Those who seek to erode core civil liberties use the same tactics everywhere: elevating fear levels, demonizing Others, equating authoritarianism with safety.
As a devout cynic I look at Muslim immigrants/refugees from the perspective of Charlie Wilson's war in Afghanistan. The US searched the world for the most violently insane extremists they could find amongst Muslims, to resist the Soviet occupation. In the wake of the Soviets withdrawal and the collapse of the Soviet Union (i.e. the lack of any threat of return) those same violent extremists, now trained and armed by the US of A, took over the management of Afghanistan.
The parallel I'm referring to here is that after 70 years of war in the Middle East, led at least in part by the USA and her allies, a large proportion of the immigrants and refugees coming to the West not only have good reason to be hostile to our governments and the people who keep electing warmongers to government offices, but they have deep psychological issues that are not readily addressed simply by giving them food and shelter. While it might be surprising that there isn't more violence perpetrated by Muslims against nations who have occupied, oppressed, and otherwise ruthlessly interfered with their homelands, my point is simply that our governments hands are not clean in any respect. Importing large numbers of warzone refugees of any culture/language/religion was always going to cause trouble, that trouble was entirely predictable, and therefore (in line with Arthur Silber's dictum that the predictable consequences of any policy ARE the reasons for that policy) that trouble was a part of the reason for the policy of inviting refugees into the West.
Out governments want us fighting each other, with them playing referee. They want to set:
- Muslims against Christians
- Muslims against Atheists
- Atheists against Religion
- Black against White
- Men against Women
- Locals against Foreigners
- Republicans against Democrats
- Employers against Employees
- Rich, Middle & Working classes against the Poor
- Blue collar against White collar
- Cats against Dogs,
- and vice versa and etc, etc
Our governments, while claiming to be opposed to Marxism, are in fact using Marxist class warfare strategies and tactics against us.
Divide and Conquer is not merely the oldest trick in the book, it's also the most commonly used trick in the here and now, today.
If you replaced "our governments" with "the ultra-rich", your comment would be far more accurate; as government is the only thing that can constrain the ultra-rich, they have been sure to control it lest it control them, and so it's a tool they use to oppress us.
Our "way out" is to use it to eliminate the ultra-rich - we can tax them out of existence.
It's not their wealth itself that is the problem, it's how they use it to control us all.
The ultra rich ARE our governments, and vice versa. Democracy is a useful conceit and it's been a hell of the lot better than the divine right of kings or the brute tyranny of conquerors, but it is still a conceit.
No, you cannot vote your way out of this. It's never happened in all of human history for one reason: it's not possible. We are what we are. You can have better and worse governments, more corrupt and less corrupt governments, but what you cannot have is a pure pristine uncorrupt government.
"Governments are made up of people - notably ungoverned."
Corruption is the main problem and democracy is the best at fighting it, because those on the bottom can peacefully remove those on top when they become too corrupt.
There is plenty of room for improvement but democracy can improve.
Right up to the point where their corruption infects the voting system itself (which it always does, and fairly quickly) and then you get managed democracy with manufactured consent.
Every single election I've observed in the last 40 years has been a choice between two corporatist warmongers. Differences of personality and rhetoric over wedge issues aside, the core of their policies have been indistinguishable.
Nevertheless democracy is the most corruption resistant system. Churchill said it was the worst system except for all the rest. I Would argue that Trump is not a warmonger and that's one reason the media hates him. OBama was dragged into Libya by Hillary Clinton, I think he regrets it.
Usual caveats apply. This is not to pretend the Middle East was some kind of pacifist paradise until "we" came along, and etc. or whatever other nonsense strawman anyone wants to read into my comment.
When one or two accounts are permitted to flood the comments board with repetitive content, those who would offer intelligent, productive discussion are far less likely to participate. Either moderation of crapflooding has to happen, or commenters need an "ignore" function to disappear the great volume of bilge from their personal board.
Or, this space won't be worth reading -- should be blown off as many do with Youtube comments.
The only thing you know about 'Sharia Law' is what you seen on the tv, son.
Your incessant high-pitched squealing seems vaguely familiar. I suspect the real test of Mr. Greenwald's commitment to the principals of free-speech and due process will be the limits he tolerates yours.
Louati's response to the question on multiculturalism is what-aboutism. The fact is that culture precedes civil liberties, that is some cultures preserve and expand civil liberties and some cultures are a threat to civil liberties. The jury is still out on Islam and civil liberties in the West. (Statistics indicate that Islam is a threat to civil liberties.) The recent debates right here about "wokism" and civil liberties is exactly about cultural threats to civil liberties. The ongoing policy question is how do cultural threats to civil liberties get addressed? Louati does not answer this question.
Hey Doug! how 'bout you identify the majority Islamic country or society within which womens, girl childrens, homos, heretics and infidels are tolerated. merely tolerated. not imprisoned, oppressed, mutilated, molested, harrassed or expelled.
I know that is your problem. whilst you have been told, and you properly genuflect to the "all cultures and religions are relatively equal" secular theology, there simply is not one muslim majority society that doesn't suck ass.
I know you idiots don't debate. You'd lose. And you're cowards. You're afraid they would come and decapitate you for a cartoon! a freaking cartoon!
so ... go after the Christians, it's all there is for a moralizing limp dick pretense to manhood like the West is full of today
You don't have to go back that far into history to find similar intolerance among non-muslim populations as well, and that includes our own.
Muslim countries are currently, in general, less socially advanced than western countries, so it's not very surprising to see them still incorporating much of the intolerance western population too had prior to the enlightenment (and let's be honest: still have, but in much smaller percentage).
The claim that this intolerance is somehow a unique symptom of Islam and thus more immutably embedded in muslims than it is in other groups is without serious basis, as indicated by the above cited facts about how younger muslims born in the west are assimilating.
Besides, the lesser social advancement in these countries is hardly independent of western intervention against them, too: to keep it short, poverty and uneducation breeds desperation, intolerance and religious fundamentalism, and that's kinda what you should expect to get when you bomb countries to bits and deliberately destroy their economy for decades. At least some of these countries were well on their way to idealizing western freedoms and tolerances before they got mauled as cold war proxies.
In other words, if you bomb populations back into the stone age, don't be surprised when they go back to stone age mentalities.
Muslims were the largest non-European rival for a very long time, something like 1,000 years. Muslims did not let up on their attempts to invade and strangle Europeans (block trade routes from europe to asia, along the silk road, etc.) until the end of the Sieges of Vienna, 1600s.
Muslim orthodoxy explicitly rejected liberal, modern rationalism, seeing it as "godless and unclean".
Sure. Let's find a perfect society, a utopia that's free from any oppression. A society that every minority (in any sense of the world), joins hands and sings kumbaya with unicorns and rainbows.
that is one piece of human crap that would be singing a different tune as a soprano if'n women's gots together and started slicing dicks off at the root of all da apologists.
Never see a defender of women's rights refer to FGM as "clitties", but something tells me you aren't the most consistent human being in the world. You must be referring the various groups of East African traditions that incorporate Muslim, Christian, and pre-Abrahamic faiths, that engage in FGM and regulate women's behavior? Are some Muslims complicit with it? Sure, just like many non-Muslims from that part of the world. Many Muslims and others of all backgrounds also oppose and campaign against it, clearly (and this might shock you), there might be you know, differences amongst Muslims? But I doubt non-black and white thinking is your speciality. Keep screaming into the abyss homie! Someone will hear you
Well, help me out here. Do you think that rape is a violation of civil liberties? I'm going to assume you do. Sadly, there are a forces trying to hide rape data in Europe, but the statistics do indicate that there is a cultural component to the rising incidence to rape in Europe. For example,
Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Finland all have similar articles regarding criminology data. Google works.
I think it is hard to distinguish motive, but correlations are not in dispute. The rise in religious restrictions in Europe links to the increasing migrant crime rate.
Umm . . . Statistics? You know, the ones you claimed ". . . indicate that Islam is a threat to civil liberties." Citation(s)? You know, the one(s) I requested.
>>> "I leave it to the reader to prove the negative."
I blame your logic teachers. Well, I would, if . . .
Ha. You're being disingenous. The crime statistics are all over the internet, and I would post them, but then you would just do your phase 2 arguments what you think is a "reliable" or "good" statistical source. The bottom line, is you're a lazy thinker trained in trolling and don't want to do your own research, you just want to accuse me of being ignorant. My credentialing is really not in question, despite your slander.
"I leave it to the reader to prove the negative" is basically bad metho 101.
When you have an argument, you make it. You take your facts and you explain how they specifically support your position. You don't make vague suggestions through "good enough" data and then leave it to others to "prove" that you were wrong.
I'm not a credentialist, so I neither know or care about any credentials you might hold. You have failed or refused, three times now, to provide a citation for the statistics you claim prove your point. That strongly suggests that you aren't aware of any and that you merely imagine they exist. Your rants will only impress those who already agree with you -- probably also without benefit of actual data.
As in all authoritarian systems people calling for civil liberties are the first oppressed. Islam has been dominantly and rigidly orthodox and authoritarian for 800 years.
Islam is a threat to civil liberties? Excellent essentializing. I'd hate to introduce you to the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA, if you think "Islam" is a threat to civil liberties.
I didn't say those organizations weren't a threat to civil liberties. There can be more one than one threat to civil liberties.
Let me be clear, I'm sure there are forms of Islam that are not a threat to civil liberties. Just like there are people in the NSA that are not a threat to civil liberties. I think generalizations about organizations has to go to structural questions.
Sure, I agree with you. Just pointing out that when we say "Islam" as a religion, we are essentializing and generalizing about a 1500 year old religious tradition. Within it, you will find arguments that are compatible with modern civil liberties, some against them, and most, since a lot of it is pre-modern, silent on the matter.
The State (all states) proceed ruthlessly with Imperialist Predatory capitalist goals, reap mayhem and hate. Unending regime changes, resource theft, dictators propped up, etc. Endless refugees created, many, seething righteous hate. The state then both encourages and obstructs the flow of refugees, into westernized nations and enclaves, exponentially adding to the divide and conquer. The state then exploits the ensuing chaos, to ratchet up draconian measures. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
Meanwhile, generational wealth takes more and more. Vassal governments, now but straw man legal fictions, puppets of generational wealth, enforce more violently, the will of the generational wealth sponsors.
The grip on the people's throats, the immense power of generational wealth, tightens, while they, remain obscured, tax free, autonomous, cannibalising what's left of each failed state.
classic, end of empire scenario, played out in real time, on tv, on twitter.
there will be no saving the world, no messiahs, no champions.
Islam historically was dominantly imperialistic. The now outmoded historical term "oriental despotism" described the Ottomans and much of the rest of the tribal dynasties of the Muslim world.
West started with "importing" slaves from ME & Balkan via merchants fr Venice & Genua in 14 the century, their sailors went on working for Portugal and then Spain to develop colonies first on the islands West fr Portugal & North Afrika, then further and further down Afrika, West toward Amerika and East toward India, developping more and more slave trade. Forcely imposing christianity on the lands they colonised. Does not mean there was no oriental empire with the Islam as major faith, but there were several kinds and most were known for their recognition of all faiths. But the overal society also in the West was constructed diffently. What is certainly in our time a point of cultural friction is that the West is mostly not religious anymore and the East is mostly religious. So cultural oppositions and frictions are not avoidable. Question is how to resolve them.
I don't doubt that Yasser is spot on regarding the class separatism and the history of cultural separatism applied by various power centers in France towards Muslims over the years. The double standard is sickening and I am sure that French Muslims are far more keenly aware of it than anyone else (they have to be). However, for once, I would love to see a Muslim voice respond to a) concerns about Muslim cultural isolation/separatism and b) the notion of institutional religious reform of the magnitude we saw in Christianity in the 16th century by *leading* with a frank discussion of those very topics, their practicality, etc. instead of veering into what-aboutism, recounting of oppressions, which can both be true and yet cast a dishonest aura over all that follows at the same time for not directly dealing with the original question/concern.
Josh, I think the answer is simple, and there is a reason the answer is to honestly discuss class separatism and state marginalization. Remember, post-colonization, France (along with many other nations), imported cheap guest laborers to do the dirty work and fill man-power as Europe rebuilt. Turks in Germany. Black and Arab/Berber in France, Caribbean and South Asian in England, Mexicans in America, etc. There was never a state policy to "integrate them", only utilize their labor to rebuild, while creating a middle-class for non-Muslim, white majority population. It worked. Except very few societies can exist when they have such a approach to their minorities. You can't redline them, put a ceiling on their SES attainment, over-police them, (continue foreign interventions into their native countries), extract their labor and keep them working the more precarious jobs, and then get angry when you know.. they still don't want to eat pork or wear bikinis everyday. Assuming that's what you mean by cultural separatism? Multicultural societies will have Chinese New Year, celebrated next to Ramadan and Eid, and Yom Kippur. What exactly are we saying that speaks to this "isolation?"
This is breeding ground for separatism, indeed. I live right next to the hood here in America, and generational marganizlation is everything here. Large swaths of humans cut out of the system, blamed and then punished for their "separatism". Hence, we recount these oppressions because they are genesis of this isolation. There is a deep, material relationship here. Let's not even get into when French forces were butchering Algerians, and forcing women to unveil in public to liberate them. Franz Fannon was radicalized watching that. His words are important here and I urge you to consider them.
As for "religious" reform. That's a separate topic. Plenty of Muslims all across the world are engaged in critical discourse around their faith everyday. There is no hierarchical relationship in Islam like there was in European Christianity. We can't "reform" our way out of an institution. It's a decentralized religion. People are free to choose what group of scholars to follow and make meaning out of it. What exactly do you want reformed out of Islam? Every normative understanding of Islam forbids murder and extremism, so religious dogma won't help you there. What else do you want reformed? It's very hard to be precise about your critiques of the faith, when it is a 1500 year tradition that spans Nigeria, to Southern Europe, to Java, and now North America. Whatever this tradition is, it continues to draw converts in the West from every sort of background. At this point, there will be more White, Black, and Latino converts to Islam then any sort of immigrant from a Muslim majority society. The hey-day was the 60-80s.
Thank you Waleed to make such a good answer. And more we went in the West to look for the poorest people in these countries to import them for labor here. Nobody cared about their wellbeing on any level, as well material as mental. At the same time West cozied up with Saudi Arabia and let it take care of these abandonned people. Was the same end 19th begin 20th century with the own "labor force" who were badly payed, lived in miserable houses and were not considered to need any culture or development, with consequences even still now.
The core archetype in Islam is Divine Unity, which is a purity myth (anchored in subjective awareness).
Mythic culture is incompatible with modern rationalism (anchored in objective awareness).
Islam attempted to incorporate (Greco-Roman) rationalism via Neoplatonism, but ultimately rationalism is seen as being inferior to belief in the mythic God/Allah archetype.
Mythic religion doesn't allow non-conformity in that context, so Islam is locked into non-democratic forms of politics/governance. Elections and democracy almost always lead to a dictator or authoritarian taking power and ending actual democracy.
It is true that western colonialism almost always supported such dictators because they could be easily corrupted and then controlled.
Reading your above post demonstrates that your regurgitation of Bernard Lewis propaganda and the elementary school confusion over race and IQ makes this subject a little over your head. It's okay not to know everything bro! Once again, binaries seem to dot your world. rationalism/purity, Islam versus Europe, mythic religion versus rationalism. Using this binary you attempt extract from the idea of Tawhid and are now, able to pre-determine the entire range of behavioral choices made by Muslim majority societies when they interact with politics for around 1500 years. This thesis, that theology = behavior wouldn't even get you a degree at a for profit college mill, which is probably why you trying to desperately come off as articulate.
Regardless of your terrible thesis, at least I would respect you if it was applied consistently. But again, consistency probably isn't your thing. What were the theological dynamics of the Trinity in Catholic Italy that made it susceptible to the happy fascism marriage? What is the implicit unity in Taoism and the Dao (similar to Tawhid if you ever want to read something besides orientalism) that somehow, predisposed the Chinese to enact a cultural revolution under Maoism? What is the insight we can draw from the Buddhist desire of detachment from suffering, as Buddhist elites in Myanmar ethnically cleanse their Muslim-minority population? Of course, these are preposterous questions. As are yours, when you attempt to extract something from theology and then implicate political decisions across a 1500 year span, whilst ignoring the same dynamic when it doesn't fit your shitty ideas.
Furthermore, I'm glad to see that actual Muslims aren't trapped within your thinking. It would be news to them, that Tawhid and "mythic religion" whatever that means lol, doesn't prevent them from organizing democratic forms of society. It would have been news to the students and women who overthrow General Ayub in Pakistan in the 50s. It would certainly be news to the millions of Egyptians who overthrow Mubarak, fighting off weapons produced by the "Rationalist West". Good thing people are brighter than you are!
The Arab gene pool (Arabs are the central culture in Islam, Arabic is the language of the Qur'an) is severely inbred, clannish, anti-liberal and low IQ.
Modern rationalism was rejected early on. European rationalism is considered to be "godless and unclean" by traditional, orthodox Muslims.
Islam rests on a foundation of purity myth (it is one of the renunciation religions, requiring that sin and evil be atoned for to gain salvation and spiritual liberation).
The dominant historical pattern in Islamic history is poverty, illiteracy, regression to tribalism, oriental despotism, dynastic tyranny and slave empires.
Islam has been rigidly orthodox for roughly 800 years. Numerous reformers, usually counterculture mystics (Sufis, Ibn Arabi, etc.) have been marginalized.
The more open-minded ("liberal") personalities in Muslim culture, including political reformers, have been under severe limits for many centuries longer than modern european colonialism existed.
re: Crusades
Muslim Berber-Arabs invaded Spain within about 100 years of the founding of the religion. It took europeans 800 years to regain their territory (Berber civil wars and tribal infighting in north africa in the 1400s spilled over into Spain and weakened the Moors)
Wars between "invading" Muslims and the Byzantine Christians dragged on for a long time.
The Ottomans (Mongolian Turks) attacked eastern Europe on and off for about 500 years.
The Muslim invasion of south asia was a brutal conquest that involved widespread massacres of Buddhists and other (unclean) "pagans".
---
So, there is a bizarre contradiction in european culture that seeks to be "tolerant" and pluralistic on one hand (accepting of refugees), but can't come to terms with the conflicts between mythic Islamic orthodoxy and modern rationalism
Crab apples to Giant Pumpkins. Islam is about 2 billion people, over vast areas of the planet.
Orthodox Jews are a tiny blip on the radar screen in comparison, they never had a systematic ideology requiring that non-Jews be converted and/or subjugated (for 2,000 years anyway).
I think one difficulty with this question, which is a reasonable one, is that the answer to who will mesh is hard, if not impossible, to know in advance. As we know, there are westerners who find it difficult to blend in. It's kind of like the immigration equivalent of The Minority Report.
Again, as a homo, I know this is bullcrap to try and equivocate between Islam and their barbaric lynching, imprisoning and honor killings of homos and Christians who disapprove.
this is bullcrap.
maybe as a gay man, Greenwald can't bring himself to face the truth. It's daunting when you look at a world map of Islamic countries and how they persecute homos.
nevertheless, Greenwald is supposed to be a courageous journalist.
let's see him prove it was to avenge foreign wars Paty was beheaded and not to enforce a Sharia law about insulting their Prophet.
yeah, but only one religion has established so many countries within which they are a majority with a consistent evasion of human rights for their homos, heretics, infidels, women and girl children.
Samuel Paty murder is an abberation, not because Muslims are not barbaric by and large, approving of murdering anyone publishing a cartoon of their Prophet, rather it is an abberation because there are so few willing to be beheaded in order to preserve free speech.
Put your money where your mouth is Greenwald.
Re-publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Watch what happens. If you live through it, come back and lecture this old homo about the relative equivalencies between American evangelicals wanting to lay hands on us to eject demons and barbaric Muslims wanting to execute us to please their Sky God.
It's amazing how low the level of discussion becomes when the talk turns to Muslims by non-Muslims. I usually see a lot of intelligent comments to Glenn's posts, including many that I emphatically disagree with. But here, much of it is pretty deplorable, grounded in ignorance and propaganda. Very sad. Hoping for better next time.
Leftists are usually just projecting their values and "victim" narratives onto Muslims, whereas in reality, most of Islamic history was dominated by brutal oppression of non-Muslims, slave empires, despotic dynasties, hatred of modern rationalism, etc.
Another great article Glenn!!! Love the charts and graphs that really tell the story. I was not surprised to see Buddhist top the list as most tolerant. I live in Nepal, where it's a mix of everything, but in my hood, it's mostly split 50/50 between Hindus and Buddhists, with a smattering of Christians, Muslims and Other thrown in. We all get along great here, not a single problem I've seen in over 20 years! Peeps are respectful to each other regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or class... pretty much. Nepalese even respect AGE, as elders like me are given much deserved deference, and that goes for anyone older than anyone else.
I came here from NYC, and as a Jew, I was surprised to find the world FULL of tolerance... well, at least relative to the US. So I would like to say, that for whatever reason, Americans have lost respect for THEMSELVES. Things were much different when I was young, when we were taught Civics in grade-schools from Day 1. If nothing else, at least we were proud to be an American. But on top of that, we were taught to be tolerant by our grade school teachers, and our neighborhood leaders supported that (for the most part). I don't see that happening at all now, do you? Sure, there were race riots and lots of fascist Nazi fucks running around, but people did try back in the 60s.
Well, love ur work, this from an old hippie boomer dude.
Greenwald seems to have a moral-equivalence blindspot in re Islam. It *isn’t* like any other religion, least of all Mormonism. It is indeed separatist in Europe, (or at least large chunks of it are) and there are Pew surveys of Muslims both in Islamic countries and in the west that are disturbing in the extreme, relating to all sorts of values taken for granted in the west....
Sure, let’s not abridge our civil liberties. But for goodness sake, let’s speak plainly about Islam. As plainly as its supremacist nature (yes, “nature”) requires.
Jehovah's Witness/Mormons are last in the survey in accepting gay marriage. I'll take a Muhammad Ali (not going to Vietnam) over a Mitt Romney any day.
I explained Mitt's family background and Mormon mating rituals at a recent gathering of friends. Got shocked looks. When 2/3rd of the voting public can't name the sitting VP we get strange outcomes. Now back to my morning covfefe.
I’m pretty confident that people don’t actually have to be afraid of these things in order to use fear as a pretext. As long as people can be convinced that someone somewhere has fear of something then they will use it as justification.
Fear in this context isn’t some fake excuse. It’s actually information warfare being used to dissolve group solidarity and to preempt objections.
No Muslim believes in human rights unless they are living under a death fatwa.
What the western liberal countries ought to be doing is confronting the barbarism and only allowing immigration by their heretics, homos, and infidels from Muslim majority countries whose life spans are that of a mosquito.
I think you're being unfair to Macron. Maybe his actions with respect to the police are wrong (it's a French thing, they seem to like their police to behave like thugs) but his defence of laicite in France, and of freedom of speech, and his appeal to Muslims to remember their great scientists, philosophers and others, and not to listen to ignorant mullahs trained in madrassas in places like Pakistan is completely right. He also acknowledges that France as a whole is in the wrong to have allowed their very large Muslim population to become ghettoised and insulated / isolated from mainstream French society. It's important too to recognise that the Muslim population of France is very different in its historical origins and reasons for being in France from the Muslim population of the USA. I live in France, but we have a similar problem in the UK where there are large populations of Muslims, often from very poor rural traditional villages in the Punjab and Pakistan who live together in almost completely Muslim areas, such as parts of Bradford in Yorkshire. They tend not to mix well, at least in part because they do not drink and therefore don't go to pubs and other social gathering places. They also have a very traditional attitude to women, so a very high proportion of Muslim women do not even speak English.
Good post David Simpson. I kept thinking of the Ultra Orthodox Jews. They, too, are separate, encouraged to congregate and do not blend in. How do they differ on this subject?
As a devout cynic I look at Muslim immigrants/refugees from the perspective of Charlie Wilson's war in Afghanistan. The US searched the world for the most violently insane extremists they could find amongst Muslims, to resist the Soviet occupation. In the wake of the Soviets withdrawal and the collapse of the Soviet Union (i.e. the lack of any threat of return) those same violent extremists, now trained and armed by the US of A, took over the management of Afghanistan.
The parallel I'm referring to here is that after 70 years of war in the Middle East, led at least in part by the USA and her allies, a large proportion of the immigrants and refugees coming to the West not only have good reason to be hostile to our governments and the people who keep electing warmongers to government offices, but they have deep psychological issues that are not readily addressed simply by giving them food and shelter. While it might be surprising that there isn't more violence perpetrated by Muslims against nations who have occupied, oppressed, and otherwise ruthlessly interfered with their homelands, my point is simply that our governments hands are not clean in any respect. Importing large numbers of warzone refugees of any culture/language/religion was always going to cause trouble, that trouble was entirely predictable, and therefore (in line with Arthur Silber's dictum that the predictable consequences of any policy ARE the reasons for that policy) that trouble was a part of the reason for the policy of inviting refugees into the West.
Out governments want us fighting each other, with them playing referee. They want to set:
- Muslims against Christians
- Muslims against Atheists
- Atheists against Religion
- Black against White
- Men against Women
- Locals against Foreigners
- Republicans against Democrats
- Employers against Employees
- Rich, Middle & Working classes against the Poor
- Blue collar against White collar
- Cats against Dogs,
- and vice versa and etc, etc
Our governments, while claiming to be opposed to Marxism, are in fact using Marxist class warfare strategies and tactics against us.
Divide and Conquer is not merely the oldest trick in the book, it's also the most commonly used trick in the here and now, today.
Because it works.
This is why we can't have nice things.
If you replaced "our governments" with "the ultra-rich", your comment would be far more accurate; as government is the only thing that can constrain the ultra-rich, they have been sure to control it lest it control them, and so it's a tool they use to oppress us.
Our "way out" is to use it to eliminate the ultra-rich - we can tax them out of existence.
It's not their wealth itself that is the problem, it's how they use it to control us all.
The ultra rich ARE our governments, and vice versa. Democracy is a useful conceit and it's been a hell of the lot better than the divine right of kings or the brute tyranny of conquerors, but it is still a conceit.
No, you cannot vote your way out of this. It's never happened in all of human history for one reason: it's not possible. We are what we are. You can have better and worse governments, more corrupt and less corrupt governments, but what you cannot have is a pure pristine uncorrupt government.
"Governments are made up of people - notably ungoverned."
Corruption is the main problem and democracy is the best at fighting it, because those on the bottom can peacefully remove those on top when they become too corrupt.
There is plenty of room for improvement but democracy can improve.
Right up to the point where their corruption infects the voting system itself (which it always does, and fairly quickly) and then you get managed democracy with manufactured consent.
Every single election I've observed in the last 40 years has been a choice between two corporatist warmongers. Differences of personality and rhetoric over wedge issues aside, the core of their policies have been indistinguishable.
Nevertheless democracy is the most corruption resistant system. Churchill said it was the worst system except for all the rest. I Would argue that Trump is not a warmonger and that's one reason the media hates him. OBama was dragged into Libya by Hillary Clinton, I think he regrets it.
Agreed. Good reference to Albert Silber, BTW.
Usual caveats apply. This is not to pretend the Middle East was some kind of pacifist paradise until "we" came along, and etc. or whatever other nonsense strawman anyone wants to read into my comment.
Do tell.
In point of fact, Iran was not a shithole only when the West propped up the Shah.
When one or two accounts are permitted to flood the comments board with repetitive content, those who would offer intelligent, productive discussion are far less likely to participate. Either moderation of crapflooding has to happen, or commenters need an "ignore" function to disappear the great volume of bilge from their personal board.
Or, this space won't be worth reading -- should be blown off as many do with Youtube comments.
go ahead Mona... wow us with yer intelligence.
I'll step aside. I know what Kek is...
At least some comments are deleted ... Are these self-deletes? Hmmm. Somehow I doubt it!
And if there's some comments being deleted, that means moderation is happening. So, there's hope it will improve.
Mona.... you no love me anymore....
Unsubstantiated causal claim: That the terror attacks are to avenge Western wars in the Middle East.
Rather the terror attacks are to impose Sharia Law on all of Europe, squashing dissent and criticism of their religion by terror.
And it has worked.
Who would guess France would be the country with a spine and Macron would be leading them.
The only thing you know about 'Sharia Law' is what you seen on the tv, son.
Your incessant high-pitched squealing seems vaguely familiar. I suspect the real test of Mr. Greenwald's commitment to the principals of free-speech and due process will be the limits he tolerates yours.
*this ain't the Intercept korn pop. .. this is Glenn's house and he lives here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL16lsLCIZE
bawk bawk bawk BAAAWWWWKKKKK.... SHIT.
HAHAHAHA
CHICKEN... SHIT
BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWWWWWKKKKKK
SHIT
HAHAHAHAHA
Limp dick .. limp dick... whatcha gonna do.... whatcha gonna do when they come for you.
Check em out Cletus! Da gayniuses think I am the challenge to free speech and not them there Mooooslems dat be de-capitating da cartoonists.
bahahahahahahaha
what a bunch of gayniuses we done stumbled into this time.
Louati's response to the question on multiculturalism is what-aboutism. The fact is that culture precedes civil liberties, that is some cultures preserve and expand civil liberties and some cultures are a threat to civil liberties. The jury is still out on Islam and civil liberties in the West. (Statistics indicate that Islam is a threat to civil liberties.) The recent debates right here about "wokism" and civil liberties is exactly about cultural threats to civil liberties. The ongoing policy question is how do cultural threats to civil liberties get addressed? Louati does not answer this question.
>>> ". . . (Statistics indicate that Islam is a threat to civil liberties.)"
Cite your statistics.
Hey Doug! how 'bout you identify the majority Islamic country or society within which womens, girl childrens, homos, heretics and infidels are tolerated. merely tolerated. not imprisoned, oppressed, mutilated, molested, harrassed or expelled.
You, Galleta are the most pressing example, so far in Glenn's Substack tenure, of the need for an "Ignore" function.
I know that is your problem. whilst you have been told, and you properly genuflect to the "all cultures and religions are relatively equal" secular theology, there simply is not one muslim majority society that doesn't suck ass.
I know you idiots don't debate. You'd lose. And you're cowards. You're afraid they would come and decapitate you for a cartoon! a freaking cartoon!
so ... go after the Christians, it's all there is for a moralizing limp dick pretense to manhood like the West is full of today
Don't let the FACT that Islam has sliced the clitties off of over a million little girls who walk around as adult women today bother you...
ain't nobody gonna bother slicing off yer limp one
You don't have to go back that far into history to find similar intolerance among non-muslim populations as well, and that includes our own.
Muslim countries are currently, in general, less socially advanced than western countries, so it's not very surprising to see them still incorporating much of the intolerance western population too had prior to the enlightenment (and let's be honest: still have, but in much smaller percentage).
The claim that this intolerance is somehow a unique symptom of Islam and thus more immutably embedded in muslims than it is in other groups is without serious basis, as indicated by the above cited facts about how younger muslims born in the west are assimilating.
Besides, the lesser social advancement in these countries is hardly independent of western intervention against them, too: to keep it short, poverty and uneducation breeds desperation, intolerance and religious fundamentalism, and that's kinda what you should expect to get when you bomb countries to bits and deliberately destroy their economy for decades. At least some of these countries were well on their way to idealizing western freedoms and tolerances before they got mauled as cold war proxies.
In other words, if you bomb populations back into the stone age, don't be surprised when they go back to stone age mentalities.
re: Crusades
Muslims were the largest non-European rival for a very long time, something like 1,000 years. Muslims did not let up on their attempts to invade and strangle Europeans (block trade routes from europe to asia, along the silk road, etc.) until the end of the Sieges of Vienna, 1600s.
Muslim orthodoxy explicitly rejected liberal, modern rationalism, seeing it as "godless and unclean".
Sure. Let's find a perfect society, a utopia that's free from any oppression. A society that every minority (in any sense of the world), joins hands and sings kumbaya with unicorns and rainbows.
How 'bout one where women's are allowed to keep their clitties and marry who they want?
that is one piece of human crap that would be singing a different tune as a soprano if'n women's gots together and started slicing dicks off at the root of all da apologists.
Never see a defender of women's rights refer to FGM as "clitties", but something tells me you aren't the most consistent human being in the world. You must be referring the various groups of East African traditions that incorporate Muslim, Christian, and pre-Abrahamic faiths, that engage in FGM and regulate women's behavior? Are some Muslims complicit with it? Sure, just like many non-Muslims from that part of the world. Many Muslims and others of all backgrounds also oppose and campaign against it, clearly (and this might shock you), there might be you know, differences amongst Muslims? But I doubt non-black and white thinking is your speciality. Keep screaming into the abyss homie! Someone will hear you
Well, help me out here. Do you think that rape is a violation of civil liberties? I'm going to assume you do. Sadly, there are a forces trying to hide rape data in Europe, but the statistics do indicate that there is a cultural component to the rising incidence to rape in Europe. For example,
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/rLKwKR/unik-granskning-112-pojkar-och-man-domda-for-gruppvaldtakt
Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Finland all have similar articles regarding criminology data. Google works.
I think it is hard to distinguish motive, but correlations are not in dispute. The rise in religious restrictions in Europe links to the increasing migrant crime rate.
I leave it to the reader to prove the negative.
Umm . . . Statistics? You know, the ones you claimed ". . . indicate that Islam is a threat to civil liberties." Citation(s)? You know, the one(s) I requested.
>>> "I leave it to the reader to prove the negative."
I blame your logic teachers. Well, I would, if . . .
Ha. You're being disingenous. The crime statistics are all over the internet, and I would post them, but then you would just do your phase 2 arguments what you think is a "reliable" or "good" statistical source. The bottom line, is you're a lazy thinker trained in trolling and don't want to do your own research, you just want to accuse me of being ignorant. My credentialing is really not in question, despite your slander.
He's right though.
"I leave it to the reader to prove the negative" is basically bad metho 101.
When you have an argument, you make it. You take your facts and you explain how they specifically support your position. You don't make vague suggestions through "good enough" data and then leave it to others to "prove" that you were wrong.
I'm not a credentialist, so I neither know or care about any credentials you might hold. You have failed or refused, three times now, to provide a citation for the statistics you claim prove your point. That strongly suggests that you aren't aware of any and that you merely imagine they exist. Your rants will only impress those who already agree with you -- probably also without benefit of actual data.
Look at recent history in the middle east.
As in all authoritarian systems people calling for civil liberties are the first oppressed. Islam has been dominantly and rigidly orthodox and authoritarian for 800 years.
Islam is a threat to civil liberties? Excellent essentializing. I'd hate to introduce you to the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA, if you think "Islam" is a threat to civil liberties.
Yeah, you would because YT believes in civil liberties and let a dude named Waleed Sami stroke his limp dick in public
I didn't say those organizations weren't a threat to civil liberties. There can be more one than one threat to civil liberties.
Let me be clear, I'm sure there are forms of Islam that are not a threat to civil liberties. Just like there are people in the NSA that are not a threat to civil liberties. I think generalizations about organizations has to go to structural questions.
Sure, I agree with you. Just pointing out that when we say "Islam" as a religion, we are essentializing and generalizing about a 1500 year old religious tradition. Within it, you will find arguments that are compatible with modern civil liberties, some against them, and most, since a lot of it is pre-modern, silent on the matter.
stroke that limp dick, Waleeeeed
Ain't no Muslim country gots men that are worth a damn.
They all be licking dookie off da Imam butt cheeks
The State (all states) proceed ruthlessly with Imperialist Predatory capitalist goals, reap mayhem and hate. Unending regime changes, resource theft, dictators propped up, etc. Endless refugees created, many, seething righteous hate. The state then both encourages and obstructs the flow of refugees, into westernized nations and enclaves, exponentially adding to the divide and conquer. The state then exploits the ensuing chaos, to ratchet up draconian measures. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
Meanwhile, generational wealth takes more and more. Vassal governments, now but straw man legal fictions, puppets of generational wealth, enforce more violently, the will of the generational wealth sponsors.
The grip on the people's throats, the immense power of generational wealth, tightens, while they, remain obscured, tax free, autonomous, cannibalising what's left of each failed state.
classic, end of empire scenario, played out in real time, on tv, on twitter.
there will be no saving the world, no messiahs, no champions.
but we can save ourselves. good luck
Islam historically was dominantly imperialistic. The now outmoded historical term "oriental despotism" described the Ottomans and much of the rest of the tribal dynasties of the Muslim world.
West started with "importing" slaves from ME & Balkan via merchants fr Venice & Genua in 14 the century, their sailors went on working for Portugal and then Spain to develop colonies first on the islands West fr Portugal & North Afrika, then further and further down Afrika, West toward Amerika and East toward India, developping more and more slave trade. Forcely imposing christianity on the lands they colonised. Does not mean there was no oriental empire with the Islam as major faith, but there were several kinds and most were known for their recognition of all faiths. But the overal society also in the West was constructed diffently. What is certainly in our time a point of cultural friction is that the West is mostly not religious anymore and the East is mostly religious. So cultural oppositions and frictions are not avoidable. Question is how to resolve them.
generational wealth hell. How about working plumbing.
this also is a bunch of claptrap. The only people who can buy into it are naive or dishonest.
<3 thanks for sharing your wisdom. happy holidays!
flushing poop is a thang.
I don't doubt that Yasser is spot on regarding the class separatism and the history of cultural separatism applied by various power centers in France towards Muslims over the years. The double standard is sickening and I am sure that French Muslims are far more keenly aware of it than anyone else (they have to be). However, for once, I would love to see a Muslim voice respond to a) concerns about Muslim cultural isolation/separatism and b) the notion of institutional religious reform of the magnitude we saw in Christianity in the 16th century by *leading* with a frank discussion of those very topics, their practicality, etc. instead of veering into what-aboutism, recounting of oppressions, which can both be true and yet cast a dishonest aura over all that follows at the same time for not directly dealing with the original question/concern.
Josh, I think the answer is simple, and there is a reason the answer is to honestly discuss class separatism and state marginalization. Remember, post-colonization, France (along with many other nations), imported cheap guest laborers to do the dirty work and fill man-power as Europe rebuilt. Turks in Germany. Black and Arab/Berber in France, Caribbean and South Asian in England, Mexicans in America, etc. There was never a state policy to "integrate them", only utilize their labor to rebuild, while creating a middle-class for non-Muslim, white majority population. It worked. Except very few societies can exist when they have such a approach to their minorities. You can't redline them, put a ceiling on their SES attainment, over-police them, (continue foreign interventions into their native countries), extract their labor and keep them working the more precarious jobs, and then get angry when you know.. they still don't want to eat pork or wear bikinis everyday. Assuming that's what you mean by cultural separatism? Multicultural societies will have Chinese New Year, celebrated next to Ramadan and Eid, and Yom Kippur. What exactly are we saying that speaks to this "isolation?"
This is breeding ground for separatism, indeed. I live right next to the hood here in America, and generational marganizlation is everything here. Large swaths of humans cut out of the system, blamed and then punished for their "separatism". Hence, we recount these oppressions because they are genesis of this isolation. There is a deep, material relationship here. Let's not even get into when French forces were butchering Algerians, and forcing women to unveil in public to liberate them. Franz Fannon was radicalized watching that. His words are important here and I urge you to consider them.
As for "religious" reform. That's a separate topic. Plenty of Muslims all across the world are engaged in critical discourse around their faith everyday. There is no hierarchical relationship in Islam like there was in European Christianity. We can't "reform" our way out of an institution. It's a decentralized religion. People are free to choose what group of scholars to follow and make meaning out of it. What exactly do you want reformed out of Islam? Every normative understanding of Islam forbids murder and extremism, so religious dogma won't help you there. What else do you want reformed? It's very hard to be precise about your critiques of the faith, when it is a 1500 year tradition that spans Nigeria, to Southern Europe, to Java, and now North America. Whatever this tradition is, it continues to draw converts in the West from every sort of background. At this point, there will be more White, Black, and Latino converts to Islam then any sort of immigrant from a Muslim majority society. The hey-day was the 60-80s.
Thank you Waleed to make such a good answer. And more we went in the West to look for the poorest people in these countries to import them for labor here. Nobody cared about their wellbeing on any level, as well material as mental. At the same time West cozied up with Saudi Arabia and let it take care of these abandonned people. Was the same end 19th begin 20th century with the own "labor force" who were badly payed, lived in miserable houses and were not considered to need any culture or development, with consequences even still now.
The core archetype in Islam is Divine Unity, which is a purity myth (anchored in subjective awareness).
Mythic culture is incompatible with modern rationalism (anchored in objective awareness).
Islam attempted to incorporate (Greco-Roman) rationalism via Neoplatonism, but ultimately rationalism is seen as being inferior to belief in the mythic God/Allah archetype.
Mythic religion doesn't allow non-conformity in that context, so Islam is locked into non-democratic forms of politics/governance. Elections and democracy almost always lead to a dictator or authoritarian taking power and ending actual democracy.
It is true that western colonialism almost always supported such dictators because they could be easily corrupted and then controlled.
Reading your above post demonstrates that your regurgitation of Bernard Lewis propaganda and the elementary school confusion over race and IQ makes this subject a little over your head. It's okay not to know everything bro! Once again, binaries seem to dot your world. rationalism/purity, Islam versus Europe, mythic religion versus rationalism. Using this binary you attempt extract from the idea of Tawhid and are now, able to pre-determine the entire range of behavioral choices made by Muslim majority societies when they interact with politics for around 1500 years. This thesis, that theology = behavior wouldn't even get you a degree at a for profit college mill, which is probably why you trying to desperately come off as articulate.
Regardless of your terrible thesis, at least I would respect you if it was applied consistently. But again, consistency probably isn't your thing. What were the theological dynamics of the Trinity in Catholic Italy that made it susceptible to the happy fascism marriage? What is the implicit unity in Taoism and the Dao (similar to Tawhid if you ever want to read something besides orientalism) that somehow, predisposed the Chinese to enact a cultural revolution under Maoism? What is the insight we can draw from the Buddhist desire of detachment from suffering, as Buddhist elites in Myanmar ethnically cleanse their Muslim-minority population? Of course, these are preposterous questions. As are yours, when you attempt to extract something from theology and then implicate political decisions across a 1500 year span, whilst ignoring the same dynamic when it doesn't fit your shitty ideas.
Furthermore, I'm glad to see that actual Muslims aren't trapped within your thinking. It would be news to them, that Tawhid and "mythic religion" whatever that means lol, doesn't prevent them from organizing democratic forms of society. It would have been news to the students and women who overthrow General Ayub in Pakistan in the 50s. It would certainly be news to the millions of Egyptians who overthrow Mubarak, fighting off weapons produced by the "Rationalist West". Good thing people are brighter than you are!
b) religious reform
The Arab gene pool (Arabs are the central culture in Islam, Arabic is the language of the Qur'an) is severely inbred, clannish, anti-liberal and low IQ.
Modern rationalism was rejected early on. European rationalism is considered to be "godless and unclean" by traditional, orthodox Muslims.
Islam rests on a foundation of purity myth (it is one of the renunciation religions, requiring that sin and evil be atoned for to gain salvation and spiritual liberation).
The dominant historical pattern in Islamic history is poverty, illiteracy, regression to tribalism, oriental despotism, dynastic tyranny and slave empires.
Islam has been rigidly orthodox for roughly 800 years. Numerous reformers, usually counterculture mystics (Sufis, Ibn Arabi, etc.) have been marginalized.
The more open-minded ("liberal") personalities in Muslim culture, including political reformers, have been under severe limits for many centuries longer than modern european colonialism existed.
re: Crusades
Muslim Berber-Arabs invaded Spain within about 100 years of the founding of the religion. It took europeans 800 years to regain their territory (Berber civil wars and tribal infighting in north africa in the 1400s spilled over into Spain and weakened the Moors)
Wars between "invading" Muslims and the Byzantine Christians dragged on for a long time.
The Ottomans (Mongolian Turks) attacked eastern Europe on and off for about 500 years.
The Muslim invasion of south asia was a brutal conquest that involved widespread massacres of Buddhists and other (unclean) "pagans".
---
So, there is a bizarre contradiction in european culture that seeks to be "tolerant" and pluralistic on one hand (accepting of refugees), but can't come to terms with the conflicts between mythic Islamic orthodoxy and modern rationalism
Crab apples to Giant Pumpkins. Islam is about 2 billion people, over vast areas of the planet.
Orthodox Jews are a tiny blip on the radar screen in comparison, they never had a systematic ideology requiring that non-Jews be converted and/or subjugated (for 2,000 years anyway).
What problems are the Haredim causing in New York regarding the pandemic?
Real question, Is it ever ok to limit immigration to peoples that will mesh well with western culture?
Is it ever ok for a regressive immigrant culture to destroy the culture it migrates into?
“...mesh well...” IOW obedient yes-men.
No, not at all. If you've lived in multiple countries you'll understand perfectly well what he means. There is absolutely cultural friction.
I saw enough American “expats” inMexico...causing cultural friction.
I think one difficulty with this question, which is a reasonable one, is that the answer to who will mesh is hard, if not impossible, to know in advance. As we know, there are westerners who find it difficult to blend in. It's kind of like the immigration equivalent of The Minority Report.
Again, as a homo, I know this is bullcrap to try and equivocate between Islam and their barbaric lynching, imprisoning and honor killings of homos and Christians who disapprove.
this is bullcrap.
maybe as a gay man, Greenwald can't bring himself to face the truth. It's daunting when you look at a world map of Islamic countries and how they persecute homos.
nevertheless, Greenwald is supposed to be a courageous journalist.
let's see him prove it was to avenge foreign wars Paty was beheaded and not to enforce a Sharia law about insulting their Prophet.
Oh dang Cletus... da rubber done hit da road.
yeah, but only one religion has established so many countries within which they are a majority with a consistent evasion of human rights for their homos, heretics, infidels, women and girl children.
Samuel Paty murder is an abberation, not because Muslims are not barbaric by and large, approving of murdering anyone publishing a cartoon of their Prophet, rather it is an abberation because there are so few willing to be beheaded in order to preserve free speech.
Put your money where your mouth is Greenwald.
Re-publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Watch what happens. If you live through it, come back and lecture this old homo about the relative equivalencies between American evangelicals wanting to lay hands on us to eject demons and barbaric Muslims wanting to execute us to please their Sky God.
It's amazing how low the level of discussion becomes when the talk turns to Muslims by non-Muslims. I usually see a lot of intelligent comments to Glenn's posts, including many that I emphatically disagree with. But here, much of it is pretty deplorable, grounded in ignorance and propaganda. Very sad. Hoping for better next time.
Leftists are usually just projecting their values and "victim" narratives onto Muslims, whereas in reality, most of Islamic history was dominated by brutal oppression of non-Muslims, slave empires, despotic dynasties, hatred of modern rationalism, etc.
knowing how people really feel is a dark place
Another great article Glenn!!! Love the charts and graphs that really tell the story. I was not surprised to see Buddhist top the list as most tolerant. I live in Nepal, where it's a mix of everything, but in my hood, it's mostly split 50/50 between Hindus and Buddhists, with a smattering of Christians, Muslims and Other thrown in. We all get along great here, not a single problem I've seen in over 20 years! Peeps are respectful to each other regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or class... pretty much. Nepalese even respect AGE, as elders like me are given much deserved deference, and that goes for anyone older than anyone else.
I came here from NYC, and as a Jew, I was surprised to find the world FULL of tolerance... well, at least relative to the US. So I would like to say, that for whatever reason, Americans have lost respect for THEMSELVES. Things were much different when I was young, when we were taught Civics in grade-schools from Day 1. If nothing else, at least we were proud to be an American. But on top of that, we were taught to be tolerant by our grade school teachers, and our neighborhood leaders supported that (for the most part). I don't see that happening at all now, do you? Sure, there were race riots and lots of fascist Nazi fucks running around, but people did try back in the 60s.
Well, love ur work, this from an old hippie boomer dude.
Greenwald seems to have a moral-equivalence blindspot in re Islam. It *isn’t* like any other religion, least of all Mormonism. It is indeed separatist in Europe, (or at least large chunks of it are) and there are Pew surveys of Muslims both in Islamic countries and in the west that are disturbing in the extreme, relating to all sorts of values taken for granted in the west....
Sure, let’s not abridge our civil liberties. But for goodness sake, let’s speak plainly about Islam. As plainly as its supremacist nature (yes, “nature”) requires.
Jehovah's Witness/Mormons are last in the survey in accepting gay marriage. I'll take a Muhammad Ali (not going to Vietnam) over a Mitt Romney any day.
That's not what this article was about. This article was about taking the Ayatolla Khomeni over Mitt. hahahahahaha
I explained Mitt's family background and Mormon mating rituals at a recent gathering of friends. Got shocked looks. When 2/3rd of the voting public can't name the sitting VP we get strange outcomes. Now back to my morning covfefe.
I’m pretty confident that people don’t actually have to be afraid of these things in order to use fear as a pretext. As long as people can be convinced that someone somewhere has fear of something then they will use it as justification.
Fear in this context isn’t some fake excuse. It’s actually information warfare being used to dissolve group solidarity and to preempt objections.
No Muslim believes in human rights unless they are living under a death fatwa.
What the western liberal countries ought to be doing is confronting the barbarism and only allowing immigration by their heretics, homos, and infidels from Muslim majority countries whose life spans are that of a mosquito.
I think you're being unfair to Macron. Maybe his actions with respect to the police are wrong (it's a French thing, they seem to like their police to behave like thugs) but his defence of laicite in France, and of freedom of speech, and his appeal to Muslims to remember their great scientists, philosophers and others, and not to listen to ignorant mullahs trained in madrassas in places like Pakistan is completely right. He also acknowledges that France as a whole is in the wrong to have allowed their very large Muslim population to become ghettoised and insulated / isolated from mainstream French society. It's important too to recognise that the Muslim population of France is very different in its historical origins and reasons for being in France from the Muslim population of the USA. I live in France, but we have a similar problem in the UK where there are large populations of Muslims, often from very poor rural traditional villages in the Punjab and Pakistan who live together in almost completely Muslim areas, such as parts of Bradford in Yorkshire. They tend not to mix well, at least in part because they do not drink and therefore don't go to pubs and other social gathering places. They also have a very traditional attitude to women, so a very high proportion of Muslim women do not even speak English.
Good post David Simpson. I kept thinking of the Ultra Orthodox Jews. They, too, are separate, encouraged to congregate and do not blend in. How do they differ on this subject?
well, they're not generally known for blowing themselves up and running round chopping the heads off people they disagree with, for starters :)
Isolation of ones children is the only way to avoid cultural contamination, be it good or bad
traditional hell.
Traditional if you are going back hundreds of years....
exactly - we are! Would "socially conservative" work better?
no barbaric unevolved nutjobs who cling to an authoritarianism they established 1200 years ago would... and the western limp dicks who enable them.
Do you know how many millions of Adult women are walking around without clitties because of this "traditional attitude" you downplay?
Perhaps, just a guess, if a religion were so successful at slicing off penises at the root to control virtue in men.. you would see it differently.
perhaps not. I think you're a coward.
prolly don't get any action wit dat dere cooked noodle anyways Cletus
hahahahahahahahahahaha
limp dick .. limp dick... whatcha gonna do? whatcha gonna do when they come for you....
It doesn't make sense to debunk French islamophobia with pew polls of US muslims, the immigrant populations are very different.
The point should be that the 'muslim vs western' framing itself is bad.