They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Letum

The similarities to pre-revolution Bolshevism and these zelots are so
sparse and general that the comparison doesn't make the much sense.
There is certainly no "same approach" going on.

Problems with historical comparison aside, the notion of these nuts ever
being 'popular', let alone leading a popular uprising is a little unlikely to
say the least.

Ha! that's the comparison I made. Same approach: ideological warfare. Nuts like these were once facists and communists. They managed pretty well.

[Letum]

You can make the comparison all you like. what you can't do is make it valid.
The thinking behind pre-revolutionary communism, whilst deeply flawed,
was a product of the most influential and brilliant minds of the time.

Radical Islam....isn't.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

You can make the comparison all you like. what you can't do is make it valid.
The thinking behind pre-revolutionary communism, whilst deeply flawed,
was a product of the most influential and brilliant minds of the time.

Radical Islam....isn't.

First off "Brilliant" isn't a term that i'd use for something that is "deeply flawed" Letum and second, I'd consider radical Islam to be just as influential as any other system, given their ability to produce apparently limitless numbers of suicide bombers for their cause, affect the laws in a dozen first world nations and keep the entire world reacting to their actions.

Having said that though revolutionary tactics transcend any particular revolution. Not every tactic might be used, or used to the same degree, in every conflict, but they all come from the same bag of tricks.

affect the laws in a dozen first world nations

Which particular laws?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No you have a lot to learn, the Rednecks moved to what is now the USA. They were crazy extremist backwards religious fundamentalists who wanted a new world order to purify the place against the ungodly global conspiracy.
Just like the crazy extremist backwards religious fundamentalists in the story want a new world order to purify the place against the ungodly global conspiracy.

Back then there was a bunch that had taken radical Lutheranism and pushed it to crazy extremist levels, now there is a bunch that has taken already crazy wahhibism and taken it to even crazier levels .

Come to think of it, some comedian the other day compared the American backwoods Rednecks (decended from Covenanter Rednecks) with the crazy clans in afghanistan or pakistan.
Hatfields and McCoys with Dostum and Karzai.

I'd like to pause the discussion right here and point to this shining example of rhetoric from an indoctrinated socialist.

As you can see, it has very little basis in fact.

Starting with the assumption that the first Anglican settlers in what would become the United States were "backwards religious fundamentalists" who entertained theories of "global conspiracy", and ending by labeling them as "rednecks", a term which has absolutely no relevance to the people of the day, Tribesman has demonstrated his complete inability to make an objective judgement with a basis in reality. This is not entirely surprising, as Tribesman hails from a centrist, and therefore, socialist nation.

Note the way that he distorts history in an attempt to rationalize the beliefs he has been taught. To most of us they appear ridiculous, but to him they are truth itself. He completely disregards the success of free societies in the modern world in favor of a dogma that has kept him and his people in the shackles of state control and religious violence. He has no idea why his nation is regarded as being "backwards" amongst other western nations, and he may not even realize why.

Is this kind of indoctrination that we want for our children? Do we want them to think for themselves or do we want them to embrace state indoctrination?

This is the "third" way. It is just an indirect route to the "second" way, which is socialism. The proponents of the "third way", like Tribesman, don't realize that they are opening Pandora's Box. Fiat power given to a fiat entity will invariably result in abuse of power. As the maxim goes: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely". All they know is that they have a desire for change of some kind, and they are willing to trust a fiat monoply to effect it.

I fully expect Tribesman to post some brief response to all of this, but I expect that it will not be detailed or intelligent. If experience is any guide, he will be completely unable to defend his position, and he will resort to brief and cryptic remarks that imply his superiority.

What do you say, Tribesman?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

First off "Brilliant" isn't a term that i'd use for something that is "deeply flawed"

You will have a hard time finding a philosopher whose ideas do not have
a serious flaw somewhere. That is why it is such a lively area. That
doesn't make Plato, Descartes, Hume, Marx, popper etc. any less
brilliant.
The difference in political philosophy is that the flaws can become
manifest.

Radical Islam will influence bugger all when there are no radical islamists
left. The early communist theoreticians will be on course reading lists
indefinitely.

What do you say, Tribesman?

I say you have written a good example of total nonsense.
Lets start.

Starting with the assumption that the first Anglican settlers in what would become the United States were "backwards religious fundamentalists" who entertained theories of "global conspiracy",

Where was that claimed?
But then again you appear cluless on the simplest of stuff.
Start with basic religion 101, can you tell the difference between a presbyterian covenanter and an anglican?
Maybe you should start with the bishops wars which were the start of the wars of the three kingdoms.
Actually once you explore that and the papist conspiracy theories of those days you can bring that up to date with a quick look at a real stereotypical redneck group. Try for example the Knights party from down south , you can't get more backwards redneck than the Klan can you , they call themselves good christians and have this conspiracy thing about a global popish plot(as well as a Jewish/communist/Islamic/socialist/liberal/negro plot that controls all the media)

and ending by labeling them as "rednecks", a term which has absolutely no relevance to the people of the day

Errrrrr...covananters were called rednecks.

Tribesman has demonstrated his complete inability to make an objective judgement with a basis in reality

Wrong, the comparison made is of a bunch of modernday backwards nuts, another bunch of modernday backwards nuts and some historic backwards nuts.
This whole tangent has developed because some people simply don't know the origins of the term.

To most of us they appear ridiculous, but to him they are truth itself.

Look up the origins for yourself , then for funlook up the schism with the Presbyterians in the 1840s in america which seperated the southern rednecks from those in the northern appalacians over an issue which was later to tear the country apart. If you explore that then you can tie it in very nicely with the picture of Rednecks that was posted.

He completely disregards the success of free societies in the modern world in favor of a dogma that has kept him and his people in the shackles of state control and religious violence.

He has no idea why his nation is regarded as being "backwards" amongst other western nations, and he may not even realize why.

Two rather pathetic lines , after that your post just degenerates even further into complete nonsense that isn't even worth a laughing smiley.

Though it is tempting with this talk of backwardsness and dogma in the modern world to point at the fundamentalist religious right who have found a nice home with the republicans, or to have a good laugh at the creationists who insist the government should push their literal interpreatrion of scripture in science class in schools.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I say you have written a good example of total nonsense.
Lets start............................................. .......

Interesting exchanges here on the topic. This made me laugh a little bit. I'm flabbergasted that you just proved UnderseaLcpl's point to a tee with your reply. You knew that all along though....right? Something tells me you don't.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

You will have a hard time finding a philosopher whose ideas do not have
a serious flaw somewhere. That is why it is such a lively area. That
doesn't make Plato, Descartes, Hume, Marx, popper etc. any less
brilliant.
The difference in political philosophy is that the flaws can become
manifest.

Radical Islam will influence bugger all when there are no radical islamists
left. The early communist theoreticians will be on course reading lists
indefinitely.

Well radical Islam predates all of them except Plato and, unlike Marx and communism, it's core philosophy continues to remain viable in many parts of the world so I don't think i can agree with your assessment of it's transience.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

First off "Brilliant" isn't a term that i'd use for something that is "deeply flawed" Letum and second, I'd consider radical Islam to be just as influential as any other system, given their ability to produce apparently limitless numbers of suicide bombers for their cause, affect the laws in a dozen first world nations and keep the entire world reacting to their actions.

Having said that though revolutionary tactics transcend any particular revolution. Not every tactic might be used, or used to the same degree, in every conflict, but they all come from the same bag of tricks.

Yeah, same here. Brilliant and Lenin, sorry, that's no sale here. The man was a deluded maniac... sort of like the mullahs interviewed in the article I linked.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I say you have written a good example of total nonsense.
Lets start.

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for the tone of my last post. I intended to be direct but I think I came off sounding rather rude. I do that sometimes, please forgive me.

Now, without further adieu, let's start.

Where was that claimed?

Here?

the Rednecks moved to what is now the USA

They were crazy extremist backwards religious fundamentalists who wanted a new world order to purify the place against the ungodly global conspiracy.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. What did you mean to say?

But then again you appear cluless on the simplest of stuff.
Start with basic religion 101, can you tell the difference between a presbyterian covenanter and an anglican?
Maybe you should start with the bishops wars which were the start of the wars of the three kingdoms.

Maybe you should start with the causes of the wars and the animosity that fueled them. Religion itself was not the problem, it was the desire to impose religion upon others that begat the wars.

Actually once you explore that and the papist conspiracy theories of those days you can bring that up to date with a quick look at a real stereotypical redneck group. Try for example the Knights party from down south , you can't get more backwards redneck than the Klan can you , they call themselves good christians and have this conspiracy thing about a global popish plot(as well as a Jewish/communist/Islamic/socialist/liberal/negro plot that controls all the media)

I don't know anything about papist conspiracy theories, other than that the Catholic Church indulged in a number of questionable acts throughout its history. Thus, I can't really comment on that point.

Still, I can't really draw a comparison between covenanters and "rednecks". Other than strong pressure on the legislatures of states and the federal government for "moral" legislation like banning abortion and the the like(that's a stretch), and a desire for religious self-determination, I don't really see any similarities. I could just as easily draw a comparison between rednecks and Jews, or rednecks and Muslims. Could you clarify?

Errrrrr...covananters were called rednecks.

Really? By whom? I was under the impression that the term "redneck" was fairly modern American slang. The most recent example of the term that I know of came from the deep south in either the late 19th or the early 20th century(my memory is fuzzy on the topic)
If you know of an earlier example, I would be most intrigued.

And don't give me that wikipedia crap. Albion's Seed was written in 1989 and contains no credible reference to the term "redneck" being used to describe covenanters, other than Hackett's suggestion that the term may have been used, according to legend.

Wrong, the comparison made is of a bunch of modernday backwards nuts, another bunch of modernday backwards nuts and some historic backwards nuts.
This whole tangent has developed because some people simply don't know the origins of the term.

Well, I'd be most grateful if you could educate us with the proper etymology.

What I don't understand is how you can equate the desire for self-determination with "backwardness", unless you are indeed a product of socialist indoctrination.

Look up the origins for yourself , then for fun look up the schism with the Presbyterians in the 1840s in america which seperated the southern rednecks from those in the northern appalacians over an issue which was later to tear the country apart. If you explore that then you can tie it in very nicely with the picture of Rednecks that was posted.

You are suggesting that the schism in the Presbyterian Church between the "old" and "new" schools is somehow linked to the American civil war?
You think the civil war was started over slavery? You think that any of this excuses the state from declaring or supporting destructive wars and insurgencies, including those in Ireland?

In that case, I think I'll go kill a few people and say "religion made me do it".

That aside, you'll have to provide me with more information on the etymology of the term "redneck".

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

He completely disregards the success of free societies in the modern world in favor of a dogma that has kept him and his people in the shackles of state control and religious violence.

When in doubt, rofl. What aspect of your nation's predisposition to religious violence is so funny, Tribesman? The rest of the world doesn't find it very funny.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

He has no idea why his nation is regarded as being "backwards" amongst other western nations, and he may not even realize why.

My mistake. Ireland is obviously a model of success. We should all strive to be as successful as Ireland. Why, oh why, didn't I see it sooner?

Two rather pathetic lines , after that your post just degenerates even further into complete nonsense that isn't even worth a laughing smiley.

What you mean is that you have no response, not even a laughing smiley.
You can't see beyond the walls around your mind. You strike me as being a fairly intelligent person, yet you cannot stoop to educating fools like myself. This tells me that you are not as educated as you have been led to believe, and that you cannot think for yourself.

Though it is tempting with this talk of backwardsness and dogma in the modern world to point at the fundamentalist religious right who have found a nice home with the republicans, or to have a good laugh at the creationists who insist the government should push their literal interpreatrion of scripture in science class in schools.

I can only hope that you're not referring to me, because I have never posted anything to indicate that I am a religious fundamentalist of any kind or a republican. I have also never indicated that I am a creationist.

For what it is worth, I am an economic conservative and a social liberal, which means that I believe in equal rights and very limited government. "Libertarian" is the term in the US. I have never advocated any kind of religious supremacy. In fact, I think the state has no place in marriage, schools, prisons, or any other institutions that religion has co-opted.

Your willingness to immediately assign me to the category of the "religious right" simply because I disagree tells me a great deal about you. It tells me that you have a number of leftist beliefs which have been ingrained upon, or willingly accepted, by you. It tells me that you will not tolerate dissent, which is a trait indicative of centrist and socialist governments and their peoples. It tells me that you cannot comprehend anything beyond what you have been taught by the state, which is to be expected of a citizen of Ireland, given the political atmosphere.

I will not pretend to be your intellectual superior, Tribesman. I won't even pretend to be right, but I will ask you to consider why your ideas often find so little purchase here. Is it because you are just so superior to the rest of us that we simply cannot comprehend your ideas? Or is it because there is something to self-determination and the rights of the individual?
Is your philosophy so great that there is no need to share it and debate it with mere mortals?

Personally, I think your ideas come from an ingrained socialist rhetoric. Perhaps you can show me some evidence that they have not.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Actually they seem quite brilliant...

Originally Posted by Skybird

What means "minority"? Haven't we linked to two separate independant British studies in the past four years, I think, and I mean full-blown academic studies, not just some radio station polls, showing that amongst the UK's Islamic males between 18 and 40 or 50, a hopping 40% want to overthrow the UK and explicitly defend the use of violence - if it cannot be done otherwise?

I missed those... links please!?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Haven't I linked to according studies from Germany over the past years showing that the offsprings of Muslim immigrants, especially Turkish people, in most cases showed to become even more orthodox than their parents ever have been, making mockery of the Gutmenschen-thesis that living in Western civilisation would "westernise" and soften up Islamic attitudes?

Good grief man! Who ever said they would be "westernised" (i.e. secularised, if only partially) in a single generation? Give it time.
P.S. This does prompt a concern in my mind... if the rate of immigration exceeds the rate of secularisation, then you have a problem...

Well Lancecorporal, interesting post , the second half degenerates from this point......

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl
He completely disregards the success of free societies in the modern world in favor of a dogma that has kept him and his people in the shackles of state control and religious violence.

Quote:

.......very rapidly though.
I have to apologise as you will have to wait for a proper response because I have a plane to catch.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well Lancecorporal, interesting post , the second half degenerates from this point...... .......very rapidly though.

Yeah, it kind of did. I blame it on brevity brought on by exhaustion.
I was pretty tired by the time I finished the post, so it was rushed.
It seems I owe you another apology.

I thought the last paragraph was rather good, though. I figured a scathing indictment might get some kind of worthwhile response from you. You should know by now that "rofl" and "lol" and "HAHAHAHAHA", and their emoticon equivalents, are not acceptable answers to others' arguments and stated beliefs. Those kinds of answers are generally construed as evidence of you being ignorant or even condescending, which itself implies a degree of ignorance.

I, however, do not think you are ignorant. I think you have a great deal to contribute to these kinds of discussions, even if your point of view typically falls on the left side of the political spectrum (that sounds kind of condescending, but it is not meant to be). There are a number of subsimmers that I, and others, regularly disagree with on this forum but I still hold them in the utmost regard; Skybird, NeonSamurai, and Platapus, to name a few. I have had some excellent discussions with all of them, and I have learned from those discussions. I like to think that they have learned a little from me, or that I have adequately challenged their perspectives. Perhaps I have done nothing but reinforce their existing views, but that is still a constructive purpose, is it not?

Perhaps you like your discussions to be fraught with adversarial rhetoric and insults. If so, I'll be happy to oblige. Nothing you say is going to hurt my feelings. We can exchange s and s for the rest of time if you like. I don't expect that it will be productive, but it could be fun.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I have to apologise as you will have to wait for a proper response because I have a plane to catch.

No apology needed. I've had to skip out on a number of discussions because of other commitments, including some I've had with you. I hope you have a pleasant flight, and a pleasant stay at your destination.

[nikimcbee]

Well look at the bright side; When the UK is an islamic nation, just think how hot Jim will look in a beard.

We'll have JimtheMullah. But there is a serious problem though, spam is made of pork, so instead if Jim "spamming" could we change the term to tofu-ing? Now Mr Buna won't be beheaded for violating the law.