 

Instead, it caters to the destruction of family values by appealing to kids who don't want to get disciplined by their parents back home.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything's nonsense, it's what kids learn growing up now as the real cause of prejudice in society.

 

They get brainwashed by a politicized public education system that's run by feminist teacher unions and has no consideration towards instilling genuine discipline.

 

Instead, it caters to the destruction of family values by appealing to kids who don't want to get disciplined by their parents back home.  

 

Thank you, friend, for this post, as you have provided me with an opportunity to demonstrate the vacuousness of White Culture.

 

White Culture actively works against the women's movement in America, the feminist movement. It works against the African American's movement, Black Lives Matter. It discriminates against people based on their religion, their political views, and their country of origin. Indeed, the new American president Donald Trump has attempted to discriminate against my fellow Muslim brothers by placing immigration restrictions based on an amalgamation of the previous three traits. And he did so with a mandate by the American people through his recent election.

 

Just as the Protestants claim to be in favor of hard work, they are lazy. They preach but do not practice. So does America with tolerance: it claims to support tolerance but hates everyone different. How can this be the ideology of the strong? No. White America is weak and dying, and it knows it. In its death throws, White America grasps for a breath of fresh air through its Patriarch Trump, but it will be defeated just as Jim Crow was in the past. In America's first treaty with Muslim brothers it claimed to be founded in no way on the Christian religion and indeed this is true; perhaps one day, America will come to see the light of Islam in the way that so many of its African American and Arab brothers have already. Until then, we will be forced to see you as the misguided, infantile people that you are. This is not a judgement - it is the truth. And I am sorry that you were not blessed enough to have been born in a situation where before now you might have learned the truth of Allah SWT.

 

The choices available are simple: Allah SWT, or the darkness which has consumed White America whole and left nothing but a red white and blue carcass where freedom once rang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans don't teach. Hell, they often object to even paying for anyone's education by (the only solution they appear to have to any policy matter: lower taxes, increase spending).

 

No argument there.  There's a lot of conservative anti-intellectualism.  This is one of the paradoxes of modern conservatism - you can't simultaneously support meritocracy before mediocrity while criticizing liberals for being elitists at the same time you're against equality.

 

Thank you, friend, for this post, as you have provided me with an opportunity to demonstrate the vacuousness of White Culture.

 

White Culture actively works against the women's movement in America, the feminist movement. It works against the African American's movement, Black Lives Matter. It discriminates against people based on their religion, their political views, and their country of origin. Indeed, the new American president Donald Trump has attempted to discriminate against my fellow Muslim brothers by placing immigration restrictions based on an amalgamation of the previous three traits. And he did so with a mandate by the American people through his recent election.

 

Just as the Protestants claim to be in favor of hard work, they are lazy. They preach but do not practice. So does America with tolerance: it claims to support tolerance but hates everyone different. How can this be the ideology of the strong? No. White America is weak and dying, and it knows it. In its death throws, White America grasps for a breath of fresh air through its Patriarch Trump, but it will be defeated just as Jim Crow was in the past. In America's first treaty with Muslim brothers it claimed to be founded in no way on the Christian religion and indeed this is true; perhaps one day, America will come to see the light of Islam in the way that so many of its African American and Arab brothers have already. Until then, we will be forced to see you as the misguided, infantile people that you are. This is not a judgement - it is the truth. And I am sorry that you were not blessed enough to have been born in a situation where before now you might have learned the truth of Allah SWT.

 

The choices available are simple: Allah SWT, or the darkness which has consumed White America whole and left nothing but a red white and blue carcass where freedom once rang.

 

If you remove race and gender from your paradigm, you'll start to see what the real problem is with Trump.

 

I'm not a Trump supporter even though he claims to be against political correctness.  He has critical character flaws that go far beyond that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans don't teach. Hell, they often object to even paying for anyone's education by (the only solution they appear to have to any policy matter: lower taxes, increase spending).

More like adjust spending. Remember the outrage at the IRS conga line lessons? 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because defense employs people who have been alienated from the civilian side of the economy, especially due to political correctness that children are taught in public education.  When they're graduated into adulthood, they struggle with networking and getting references to find a job.

 

To be fair, defense should still be defunded.  Republicans should be confronting political correctness instead of pandering to it.  The problem is they're too lazy to do so.  Yea, once in a while, you stumble across a Republican crusader, but for the most part, Republicans just tell those who are targeted by political correctness to deal with it and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  They have no sense of fraternity and abandon those within their own ranks.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because defense employs people who have been alienated from the civilian side of the economy, especially due to political correctness thare t children are taught in public education.  When they're graduated into adulthood, they struggle with networking and getting references to find a job. If they can't handle changes in terminology outside of the militar, how are they so able to learn the language and new terms constantly pumped out of the Department of Defense? If you're saying they're not intellectually capable of how language evolves over time they seem like the kind of people who should be either deposited into infantry or not permitted to enlist at all.

 

To be fair, defense should still be defunded.  Republicans should be confronting political correctness instead of pandering to it. How are they going to do that, exactly? Languages evolve with time and you can't force people to change the majority of changes to make your feelings hurt less. If you are so obnoxious in your speech and ability to learn I'd be unlikely to that person too.  The problem is they're too lazy to do so.  Yea, once in a while, you stumble across a Republican crusader, but for the most part, Republicans just tell those who are targeted by political correctness to deal with it and pull themselves uph by their bootstraps.  They have no sense of fraternity and abandon those within their own ranks. OK,so for one thing "pulling yourself  up by your bootstraps is a sarcastic dismissal that the only difference between the extremely wealthy and the constantly impoverished is that the former is supposedly working harder and receiving success as a result, which totally ignores many other factors involved. Expecting those impoverished to do the impossible (it's not possible to pull yourself up using bootstraps) without the factors being made available to all potential employee. Being "targeted" by politically correct speech is hilariously ridiculous and barely merits a post. As the GOP is fond of saying of corporations they're not obligated to employee someone who can't handle slight adjustments periodically.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.