Why do right-wingers hate islam? Terrorism and melanin levels aside, shouldn't they be natural allies...

Why do right-wingers hate islam? Terrorism and melanin levels aside, shouldn't they be natural allies? Does the fascist hatred of minorities override everything?


Lebensbraum (Caliphate, pan-whitetopia)
Love capitalism (only mild rhetorical criticism of the "jewness" [usury] of it)
Hate jews
Hate gays
Promote housewifing as the only legitimate role for women in society

It seems in opposing discrimination against them from reactionaries, we have absolutely no way of avoiding being lumped into islam ass kissers or some bullshit.

I admit I've never read the quaran in depth but is a modernist left interpretation of it even remotely possible? Like how there was liberation theologists that just ignored all the brutal shit in Christian doctrine and/or interpreted through a leftist lense? I'm not trying to say that's optimal for us in the left, but far fucking preferable to right-wing jihadism and "moderate" Maajid Nawaz classical liberalism.

At the end of the day, I feel really bad for the sane, working people in muslim countries. Forced to live in far-right theocracies, surrounded by fraticidal terrorists, western imperialists trying to pry open their countries to Porky with absolutely no chance of leftist politics emerging to liberate them…

Other urls found in this thread:


They put down the Old testament and picked up the new Testament
Whether he was actually a son of god is a thing of personal belief but in a lot of ways Jesus was /ourguy/ tbh

According to Islamic Gommunists it is


Right wingers shouldn't hate islam, we should.

Eh, na. Leftists aren't submissive, they're supposed to rise up against the current order.

Yes, they're both fundamentally fascists, but thing thing about fascists is that they're inherently divided along national/racial/linguistic/religious lines. There's no unity among fascists. Fascists are just glorified gangsters after all. It's like saying,

There is a difference between western reactionary conservatism born out of the tradition of Edmund Burke, fascism as well as national socialism and Islam: Islam is universal. Nazis believe in race, fascists in the state and traditionalists in culture, Islam in neither of these things. Islam divides the world in Dar al-Islam (house of peace) and Dar al-Harb (house of war). Reactionaries feel deeply threatened by Muslim universalism, which they perceive as uprooting

Stop saying that Islam is fascists, that's Sargon tier and waters down the term of fascism

He was cool dude imo
but eh thats just an opinion

The biggest differences between leftists and rightists are that leftists fight for practical reasons, while rightists fight for the ideal.

You can reject Islam as a religious ideology and still support the struggle of Muslims against imperialism and oppression, which includes the rejection of western consumerist culture. It often happens that these struggles adopt Muslim notions, as they perceive it as opposed the latter.

The same way you might find the leader worship in the DPRK whacky, but you should still support the DPRK as that is the form of opposition to western capitalist culture the Korean people have chosen.

sounds practical indeed

It seems that most Muslims are traditionalists?

Perhaps Islam isn't inherently fascist, but is not Saudi Arabia an Islamofascist state? And wasn't ISIS a proto-Islamofascist state? And I do think it's worth pointing out that Muhammad built a military empire. But I do take your point about Islamic universalism.

The Romans weren't feudalist.

Just to flipturn things upside down if I may: Why do left wingers love Islam?

Islamic countries have have institutional racism, lack of womens rights, punishment for being gay, driving out all the Juice etc etc
The Umayyad caliphate was the most effective imperial campaign in history. Normally left wingers say they dont support imperialism but its OK when the muslims do it?
You cant explain that shit.

Ah, good post. Yeah, i'm seeing my oversight. My OP is looking kind of retarded now, although I still don't know where this issue leaves us on the left? I feel like I should read something but don't know what

We don't. You're thinking of liberals/SJWs.


No. They may have reactionary idealisms but Islam was conceived as a fundamental rejection of both the Persian and the Roman statehood, which includes the rejection of traditional antiquated hierarchy. Anarchism or state socialism are both competible with Islam, in theory. Islam is inherently universalist while traditionalists try to preserve the feudal division of cultural spheres which they see as natural.
I don't see how. Saudi-Arabia is a antiquated slaveholder society that got injected with fundamentalism by western powers so they rise up against the Ottoman Empire. ISIS is really weird, and I think a new phenomenon that needs seperate analysis, especially considering the amount of alienated westerners fighting in it's ranks. ISIS looks even more like a western artifical creation than the statehood of Saudi-Arabia.

In feudal economy the peasant farmers are called serfs, not proles. Proles do wage-labor while serfs are basically slaves.

Well that still basically fits rome

That's not feudalism, just a regular class society which existed since the Neolithic Revolution. Feudalism means ownership of land (or to be more specific: ownership of the right to use the land) which is rented out to serfs to sustain themselves in exchange for military draft

No, there is a difference between a peasent and a slave. Slaves are basically human commodities.

Yeah, I didn't mean it as an excuse to imperialism.
I absolutley support the anti imperialist struggle of the muslim population, and absolutley support North Korea no matter what

Right, I'm no expert on Rome, but were there land owning "lords" and "fiefs" with "fiefdoms"? I don't think so. I found this Quora on the subject:

via quora.com/How-did-feudalism-in-Ancient-Greece-and-Rome-differ-from-Medieval-Feudalism

Hmm… I always thought it was you guys holding up the refugees welcome signs.

Genuinely the political right hates things that threatens their family and friends.

You know, like normal people.

Don't give the right wing too much credit. There is no grand complex civilizational argument there, it's just that most muslims are brown people. Same reason they don't see Mormons as a problem, even though they too are a growing competitor to Christendom.


I think your over simplifying things.
They love brown people from the Filipines such as Duterte. But they dislike Arabs who are quite pale and look a lot more white.

Its obviously not all about how they look.


Idiot detected. Mormonism and Christianity are a lot more similar than Christianity and terrorism.

Embarrassing brainlet thinking we are liberals.

OK, but these days most Muslims seem to desire to live a traditional Islamic life compared to a modern Western one, right? And in scripture and in practice they subjugate women, no?

It's a brutal police state where industry is state run, but there's no worker control, rather decisions are made by an unelected dictator. Sounds like fascism to me.

No. Some of us are even against immigration. Immgiration is a sympthom of capitalism. Also immgiration puts pressure on wages ecc.
Plus imposing multuculturalism is literally peak neoliberalism and americanism.
There is literally no up side to immigration like this. All the hardcore communist parties in europe are anti immigration, the one that are pro immigration are soc dems/liberals, which we despise.
Fuck even corbyn is against it to some extent

user, I have bad news for you.

This board is just liberals larping as gommunists.

If everyone confuses you with liberals you should try to be more distinct from them. Thats on you.

Stop getting your information from Holla Forums. Although I do support open borders, I do not think we should tolerate the backwards religion of Islam. We should do our best to emancipate people from this mind-virus.

Fiefdoms are a result of the collapse of central authority. There are more of an accident than a conscious ideogocial formation. The church itself was heavily opposed to fiefdoms and knights for centuries, up until the second millenia. Knights where seen as barbarians that prey upon gods children. The classic medieval estates of the realm don't include them, ironically, the "fighting" were considered monks, as they wage a spiritual battle. But, the matter of reality was the imperial authority went down the shitter, with the Roman roads not being maintained. That led to the superiority of a mounted warrior class, as they could extort surplus from people and quickly retreat. Eventually, the emperor/king started to break deals with them, lending out authority over land in exchange for loyalty which eventually became hereditary - a fiefdom. The church came along later, fabricated the idea of "knighthood" as a valiant warrior for Christ, making some mental gymnastics by twisting Augustine of Hippo to reconcile this with Christianity. Even so, they still hated knights for a while. One of the motives of Urban II. to unleash the Crusades was to "drain" Europe off all these restless warrior types.


I got my info from the mainstream news which I guess is even more unreliable than pol.

But for example in my country theres a politician called Mr Corbyn and hes always followed about by groups of supporters holding up signs saying things like 'end all national borders'. Then I read a lot of support on here for mr Corbyn and presume you are the same group.

sounding pretty liberal to me buddy. In fact, doesn't even sound like open borders.

I just referenced mr Corbyn in my post here

Im not sure what his personal stance is but his supporters are definitely against borders and for refugees flooding in.

They like Duterte for the same reason the like Putin and Peterson, a pathetic need for exaggerated father figures. They consider immigration from the Philippines just as much wyat genocide as that from other places.

Muslims can come here but I'm going to actively try to convince them to abandon Islam and join the Revolution.

Basically anyone who doesn't "know their place" is fair game to the right wing.
If muslims were less uppity no one would care.

Two different things. I admitted they are reactionary in terms of social hierarchy, but they still fundamentally reject the nation-state. You see, people like Hussein, Assad, etc. are rejected by Muslim scholars entirely, they are considered tyrants. That's why it is always so easy for the west to facilitate fundamentalist Muslim movements against Middle Eastern states for their own imperialism. That Muslims actually hate their presidents and monarchs was discovered by the British and the Germans (who tried to ignite an Afghan Dschihad against British India) in WWI.
Again, no. That would mean we have fascism since the dawn of civilization. Saudi-Arabia doesn't have class collaboration. Arabs don't work. They import foreign slaves to do the work for them. That's just a textbook slaveholder society.

So its not simply about how brown they are as someone was trying to say earlier.

Thank you for this interesting history, comrade!

user, I have some bad news for you. You are definitely liberal.

If you think that Islam and leftism are compatible then YOU are the liberal.

Then what do you make of Saudi Arabia and Iran?

Fuck his supporters.
He gets called anti semite too, that's always welcome


Those knights suddenly became super useful when the Umayyad caliphate invaded Christian Europe.
Ever nation that was next to a muslim empire either had to become very violent themselves or get conquered. That is still happening today in places like Myanmar.


Thank you comrade, seems that since the flags were turned off people don't just shit on me here. Turns out a tankie flag just makes people skip the post or write some one-liner.

Yeah, I think the flags were promoting sectarianism and infighting.


And yet ironically these have been the most successful leaders in terms of having any sort of peace and stability in the middle east.
Yes they rule by an iron fist. But they actually give muslim society something to fight against rather than fighting against each other.

You're thinkin of egyptians.


Could you please offer your definition of "fascism" ?

rome was a battle between central authority and latifundia owners
i have studied more about byzantium and it's the same with macedonian dynasty legislation vs the Dynatoi
the victory of large agricultural property and it's affects eventually destroyed the empire

More orthodox Muslim scholars reject Saudi-Arabia as well, but Saudi-Arabia is a kingdom. It's not a nation-state. It doesn't have state institutions, just an family dynasty controlling everything.

Iran is "revisionist" in terms of their interpretation of a state. First off they are not expansionist because they still wait for the coming the 13th Imam because they are Shiites, they can't expand under a leader because they see every Muslim leader as illegitimate because he does not come from Muhammads bloodline. They are a theocracy in a way, which isn't exactly a textbook nation state.

Karl Martell's army was more of a folk/people's army that bears more resemblances with the forces of the barbarian migrations of the late antiquity than with a feudal army of the middle ages.

Nazi Germany didn't have proles? I guess Holla Forums was right all along, it truly is socialism with antisemitic characteristics ;)

People who hurt my feelings online.

Wow, what sort of highly limited definition of "state" do you have in mind then?

So does leftypol prefer a kingdom to a democratic state?

And before you ask, yes Leftypol all shares one opinion on everything. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Fascism is class collaborationism combined with a fetishization of a state modeled after the Roman Republic including modern industrialism merged with repackaged traditional values that are supposed to rejuvenate society.

Nazism is similar, but with race instead of state.


Modern states have permanent bureaucracies, settled borders, a settled population, and the monopoly on violence within their borders. The Sausi's don't really have the permanent bureaucracy, at the least. As pointed out above, it's just an ad hoc collection of family members dicking around.

They didn't always hate Islam
Modern "Nazis" are just Republicans who think saying nigger is a revolutionary act.

Hmm, I suppose I have a more general definition "fascism" in mind then. I think of it as merely an autocratic oligarchy or dictatorship where the workers do not control the means of production, but neither do capitalist firms, rather the government does.

If you spend some time in a Muslim country you'll find most people are more left wing than in the west. I mean actual leftism, not in terms of idpol etc.

If I could weigh in, I think that nazis replace 'race' with the marxist classes that orthodox fascism was basing classes off


That is a verya good definition.

There must be some sort of administrative organization? I mean, they have ambassadors, they engage in diplomacy and "statecraft", they enforce laws, they have courts, etc….

The problem with this definition is that this means that everything between the Neolithic Revolution to the industrial revolution was fascism then. I think fascism requires a more nuanced definition. Žižek speaks a great deal about the lazyness of the left to brand everything reactionary as the same old fascism, instead of making a proper analysis.

Literally all the ministers, diplomats and governeurs are related to the Saud family. It's a clan structure. The closer you are related to the king, the better your standing in the hierarchy is.


iirc its done through the royal family or outsourced to its allies. although there is a domestic "sin" police force.

Islam is fascist you cunt.

The workers could never own the means of production though. Its silly to even try.
If I work at a 60 million dollar forging plant, how the hell do I get to own that? I would never be able to enjoy any of the rights of ownership.

The ambassadors tend to be members of the royal family or assorted nobles, as do the "ministers", the heads of departments (such as they are), the generals and most high officers, and many executives of SOEs and private industry. It's all paper thin, which shows when they have to go to war in Yemen for example.

you own an equal share in what is produced and have an equal say over operational decisions

prove it

By the way, selection by bloodline instead of ability is one of the reasons Saudi-Arabia is so fucking incompetent. They have a military budget of a world power, but can't even conquer some fisherman in Yemen. If they would go up against Iran they would be annihilated

Islam is fascist! Trump is fascist! My parents are fascists! Everything is fascist! Now let's burn up a trash can!

Why is it important that all the government positions are filled by the Saudi family? How does that disqualify it as a state?

Well, don't fascists often explicitly state that they want to return to something more like a monarchy?

right wingers don't hate islam, they hate sandmonkeys. most right wingers want white sharia.

It is still a state (because you need a state to operate in the modern world) but their interior structures resembles more of a clan structure than a nation state, which has bureaucrats, institutionalization, law etc.
They really fucking don't. What you are talking about are traditionalists, dark enlightenment types, etc.


classic slippery slope sophistry, implies that anyone who wants things to be better wants to destroy all laws & nations, as though only current laws & nations are valid.

Huh, yeah, I have totally been lumping these guys in with the fascists. Is Holla Forums mostly fascist or dark enlightenment, then? Is there much overlap between the two groups?


Maybe, the Sauds do have a competent air force. It would be hard for Iran to project much force into the Kingdom.

I doubt Holla Forumsyps on average have very well defined convictions. As long as the uniform is spiffy it makes the libs mad, they are on board.

they also hate a lot of european cultures and people if they're not reactionary enough.

user, do not fear. We have all been wrong at some point on the internet.

Fascists actually can be successful, because the material conditions of capitalism and its superstructure provides them chances to gain traction, while dark enlightenment types/radical traditionalists are completely isolated, and they know that. I've read the aphorisms of Niclas Gomez Davila. It's full of defeatism and nostalgia. Fascists don't have that, they are striving for polticial power.

As for 8/pol/, they are basically Hitlerites, their cornerstone of their ideology is "Myth of the 20th Century" by Alfred Rosenberg. Even though Hitler would have probably gassed them for their liberalism.

Leftism is a western thing. it has no place in Islamic countries. Just let them fucking be and they will fight each other over who is the most real islamic branch like in Europe during the 30 years war. Ok?
This is what being anti-imperialistic means. Communism and leftism have no place outisde of Europe, North America and every country in South America except Argentina and Chile. Everyone else should follow their own path and reject western notions of organization of society and political theories.

Yeah I should have added that most Holla Forumsyps are just retarded kids that are in for meme magic. They have a few, more literate ideologues though.

Islam isn't white so it's ok, and yes I mean that.

Well, yeah, I'm all for that. The way the West enables and enriches these brutal regimes by buying their oil, just so that they can live in decadence is totally sick.

That's a good observation. Nationalism inevitably ruins regional cultures

I'm thinking of going around with huge posters showing the verses and Hadith in the Quran that tell that Muslims are not allowed to live in kafir countries and pasting them all over mosques.

What do you think?


their culture is savage and they will kill everyone in this thread if you dont convert to their religion, they're everything atheists say about christians but cranked up to 11.

they are the religious version of what constitutes for a tankie.

Because Islam is against racism

ebin XD, if saudi arabia followed all islamic laws they wouldn't even be able to deal with inflation due to Islamic financial rules

Precisely. Its not like true ownership where I can decide what to do with it myself. Its more like being a shareholder where your voice is so small its worthless.


anyways Islam by itself is useless because it has not undergone reformation and neither has Judaism, so they will not be able to adapt to places were ideas are streamlined to be efficient. These religions will constantly batter discussion and eventually will either wipe out the people who want a discourse or society will evict them possibly even kill some of heavily infested radicals.

lol indeed

Yeah, all that free money shareholders get isn't worth anything I guess.

We aren't as good as you at cognitive dissonance, so we cannot ignore the endless violent attacks mudslimes make on us every day. Even though they're aware of the jew we cannot ally with them because they want us dead or serving their rapist warlord.

I don't see why I should give a shit about criminal issues in Socialism more than I should care about the working class and those immediately effected by American Imperialism.

Immigration is a good boon to accelerate the decline of Capitalism anyways.


The jews dont like freedom of speech, they must do more to change.

so basically you're a leftist because you're upset that someobody else's porky and you're not?

We don't like freedom of speech either.


the absolute state of (((LEFTY)))pol

Yeah, exactly! Call me crazy! Maybe nobody should be Porky!

isn't that how looking for your self interest works?

1. I thought this was in a non capitalist system. and 2 I know some people who have lost money on shares. Not everyone wins all the time from what I hear. And owning a few shares doesnt really allow you to influence anything.

What I should have said was being a tiny minority shareholder is worthless. Like owning 1/10,000 of a forging plant is basically meaningless. Its not something that directly benefits me apart from being able to say 'I own a forging plant' there are no other benefits that you usually associate with ownership.

Jews, although traditionally considered to be an essentialist biological category, actually consists of around eight subpopulations whose genetics overlap with populations that are not Jewish. And putting one drop Roman rules on a race that's actually already fairly mixed by accusing them of being genetically predisposed to being greedy is fucking ridiculously stupid.

Why does Holla Forums suck at genetics so fucking badly. They're supposed to be using it to their advantage?



Someday you will look back in utter shame at ever having started this thread.


Your version of owning something is a delusion. Normally owning something gives you a number of of benefits. Your version gives none of them.
Its kinda like eating cardboard. You might have a full belly but eventually you will die from malnutrition.

you stupid bastard

For the vast majority of people they would be far wealthier if they co-owned the means of production equally, instead of right now where they don't own them at all. Yes, for those that currently do own the means of production, they will have to live a less decadent life, but this is a relatively tiny group of people. We are the 99% !

Because they're violent fucking idiots who have been interbreeding for hundreds of year and spread nothing but suffering and backwards ideologies since the religion's inception.


Holla Forums

Stop trying to pretend you understand genetics. No Holla Forums.

They don't, they're just jealous that the muslims are doing what they want to do - theres a reason they unironically call for 'white sharia' - i.e. extreme social conservatism like ISIS for white people. The only difference between them and muslims is one is brown the other is white and they have different religions. other than that they are basically the same

And here I thought that fascists love to struggle? It's probably why they're so fucking gay.

Islam is a supremacist and imperialist ideology. Just because Islam hasn't been as successful as others in recent history doesn't mean it isn't imperialist.

I think there is something in the west where westerners are beginning to realise their systems and cultures aren't really the hot shit like the media and governments told them. There is going to be scapegoating. This is not too dissimilar to what happened 100 years ago to the Jews.

Seems like that applies to Christianity as well…

Iranian men

Holla Forums posters

Iranian men.

Holla Forums posters

Iranian Men

Holla Forums posters

That's retarded user. Christianity even before the reforms was nothing like Islam, much less modern Christianity (which is chill, unlike Christianity of centuries ago). Are you really that ignorant of the main religions?
The only reform Islam had was to turn it from peaceful to warring, and that happened when Mohamed had enough followers to not get killed by doing that.

It really seems nobody in this thread actually understands Islam. YES there are sects and communities where women have less rights, but they're usually only in westernized captialist countries like Saudi Arabia. In fact, countries like Iran and such actually give women MORE rights than men.

: )

Islam and Christianity BOTH share similar values. You could nitpick a few quotes here and there from the NT and even say that they "sound like islam"


Men from Iran

Holla Forums posters



Holla Forumsmen

Jesus had a ministry, Muhammad had an empire. While it's true that in the centuries after Jesus' death the Church evolved into a major power, eventually becoming an integral part of the Roman Empire, they really are fundamentally different faiths.

It's hard not to read the Gospels and not see how Jesus was a basically an ancient radical leftist, concerned with social justice and freedom for all.

Christianity has never done this not even once.

Naw, I just didn't want to use the same old women laughing meme. While Iranian women are much more free than Saudi ones, to call them "more free than the men" is absurd. They still have to cover their hair for instance.

People in Iran are probably happier than they are in America.

Maybe, but that's not saying much.

They invaded us without provocation. Their greed for wealth at the expense of human life, their constant thirst on slaves and colonialist expansionism to fund their extravagant lifestyles makes them our eternal enemy.

That's why they're going to get bombed by America soon.

A hijab isn't a burqa.

If they're happier. Why exactly do their lives suck.

Try actually reading the post next time!

Beginning to sound a lot like Christianity in the 15th to 20th century.

Not according to the happiness index, which ranks the US at 14 and Iran at 108.

are you yemeni?

I wonder if I should trust an Index that puts America as high as 14

Christianity obviously became extremely corrupted, but I maintain that the actual messages of Jesus and Muhammad are vastly different.

Dunno man, aside from the Holla Forums "MUHMAMAD WAS BOOGEYMAN", they sound pretty similar.

They're not, as Muslims also believe in the teachings of Jesus and Moses etc, there's a lot of context that goes missing when Islam is analysed.

Um, Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah, Muslims believe that he was merely a prophet, and that Muhammad's prophecy supersedes all others.

The government never really controlled the MoP in fascist regimes, it always stayed in private hands. This was true even for their war economies.

Right, but Jesus never said he was the messiah, which is the point. There is some Islamic sect that puts Jesus above Muhammad too in reverence. Also following the 10 commandments are a prerequisite for Islam, which is the context in which you read the Koran. It's bascially a bunch of exceptions to those rules, mostly to do with war.

Do you really disagree that they are very different religions in theory and practice?

Militaristic=Not especially
Lebensbraum (Caliphate, pan-whitetopia)=No
Love capitalism (only mild rhetorical criticism of the "jewness" [usury] of it)=Not even close
Hate jews=Yes
Hate gays=Eh
Promote housewifing as the only legitimate role for women in society=Most important but not ONLY. Husband is also the most important for a man and the core of being a husband is providing.

I mean, just because you haven't lived it and it was all in the past doesn't mean the past isn't relevant for discussion. We could talk about wars all hour. We could talk about European feudalism all day. But we could also talk about Colonialism all week.

Point is, a lot of shitty things are done in the name of expanding territory and plundering wealth in the name of a religion. But in name only.

I wouldn't blame Islam for the rise of Wahhabism throughout the Middle East, I would blame America. Iran is the only nation that hasn't been completely leveled by the surrounding bullshit. Syria was also like that once. In fact Iran was really fucking secular before Cold War bullshit ripped it up and spat it out.


Radical Authoritarian Social Democracy.

With Islam it isn't in name only. Talk with someone who left it if you get the chance (leaving Islam has the death penalty, but that isn't obeyed everywhere).

I very much agree, and what I'm saying is that if you look at the actual lives and teachings of Jesus and Muhammad you will find very significant differences.

100% agreed

You're under estimating how much screwed up shit is in the Old and New Testament. It isn't like Islam somehow has a monopoly on debauchery.

Islam in its infancy was a blatant Arab supremacist ideology.

What about if you just stick to the Gospels though, including the Gnostic Gospels? That's the part of Christianity I find compelling. I largely reject Pauline Christianity.

Show in the new testament where Christ lays out what form of theocratic government Christianity should take and how the religion is supposed to be spread through imperialist conquest.

Wow I never thought of it like that.

Funny that those people that "left" go on to spend most of their time shit talking muslims and their religion and caping for wars and travel bans against them. Where as lots of other people who don't want to follow islam devoutly basically just stop following it, and get on with normal life.

How many of those people live in Saudi-Arabia?

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets previously established in the Old Testament, which is basically no different than the Koran anyways. Are you joking rn?

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Also Rev19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, … he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law as written in Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21.

In fact for this board, most damning of all. God is considered a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and gives the vineyard to others

Mark 12:1-12:9

12:1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
12:2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
12:3 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
12:4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
12:5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.
12:6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
12:7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be our's.
12:8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. (12:8) "And they took him, and killed him."
12:9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

Christianity has always been a religion of structure stemming from religious law, and parrable of God-as-Land-Owner-King-of-Kings from which structure stems, same as anything else.

is for

We've discussed Saudi ITT. BTW most muslims hate the Saudi regime. That's one of the few things that unites Sunnis and Shias.


Are you fucking kidding, the point of that parable is just to show that marauding gangsters shouldn't be rewarded. Are you really going to take an anti-communist message from that parable? Communism isn't about gangs killing people and taking over land in such a haphazard way.

I like how you go straight to the last one about God-As-Property-Owner and not the one where Jesus punishes those who do not follow Old Testament law. And yes, I believe my interpretation is correct. Socialists in that lens, could just be as easily seen as whatever "marauding gangsters" means.

In fact, here's more about how Old Testament structure and law should extend into how society operates

Hebrews, 10:28-10:29

10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Let's really think about what's being described in this parable. A guy works to build and plant a vineyard. He then lets some farmers take care of the vineyard while he goes away. Is he not entitled to some of the produce of this vineyard that he worked to make? So he sends someone to collect some of the food for him. And then the farmers who are enjoying the produce of a vineyard they did not build decide to kill this guy, and then later the son of the person who, again, built the vineyard in the first place. Is this really how communists should behave in your view?

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1 Timothy 5:8
Thats welfare out.

A property owner, basically.

The property owner is not entitled to what he creates just because he has employees, he is not the laborer in this situation. He was labor when it was being built. He labored in construction of it.

Good, they should have collectivized it.

Holla Forums would push the button on the left 100x before the other. perhaps youve confused Holla Forums with mgtow? that comic doesnt even work on the "alt-right"

The overlap is immense. Don't speak on behalf of Holla Forums, their posts speak for themselves


Can we please stick to the gospels? And even when we do, it's very difficult to say what Jesus actually taught and what was added later.

Can you really deny that the two faiths have very different emphases? That Jesus taught a message of love and forgiveness, and that he never controlled territory like Muhammad did?

im there daily. any mgtow related posts either get saged and the poster is called a jewish shill, and the thread gets banned, or they call it D&C and accuse the poster to be from the reddit/alt-"kike"

you're putting everyone you disagree with into 1 category.

No, a property owner might have merely hired someone else to do it. Under the labor theory of value the vineyard planter deserves some of the produce of that vineyard.

Right, so as long as it's continuing to be productive he deserves some fraction of that produce, no?

On Holla Forums they accuse MGTOW people of participating in the white genocide.

Just because he built it doesn't make him any less of a boss in this dumb ancient analogy from the ancient past.

I don't think the labor of value extends to a fucking God. It's very clear this is meant to be an analogy of property owner: employee

So long as he is property owner? No.

And they engage in the same behavior so it doesn't matter.

The vineyard planter's claim to the produce comes not from any property rights, but merely from having labored to produce the vineyard.

Tell me, if a machinist builds a machine that is later employed by others, does not the machinist deserve a fraction of that produce?

Construction of the Vineyard does not give you property rights to it as an individual.

who engages as the same behavior as who?
Holla Forums loves white women.
Holla Forums "utopias" are often portrayed by Holla Forums as classic all white neighborhoods and families straight out of normal rocklwell paintings and 1950s magazines.

mgtow talks about women, even white women as not being people.

I never claimed that it did.

lol ok

More like "white sharia"

Yes you did

Try reading.

Phone posting, autocorrect doesn't like certain words. And go back to reddit.

That is the most ridiculous non-argument I have ever heard.

He is not involved in the labor surrounding the Vineyard after its construction, therefore he is not entitled to the labor of it. That just sounds like private property.

Holla Forumshacks are failed normies who still want this mythological "pure woman" while MGTOW are wizards who have decided to focus on other things in life. There's a big difference.


Interesting you tell me to go back to reddit, Holla Forums. It's like you have no self awareness on what you've become.

Actually this inbreeding shit is one of the few valid criticisms of islam/muslims.


No it isn't. Then we couldn't bring up the Irish.

The vineyard wouldn't be producing anything if it wasn't planted by the vineyard planter. Therefore the produce of the vineyard contains value from the vineyard planter's labor. Therefore, according to the labor theory of value, the vineyard planter is entitled to a fraction of the vineyard's produce. So also, of course, are the farmers who continued to work the vineyard. Exactly how much each person is entitled to is a difficult question, which is why I prefer the "to each according to their needs" model instead of the "to each according to his contribution" model, which I feel is unworkable and breeds resentment between people.

youre either completely unfamiliar with mgtow, or youre unfamiliar with Holla Forums. maybe both.

how do you suppose socialism handles childcare and raising good families? can women work in socialism? can women who get difficult jobs just have kids to avoid work while women with easier jobs push their kids off on someone else? take the children from the mother? how do you choose who gets to take care of the children of a nation?

most women want to raise their own children, do you see that as a problem or something for socialism to overcome? because the classic family system can easily work within socialism.

Inbreeding is bad regardless of who is doing it.

Pic related is not white sharia. It's boring American propaganda.

What Holla Forums wants is seperate. It may use past propaganda to speak its goals, but Holla Forums is fairly open about wanting white sharia.

I really don't give a shit about someone's past genetic code. At that point it becomes identity politics.

Please define: White Sharia

That doesn't matter. I've established this. Until you can muster yourself to understand what I was saying I think we're done here.

Definition: what Holla Forums wants.

not wanting trash genetics is not idpol. genes are a material condition.

Yea, I agree. Though islam is seen as the boogieman right now, even though right wingers are basically allies with islam.
For all the reasons you listed I hate islam personally. It's one of the most toxic bullshit religions out there.

no it isnt. i see that exact picture posted in /pol frequently. along with many others.
oh, youre completely unfamiliar with Holla Forums. have you even watched that cringeworthy video from Holla Forums where they build churches and throw gays in the closet? it ends with a big barbeque with a guy next to his wife, and his white neighbors and thier white wife, while the kids jump in the pool.

they are absolutely not "open" about wanting anything "Sharia" related. many of them openly say rape deserves death, even to a white guy, and they want to hang pedophiles that harm their children.
what is "white sharia" to you?

Stop trying to take certain hot words into catchphrases, with the same logic I can say that Holla Forums wants what is best described as "Fur Ascendancy"

Why the fuck wouldn't the hard work of planting a vineyard matter?

Yes at that point it actually is.

Is this really the first time you've confronted this word? I didn't make it. Holla Forums posters did. People have said before they want "white sharia", and it's generally what Holla Forums wants if you get down to it.


Because it doesn't entitle you to the labor of the vineyard workers, after all, it was just construction. If he wants the labor, he engages as well in the picking of the vineyard.

Which makes the analogy of God/property owner make sense.

Wasted satan dubs tbh…

society is made from the human building blocks.
trash humans = trash society.
genes, diet, education, parenting, culture - all are important factors in determining what sort of building blocks you have.

We hate them because they want to enforce Sharia on the world and that goes against the freedoms we as Westerners, and especially Americans, hold dear.

Believe it or not, the hatred isn't entirely racial or religiously based. It's the ideology we are against. And leftists continually say that Sharia isn't being toted by muslim communities in western countries. You and I both know you're fucking lying and you're only hoping for them to be a scapegoat so you can then write them off and stab them in the back once they've stopped being useful to your anarcho-communist cause.

It most certainly doesn't. But why are the vineyard workers entitled to the labor of the vineyard planter?


oh, you answered my question here.

i think you need to sort out your opinions and not have your beliefs based in emotion so much. youre starting to sound like a typical american democrat liberal shouting about the latest made-up boogeyman.

i think we're done here.

Because they're laborers on the property of the "owner" of it who thinks he "owns" it just because he built it. Please reread Marx and understand the labor theory of value.

Holla Forums you crack me up sometimes

Yes, but it goes both ways because the quality of the society effects the quality of the people.

You're reading this in the parable when it just isn't there.


Yes, precisely. A society that permits and promotes inbreeding will have a preponderance of shit quality people.

Yep, and then those shitty people are going to promote more shitty behavior, which makes more shitty people, which makes a shittier society still…. It's a vicious cycle.

That's why societies now and then need exceptional people like Jesus to jolt them out of their stupors!

I prefer Stalin.

I prefer Bakunin.

Because they're two extremely similar memeplexes, especially since they're both from the same religious branch. Being so much alike, they have to live in a state of constant attrition lest they realize how much they have in common. In a way, it's the memeplexes preserving themselves from abandonment or syncretism.

Fuck! Gotta apply myself.

For most jews, it's a cultural thing. There's whole sections of OT that they don't care about.

Quran is much more streamlined and not an anthology.

And penny for your thoughts, what if the western world adopted a dharmic philosophy. I don't think that christianity, bogged down with the misandrist catholicism, can neither combat islam nor China.

Turning the other cheek is a quite esoteric and subversive thing.

Because the palm side of the hand is the friendly side. And the back side is the hostile side. Consider the V-sign. Turn it 180 degrees and it has a completley different meaning.

So, you hit your servant with a right backhand to his right cheek. He turns his head to his right. If you strike him again with the backhand, you will hit teeth and stuff. So you have to hit his left cheek with the palm.

The meaning is that if you have to hit/chastise/correct me, do it as an equal.

Thing is that christianity got nasty after it got into power. It didn't get nasty as a means to get into power. AskWhy.co.uk has lots of texts on early 1st millennium christian daeshisms. It was only some 1000 years after they realized that they shat in the bed and had scholasticism and renaissance.

Any geneticist here?

Let's assume that we have a population of X people (50-50 men/women) with a high C en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_relationship

Let's assume that one man from a different race impregnates all the fertile women and all of them give birth to girls (who are half-siblings, btw). And when they are of age, only then will the men in the population be allowed to have children.

Changing the variables of X and C, when will this be a net gain regarding genetic viability?

This! The italian fascism got a bad rep after siding with the rebels in Spain. They was shocked of the callousness of Franco who literally prefered the working class to be burned to ash if they even thought of social democracy.

If we disregard the Salò Republic, the Spanish Civil War and the war in Abbysinia, the democide of the italian fascists was only…

…not even 250! On the other hand, swedish nazis have murdered some 30 persons during the last 30 years.