In the great Tinder app of world relations the US and Israel are currently in the process of ‘swiping left’ on Iran’s leadership. The Epic Furists and Roaring Lions were not altogether taken with the head honcho. Which is kind of surprising given The
One mistake, that most Westerners are guilty of making when it comes to islam and all its sects is this:
Islamic nations are, sociologically speaking, about five centuries or more behind* Western ones, in their development. They are essentially late Medieval/Renaissance people introduced to modern Western concepts over the course of a century, and to make it worse without our historical context of said concepts.
Even without islam, there'd be almost as much conflict anyway. As they say, politics is downstream from culture. But those who tend to say that often chicken out of going to the logical end of it:
Culture is downstream of? Race, when race is put in its historical perspective - despite living next door for longer than islam has been about, Greek and Albanians are still two distinctively different people and you can often tell the difference just by observing them. Or Russians and Englishmen; both are to use American vernacular "white" - neither would much appreciate being seen as one and the same, and you can usually spot which one is which simply by looking.
(This where you really feel your conditioning start to kick in, usually, if you're a Westerner.)
You and I have similar conceptual understanding of "individual", and of stuff such as rights and privileges (and anyone who's built an outhouse knows how important privvy-ledges are!) and so on. We have a mutual pre-conceived understanding of the general brushstrokes of history, and share also an underlying pre-existing frame for trust, mutuality and reciprocity.
With a moslem, no matter the race or nationality, there is virtually none of that. Doesn't mean the 1% of the islamic races can't be civilised, but that is because of they have gone through very Western institutions of learning (rather than the madrasas and similar institutions of learing) - they via their colonial heritage have been given a leg-up to understand us somewhat - but we do not have anything like that, unless we have delved into it one way or the other on our own.
Thus, to (f.e.) a Kurdish man who came to Sweden in 1975, it makes perfect sense to let his sons romp about like wild rovers among Swedish girls until they marry - but they will marry a Kurdish girl - a virgin! - that has been chosen by the fathers and mothers involved. It also makes sense for this man to keep his daughters as one would a budgie: locked-up and under guard. But here's the funny bit: if this non-hypothetical Kurd (I'm basing this on one of my former neighbours down South) is a just s smidgen Westernised, he might say: "No, my daughters are not marry Kurdish boys, they are to have Swedish husbands only. I don't want them to be treated the way Kkurdish boys treat women."
This is based on actual conversation with that old PKK-fighter. To him, there was no inherent conflict in any of the above - because his focus was narrow and tight on "What best serves the needs and wants of my children?".
Do you see the logical conclusion?
Either you have a virtually mono-racial nation, so that everyone shares mores and such, and therefore always knows in advance how things are, thus making it so the state can be small because it too is built on that preconceived understanding of things.
Or you can have multi-racial nation, where people have no shared mores and such, therefore never really knowing how things play out, thus making it so the state must be large and all-encompassing and acting as the creator and arbiter of all morals and such, since it is the only thing common to all the races under it.
And that is simply the way things are. Multi-racialism necessitates fascism in some form or other; mono-racialism evolves political systems based on the race in question.
A kind of proof: compare Argentina 1870s to USA 1870s. And then 1970s. Everything needed to have Argentina be a true contender to the USA was in place save one thing.
Englismen making up the vast majority of the people and the government and economy.
Notwithstanding his timidity regarding, Islam I appreciate and salute Professor Rigger’s support for free speech. I recommend that those opposed to the conquest ideology of Islam supplement their reading of the near-brave Rigger with the articles of the pre-eminent and prolific scholar of Islam, the incomparable Raymond Ibrahim.
One mistake, that most Westerners are guilty of making when it comes to islam and all its sects is this:
Islamic nations are, sociologically speaking, about five centuries or more behind* Western ones, in their development. They are essentially late Medieval/Renaissance people introduced to modern Western concepts over the course of a century, and to make it worse without our historical context of said concepts.
Even without islam, there'd be almost as much conflict anyway. As they say, politics is downstream from culture. But those who tend to say that often chicken out of going to the logical end of it:
Culture is downstream of? Race, when race is put in its historical perspective - despite living next door for longer than islam has been about, Greek and Albanians are still two distinctively different people and you can often tell the difference just by observing them. Or Russians and Englishmen; both are to use American vernacular "white" - neither would much appreciate being seen as one and the same, and you can usually spot which one is which simply by looking.
(This where you really feel your conditioning start to kick in, usually, if you're a Westerner.)
You and I have similar conceptual understanding of "individual", and of stuff such as rights and privileges (and anyone who's built an outhouse knows how important privvy-ledges are!) and so on. We have a mutual pre-conceived understanding of the general brushstrokes of history, and share also an underlying pre-existing frame for trust, mutuality and reciprocity.
With a moslem, no matter the race or nationality, there is virtually none of that. Doesn't mean the 1% of the islamic races can't be civilised, but that is because of they have gone through very Western institutions of learning (rather than the madrasas and similar institutions of learing) - they via their colonial heritage have been given a leg-up to understand us somewhat - but we do not have anything like that, unless we have delved into it one way or the other on our own.
Thus, to (f.e.) a Kurdish man who came to Sweden in 1975, it makes perfect sense to let his sons romp about like wild rovers among Swedish girls until they marry - but they will marry a Kurdish girl - a virgin! - that has been chosen by the fathers and mothers involved. It also makes sense for this man to keep his daughters as one would a budgie: locked-up and under guard. But here's the funny bit: if this non-hypothetical Kurd (I'm basing this on one of my former neighbours down South) is a just s smidgen Westernised, he might say: "No, my daughters are not marry Kurdish boys, they are to have Swedish husbands only. I don't want them to be treated the way Kkurdish boys treat women."
This is based on actual conversation with that old PKK-fighter. To him, there was no inherent conflict in any of the above - because his focus was narrow and tight on "What best serves the needs and wants of my children?".
Do you see the logical conclusion?
Either you have a virtually mono-racial nation, so that everyone shares mores and such, and therefore always knows in advance how things are, thus making it so the state can be small because it too is built on that preconceived understanding of things.
Or you can have multi-racial nation, where people have no shared mores and such, therefore never really knowing how things play out, thus making it so the state must be large and all-encompassing and acting as the creator and arbiter of all morals and such, since it is the only thing common to all the races under it.
And that is simply the way things are. Multi-racialism necessitates fascism in some form or other; mono-racialism evolves political systems based on the race in question.
A kind of proof: compare Argentina 1870s to USA 1870s. And then 1970s. Everything needed to have Argentina be a true contender to the USA was in place save one thing.
Englismen making up the vast majority of the people and the government and economy.
Unfortunately, there are "violent scumbags" on all sides of the ongoing evolutionary algorithm.
Fecundity is one weapon they use toward their prophet’s aim of taking over.
Notwithstanding his timidity regarding, Islam I appreciate and salute Professor Rigger’s support for free speech. I recommend that those opposed to the conquest ideology of Islam supplement their reading of the near-brave Rigger with the articles of the pre-eminent and prolific scholar of Islam, the incomparable Raymond Ibrahim.
“For all my vilification of extreme Islam”
Read the Koran and be honest and brave. All of this conquest ideology is extreme.