# A fine example of practical multiculturalism



## Goran (Jan 14, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ5iVcq1DOE

8)


----------



## AC986 (Jan 14, 2015)

No such thing as multiculturalism. It's a made up bullshit word that has no meaning whatsoever. At least it better not have any meaning or we're all looking at civil war sometime in the not so distant future.


----------



## Goran (Jan 14, 2015)

adriancook @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> No such thing as multiculturalism. It's a made up bullshit word that has no meaning whatsoever. At least it better not have any meaning or we're all looking at civil war sometime in the not so distant future.



Really? And I always thought this bullshit word means something like what it says: a societal coexistance of different (the "multi" part) cultures (the "culturalism" part). So, thank you for this convincing elaboration of the claim it "has no meaning whatsoever". Keep up the good work.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 14, 2015)

Thanks for splitting up the word into its constituent parts. That's brilliant. But in the context of this, it's still a BS word and nothing clever anyone says is going to change that. That's it on this subject.


----------



## Goran (Jan 14, 2015)

adriancook @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> Thanks for splitting up the word into its constituent parts. That's brilliant. But in the context of this, it's still a BS word and nothing clever anyone says is going to change that. That's it on this subject.



It's good to see your second post doesn't fall behind the quality standard of premium grade vacuousness set by the first - the depth and insight of your argument do continue to amaze. As I said, keep up the good work.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 14, 2015)

You're still trying to be clever. :lol:


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 14, 2015)

I'd like to build a world a home
and furnish it with love.
Grow apple trees and honey bees
and snow white turtle doves.

I'd like to teach the world to sing
in perfect harmony.
I'd like to hold it in my arms,
and keep it company

I'd like to see the world for once
all standing hand in hand.
And hear them echo through the hills
for peace throughout the land.

It's the real thing
what the world wants today,
That's the way it'll stay
with the real thing.

I'd like to teach the world to sing
in perfect harmony.
A song of peace that echoes on
and never goes away.

Put your hand in my hand
let's begin today,
With your hand in my hand
help me find a way.

I'd like to see the world for once
all standing hand in hand.
And hear them echo through the hills
for peace throughout the land.

I'd like to teach the world to sing,
in perfect harmony.
A song of peace that echos on,
and never goes away.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 14, 2015)

Chim FFS you just made me hurl all over my iPad. 

You crazy Mex fucker! :mrgreen:


----------



## Vlzmusic (Jan 14, 2015)

I agree, that if you use that word for setting a scheme of stereotypes, like "head cover" doesn`t fit with "rock music", and say "cool!" when it does happen - that`s pretty shallow. Because in the west, judging by ones cloth is so yesterday.

I live in an area with lots of different head covers, and can tell you - it doesn`t mean anything by itself. Its the behavior underneath, so if I sit in a cafe, and two head covered women have a cigarette and drink something, chattering, relaxed etc. I wouldn`t even notice. But when I see that same head cover on a woman which follows her husband exactly 1 meter behind - gods forbid to walk together, and all tense and never opens her mouth, then I see what`s there to it. Head cover by itself says little.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 14, 2015)

I did not particularly like the music but I liked your message, Goran!


----------



## TGV (Jan 14, 2015)

Multi-culturalism as a word is too vague. Since there is no grounded definition (like there is for words such as "book"), people use it as they see fit, assigning the meaning according to their style. You feel a bit cynical? Then it stands for all that's wrong with society today. You feel all warm? Then it stands for mutual understanding.

A truly multi-cultural society is not possible: either the cultures cannot accept each other and will segregate, or they can, and merge into one culture. Forcing them to mix is dangerous, keeping them separate while in physical proximity too. However, with a bit of luck, immigrants adopt enough of their new country's culture to make living for both parties agreeable, and overcome differences in a few generations. Until then: "we" invited them, so we have to be good hosts; "they" visit us, so they have to be good guests.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 14, 2015)

The USA promotes multi cultural-ism as long as you like our version.

You can raise your children however you wish as long as laws are not broke.
Believe it or not we have some whacko evangelicals over here (nah,...ya' think..?) but even so they do not kill in the name of Bringham Young or Jesus, very rare.

Speaking of Bringham Young, yuze guys know that isn't his real name right..?

His disciples would go and fetch him new wives since they (like muslims) believe they need to breed until your children number in the dozens.
But it was because of his remarks he made during so many excursions to seek out new wives, that they named him.

The disciples would ask if you want a Red head, a Blonde, Black, Indian or Brunette, and he always replied................


Bring 'em young...


Ankyu


----------



## bbunker (Jan 14, 2015)

Hmmm...

I don't buy it - this general consensus that there's and us, and there's a them, and then they mix together, or they don't, and then...

I don't buy it. Because there is no US, there is no WE. Especially in the states, there's such an amalgam of beliefs and ideas and cultures, and I have no idea what cultural groups my neighbors are necessarily in. I'm sure some of them love to watch professional wrestling. Do I have to because I live in their neighborhood? Is there constant neighborhood tension over WWE viewing? Will it someday result in riots?

I sure as heck don't have the same desires and ideals. My neighbor across the way drives a Ford Expedition. I'd rather gouge out my eyes with blunt Reduced Fat Sea Salt Pita Chips than buy one of those. I'm not particularly interested in wealth accumulation - did I somehow not assimilate into my culture at birth, or something?

I do care about assimilation to some degree - I prefer English, since I'm most comfy in it. I prefer that people drive on the side of the street that they're bound to by law. Somehow I don't think that's what you mean by assimilating, though.

I lived in England for a few years, and Germany for half a decade. Did I assimilate? I did occasionally watch an American Football match in either country. But then again, I watch Football matches (i.e., Chelsea & Arsenal, not the Indianapolis Colts!) every week now in America. Have I somehow un-assimilated?


----------



## Goran (Jan 14, 2015)

Hannes_F @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> I did not particularly like the music but I liked your message, Goran!



Not much of a metal fan either, though I always had a soft spot for the abrasive energy of a well-executed metal guitar riff (probably explains why I like Lachenmann so much  And she is very, very good - lot of precision and skill there.

...and the message seems to me to be of increasing importance as well...


----------



## Goran (Jan 14, 2015)

bbunker @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> I don't buy it - this general consensus that there's and us, and there's a them, and then they mix together, or they don't, and then...
> 
> I don't buy it. Because there is no US, there is no WE. Especially in the states, there's such an amalgam of beliefs and ideas and cultures, and I have no idea what cultural groups my neighbors are necessarily in. I'm sure some of them love to watch professional wrestling. Do I have to because I live in their neighborhood? Is there constant neighborhood tension over WWE viewing? Will it someday result in riots?
> 
> I sure as heck don't have the same desires and ideals. My neighbor across the way drives a Ford Expedition. I'd rather gouge out my eyes with blunt Reduced Fat Sea Salt Pita Chips than buy one of those. I'm not particularly interested in wealth accumulation - did I somehow not assimilate into my culture at birth, or something?



My take on the issue as well...



bbunker @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> I do care about assimilation to some degree - I prefer English, since I'm most comfy in it. I prefer that people drive on the side of the street that they're bound to by law. Somehow I don't think that's what you mean by assimilating, though.



I am for civic integration but against cultural assimilation. What you eat, listen to, wear or believe in is nobody's bussiness (as long as it doesn't restrain others in exercising these same rights).

Any state which claims to be a modern Republic based on the universal and indivisible rights and sovereignity of its citizens must be indifferent to their cultural preferences as well as their ethnic/religious identities. USA can choose if it wants to be a "Christian nation" or a Republic. But it cannot be both. France can choose if it wants to ban hijabs (or any other religious apparel) or if it wants to be a Republic. It cannot be both. Germany can decide if "Islam doesn't belong to Germany" (in the sense described above) or if it wants to be a Republic. It cannot be both.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 14, 2015)

TGV @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> Multi-culturalism as a word is too vague. Since there is no grounded definition (like there is for words such as "book"), people use it as they see fit, assigning the meaning according to their style. You feel a bit cynical? Then it stands for all that's wrong with society today. You feel all warm? Then it stands for mutual understanding.
> 
> A truly multi-cultural society is not possible: either the cultures cannot accept each other and will segregate, or they can, and merge into one culture. Forcing them to mix is dangerous, keeping them separate while in physical proximity too. However, with a bit of luck, immigrants adopt enough of their new country's culture to make living for both parties agreeable, and overcome differences in a few generations. Until then: "we" invited them, so we have to be good hosts; "they" visit us, so they have to be good guests.



Most European countries have had it foisted upon them mostly against their will. Does anyone honestly think that for example, had Germany won either/both world wars they would put up with the crap that Merkel makes them put up with today?

England on the other hand, had a succession of labour governments in the 60s and 70s that were basically disastrous and foisted their lunacy on an unsuspecting public. Further exacerbated by indifferent conservative regimes.

Part of the problem occurs because there have been no credible leaders for years. Look around for example at the current British canditure for the forthcoming general election and try and find anyone that looks like they're actually going to change or achieve anything. This on top of weak and ineffective leadership in the USA.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 14, 2015)

I BEG TO DIFFER....

Liberal Leaders of America have paid Hollande, Merkel and other World Leaders to march, these are the facts.
Holder delivered the cash, and sipped a Frappe while watching the redistribution of wealth unfold.
This way, they take the heat.

We gave Egyptian leaders cash to make a speech. We cut them off before, for removing the Muslim Brotherhood, so a reward was definitely coming and has been delivered.

But the sad story is Sharpton, Farakhan, Jackson and other Liberal leaders are going to Europe to organize protests and riots, and then calling off their Dogs for a few million dollars kicked back to their favorite charity.......themselves.

These guys are pretty clever, don't fall for the Headlines from the NYTimes, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Faux and Al-Gore-Zeerah...


----------



## TGV (Jan 14, 2015)

> Liberal Leaders of America have paid Hollande, Merkel and other World Leaders to march, these are the facts.

If they are facts, there must be proof. I don't know of it, but you've made me curious. Can you show me?


----------



## AC986 (Jan 15, 2015)

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were technically hard done by imo. I understood that they legitimately won the election and then were soon to be ousted. Democracy?


----------



## AC986 (Jan 15, 2015)

TGV @ Thu Jan 15 said:


> > Liberal Leaders of America have paid Hollande, Merkel and other World Leaders to march, these are the facts.
> 
> If they are facts, there must be proof. I don't know of it, but you've made me curious. Can you show me?



Of course he can't show you TGV. You get used to his particular weird and wonderful obsessions and learn how to cherry pick over time. :lol:


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 15, 2015)

Can you prove how much cash and kick backs any politician gets...?

It comes in favor of legislations passed at the EU / IMF / UN, etc.
We know this is how world elites conduct business, or they wouldn't spend millions/billions to get such a low paying salary to begin with.

When Angelina Jolie is the most honest and unselfish person at the UN, you know the status quo will never change.

Oil Embargo = More Cash for the transaction now that it's illegal.
Just look back at the Sanctions on Saddam Hussein.

We make drugs illegal in the US, that way the drugs can be sold for a higher price.

We regulate Alcohol since the Sicilians and Irish mobsters (Kennedy) were making so much cash, so the Feds legalized Booze and now get a cut of the action, along with charging us billions to staff the agency with thousands of regulators, who also carry guns and sell those to Mexican Drug Cartels.

Americans accept such elites controlling business, shaking down trade, etc.
It's a way of life.

Does anyone hear actually think when Bernie Madoff was set free after an SEC audit just a year before he was then a new scapegoat that he didn't pay some underpaid SEC "regulator"....?

Hell the DOJ let every crook off who was involved in the banking fraud scams that collapsed the housing market, and instead took a 5 billion dollar "fine" so they could still operate.

We must not forget the Golden Rule......

He who has the Gold makes the Rules....


o=?


----------



## AC986 (Jan 15, 2015)

Chim….sweety….my head hurts.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 17, 2015)

I'll gladly join hands with practically anyone and sing a heartfelt chorus of Kumbayah. I'm just that guy. If people want to walk around nekkid, waving their arms and yelling "look at me-I'm a squid!!" it's ok with me as long as they don't crush any toddlers or wake up the neighbors.

I'll tolerate pretty much all hate speech and vile rhetoric in the name of civil liberties. I'll go to seminars to learn multicultural tolerance. To the degree it's possible, I vote for people who support systemic changes to make things fairer for the disadvantaged.

When things cross into violent action, however, it has all left the fuzzy warm embrace of tolerance and good will. It then becomes a policing matter, a counterintelligence matter, a military matter. I don't mind that radical Muslim terrorists do not wish to tolerate MY lifestyle, culture or religion. They can think what they like. It's when they act on their beliefs in a manner that threatens me or mine that my personal line is crossed.

America has been pretty multicultural for quite a while. It's always been and will always be a struggle to absorb people into a unifying goal of the common good when there are so many subtleties as to exactly what defines that, but one thing is clear- economics dictate a lot of the way people feel. Economics, employment, the effort to elevate the next generation- constant and common themes that appear over and over in human history. There will always be classism, racism, xenophobia in human societies-but basic economic opportunity, the chance to live a decent life and provide one for children-the harder we work at those things, the more the world will come together.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 17, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Sat Jan 17 said:


> America has been pretty multicultural for quite a while.



First off Larry, I don't understand the term because it has no meaning, But lets say I'll play ball.

What does the average American think about being termed as multi&^%@O)*&*ral?


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 17, 2015)

Tolerance. The great Liberal mantra that very few of their "leaders" practice actually.

Most Americans are not religious as the polls would lead you to think, we just believe in the 10 Commandments mostly from a respect of tradition, and when others want to tear down a Veterans Cross or Star of David, we tend to rally, therefore becoming Christians and Jews all over again.

Islam and Hinduism are the most recent religious sectors in the USA, we understand it's hard to break away from a faith so we remain silent, even when it starts becoming over emphasized and special treatments and considerations are asked for, we still mostly remain tolerable.

But beating one of your 6 wives, cutting off a clitoris of a young girl and whacked out freak bag shit like that goes against "Our" way of life, and laws.
You don't like that, we just beat the shit out of you everytime you strike a child or woman, unless you are in the NFL, then we do not wish to have Holder, Soros, Sharpton and Farakhan calling us racists, so we turn a blind eye. Even when Black kids kill each other in unimaginable numbers, like great Liberal leaders, we remain silent.

Other than that, come to the USA, there's free money, free school, free rubbers to breed more future inmates to build SOlar Panels, it's just the WIld West only John Wayne is dead, and every child has an iPhone 5, or at least a 4+.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 17, 2015)

As a multicultural person, I believe in multiculturalism, at least in part because the idea keeps me from going to war with myself.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 17, 2015)

Growing up as a kid can you imagine a funeral full of Sicilian/Americans and Yiddish Jews............?
Now add a Hispanic to the bunch.

Which is why I am a brown skinned White Racist.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 17, 2015)

chimuelo @ Sat Jan 17 said:


> Growing up as a kid can you imagine a funeral full of Sicilian/Americans and Yiddish Jews............?
> Now add a Hispanic to the bunch.
> 
> Which is why I am a brown skinned White Racist.




Just means you can tell it like it is.

White liberal, thinks, "oh, poor minority people, they need a little help" and vote for food stamps and welfare.

We on the other hand tell it like it is. Brother needs to get up off his ass and go and get a job! :lol: 

But to white people, that would be racist.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 17, 2015)

I always knew you were a fellow racist Jose.
A toast to us and those like us.
But in all honesty, none of my Black friends are on welfare, or any other program, I know more whites on it than black people.
The programs are what I despise, but Liberals rely on, therefore we have conflict.
Being a Union Democrat all of my likfe I feel outside of the party as they use poor people to divide all of us, and purposely keep them down so they can be Master of their own ghettos.
This is inhumane and as long as these programs are designed to ruin anyone, black white, eskimo, whatever, I will be against the rich white Slave owners.

They only need to allow the money and benefits to continue while the person seeks employment, then adjust the income accordingly.
That was a GOP tweak from the 80s that Obama threw out the window, along with Charter Schools, vouchers, etc.
I do like Obama on foreign policy and the way he jacks off the GOP with end runs, but he has shit on his own people worse than any white racist jew hating arab killing republican ever has.


----------



## bbunker (Jan 17, 2015)

I still don't get how anyone could rationally suggest that 'multiculturalism' doesn't exist. Because trying to suggest that there's one 'culture' in any society is incredibly difficult. How do you explain all of the variance within human societal groups, down to the most fundamental levels?

I'm equally baffled by the idea that multiculturalism has been "foisted" on Europe. The sun once never set on the British Empire, largely because they'd been out and about foisting their culture on as many peoples of the world that they could. Expecting that after that, Britain could (or would want to) simply put its hands up and say "ok, let's pretend none of this ever happened" isn't just naïve, it's incomprehensible. "Foisting" multiculturalism on Europe seems to be the inevitable consequence of European Powers going and planting their seed around the globe - Europe will always have to deal with the children, legitimate and otherwise, of colony and empire.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 17, 2015)

adriancook @ Sat Jan 17 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Jan 17 said:
> 
> 
> > America has been pretty multicultural for quite a while.
> ...



I don't think there is an "average American." There are poll numbers and a whole lot of opinions. I think Chim has it right with "tolerance.". The answer, to me, is not "mulitculturalism" but "manyculturalism", and how everyone gets along.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 17, 2015)

I hear you chim. I grew up in a place where all blacks had jobs and the only ones on welfare were white. It was a shock when i saw my first all black low income neighborhood. Most black and hispanic people I knew personally wouldn't be caught dead in neighborhoods like that,

All people committing crimes in my hood were white also. So if I got racist it was towards white trash hicks.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 17, 2015)

josejherring @ Sat Jan 17 said:


> I hear you chim. I grew up in a place where all blacks had jobs and the only ones on welfare were white. It was a shock when i saw my first all black low income neighborhood. Most black and hispanic people I knew personally wouldn't be caught dead in neighborhoods like that,
> 
> All people committing crimes in my hood were white also. So if I got racist it was towards white trash hicks.



I find that designation offensive.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 17, 2015)

Back then hicks were some of my best friends.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 17, 2015)

josejherring @ Sat Jan 17 said:


> Back then hicks were some of my best friends.



In my opinion, saying "white trash" is the equivalent of saying "low class n- word".


----------



## José Herring (Jan 17, 2015)

Ok. Sorry. I will say lower income racist Anglo-American.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 17, 2015)

josejherring @ Sat Jan 17 said:


> Ok. Sorry. I will say lower income racist Anglo-American.



Comedic genius. Don't give up your day gig.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 18, 2015)

bbunker @ Sat Jan 17 said:


> I still don't get how anyone could rationally suggest that 'multiculturalism' doesn't exist.



That's because [email protected]%*(&^%^$£ism isn't a rational word.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 18, 2015)

adriancook @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> bbunker @ Sat Jan 17 said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't get how anyone could rationally suggest that 'multiculturalism' doesn't exist.
> ...



Stop that. You're going to give yourself fits. Now drink your milk :wink:


----------



## Goran (Jan 18, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Sat Jan 17 said:


> When things cross into violent action, however, it has all left the fuzzy warm embrace of tolerance and good will. It then becomes a policing matter, a counterintelligence matter, a military matter. I don't mind that radical Muslim terrorists do not wish to tolerate MY lifestyle, culture or religion. They can think what they like. It's when they act on their beliefs in a manner that threatens me or mine that my personal line is crossed.



"Radical Muslim terrorists" didn't suddenly appear from a blue sky on a sunny day, in a world which was (or would be again if they by some miracle suddenly disappeared) a just, peaceful and happy place - this seems to me to be a very central point which is very easily forgotten in this discussion. They emerged in the process of political radicalization which took part in societies held for decades (in some cases centuries) in colonial and post-colonial misery and opression in the interest of Western imperialism. And not just that: Western imperialism had no qualms whatsoever about recruiting, training and financing these very same "radical Muslim terrorists" - when this served its own interests. If we are unable or unwilling to acknowledge this, our critique of political violence and terrorism is completely worthless. 

I would agree that acts of lethal political violence do require both policing and counterintelligence response (military response in this particular case I find to be both disproportionate and counterproductive) _as long as they remain strictly limited to this purpose_ - I completely reject them being used as means for the further implementation of the political and economic agenda of the forces which are responsible for the disaster that the today's world is in the first place.

And finally, it should imho be obvious that the special interest of the military-industrial-intelligence complex, which is in the meantime completely independent of the society as a whole and isn't controlled (let alone ruled), by anyone (at least of all "the people" which, if I remember correctly, are supposed to be the Sovereign of the American Republic), is and must be directly opposed _to any real interest in a world without war and terrorism_ - in such a world, what would be its purpose?


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 18, 2015)

Great points. But as Americans we must have wars and crisis to justify political agendas and ideology.
The war on drugs allows only certain Mexican/American hand picked Cartels to fill the ghettos with dope, in return they give us Intel on the Jihadis crossing into the USA from Venezuala who learned Espanol and wear Sombreros.
The War on Poverty, it cannot be won either, or there would be no need for Liberal leaders like Sharpton, Pelosi, Reid, Farakhan, Sean Penn, Ben Alfleck, etc.

So look at counter-terrorism as a way for America to keep using Private Contractors while withdrawing sloppier conventional forces.
War is in our DNA.
America was founded by hyper Europeans with a desire to explore. Hell we even explored the Moon and knowing there ain't shit out there, still want to explore.
Some stuff you can't stop.

Exploration and war is an American thing....
Although I'd prefer exploration more, we have industries built around warfare.
Kind of glad we have them or we'd be dead meat.

SOMEDAY THE WORLD SING TOGETHER AND BUTTERFLIES AND ZEBRAS WILL CO EXIST PEACEFULLY, BUT WE NEED ANOTHER 100 YHEARS AND THE ANCIENT ALIENS TO RETURN AND MANIPULATE OUR DNA SO WE ARE ALL CONTENT BEING HAPPY AND CARING HUMANS...


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 18, 2015)

Goran @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Jan 17 said:
> 
> 
> > When things cross into violent action, however, it has all left the fuzzy warm embrace of tolerance and good will. It then becomes a policing matter, a counterintelligence matter, a military matter. I don't mind that radical Muslim terrorists do not wish to tolerate MY lifestyle, culture or religion. They can think what they like. It's when they act on their beliefs in a manner that threatens me or mine that my personal line is crossed.
> ...



I used the term "radical Muslim terrorists" advisedly. Do you believe the Charlie Hebdo murderers were not Muslim, not radicalized, or not terrorists? Yes, we (the U.S.) have funded the Taliban, bin Laden, Saddam Hussein. I'm not incognizant. I'm absolutely interested in forward looking economic and educational redress, but I am not interested in giving a pass to cold blooded murderers for ideological reasons, or pretending they don't have violent religious ideologies. If you wish to call them "brave freedom fighters protecting the image of the Prophet" when they murder journalists or cartoonists, we'll just have to differ.

"Lethal political violence." Hmm. Now there's some parsing. I once tried to write a rap song about black ops and Iraq- it was horrible- but to quote myself "if you go into a country and kill somebody's baby, and you think you liberated them, you must be crazy."
Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists had families. For them, not so political.

I think you're going to detect little difference between policing, counterterrorism and military as those forces are combining in various ways as required to attempt to counter guerilla warfare. I won't argue root causes with you here- likely we would agree on many of them, but it wasn't and isn't going to be the point for the power plays going forward. As someone in American Terrorism Ground Zero, i can tell you things changed a lot after our watershed moment, and it is likely we will start to see major changes in Europe as well. I think this is not unintentional on either side.

As a (non-religious) Jew, I do not believe it is defensible for Israel, for Jews who suffered under so many repressive regimes, to keep a large group of people isolated and in abject poverty (though to be honest, I don't think Hezbollah or Hamas seek peace either). As an American, I was and am still horrified by our insane war against Iraq. When a radical Muslim organization (again, I use the words advisedly and I believe accurately) plotted and successfully carried out an attack on my city that killed 2000 civilians and threatened my family, I think I can call that was it was too.

Nothing comes from nothing. You are fully correct. This is the now. Plot against and attack the West, the West will respond. It's pretty simple, and as I said earlier, there is intention on both sides. The military industrial complex you mentioned will not go quietly. It is largely self perpetuating, and when the fear is built, the war drums beat again. It does not appear to me that jihadist organizations plan to lay down arms anytime soon either.

I hope things can resolve peacefully, but it seems unlikely.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 18, 2015)

chimuelo @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> .
> 
> Exploration and war is an American thing....



Have you ever heard of the Greeks? The Romans? The English? The Spanish?
Hallloooo????


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 18, 2015)

adriancook @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> chimuelo @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



The English were rapacious plunderers and colonialists?? Say it ain't so!
(don't forget the Portuguese and the Dutch and the Persians...)


----------



## AC986 (Jan 18, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> adriancook @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > chimuelo @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> ...



It is so! And also we plundered Manhattan from the Dutch as we plundered just about everywhere else on the planet.

And rightly so!!!!! Imagine if someone else had done it. What sort of a world would it be today?

Probably a fuck sight better one actually.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 18, 2015)

adriancook @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> chimuelo @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Indeed I have. The Spanish did far more damage to Native peoples than white racists from Europe that colonialized America.
Union schools are trying to pacify the young by way of guilt, like European schools did post WW2. It worked there, but over here when you lay this heavy jive on kids it turns them off, and they drop out.
Their parents teach them to be proud so when they go to school and hear this indoctrination it makes them dislike school.

That's why rich politicians never let their kids go to these pacification centers.
I tend to agree with rich politicians so even if I can't afford it for 8 years 2 years is better than nothing. Plus he got a 4.0 since he actually learned something other than lay down and roll over in a white supremecy school, even though he is a spic jew whop.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 18, 2015)

chimuelo @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> adriancook @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > chimuelo @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> ...



It's the subtlety, Jimmy. It's what makes you so you.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 18, 2015)

chimuelo @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> adriancook @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > chimuelo @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> ...



I feel the same way. My son is in private school even though we way can't afford it. I couldn't stand the idea of him doing some sort of "no child left behind, common core".

Education should teach subjects and not some way of thinking. Let the kid develop his/her own way of thinking. To do less is mind control of the worst sort. 

I had it the other way. I grew up in a conservative environment and got inundated with a racist conservative view of the world. Every historic important figure was a white dude. Betsy Ross was important because she sewed the first damn flag. And we spent all of two days studying MLK, Malcome X, or civil rights. It was utterly nauseating.

So I promised myself, since my kid is a spic, negro, cracker...er.. Anglo-American (sorry Larry) that he would go to a school that didn't have a political bent, even if that meant we had to pay.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 18, 2015)

josejherring @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> chimuelo @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > adriancook @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> ...



Not a problem, Jose. You negro spic crackers have it tough in this society. Much easier for me as a kike living in a spic neighborhood, though mostly i grew up with wop lawyers as they were my dad's friends, and negros since my parents were among those patronizing civil rights workers. We Hebes and the wops and the negros seem to get along. My wife's a bog trotter converted to a Hebe. Am I a member of the gang now?

As far as public education, it's what I had, and I grew up dumber than a bag of rocks. I'm still trying to fix the damage.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 18, 2015)

Glad we understand each other Larry.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 18, 2015)

josejherring @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> Glad we understand each other Larry.



What is it we understand, Jose?


----------



## José Herring (Jan 18, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> josejherring @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Glad we understand each other Larry.
> ...



I thought we were having an epiphany. My mistake.


----------



## Goran (Jan 19, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Sun Jan 18 said:


> I used the term "radical Muslim terrorists" advisedly. Do you believe the Charlie Hebdo murderers were not Muslim, not radicalized, or not terrorists? Yes, we (the U.S.) have funded the Taliban, bin Laden, Saddam Hussein. I'm not incognizant. I'm absolutely interested in forward looking economic and educational redress, but I am not interested in giving a pass to cold blooded murderers for ideological reasons, or pretending they don't have violent religious ideologies. If you wish to call them "brave freedom fighters protecting the image of the Prophet" when they murder journalists or cartoonists, we'll just have to differ.



Even if they were that (which I don't assume as a given, as I've been deliberately lied to by both governments and media far too many times to accept anything they are saying about political violence and terrorism at face value and without solid and consistent proof), being radicalized Muslims isn't necessarily what made them murderers._ At least not according to the criteria the "public opinion" employs here when the murderer isn't a radicalized Musim_ - Andreas Behring Breivik, who blew up a van killing 8 people in Oslo's government area and then shot 69 members of Workers's Youth League in summer 2011 wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, ever called a "radicalized Christian-European terrorist" by any major media outlet in any report on the murders or the court proceedings. Why? He actually was condemed of terrorism in court, but over here, the media constantly tried to downplay his right-wing "manifesto" as being central to the murders and instead tried to push his "narcisisstic personality disorder" in the foreground. So, why aren't the same media now extending _the same benefit of a doubt, which they were so eager to extend to "our" murderer_ to the murderes of Charlie Hebdo? Why shouldn't we assume they were _primarily_ "mentally unstable" or "narcissistic" as well and not primarily "radicalized Muslims", just as they assumed that Breivik wasn't primarily a "radicalized right-wing Western-civilization-crusader"?


----------



## Resoded (Jan 19, 2015)

Goran @ 19th January 2015 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > I used the term "radical Muslim terrorists" advisedly. Do you believe the Charlie Hebdo murderers were not Muslim, not radicalized, or not terrorists? Yes, we (the U.S.) have funded the Taliban, bin Laden, Saddam Hussein. I'm not incognizant. I'm absolutely interested in forward looking economic and educational redress, but I am not interested in giving a pass to cold blooded murderers for ideological reasons, or pretending they don't have violent religious ideologies. If you wish to call them "brave freedom fighters protecting the image of the Prophet" when they murder journalists or cartoonists, we'll just have to differ.
> ...



I must respectfully interfere here. People keep using Breivik but it's a very shaky argument. Breivik was a lone wolf terrorist. He did not do what he did for christianity, he seems to have did what he did for right wing extremist ideas. During interviews he has changed his explanation why he did it many times, the last I heard he claims he did it because he wanted to accelerate the development to a civil war. Breivik was raised by a single mother and she did really weird sexual/aggressive things with him, Breivik does not want to talk about this and claims he had a decent childhood.

Most importantly, Breivik was not connected to any terrorist groups, and the youth political meeting was not a recognized target by any terrorist group. He was not part of any terrorist organization and his actions did not help any terrorist organization.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 19, 2015)

Goran @ Mon Jan 19 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > I used the term "radical Muslim terrorists" advisedly. Do you believe the Charlie Hebdo murderers were not Muslim, not radicalized, or not terrorists? Yes, we (the U.S.) have funded the Taliban, bin Laden, Saddam Hussein. I'm not incognizant. I'm absolutely interested in forward looking economic and educational redress, but I am not interested in giving a pass to cold blooded murderers for ideological reasons, or pretending they don't have violent religious ideologies. If you wish to call them "brave freedom fighters protecting the image of the Prophet" when they murder journalists or cartoonists, we'll just have to differ.
> ...



Again, I believe a thing should be called what it is. I'm not so interested in the media's angle on it, in as much as I can filter it out. Andreas Brehvik is, to my mind, pretty much a crazed murdering neo-Nazi fuck. I'd definitely call him a right wing terrorist. As far as I know, he did not dedicate his murders to Christ or Christianity, but maybe I missed that part. By the way, did you miss the part where AQAP took credit for the Charlie Hebdo hit? Not that they're above lying about it, but again, if AQAP funded or aided in the planning the hit on Charlie Hebdo, was it once again not a radical Muslim plot? Is AQAP a radical Muslim organization?

I am not interested in spreading anti-Muslim hatred. I'm not interested in spreading ANY hatred. The US media, other than the usual suspects at Fox, are being very delicate about the words " radical Muslim." Liberals in the U.S. are tiptoeing around it. Maybe I should. Tell me why I should-were these just crazy men, in your opinion? Not avenging the insults to the Prophet? It's not a rhetorical question.


----------



## Goran (Jan 19, 2015)

Resoded @ Mon Jan 19 said:


> Goran @ 19th January 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Sun Jan 18 said:
> ...



That is true, but it is, in my opinion, also beside the point. Why is the lone-wolf aspect relevant to this? Is he less a politically-ideologically motivated terrorist then the Charlie Hebdo murderers because he was a lone wolf and they (supposedly) weren't?

Breivik's right-wing ideas cannot be separated from the central role (even if he isn't a Christian himself) he gives to a Europe based on "Judeo-Christian" values in his writings. He is a right-wing crusader precisely on the basis of the alleged superiority of "European culture" to "cultural Marxism" and Islam, and this culture is (to him) grounded in what he explicitly refers to as Judeo-Christian values. 

To sum up, I don't see how the Breivik comparison is shaky at all. He is a militant "our-way-of-life" defender of Europe (based on what he terms Christian values) opposed to both the left ("Marxist") and Muslim menace. He explicitly stated that the motivation for the attacks was spreading the word of his "manifesto". And yet, in the press and the media in general the same people who immediately jumped on the pathology-narcissism-possible sexual abuse-train in his case, automatically assume that nothing of a sort could have played a similar role in the case of Charlie Hebdo murderers. Why not? Who says (an based on what) they didn't exhibit individual pathological/narcissistic traits as well or weren't subject to abuse (sexual or otherwise)? One thing is certain though - in their case, we won't find out, as they were (I must say somewhat conveniently) immediately disposed of (which strikes me as strange, as it presupposes that the French elite police would be unable to wound and incapacitate an armed opponent without instantly killing him). Breivik didn't end up dead immediately as a matter of course - he was arrested and brought into court.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 19, 2015)

In my opinion Brevik stands for NOTHING!

His actions were consistent on many accounts with the behaviour patterns of a Psychopath.


----------



## TGV (Jan 19, 2015)

Goran @ Mon Jan 19 said:


> That is true, but it is, in my opinion, also beside the point. Why is the lone-wolf aspect relevant to this? Is he less a politically-ideologically motivated terrorist then the Charlie Hebdo murderers because he was a lone wolf and they (supposedly) weren't?


I think he was as ideologically motivated as the Hebdo killers, and everyone has called on the right-wing and extreme right-wing parties and leaders to take action. Many of them denied responsibility and refused to take any action, something which I abhor.



> Breivik's right-wing ideas cannot be separated from the central role (even if he isn't a Christian himself) he gives to a Europe based on "Judeo-Christian" values in his writings.


Neo-Nazis are not Christians, and certainly not Jews, and they do not subscribe to the fundamental values of Judeo-Christianity.



> He is a right-wing crusader precisely on the basis of the alleged superiority of "European culture"


Precisely.



> and this culture is (to him) grounded in what he explicitly refers to as Judeo-Christian values.


Well, to reassure you, Breivik's actions have been condemned by everyone, Christians and non-Christians included.



> To sum up, I don't see how the Breivik comparison is shaky at all.


Except that we try to prevent such radicalization, whereas large parts of the Muslim countries secretly or overtly encourage it. Timothy McVeigh could be an easier target for your comparison than Breivik: large parts of the USA seem to revel in the kind of militant behavior in the name of God and freedom that founded his ideological hatred.

Anyway, such violent actions do threaten the tolerance that is required for a gradual integration process. If they are not widely condemned, a push towards segregation will follow upon every attack.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 19, 2015)

TGV @ Mon Jan 19 said:


> Timothy McVeigh could be an easier target for your comparison than Breivik: large parts of the USA seem to revel in the kind of militant behavior in the name of God and freedom that founded his ideological hatred.



I was with you up til "large". It's a slice, just as there is a radical slice to Islam. Unfortunately, a slice of a large pie is still troublesome.


----------



## TGV (Jan 19, 2015)

Large may be the wrong word, but "significant"? I was not just thinking about the militias, but also about their ideological environment, which seems to include the Tea Party: they promote an anti-government ideology which can breed that kind of violence, and definitely do not take a moderate stance on "the right to bear arms". They would be to McVeigh what the Neo-Nazis are to Breivik.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 19, 2015)

TGV @ Mon Jan 19 said:


> Large may be the wrong word, but "significant"? I was not just thinking about the militias, but also about their ideological environment, which seems to include the Tea Party: they promote an anti-government ideology which can breed that kind of violence, and definitely do not take a moderate stance on "the right to bear arms".



I would agree that it's significant. I'd also say that the large majority find that thinking repugnant. Unfortunately, everything breaks down when people perceive themselves as being threatened, and that is true of people of all faiths and most ideologies.


----------



## TGV (Jan 19, 2015)

Yes, and at that point, people start looking inward instead of outward, assigning too much meaning to small differences with the outside world, and acting upon those. If the group is large enough, it no longer needs to take the rest of society into consideration and instead becomes a threat to it. Examples abound in history.

We cannot condone all Muslims for attacks such as Hebdo (and quite a few others, unfortunately), but we can ask for them to stop feeding the blindness of the radical groups within.


----------



## Resoded (Jan 19, 2015)

Goran @ 19th January 2015 said:


> That is true, but it is, in my opinion, also beside the point. Why is the lone-wolf aspect relevant to this? Is he less a politically-ideologically motivated terrorist then the Charlie Hebdo murderers because he was a lone wolf and they (supposedly) weren't?
> 
> Breivik's right-wing ideas cannot be separated from the central role (even if he isn't a Christian himself) he gives to a Europe based on "Judeo-Christian" values in his writings. He is a right-wing crusader precisely on the basis of the alleged superiority of "European culture" to "cultural Marxism" and Islam, and this culture is (to him) grounded in what he explicitly refers to as Judeo-Christian values.
> 
> To sum up, I don't see how the Breivik comparison is shaky at all. He is a militant "our-way-of-life" defender of Europe (based on what he terms Christian values) opposed to both the left ("Marxist") and Muslim menace. He explicitly stated that the motivation for the attacks was spreading the word of his "manifesto". And yet, in the press and the media in general the same people who immediately jumped on the pathology-narcisissm-possible sexual abuse-train in his case, automatically assume that nothing of a sort could have played a similar role in the case of Charlie Hebdo murderers. Why not? Who says (an based on what) they didn't exhibit individual pathological/narcissistic traits as well or weren't subject to abuse (sexual or otherwise)? One thing is certain though - in their case, we won't find out, as they were (I must say somewhat conveniently) immediately disposed of (which strikes me as strange, as it presupposes that the French elite police would be unable to wound and incapacitate an armed opponent without instantly killing him). Breivik didn't end up dead immediately as a matter of course - he was arrested and brought into court.



You may very well be correct that all terrorists are mentally ill in some way. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

However, I do not think that their mental health is the key to explain the motives behind the attacks, and I get the impression that you want to downplay the organizational aspects of the terrorist actions. 

That is why I mentioned these things about Breivik, that a lot is actually pointing towards that he is not part of a larger network with a common goal, as he keeps changing his stories, he did it alone, he definitely had a very troubled childhood etc.

The Charlie Hebdo attacks were part of a much larger organization, and is only one out of many attacks. According to the US national counterterrorism center, during 2011, 56 % of all attacks around the world were commited by Sunni muslim extremists. 70 % of all terrorist related murders worldwide were from Sunni muslim extremist actions. To me at least, that is enough for the mental illness part to be less relevant.

Concerning your end comment comparing the capture of Breivik with the Charlie Hebdo killers, I'm not sure why you would say that it's "convenient" and "strange". Breivik surrendered to the police without resistance. The Charlie Hebdo killers were shooting at the police and were gunned down, dying as martyrs, as often muslim terrorists want to.

With that said, I think I'll have nothing more to add. The last word (on our sidetracked mini-debate) is yours Goran.


----------



## Goran (Jan 19, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 19 said:


> By the way, did you miss the part where AQAP took credit for the Charlie Hebdo hit? Not that they're above lying about it, but again, if AQAP funded or aided in the planning the hit on Charlie Hebdo, was it once again not a radical Muslim plot? Is AQAP a radical Muslim organization?



Sure it was - _if that was the case_. But that being the case must first be proven by hard fact and consistent argument, and not automatically assumed as a given (and especially not when the same _is anything but assumed as a given_ in cases in which such an assumption goes against the ideological interest of the powers that be). 

For several decades everyone in Europe assumed that the massive terror attacks in Italy in the 80's (such as the Bologna train station bombing) were perpetrated by the "radical left" terror groups. In the meantime, we know that estimated 90% of all the alleged "radical left" terror actions in post-war Europe were staged false-flag operations executed by shadow right-wing formations under NATO supervision and command, as a part of whipping up the Red Scare. Some of these scandals even had legal epilogues in Italy and elsewhere. After that, I am very reluctant to accept any government's terrorism claims at face value.



NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 19 said:


> I am not interested in spreading anti-Muslim hatred. I'm not interested in spreading ANY hatred. The US media, other than the usual suspects at Fox, are being very delicate about the words " radical Muslim." Liberals in the U.S. are tiptoeing around it. Maybe I should. Tell me why I should-were these just crazy men, in your opinion? Not avenging the insults to the Prophet? It's not a rhetorical question.



Didn't say (or think) you were interested in that. And I don't think we should be tiptoing around the "radical Muslim" or any other designation, when it is both inherently correct and contextually appropriate. Provided we apply the same criteria across the board. And provided we are aware that there is no such thing as "neutral" or "objective" narrative when it comes to what is "terrorism" and what isn't. As somebody (I can't remember who) condensed this point in relation to political violence and social standing/power: _Rich man's terror is war, poor man's war is terror._

If you are interested, here is what I thought was a well thought-out and consistent article on the last subject:

http://www.leninology.co.uk/2015/01/questioning-unquestionable.html


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 19, 2015)

Goran @ Mon Jan 19 said:


> [_Rich man's terror is war, poor man's war is terror._
> 
> 
> http://www.leninology.co.uk/2015/01/questioning-unquestionable.html



A different but related way of putting it is the following egalitarian approach:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I have always understood the economic, religious and cultural relativism within that statement, but I believe that at some point in one's maturation, one emerges from a fog of grey and starts seeing things in varying grades of black and white in some important matters.


----------

