jts

mp3 - Islamic invasion of Germany

106 posts in this topic

On 2017/03/09 at 2:07 AM, william.scherk said:

My interactions with Syrian refugees locally has confirmed my suspicions that some of them become 'super-patriots' almost immediately, as if Canada were an Empire protective of minority 'nations' within a common weal. They have been granted season tickets to this great stadium of the upper leagues.  They quickly grasp that.

 

France's suburban ghettos have no exact counterpart here as Canada was not an independent colonial power with possessions in Muslim lands.  And I could argue for a month, both sides, on incidents or elements of racial and religious aggression or discrimination in the public sphere, from Muslims hounding schoolboy Hindus to assaults and threats against the Jewish communities, to seriously religious wackjobs of a Muslim faith.  Canada is not Pollyanna World.

Back to your theme, Tony.  We may not inspect each Muslim's mind for immoral thoughts and plans ... or interrogate each one with guaranteed responses of truthful confession ... but we can be vigilant, probing, watchful and rational about our suspicions.  

A community watches over its members, in more ways than one. Keep newcomers in a close community embrace the better to observe them and teach them the values we are bound by.  

A benefit of the raucous debate within Canada is the benefit of all rug-beating.

 

I take your point, and France is not much comparison with an assimilating Canada, clearly. Nearly all who want to come there, to a free-ish democracy, want to be there for good reason, to leave the worst of control and repression behind them. I'm not so big on the "[keeping] newcomers in a close community embrace". It will tacitly have its place I guess, but allowing a person space to his own learning and thinking about the Canadian culture displays more confidence and trust in his choices, until ultimately he will show his true colours of his own accord. That should obviate the 'pockets' or "ghettoes". One learns about people largely by one to one interactions (I think), and separation, suspicion or fear or hypocrisy and deception are foes of a good society. Which is why I still think that it would be moral and rational - for their long-term self-interests - for individual Muslims there, to speak up loudly and make their conviction plain that the ugly side of Sharia was also left behind and has no further place in their lives. There are Muslim reformists, and they should link with them.

But there remains (I sense) some amount of 'innate', hubristic loyalty to their religion/culture/laws which many see as threatened by westerners. So Muslims in the West must exist in a self-conflict. What is their primary identity? I can hardly remember a conversation with a Muslim here, which didn't eventually point to his and most Muslims' perceived victim-complex. It has often bothered me when the most independently thoughtful man 'reverts to type', so to speak, and begins to show his fear and distrust, if not superiority and disdain, for westerners - which was first learned in Islamic teaching. For that, I can at least understand his rationale for Bannon's remarks, while opposing what he said as collectivist and determinist (we contain an ideology in our DNA?).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/03/09 at 2:05 AM, jts said:

Islamophobia is a nonsense word. A phobia is a mental disorder. They are trying to get people to think fear of Islam is a mental disorder. Fear of the number 13 is a phobia. Fear of Islam is not a phobia.

 

Well, we know "a phobia" is not as it's meant, rather as "hate" (as disseminated by the Left, largely). Disgust for portions of Islam's teachings and certainly of the preached rhetoric and violent actions by some adherents, is rational. It is appropriate to fear what threatens our values, but where there's a perceived impotence to avoid, or to change, the threat - naturally fear turns to hate, and that harms no one but one's self (if permitted to be prolonged).

The 'non-judgmental' Left will not miss a chance to vilify ('judge') any criticism which they feel they don't like. It seems they rest on the presumption that you, me and everybody is as "emotionalist" as they are, and that you - like them - will make judgments and act upon your feelings too. Therefore, they shut down debates with '--phobic' slurs.

But as long as one does not even consider initiating violence against people of a faith or race, etc.,, frankly one's "phobic" feelings are entirely one's own business. If one is irrational in one's fear and hatred (a blanket condemnation of an individual by his or her race, say) - then it is important for one to amend and objectively make it right in reality - again, for one's own sake, first.

Hatred and bigotry exists as much within the Left as anywhere, although they're prejudicially selective about it: e.g. it's fine to hate Jews, but not Islamists; etc..

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, anthony said:

Well, we know "a phobia" is not as it's meant, rather as "hate" (as disseminated by the Left, largely). Disgust for portions of Islam's teachings and certainly of the preaching and actions by some adherents is rational. It is appropriate to fear what threatens our values, but where there's impotence to avoid, or to change, the threat - naturally fear turns to hate, and that harms no one but one's self (if permitted to be prolonged).

The 'non-judgmental' Left will not miss a chance to vilify ('judge') any criticism which they feel they don't like. It seems they rest on the presumption that you, me and everybody is as "emotionalist" as they are, and that you - like them - will make judgments and act upon your feelings too. Therefore, they shut down debates with '--phobic' slurs.

But as long as one does not even consider initiating violence against people of a faith or race, etc.,, frankly one's "phobic" feelings are entirely one's own business. If one is irrational in one's fear and hatred (a blanket condemnation of an individual by his or her race, say) - then it is important for one to amend and objectively make it right in reality - again, for one's own sake, first.

Hatred and bigotry exists as much within the Left as anywhere, although they're prejudicially selective about it: e.g. it's fine to hate Jews, but not Islamists; etc..

 

I was under the impression that "phobia"  meant fear, loathing and dislike and it is something that conduces to avoidance and/or rejection.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I was under the impression that "phobia"  meant fear, loathing and dislike and it is something that conduces to avoidance and/or rejection.

Ha, right. Not strong enough for progressives, however; the greatest sin by them is "hate".

The first task of the subjectivist, hard Left is the mangling of words to what ~they~ want the words to mean.

G.Orwell: "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought".

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, anthony said:
On 3/8/2017 at 4:07 PM, william.scherk said:

Back to your theme, Tony.  We may not inspect each Muslim's mind for immoral thoughts and plans ... or interrogate each one with guaranteed responses of truthful confession ... but we can be vigilant, probing, watchful and rational about our suspicions.  

A community watches over its members, in more ways than one. Keep newcomers in a close community embrace the better to observe them and teach them the values we are bound by.  

 I'm not so big on the "[keeping] newcomers in a close community embrace". It will tacitly have its place I guess, but allowing a person space to his own learning and thinking about the Canadian culture displays more confidence and trust in his choices, until ultimately he will show his true colours of his own accord.

I agree, generally, and could have made clear the 'close community embrace' is my own phrase and understanding. It can seem a little bit sinister perhaps to be ''under vigilant watch by friendly people,"  or "invited into the host-community affairs,"  and yet the interfaith stuff I have attended seems less sinister or overbearing.

The rest of the 'embraces' are regularized ways newcomers are instructed in English (or French) by various public, private and ad hoc groups and individuals -- and receive practical guidance to every-day matters, mores, habits, from transport to labour market, training.  The last kind of 'embrace' is that of private sponsorships of individuals and famiies.

I am not sure if I gave a good impression of my thoughts there.  Thanks for engaging with the argument.

5 hours ago, anthony said:

One learns about people largely by one to one interactions (I think), and separation, suspicion or fear or hypocrisy and deception are foes of a good society. Which is why I still think that it would be moral and rational - for their long-term self-interests - for individual Muslims there, to speak up loudly and make their conviction plain that the ugly side of Sharia was also left behind and has no further place in their lives. 

I think I understand where you are coming from: how can one 'peer into another's heart?'  I mostly agree that separation, suspicion, fear, hypocrisy and deception are foes of a Good Society. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Brigitte Gabriel's response to the statement that most Muslims are peaceful.  They are irrelevant.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now