What did he mean by this?

Two wrongs don't make a right.
Besides, Islam is the only religion killing multiple people every single day for a decade.

religion doesn't kill people, people kill people

What if we detour this guys cartoons so much that he makes a comeback to try to "show" us? This guy is prime to be our Ben Garrison.

Fair enough. Muslims are the only religious people killing multiple people every single day for a decade.

Can't we do that to something better looking?

Nazis in Ukraine are religious and kill people every day.

1. see ethiopia, israel, latin america
2. islam is so shitty today because of cia/saudi funding for fundamentalist groups over the past 30+ years

Bullshit.
The CIA and FSB have handfuls of people.
These countries have 10s of millions.

They killed because they wanted to, not because they were told to.

I think you might have been in a cave for 70 years.
WWII is over, buddy.

This guy is the most prolific alt-right cartoonist aside from Ben Garrison, who is already occupied by Holla Forums

So every single muslim person murders several people every day?

Definitely not something I said.

Killing other Muslims mostly. It's a big civil war within Islam about Islam and Arab society more widely. By and large, the deaths in the west are collateral damage to this struggle. It doesn't help that we keep putting our cock in the hornet's nest. That's what motivated Bin Laden; not our Freedumbs, but the soldiers stationed in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

We should get out and stay out, and help the victims to the best of our abilities within reasonable bounds, while defending against attacks as best we can also.

and tehy and the usa have been funding Wahhabi warlords for a half century

Right, it makes perfect sense if you have autism, that's what I said.

The fuck does this even mean? Of course intelligence agencies don't have more people than entire countries. Doesn't stop them from influencing them.

I still blame the people.
When you outnumber a regime 100,000 to 1 and you're unhappy with said regime…
And you do nothing about it…

That makes it your fault, not the regime's.

It means this:

handfuls of people, and truckloads of moderate rebel-bux

Islamic insurgents are not a small handful of people

So an entire city worth hundreds of billions of dollars gets destroyed because the CIA and FSB had a few million dollars worth of money and gear?

Again, that's the people's fault.

Self-destruction is still self-destruction, whether someone told you or paid you to jump into the spike pit or you just do it because you want to.

Yes. Cities are a lot more expensive than guns and munitions.

Small enough that they should have been stomped on by a population as large as Syria's.

Islam promotes violence on a level no other religion does.
Read the Koran. It's got some eye-opening passages in it.

That doesn't counter my point at all.

I think most people here just want to live under socialism and aren't really in it for the political power. I mean I'm sure a lot of people dream of having some kind of important role in the movement (including myself) but I don't think thats the primary motivation.

This one on the other hand is actually pretty good.

And?
How about you read it to start with. Also, read the Bible. It's got some eye-opening passages in it.

The bible doesn't say 'kill and subterfuge all infadels' in it.

sage

And so it's the people's fault that the area was destroyed.
If they wanted America and Russia to stay out of the country, they should have banded together, trained their skills with SAMs and held the country.

And as for ISIS? Neighborhood watch. Kill all ISIS. Simple.

...

this is like something by an autistic child
I get what hes going for, and it probably could work as a joke, in theory, but hes not making it work as a joke in the slightest.

Are you retarded? We had a spoiled rich kid playing a retarded cowboy on TV start a religious war based on his Gog and Magog bible fanfiction back in 03, and we're STILL basically fighting that same bullshit. Kys

Neither does the Quran you illiterate retard

...

Ad hominems. How disappointing.

Wanna bet on that?

Okay
Bruh, that's how the insurgents got as big as they got in the first place. Because they were fighting the US.
Right. But now you mention it, there is a popular militia that is currently kicking ISIS' ass. It's called the SDF

No, they had to add those under Catholicism which is institutionalised Christianity. It isn't about the religion itself. The leaders of Islam try to increase the tension with propaganda, and they are succeeding. But don't be fooled that it is purely due to this. They look at what the west does on a daily basis and correctly identifies us as consumerist filth, who willingly destroys their homeland for monetary interests. All Islam has to do is put a spin on it and suddenly the government has created pro-Islam pro-government zealots and terrorists have new jihadists. Remove Islam, and something new will take its place. A religion will form based on their conditions. Get rid of western imperialists and institutionalised Islam, and Islam will probably mellow out just like Christianity did.

Refute anything I said about W. Seems like you can't

Not an argument

I'm game. Show me the passage.

Are you trying to imply ISIS are the good guys?

The prevalent hypothesis, is that America is FUNDING ISIS, because they want to destabilize Syria and put a pipeline from Saudi Arabia to Europe.

Why in the hell would ISIS protect against the people that armed them? (According to aforementioned hypothesis.)

The fact is, these people FAILED in every possible way, at every given opportunity and…

Let's just forget religion.
THEY destroyed their country, no one else.
It was THEIR country to protect and they failed and sabotaged it.

People need to take responsibility for their goddamn actions.
That's why no one likes the left. It's always someone else's fault.

I can't counter-argue a nonargument, idiot.

Point to the post and I will either refute or agree.

...

Fake Argument! SAD!

While Iraq was stupid, it was not at all a religious war.
Come on, you should know that.
Everyone knows it. Even Saddam's oil fire-starting ass knew that!

european cities are becoming increasingly islamicised and no one can do anything about it

I hate you smug western neckbeards who comdemn people living under totalitarian regimes for not fulfilling your V for Vendetta fantasy as you live off of Cheetos and pepsi under the gentle guardianship of your parents.

do these guys really believe Muslims want to kill every gay in sight?

If this was the case, why aren't Muslim-on-gay hate crimes more common?

Can you cite me what it was that caused the French president at the time to back out of his meetings with W in disbelief? It's pretty well known and cited in my post. Further, religious motivation does not preclude geopolitical motive, unless you seriously believe that bin laden's motivations began and ended with the quran

plus most of his business endeavors were failures and most of his wealth comes from him being an attention whore celebrity and then licensing out his name to other businesses.

Really bothers me that Holla Forums types confuse us with liberals all the time

I thought this gay retired

t. God. Gospel of Luke
Now show me yours.
No, I'm saying those are among the groups resisting US imperialism. Doesn't make them the good guys.
Technically, it's Saudi Arabia
The US has a long history of funding groups that would later turn against them. They also have a long history of funding both sides of a conflict. IS isn't on the US' side, but funding them accomplishes their goal of destabilising the Middle East.
Just, you know, ignore all the bombings and foreign meddling. Also the decades of US interference in the Middle East. Repeating a statement doesn't make it true.

They have to strawman ("everyone i dont like is a LIBRUL") because they can't argue.

This is silly. You're silly.

How can one be so intellectually dishonest?

Funniest part was that Bin Laden explicitly mentioned Israel and historical US interference in the region as his motive and yet is seen as more religiously motivated than the guy who went into a room with several foreign leaders and told them without a hint of irony that invading Iraq would help him fulfill a biblical story. I honestly think Bush had to have been trolling, there's no way he really believed that shit.

They could've ignored them, too with some organization, training and SAMs.

ISIS was outside of Syria before the war kicked off.

Maybe the Syrians were ignorant and divided…
Maybe some were unarmed, disinfranchised pussies…
Maybe both.

But whatever the excuse, that country got obliterated and it is their fault and no one else's.

And I fully do believe that, as a gunsmith, enthusiast and former soldier.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence#Sword_verses
Huge list of them, probably not even complete.

That still doesn't mean they'll 'protect Syria'.
Dominate and subjugate, perhaps.

Then again, who's fault is that? I again say it's the people, who were charged with protecting against this kind of thing.

Are you kidding?
Also, you're ignoring the fact that those insurgencies that you're saying they should take up arms against were, for the longest time, the only ones resisting the US, you know, the people bombing their countries. See Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much all the countries the US are bombing. So when a guy is angry at the US for bombing the shit out of their town and killing their family, what does he do? He joins Taliban, or Al Quaeda, or some other insurgency. Hell, maybe he joins IS.
Yes, and then, when the country was torn apart by the civil war (whose various factions were all funded by one power or another), they swooped in, assimilated various small islamist groups scattered around the place, and started conquering.
You keep believing that. This is what I hate about rightists, they always think it's the victim's fault.
Fucks given: 0

You guys are having a really fucking dumb conversation that absolutely misses the point. Unless you think Muslims in the MENA region are on average more literate/well read than their Christian counterparts in the west (who themselves often have a very shaky textual knowledge of the religion they claim to adhere to so faithfully), then why would it be that the actual text of the quran is the meaningful and impactful factor on their culture and motives?

Hell, the most common criticism of American christians is that they need to "go read their bible" since they don't even know what's in it, but suddenly when it comes to Muslims their all well-studied scholars of quranic exegesis. The truth is you guys don't actually know how religion works in practice for the vast majority of people who practice it, and it's more comforting to think people actually get their beliefs from a concrete, readily available, and straightforward to understand source. If only human beliefs were so easy, we wouldn't even need to be having debates on how civilization should be run.

It's a cappie ignores the fact that it's corporations pushing for mass immigration as they want a mass cheap labour force episode

Nope. Properly staffed SAMs aren't a joke.

I never said that. I said the Syrians should have armed themselves.

Okay

And that's why Aleppo is ashes.
No one cared enough.

You say it's the U.S.'s fault.
I say it's people like you.

Trump shuttle still makes me laugh.

In fairness, I mean, the airline industry is hellish. Still, you'd think it might've occurred that the service was profitable due to convenience, not luxury, and that adding luxury items was only going to increase aircraft weight.

— Warren Buffett, annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, February 2008.

you know the comic is honest when it represents an entire movement as overweight women with bright colored hair.

I don't need honesty to find something funny.

Have you had your head buried in the sand? Killing homosexuals is in their code of law and yea, the majority of Muslims support Sharia law.

Some Muslims do want to kill every gay person.

Muslim immigration is related with hate crimes against homosexuals, and it's common for gay people to be afraid of Muslim immigration. LGBT forums are pretty divided about immigration, because half is idpolers and half are people genuinely scared they'll be killed if they hold hands with their boyfriend in public. Obviously very few Muslims will just attack any gay person they see, but if you really think dumping the population of Egypt into France wouldn't change general social attitudes towards homosexuals you're an idiot.

...

it's jam

Way to move the goalposts. The majority of Muslims support Sharia law, in Sharia law it is an offense punishable by death. What else do you need to know?

Sharia law isn't even an immutable, concrete set of laws. Every muslim you ask will tell you it means something different, just like if you ask jews what zionism is they'll all give you a different answer. Which goes back to the point that religion isn't a straightforward text to idea interpretive process despite naive positivist ideas of how religion and culture work.

quran.com/7/80

So, how exactly in your expert analysis of Islam do you interpret this? Please tell me mr. progressive.

You are fucking retarded and you have no idea what logical positivism is.

Logical positivism is a defunct standard for meaning which does not have anything to say about the cultural impact of religion. Nobody is a positivist anymore, at most there are epistemological empiricists, and even then in altered forms.

that's nice. now ask them what they think should be done with homosexuals and apostates. i'm sure the responses will be very diverse

what aboot the fundamentalist christian killers in the US that – NEWSFLASH – don't get reported as such?

Yes, they will be

then shouldn't that diversity of opinion be reflected in their societies?

It's impressive how hard you two missed the point and complete with super impactful ad hom to round it off too.

Holla Forumsintelpro

Way to avoid answering the question. I understood your point, you're basically saying: #NOTALLMUZLIMS. If you think your rationale is insightful or thought provoking at all you're wrong.

Yes, which is why an ethiopian christian is more culturally similar to an ethiopian muslim than to an american christian, and not the other way around

There is a noticeable higher prevalence of fat chicks with neon-colored hair in SJW-affiliated groups.

Yeah, that wasn't my point at all. You're just so blinded by hate of SJWs that you're unable to move beyond this basic point. My point is that fighting the problems in Islamic culture by pointing out the text or telling them to change their religion is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. And that's with the admission that there is a clear and present problem with present-day muslim culture.

so where are all the active gay scenes and communities in places like riyadh, jakarta and karachi? does cairo have its own 'castro street'?

That's why they shouldn't be imported by the millions into the Western world, glad we finally agree on something.

I don't think I ever offered this as a solution. Can you point me to where I did? These conversations would be so much more productive if you guys didn't come into these threads looking for straw-liberals to beat down. But this is a problem that needs real solutions, and I honestly don't believe the focus on quranic text leads us down that path.

There aren't active gay communities because they are, compared to modern western culture, less progressive and oppressive on many social issues. I never refuted that. My point is more that Muslims in the west have much better opinions of gays than their counterparts back home on average, and that isn't because they read a different quran. So if you want the world as a whole to improve, we should find ways to encourage those trends in their countries as well as in the west. It doesn't seem to me the answer is changing the quran or forcible conversion or whatever else people seem to imply is the proper solution.

What is the problem… that Islam is a violent backwards religion, or the fact that they won't assimilate into Western countries?

lol not really

The problem is that their material conditions over the last century has pushed them towards more reactionary politics, which put them into more adversarial positions globally, which worsened their conditions, and so on and so forth. This allows the religious leaders in the region to push forth more radical strains/interpretations of the religion that helps them in their geopolitical goals (e.g. introducing the suicide bombing meme despite its direct contradiction with Islamic texts and all previous interpretations of it). It's a nasty feedback loop, and it wouldn't be pushed so hard if it didn't benefit the right people in power. My personal solution involves massive power shifts in the middle east that are unfortunately probably unrealistic. But I truly believe no progress can be made while people like the Saudi family are in power and can promote radical sects.

You think the average American Muslim is as homophobic as the average ISIS member? I know you don't believe this, this is a super retarded stance to take. In the US muslims are even less homophobic than evangelicals
reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su

do you have any data on this?
then obviously they shouldn't be welcomed and settled en masse in the west. this is the whole point

This is faggotry. You're a faggot

Does the phrase "Taqqiya" mean nothing to you?

It means you've watched too much american sniper and have no idea what shias and sunnis are or the difference in their beliefs (hint: only one of them seriously talks about "taqqiya", and even then it's only when you're at imminent risk for your life)

Two points. One, considering that Taqqiya in and of itself glorifies lying, you cant trust what a poo skin tells you. Secondly, they technically ARE under threat of death, because any rational person would slaughter them in self defense if they knew half of what they believed in. I know I would. So of course they keep the maniacal parts of their program hidden.

That's not the "whole" point though. Yes, mass immigration is not a good thing even if you like immigrants since it brings them into natural ghettoization and prepares them to be pseudo slave-labor (which is also the problem with mexican immigration into the US). But these displacements are better stopped at the source, so ensuring future stability in those regions will stop people from trying to get into western countries in the first place.

My bad i only know how they behave in western europe.
Hating faggots is the norm for them.

Or maybe, because, you know, the US bombed places a decade without appreciating the consequences that would bring

Stop getting your info from memes on Holla Forums and religionofpiss.com or whatever the fuck you go for your opinions
al-islam.org/greater-sins-volume-2-ayatullah-sayyid-abdul-husayn-dastghaib-shirazi/seventeenth-greater-sin-lying

Except that they are following direct interpretations of a 1,500 year old religion. Granted the all of the coups of secular states played a big role, in the end Islam prevailed because of how ingrained it is in their culture.

i'm not arguing against that. my point is if you import these people now and allow them to settle and place roots, they're now just going to up and leave if their native countries improve. and that's a big if

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/american-muslims-demographics/520239/

how exactly is this shocking?

No, they aren't. The suicide bombing which I mentioned is a specific example, and there are more. And if this were true, there would be no theological differences between different radical sects (after all, you just get more "real muslim" as you get more radical, right?), but all of the different terrorist orgs are entirely disparate in their interpretations of fundamental aspects of the religion (though to the observer this is generally imperceptible because "violent" is really the only thing you would care about, but they can be as far apart as mormons and catholics). In fact, it's been documented that ISIS and groups like them will actually turn away recruits for being "too religious", which is a strange practice for a group that is as muslim as it gets. They don't want people who read/interpret things for themselves, they want devotees who just do whatever you promise them is in the quran. That's the key point and where the problem needs to be attacked, these nodes of power born out of an artificial power vacuum because of the coups you alluded to.

Then I don't think we disagree, except maybe on how the conversation should be framed to lead to a solution

the conversation doesn't need to be 'framed,' people just need to be honest, which isn't allowed in a society that enforces political correctness

by and large, muslims do not appreciate western values, yet they want to immigrate to the west in droves in order to exploit the economic benefits. that's a problem

Can you provide it?I would like to read that.

I'm not that concerned with all of this, of course the middle east has been completely fucked on a geopolitical political scale. I'm not arguing against that. My point was that Islam and how the vast majority of its followers interpret it isn't compatible with Western civilization. My solution is to stop fucking around in the middle east… stop funding the Saudis and Israelis, but at the same time don't import millions of them.

my bad

Any policy focused discussion is framed, this has nothing to do with spin or dishonesty. Naturally, your focus is based on the factors you believe the problem is derived from, and when speaking on a topic the "framing" is just you relating the problem to its roots.

And again here, you think the root of the problem is muslims' natural inclination to emigrate to the west, and their natural(?) inability to change their cultural values once relocated. I think the larger problem is why they can't live in their homes to begin with. I guarantee that most of them wouldn't want to go to a country so counter to their values if they can just stay home, so either the ones coming over don't have values counter to western values like you believe, or they're not actually naturally inclined to move to the west.

Then we basically have the same solutions, though I would like to see active changes (not spearheaded by the west) in those countries as well

Fuck I wish I had it saved. I'll try to find it again since it's a fascinating phenomena IMO, best I can find on short notice is this article relaying the results of these recruitment patterns, indicating as I said that those that join these orgs aren't the more religious/scholarly ones.
independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-documents-leak-recruits-islam-sharia-religion-faith-syria-iraq-a7193086.html

Lovely source. I'm sure they'll be perfectly honest about Islam.

It's not a site aimed at proselytizing, it's a muslim site aimed to be a resource for existing muslims. Even if they're "lying", it's the version of islam muslims are learning from other muslims. You seem really confused.

If it was aimed at fellow Muslims, it would most likely be written in Arabic. Also remember that there are many who profess to follow the faith but are ignorant of its true origins and Jewish roots, like many who profess to follow Christianity. They may sincerely believe this, but that doesn't mean its whats taught in the Koran, nor does it excuse the genocides against gentiles.

Ok now I know you're a troll

Seems like a self-correcting problem to me.

they can't stay home because of the violence and economic situations there
no one said anything about 'natural inclination.' is your position that these muslims are immigrating to europe because they like the culture?

Nope, I agree with you that they probably aren't. In which case the only logical answer is your other point
So any productive conversation on stopping this trend should probably include this. That's pretty much my whole point, and yes this can be included along with a policy of stemming immigration on the receiving end as well

So you admit they are morally justified in killing you?

naive positivism is a perfectly acceptable description of the way in which new-atheist types engage with religion, stop being a pedant

and my whole point is that we don't have to settle millions of migrants into the west just because they have problems in their own countries. there are other places they can go to, but they're not interested in those because they're not offering access to the welfare state

Dont be intentionally obtuse

China and latin americans are arguably as poor as muslim arabs and yet they aren't executing and beheading gay people in the streets.

Gulf Arabs and European muslims are definitely richer and yet they haven't progressed from their retarded 9th century beliefs

the resemblance is uncanny

Why shouldn't it be the countries that bombed them in the first place? In fact, I think any European countries that haven't directly engaged in the wars leading up to this crisis should be exempt as a matter of principle.

China and latin american countries are some of the worst places for human rights abuses you will find in the modern world. How autistic are you? You're right, many don't actively target homosexuals (though clearly you've never been to many parts of latin america if you think they're that accepting), so I guess it's ok that human life is so meaningless in china that it's perfectly acceptable to run over children in the streets. At least they might not be gay children :^)

Oh, and the average person living in the gulf states isn't a rich saudi prince, just like living next to bill gates wouldn't make you a billionaire and improve your material conditions to his level. The income inequality in a place like the KSA is unprecedented and completely inhuman, and it's ridiculous to represent it as if the average arab living in those parts of the world are richer than the average person in china or latin america when they are usually worse off.

why should it be? some form of punishment? how does making europe worse make up for what was done in syria and iraq?

To disincentivize continued interventionism on an international scale? If you're going to intervene in a region militarily, you shouldn't be able to do it with impunity knowing you won't be affected half a world away.

You're evading the point. Yes life is hard in China and Latin America, but they aren't ideologically motivated by a medieval book written by a sandnigger pedophile warlord to kill independent women, gay people, atheists or other degenerates.

And fwiw some countries in latin America, like Brazil and Argentina, plus Taiwan (basically as developed as China's coastal cities), have gay marriage, while in Porklands like Dubai and Saudi Arabia, where the local muslims enjoy high incomes and luxury, gay people are beheaded in the streets.

So no, it doesn't have to do with material conditions but very much with culture and with being adherents to a semitic death cult.

Why not? Who cares about uncivilized sandniggers?

You haven't demonstrated that they have, and your empty pejoratives don't help your case. Your ad homs are not an argument

Because destabilizations in one region can affect the rest of the world my short-sighted friend. And again, not an argument.

and then what? just accept things and say "well they're here now lol"?

Why can't the right address Gays getting rounded up in Majority Christian Eastern European countries? They do much worse to gay people there.

Uhhh, it's public knowledge that arabs execute people for ridiculous offenses like being gay, having sex out of marriage as a woman, or practicing witchcraft. It's literally codified in the law and they literally have designated execution squares.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deera_Square

We're not talking about right now, obviously what's done is done we can't reverse the past. But it would be good if there could be an understanding going forward to leave other countries the fuck alone unless you're ready to accept the consequences

wtf I love being beheaded by drug cartels now

The point wasn't that they aren't reactionary you dumbfuck, it's that you haven't actually demonstrated that this is an immutable facet of applied forms of islamic ideology, though I doubt you'd understand the difference

Stop with the whataboutism and defending sandniggers. Yes Eastern europeans are shit peoplr in general when it comes to human rights, that's why Ukraine and Russia are dreary shitholes where men die at 50, this does not address why we should continue to import millions of sandniggers and their inability to adapt in the west.

Seriously kys dude, if this is the height of your rhetorical prowess and you can't contain your aspergers for long enough to have a normal human conversation

But the people they're killing are sandniggers too, and "who cares about sandniggers" according to you

So why the sudden outrage here? Could it be you're just an opportunist, dishonest piece of shit?

All organised religion is recationary backward and a danger to the advancment of science no matter what form it may take.
It should all be cleansed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation#.22The_map_is_not_the_territory.22

You're arguing semantics now.

* Sandniggers are more spooked than Holla Forums about muh duhgen and muh traditional values
* This actually leads them to kill people for it, unlike Holla Forums who keeps it online
* This is codified in the law in their countries
* This does not have to do with material conditions as gulf arab are both the richest and most reactionary while poorer places have been capable of embracing social progress, demonstrating sandnigger culture is to blame.

You can't argue this.

Yes I agree, this is why they need to be contained to their shitholes instead of importing millions of them to the west, so they don't kill people like they do every day in Europe.

Multiculturalism is a trait of the West. Plus Nations have to import Muslims due to the U. N. and other international treaties.

no but we can stop further immigration. and should

Holla Forumsintelpro thread.

That makes no sense, the extreme majority of this wealth is held by monarchs and is used to maintain societal control through authority and propaganda. Keeping them in power is economically desirable for the Western powers, which is why the US government was forced to ignore actual evidence that the Saudis were behind 9/11. The only reason Saudi Arabia as a country even fucking exists is because of the Britbongs, and both they and the burgers are what turned Iran from a secularist nation into one of the most religiously zealous.

Just curious, who do you think they are killing? Because most of them are the victims, not the perps. You can oppose mass immigration without this kind of hamfisted logic.

kys

Yes I am okay with asians, latinos, pajeets and even some jews but islamofascists and islam apologists need to fuck off.

Islam is literally a fascist ideology that wants to kill and conquer all infidels and should be banned and bashed.

You can't demonstrate this, and haven't even made an attempt at doing so
The average Holla Forumstard is better off than some dude in a cave, you're delusional if you think material conditions don't apply here (and then you dipshits still manage to whip yourself up in a frenzy and shoot up a mosque every once in a while anyway despite being pampered babies)
Ok, and this says what about the immutability of their culture? This is the phenomena we're discussing and you're just making a meaningless tautological point
Rich saudi princes don't make the average populace richer, and you know this despite your insistence on being incredibly dishonest.

So you admit you don't actually give a shit about gay people, and would kill them too if you were pushed to it by the looks of it. You just want to prop them up as an excuse to kill brown people including the ones you claim are victims (as if you would actually test how muslim they were before killing them for how they look)

No, YOU kill yourself stupid liberal.

And this is a problem for a fascist like you because?

Ok granted, but would you grant future interventions should be discouraged, and that the countries against intervention shouldn't have to take in refugees after the fact? If the UK wants to invade some country and France says no, why the fuck should France be forced to clean up their shitty mess?

Kys

yes i agree

This is not what you've been advocating ITT

...

I love how reactionaries pretend to admire communism from the past. Really pisses me off how they constantly think modern communists aren't up the standards of those in the past.

in other words "muslim" is just code word for "arab"

And people keep saying that capitalism is the best possible system for technological progress and economic growth when what Buffet is saying that it would be better for the capitalists if an industry that creates millions of jobs, literally keeps the global economy in motion, and has spawned created countless technological knock-offs that has driven further growth had never been created because its just not very profitable.

And most defenders of capitalism think that this must be an isolated example, that capitalists don't look at new technologies/methods of production every day and say "No, thanks that's just not profitable right now, its not for me, sorry."

I love how there's nothing you can do to save those filthy arab degenerates :')

why do the europeans deserve to be spared from their crimes?

I just can't even get into this "conservatism is the new counter-culture" meme. Like Pepe is such a dead meme our dank commie pepe excepted and the idea that voting for capitalism with American nationalist characteristics is more radical then capital with POC characteristics is pretty inane.

How someone can come to this conclusion is beyond me Trump's voterbase was noticeably more elderly than Bernies.
Just what the fuck?

...

don't bring that cancerous meme here

they're only counter culture in the sense that they are counter-neoliberalism. Neoliberalism isn't really the culture but started to become a big thing that effected things like video games, tv, movies, etc. and also started gaining speed politically. Thing is while it is pretty popular it isn't really the culture. Sure if left unchecked it would become the culture after a while but the way it is right now it's only starting to really integrate into the culture. And it is that very integration that they are against, it's starting to effect them and they don't like it so a reactionary counter-neoliberalism culture was born. I mean yeah I hate them too, and "culture wars" are pretty stupid in every sense but thats pretty much it's a counter culture.

It's esoteric kekism, where you can make anything true in the real world by getting enough people to say it is, or something. The politics of wishful thinking meet magic activism.
Or course, they do believe they're "the resistance." That their cause is a stacked fight against the entire existing social order. This mentality is important to observe, though, because it provides a current, ongoing example of how the capitalist system reincorporates dissent into the status quo and diffuses revolutionary sentiment along safe, ineffectual channels.

Didn't this guy retire? Is he back?

Neo-liberalism is the cultural marxism of leftists, an anything and everything yet nothing in particular.

This is in a parable, you dolt, as in it's a story meant to tell a lesson and not to be taken literally. These are the words of the king in the story Jesus is telling. At least read the actual passage before you rip something out of context.

Neoliberalism is actually very simple, people just get it wrong all the time.
It is the dominant set of political and economic ideas since the late 1970s. Just as the period from 1950-1971(or 73 in some cases) is rightly recognized as the "Keynesian consensus", so too is 1979-Now the "Neoliberal" period. That period may now be drawing to a close. I sure hope so.

Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[10][11]

...

Using this line of logic, I could just as well define cultural marxism as the dominant social thought of the last 20 years.

Neo-liberalism posits the current world as a conspiratory ideology, from which anything and everything stems, with no people that actually identify as such, to then declare it real by saying that things are as they are. It's the same logic as that behind the term cultural marxism.

The fucking IMF outright admit it exists, you tedious cocksucker.

I like how his Mac is just kind of on some sort of floating plank. Also this guy is an anarchist but also a Bernie voter and obsessed with the concept of private property? Also Pepe channers are "hip troublemakers"?

You know it's a classcuck bamboozled liberal when they type their butthurt idpol defensive dreck in all lower case.

...

Wrong.
Go back.

Actually that reminds me: There's a book out there called "Markets in the Name of Socialism: The Left-Wing Origins of Neoliberalism" that I've been meaning to dip into.
It doesn't seem to be a right-wing hit piece on the left, so I'm fascinated by what it might contain. Anyone here read it by-chance?

Sweden is always the first country to cuck to religion. They cucked to Protestantism, they're doing the same now.

How does "admitting" apply to a flawed concept?

I didn't read but I can see the point. The left has become an ideology of lawyers, of rights and muh privileges, legalism and the market are intertwined, and so inadvertently support each other.

Comin for the toothbrush bucko

Don't want to make a thread just for this; can someone post the Bernie Sanders "Why Live" image?

You're right, we should simply never delineate different periods of economic and political thought because it's a rather broad category.

mfw

So calling gay marriage cultural marxism is perfectly valid when the later is defined as a cultural trend.

Less than ten seconds on Google.

travelgayasia.com/jakarta-gay-bars-and-dance-clubs/

The is that "Neoliberalism" makes sense because it's a revival of certain classical liberal ideas. There's no Marxism in "cultural marxism", you could call Investment Banking "The Oil Industry", and amongst certain groups of cretins it might even make mutual sense - but it's still silly in a wider context.

This.
I swear to god, this must be the guy from the other thread here. He's using the same distinctively nonsensical stonewalling argument style.

There is marxism and cultural marxism, and as such marxists are the staunched proponents of cultural marxist tendencies like gay equality.

The term neo-liberalism was coined by a group of economists who were opponents of what is now neo-liberalism, and was then developed into a blanket term that distills the present in a simplicity, a conspiracy of economists.

Not him.

You're definitely the Buster of this thread.

Kek
No, there's no "as such," fuck off. Embedded in any and every use of the term "cultural Marxism" in the first place is the claim that whatever is being called "cultural Marxism" must be found among the Marxists' social policy objectives. This claim is patently wrong for a great deal of what is called "cultural Marxism."
The only way people call SJWism "culturally Marxist" is if they don't have the most basic of basic understandings of Marxist thought.

So marxists don't support gay equality.

I always thought you guys were proud to support it before the liberals got on board.

Did you read the fuckin Quran? Homosexuality is on par with insulting Allah.
Why? Because you "can't be born that way". Why? Because Allah's creation is perfect and he doesn't make mistakes. So if you are gay or a tranny (that's on par with shitting on the quran and drawing mohammad porn cartoons) you must be killed, because you are insulting Allah with your existence.

"cultural marxism" is used by those who say it much more broadly than 'gay equality'
leftypol generally supports gay equality but probably not gay identitarianism(various forms of making your sexuality your identity, the shit Holla Forums mainly points to as examples of why homosex is degenerate)

They support homosexuality in as far as it allows them to make gays look bad, but as soon as commies get in power they always clamp down on the Third Sex, as they have done during the dark ages.

u fuckin wot

Nice meme

Then why can't cultural aspects that marxists support be called cultural marxism?

You can call cultural aspects that conservatives support cultural conservatism, the same goes for marxism.

take your medicine.

Because it envisions marxists as a homogenous group, instead of recognizing that the questions of cocks in arses is irrelevant to marxism either way, while conservatism has much more to say on cultural topics.

You might as well ask why we can't call gay sex parties "cultural conservatism" on the basis that hey, here's two self-identifying conservatives who engage in those actions…

You dont get to validate your retarded and nonexistant boogeyman with weasle kike tier logic. I swear to god Holla Forums is exactly what they claim jews to be.

He's actually wrong, cultural marxism is actually a very distinct doctrine, that was invented by the zionist Jews and injected into verious leftie movements for the purpose of creating culturally homogenous world by erasing heritage, race, gender etc and replacing them with consumerism and universal labels. All to serve the purpose of creating the one world government with absolute authority, which no one would resist.

Why even bother posting on this board? We've read the actual books that you obliquely refer to, we know you're full of shit, your arguments are almost entirely without substance - what the point?

Then neither does neo-liberalism exist because liberals aren't a homogenous group either.

Just admit it, the difference between the terms isn't a difference in logic, it's that one violates your language game while the other is part of it.

Cultural marxism was present from the start of marxism, that jews thrive in it is a coalescence, not a later plan of infiltration. It posits man as a marketized subject, he has but two impulses of being, profit and pleasure. The completion of the homo economicus that is the central tenet of marxism is total, it isn't restrained to how a factory is owned and operated.

Marxism does not really oppose what they call capitalism, they merely state that it isn't complete yet, and so it is a capitalist fantasy itself.

Neoliberalism is it's own thing. It's you who's conflating it with liberalism more widely.
The most telling thing is that you refer to "cultural marxists" as just "marxists" as soon as possible, whereas neoliberals are referred to as (shock) neoliberals at all times. Freudian slip or disingenuous slight of hand?

I came here to ask you to go reddit and shill against war with Best Korea, but then realized you're too few and too ineffective and I have better chances on cuckchan.
I very much doubt that, that otherwise you'd be on Holla Forums

Nah, the first primitive forms were formulated by Trotsky with his "perpetual revolution" doctrine, but it really took a finished form much later.

First it was a revival of liberalism (therefor being neo) and now that doesn't look good for your argument it's suddenly it's own thing.

Marx himself stated that the goal of marxism is to make every aspect of life a cultureless calculation of profit and pleasure.

No. Liberalism is an absurdly broad church. It was a revival of certain aspects of classical liberalism.
If you're not even going to read what people post, there's no point going forward with any discussion.

You're confusing that one, m8. He said that about capitalism.

According to Marx there shouldn't be any money, so they wouldn't be calculating any profit, neither working your ass off would be very pleasurable. Marx is pretty much your basic bitch utopian "what if" writer on the social policies.
Engels on the other hand comes closer to that, with his criticism of religion and his idea of the abolition of family.
Then came Trotsky.
Then came the cultural marxism.

So it is not liberalism, it's instead a thing in itself, that isn't a really thing in itself but a revival of classical liberalism, but only some parts of it, and it dominates the entirety of economy and politics.

This is why leftists are so difficult to talk to, they're always in broadcasting mode.

He did, and he applauded capitalism for it, his criticism of capitalism was that it wasn't complete enough. Communism would be the completion of capitalism, there would be no money, because the profit incentive would have been made perfect, there would be no more culture, just individual pleasure incentives. Marx barely ever wrote about what communism would be, for it isn't really anything but a fantasy of completion. No one Holla Forums can tell you what "workers owning the means of production" would actually amount to, only that it needs to be so, because it would complete their profit motive.

Cultural marxism then, is this fantasy applied to culture, there are never enough genders, there are never enough holes to put a dick in, there is always more racism, there is always more sexism, it never dissapears, it only gets cleverer and more hidden, now we're at micro-aggressions, in 20 years they will be talking about sub-atomic aggressions.

This is why leftists call you thick.

have you ever heard of throwing them from the mountain tops? killing gays is in the christian code of law. any real christian would murder homosexuals if he has read his holy books

sharia is vague as fuck and the word sharia in arabic just means "law"

so ask a christian if he believes the law should reflect the bible. 99% would say yes. it doesn't mean they want to kill gays.

go outside your fucking home for once

christian africans burn witches alive and execute gays it doesn't mean every christian is murderous.

if you think murdering of gays still happens in the middle east outside of literally isis territory then you are an idiot. even the most hardcore wahhabis don't do that shit anymore. if you actually talk to a wahhabi they say "the law for gays as the quran states is that they must be shunned. based on the language of the quran it means cast them out not murder them"

literally meaning "ignore gays, they are sinful ignore them"

if you actually talk to a nazi they say they just want their people to be left in peace

The fuck? Look at battle of Seattle 1999.

why not oppose both?

Impracticality mostly. Religion isn't going away, and so insisting on a strict anti-religious stance may be a theoretically sound stance but untenable in practice.

I didn't say we should oppose all religions, just the abrahemic ones, Paganism is the religions for the proles

Sorry, but we don't like reformists around here.

2.2b Christians + 1.6b Muslims + whatever insignificant portion of jews is roughly 4b people. That is the majority of the world's population

And I would rather take on one than both at the same time. If getting rid of religion doesn't stop people from going from feudalism → capitalism it won't stop people from going to socialism now. Under socialism I don't give a rat's ass what kind of weird shrine they have in their houses

Religion can't be separated from the political. Many religious are very openly political ideologies, reactionary ideologies opposed to socialism. This is nothing to be concerned about?

So convince them their religion was anti-capitalist the whole time. Religious people just follow whatever charismatic religious authority is around anyway

I don't know much about paganism, is it inherently anti-authoritarian and rejects blind faith, dogmatic thought and so on? Really the only revolutionary religion I know of would be Buddhism.

It really isn't. Paul was Hellenized as fuck, and his contributions are far more important to Christianity than anything Jesus ever said or did. It got even worse later on with people like Augustine. The Christian religion is essentially a Greek philosophy dressed up in Judaic ideas.

So what about the aspects of modern christianity derived from the philosphies of people like avicenna? You know this is much more convoluted than how you're presenting it

if only varg weren't a brainless sea slug of a human being

It's amusing how some of you continue to pretend that race, nations and religions are not a thing and everyone who claims otherwise is "spooked".
Even if it all didn't matter in the beginning it does matter when people buy into it. Niggers are baited into hating whites, womyn are baited into hating men, muslims are baited into hating infidels and there's nothing you can do about it. Bragging about idpol and spooks doesn't accomplish shit.
Notice how so called white nationalism was not really a thing until recently. The reason why whites are becoming increasingly racist is not that they think they're superior. It's the only way whites can defend against niggers and muslims.
Socialism was a joke from the very beginning but in multi-cultural society the success rate is 0%.
Enjoy your sharia law, western faggots.

It's because people are spooked that race nations and religions are a thing.

They never admired us but I'm not going to disagree that we're in fucking shambles atm.

Well I'm certainly amused

You mean like this?
wbrc.com/story/35126003/alabama-senate-oks-church-police-bill

No, because we had history books in my school.

...

post more redpanels TBH, they are quite funny

i wish he wasn't such a drumpf cuck though

Nobody really responded to you honestly, and you're mostly right.

If you set up an ancom society in place of your university, there will be plenty of decolonizers whining about representation and complaining about whites ordering them around. Concepts are useful for some people, and spooks which don't help you may help them. In such an arena the white race may also become a useful concept for some people, and it's not incorrect to apply it. At least, if you've actually read Stirner.

Holla Forums is full of seemingly intelligent people, but they find "race is a social construct" a compelling argument. On this basis they believe that geographical ancestry relates to nothing other than appearance. They're just as spooked as anybody, but by egalitarianism.

The people who say there's nothing wrong with Islam are probably the most ideologically tribalist and pathetic, though.

Actually it's common knowledge amongst any Muslim that's read the Qu'ran in their native language at least once.
I find it really strange to see non Muslims point out that Islam is extremely similar to Judaism and Christianity, as if it's a sign of phoneyness and not the central, explicit point.

It's because everyone argues on memes regardless of what side they're on in an argument, and then expect to be taken seriously or have their point accepted without actually arguing their case. Scan this thread to see how few people actually stay calm and offer sources, and interpretations, vs the number of people who get absolutely buttdevestated that people dare to not immediately agree with their conclusions

There's nothing wrong with Buffet's quote in context.
He's giving investment advice, not designing a country's transport policy.
Transport doesn't need to be profitable, which is why it should be nationalised or subsidised.
It's function is to allow other industries to flourish, the tax reciepts of which could fund the transport network.
Read Adam Smith.

The other replies seemed to miss why this is bad.
The way Trump made money was inheriting his dad's business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The idea that he made it all from 1 million is a straight-up lie.

When you go "Making billions from 1 million isn't hard!" you play into that lie, because actually making billions from 1 million is hard. It's also not what he did.

PS: If Trump had liquidated the company, invested in an index fund, and then sat on a couch for 30 years, he'd be twice as rich as he claims to be today.

I don't think it's on purpose exactly, marxists just don't have much profile in the US, they see us as more extreme liberals because they've never known anything outside the electoral spectrum.

Also worthwhile mentioning that Trump actually nearly fucked it all in the early 90s, but was bailed out by the US government. He apparently still doesn't have to pay any taxes today, which is why every liberal on the planet wanted to see those tax returns (and he won't show them).

Hi Rachel Madcow

...

look at this spooked af dude

...

The Putinboys call the Ukrainians nazis for resisting the invasion of their country
I don't know what the fuck they're talking about since Ukraine's fascist party only got like 1% of the vote in their last election

Sasuga, /leftypoz/

Find an example of this that wasn't responded to with annoyed demands for them to fuck off back to Reddit.

hello reddit

user, you ARE the reddit.

hello reddit

Holla Forums aka r/The_Donald needs to get some serious self-awareness

r/The_Dildo has more in common with you /leftypoz/ than with the real Holla Forums, lol.

you're a walking parody

No one cares about your autistic forum jingoism. Answer my request:

Why do we need to deserve anything? We are just fucking trying to make where we live safe and good from Arab scum

What did Holla Forums mean by giving this 250+ replies?

we do it to annoy you.