Why don't some socialists consider Muslims to be reactionary...

You're still literally a thousand times more likely to be killed by a cop in the West than a terrorist.

In fact you're more likely to be killed by a shark attack.

Regardless it doesn't matter because like I said.

Islam has no real political/economic capital in the West.

People have forgot how much influence Christianity has over our politics, and how much real long standing centuries long capital it has. This is particularly true of the Catholic Church. Islam never founded this nation through it's own society, however, America was strongly influenced by Freemasonry. Be it the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, the Protestants, what have you, these people's political donations and what they've done throughout history.

I'm not worried about Islam at all.

I'm only "worried about Islam" in the sense where it has eroded a materialist way of thinking by the left, and has driven them towards outright idealism and the fetishization of "the oppressed".

Islam does not promote socialism. If it did, then that's what we would see Muslims fighting for (in fact, history has proven the opposite to be true when western imperialists funded Islamic fundies in order to fight communists and secularists). Muhammad was not a Lenin or Che figure by any means but the Trump of his day.

Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of Autism Level tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

What's so dangerous about it?

In the same way, fear of Islam has focused it being the only real reactionary force at work, when in reality it is rather weak outside of its region of origin in terms of influence.

You should just be as focused on Christianity and its economic influence, influence that Islam just does not have.

t. idpol libtard

t. idpol libtard

...

...

Getting mad about sjws but defending the noble anti social chan poster who's alienated not only refuses to acknowledge the problems that created either, but serves no point beyond mental masturbation and anger.

You're not helping anyone by not criticizing yourself daily.

Stay mad, purging SJWs from our ranks should be priority number one for leftism as a whole. They are the single greatest threat to our legitimacy as a political category.

Unless you have control of the state you're not making anything better by not responding to the direct alienation that lead to the creation of both of your social conditions.

If you cannot critique yourself you're a liberal.

No i don't consider muslim to be reactionary. There's 60k muslim in my country in a population of 11 million Uhhh very scary!! I've never even met a muslim ffs.
My concernings are other. Like american globalism, EU cancer and fucking tourists.

Imagine thinking you're smart for regurgitating alt-right self-mythologizing propaganda as a critique of "SJWs"

This is as essentialist as dividing the world between First and Third worlds. Islam absolutely plays a role in the reproduction of global capital across the globe and has done virtually nothing to build socialism anywhere.

"Christianity vs. Islam" is a false dichotomy. It's like claiming we shouldn't be critical of fascism since fascism has very economic influence compared to capitalism.

I never said "Christianity vs. Islam", I was saying you're putting too much focus on the latter and never the former when it comes to both political and economic capital in America or Britain or France or Germany, anywhere.

We have become so focused on Islam we forget the radical mobilization of the Christian right on our own doorstep.

Actually most of us DO focus on Christianity.

We only focus on Islam because the far-right paints us as Islamophiles when we're definitely not.

Besides, by your logic we also shouldn't criticize orthodox Judaism, despite Jewish messianism being a huge contributor to Palestinian genocide.

Leftists are anti wh.ite jew slaves

I'll stick with the former

The exact far right that does this is the same far right you'll never court, so who even cares. They're the exact people who would be in another time or place defending Franco's Spain.

It's not worth trying to do some bullshit PR, it's entirely worth criticizing both Wahhabism and the more radical parts of modern Christian life in America just as equally, the same people calling us, what, "Islamophiles",?

I never said that because Judaism was never brought up. Indeed, Judaism has capital in the United States for its own influence that Islam just does not have. This isn't to ignore the globe spanning scale of everything, Wahhabism is indeed a problem.

But we've become so obsessed with Islam we forget just how easy a population could fall into the same trappings or similar trappings of Saudi Arabia. Particularly in America.

Without the need for Islam at all.

It was both.

...

No it doesn't. Secular Jews are the ones on Wall St. and K. Street. The religious Jews are not the ones will billions of dollars.

AIPAC doesn't exist apparently

AIPAC

AIPAC is mostly made up of secular Jews.

get back on your meds, the figments of your imagination have started talking to you gain

liberals, the actual leaders of the left, we all know it, don't play dumb