Europe's Muslim Problem: Why Should Americans Care?

[Warka]

Aside from abstract, vague and rather indefensible notions of Folk and/or buying into ridiculous Judeo neo-con media hysteria, why should Americans care about the Muslim Problem in Europe? After all, it's not as if Europeans take great interest in and empathize with America's very similar negro/Mexican Problem.

[Ahknaton]

Speaking for myself (and I'm not an American) I take an interest in both America and Europe's problems for three reasons:

1) I have extended and immediate family in both places.
2) America and/or Europe's downfall will inevitably have negative consequences for Australia and NZ.
3) General moral principle/solidarity.

I don't think that anyone in the Western world can really be indifferent to America's political situation, since it obviously has effects outside of America's borders via foreign policy. Who knows what the American political elite might consider a valid reason for invading a country or overthrowing a government in a few decades time. "Racist" immigration policies? Failure to criminalise Holocaust denial and/or outlaw the swastika? Not enough Black lesbians on television?

[Winston]

Are these Americans and Europeans you speak of nationalist sympathisers or just average people?
I empathise greatly with America's negro and Mexican problems.

[Warka]

Are these Americans and Europeans you speak of nationalist sympathisers or just average people?
I empathise greatly with America's negro and Mexican problems.

The average American or European. Of course there will be some sympathy among nationalists.

[Ahknaton]

The average American or European. Of course there will be some sympathy among nationalists.
If you use the average person as your measuring stick, it's real easy to quickly become cynical and misanthropic. That's not necessarily because the average person sucks per se, it's just that most people are to tied up with issues in their own life (bills to pay, children to worry about, appearances to keep up, political/social issues in their immediate vicinity) to give thought to people further afield. It's only when these issues are more or less "under control" that people start thinking about the big picture. Most people aren't at that level, either economically (too busy worrying about bills to pay) or emotionally (still haven't escaped from guilt/propagandising or need for social status and approval by having the "right" opinions). Hawking had a good pyramid diagram in his sig illustrating this at one point.

Even if the majority of people are basically write-offs at this point, the number of nationalists and other people with their hearts in the right place is still large enough in absolute numbers (even though small relative to the total population) to be worth caring about.

[Warka]

If you use the average person as your measuring stick, it's real easy to quickly become cynical and misanthropic. That's not necessarily because the average person sucks per se, it's just that most people are to tied up with issues in their own life (bills to pay, children to worry about, appearances to keep up, political/social issues in their immediate vicinity) to give thought to people further afield. It's only when these issues are more or less "under control" that people start thinking about the big picture. Most people aren't at that level, either economically (too busy worrying about bills to pay) or emotionally (still haven't escaped from guilt/propagandising or need for social status and approval by having the "right" opinions). Hawking had a good pyramid diagram in his sig illustrating this at one point.

Even if the majority of people are basically write-offs at this point, the number of nationalists and other people with their hearts in the right place is still large enough in absolute numbers (even though small relative to the total population) to be worth caring about.

Ok, with your points made here in mind, let's discuss nationalists. What I'm particularly interested in is priorities. I've witnessed multiple Americans express that the Muslim Problem in Europe is a greater threat than the negro/Mexican Problem in the U.S. When asked to explain they offer rationalization based on either the aforementioned Folk stuff (Europe is somehow automatically more important than where they live so let America die in order for Europe to live) or regurgitated senseless media hype (everyone knows Muslims are evil, dude!), neither concrete enough to support thier stance.

I posit that American nationalists should worry more about what's happening in their own backyards than what's happening 10,000 miles away and that the Mexican or negro down the street presents a much more real and greater threat to them than Aazim in France does. And vice-versa for Europeans, as well.

[Ahknaton]

Ok, with your points made here in mind, let's discuss nationalists. What I'm particularly interested in is priorities. I've witnessed multiple Americans express that the Muslim Problem in Europe is a greater threat than the negro/Mexican Problem in the U.S. When asked to explain they offer rationalization based on either the aforementioned Folk stuff (Europe is somehow automatically more important than where they live so let America die in order for Europe to live) or regurgitated senseless media hype (everyone knows Muslims are evil, dude!), neither concrete enough to support thier stance.
I think it should be taken for granted that everyone should worry about what's happening on their own doorstep first and foremost, and give secondary importance to what's happening on the other side of the world - unless it can be shown that the events overseas (specifically, in Europe) have is a determining effect on homegrown issues. However unless the two goals of European and American preservation are in conflict with each other, there's no need to pursue one to the exclusion of the other (giving priority to your own immediate interests first of course). In my opinion, Americans (and everyone else in the Western world) should care about what's happening in Europe, but that doesn't mean ignoring the home front.

"Letting America die in order for Europe to live" implies a conflict of interests that I don't think really exists. In practice I think that the opposite mentality is more in effect, i.e. supporting Muslims because they are attacking "ZOG" (thereby saving America) while ignoring the consequences for Europe of Islamic militancy and cultural/demographic expansion. This is basically the Glenn Miller school of geopolitics. While it's true that there is a lot of neo-con media hysteria about the Middle East, I don't think that anyone is "crying wolf" about the Islamisation of Europe.
I posit that American nationalists should worry more about what's happening in their own backyards than what's happening 10,000 miles away and that the Mexican or negro down the street presents a much more real and greater threat to them than Aazim in France does. And vice-versa for Europeans, as well.
Agreed.

[Thomas777]

Something that is important to consider in addressing the political disposition of Western peoples be it here in the New World, over in the EU, or down in the land of Oz is the whys. In other words, WHY are people (generally speaking) concerned about Islamification. I think that some people (Nick Griffin comes to mind) are genuinely concerned about demographic collapse and the destruction of organic national integrity in favor of a truly global managerial apparatus. I think that other people object to Islamification because they find its precepts offensive to liberalism (Bruce Bawer and Pim Fortyun come to mind). Suffice to say that the latter tendency is much more pronounced in the court of public opinion.

Essentially, Walter Lacquer was correct when he noted that conflating Islam with "Fascism" (i.e. Islamofascism) has significance beyond mere cynical soundbite politics. People deliberately conflate these (apparently) unrelated tendencies because they both represent alternatively reactionary or revolutionary political-social schemes that undermine the prevailing Western zeitgeist of uninhibited individualism, hedonism, and acquisitive materialism. In other words, they represent an aggressive effort towards patriarchal justice and order.

It begs the question when Nationalists attack Islamists in Europe and America as to what exactly the former are trying to preserve and defend, now doesn't it?

[Niko Bellic]

Aside from abstract, vague and rather indefensible notions of Folk and/or buying into ridiculous Judeo neo-con media hysteria, why should Americans care about the Muslim Problem in Europe? After all, it's not as if Europeans take great interest in and empathize with America's very similar negro/Mexican Problem.

What I'm particularly interested in is priorities.

Framing it in this way is Ixabertian, and borderline trollish.


unless it can be shown that the events overseas (specifically, in Europe) have is a determining effect on homegrown issues. However unless the two goals of European and American preservation are in conflict with each other, there's no need to pursue one to the exclusion of the other (giving priority to your own immediate interests first of course). In my opinion, Americans (and everyone else in the Western world) should care about what's happening in Europe, but that doesn't mean ignoring the home front.

"Letting America die in order for Europe to live" implies a conflict of interests that I don't think really exists.

Yeah, what he said. Maybe I should throw in a duh because it's so obvious that it shouldn't have to be pointed out.

It begs the question when Nationalists attack Islamists in Europe and America as to what exactly the former are trying to preserve and defend, now doesn't it?

You answered your own question...

the prevailing Western zeitgeist of uninhibited individualism, hedonism, and acquisitive materialism.

Which is exactly what I want to defend. The problems with these things are a matter of degree, not principle.

In other words, they represent an aggressive effort towards patriarchal justice and order.

Is that what you call honor killings, FGM, rape victims being punished for the crime, etc. etc.? No thanks, I like my zeitgeist the way it is.

[Thomas777]

No thanks, I like my zeitgeist the way it is.

Then you should not mind if Muslims become a demographic majority in Europe, or for that matter, if Blacks become a majority in your community. The political-social ethos that informs the managerial apparatus that you support dictates that material prosperity and balanced equity eliminates any and all actual or potential conflicts of interest between persons because no fundamental differences exist between populations.

[Thomas777]

Is that what you call honor killings, FGM, rape victims being punished for the crime, etc. etc.?

I call honor killings an anachronistic practice that occurs in some Near Eastern communities outside of the penumbra of law and order.

Here in America, we give 1st Amendment protection to all-anal gangbang vids that make up part of a billion dollar a year (taxed and regulated) pornography industry.

I don't believe that America kills Muslims en masse in the interest of chivalry and the defense of womanhood.

[Ahknaton]

Something that is important to consider in addressing the political disposition of Western peoples be it here in the New World, over in the EU, or down in the land of Oz is the whys. In other words, WHY are people (generally speaking) concerned about Islamification. I think that some people (Nick Griffin comes to mind) are genuinely concerned about demographic collapse and the destruction of organic national integrity in favor of a truly global managerial apparatus. I think that other people object to Islamification because they find its precepts offensive to liberalism (Bruce Bawer and Pim Fortyun come to mind). Suffice to say that the latter tendency is much more pronounced in the court of public opinion.
That's true, however I don't think it really matters if nationalists are agreeing with liberals on this issue, albeit with different motives. Politics makes for strange bedfellows and in my opinion the Nick Griffin justification is valid and the fact that nationalists find themselves agreeing with gay rights activists does not undermine it.
Essentially, Walter Lacquer was correct when he noted that conflating Islam with "Fascism" (i.e. Islamofascism) has significance beyond mere cynical soundbite politics. People deliberately conflate these (apparently) unrelated tendencies because they both represent alternatively reactionary or revolutionary political-social schemes that undermine the prevailing Western zeitgeist of uninhibited individualism, hedonism, and acquisitive materialism. In other words, they represent an aggressive effort towards patriarchal justice and order.
This is correct however I don't think you are emphasising the difference between a revolutionary (i.e. progressive) versus a reactionary/regressive response to the liberal status quo enough. To a large extent this depends on your view of history and specifically cultural evolution. It is a mistake to see it as merely a pendulum swinging back and forth between authoritarianism and individualism, with the source of the swing being seen as irrelevant just because the ends are (superficially) much the same. History is both circular and linear at the same time. As a culture evolves it may go "full circle" from patriarchal authoritarianism to liberalism and then back again, but it returns at a higher level, (like a winding spiral) with experience accrued in the process. For example, the West has gone through the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance and the liberal cultural revolutions of the 20th century, and is now suffering from what we might call an "excess of permissiveness" - specifically the wrong sorts of freedoms that are corrosive to society.

Some kind of correction back in the other direction is obviously necessary, however that doesn't mean that we should simply wind back the clock and revert to a Medieval mindset. We need to go forward and resolve the contradictions of liberalism, keep what is worth preserving and throw out what is corrosive, rather than simply turning back and regressing to an earlier stage of development. Certain freedoms (especially intellectual ones and certain rights of women) are worth preserving, and if Europe is Islamised the baby will essentially be thrown out with the bathwater and we will have to "relearn" the lessons of the Enlightenment all over again from an Islamic perspective, because the outsiders who will move in and impose the solution to liberalism upon us do not have a cultural memory of it.
It begs the question when Nationalists attack Islamists in Europe and America as to what exactly the former are trying to preserve and defend, now doesn't it?
What nationalists need to defend is the cultural sovereignty of the West, because the solution to liberalism must be imposed from within and not without.

[Thomas777]

That's true, however I don't think it really matters if nationalists are agreeing with liberals on this issue, albeit with different motives. Politics makes for strange bedfellows and in my opinion the Nick Griffin justification is valid and the fact that nationalists find themselves agreeing with gay rights activists does not undermine it.

I think it matters because liberals consider Muslims to be similar to "us". In other words, liberals oppose Islam because its a progressive tendency towards organic social order, and they refer to Islamofascism because in their estimation, "we" (Nationalists, Traditional Christians, Muslims, reactionaries) are all the Enemy. I'm reluctant to endorse the platform of a guy like Bawer, considering that people like him are the ones that are laboring tirelessly (with great success I might add) to impose penal liability on people like us for expressing dissent. Muslims and Nationalists wage war on each other in the streets, political-capitalism wins.

I'll respond to the body of your post in a bit. You raise important points there.

[Warka]

Framing it in this way is Ixabertian, and borderline trollish.

I'll frame it however I please and it's hardly trollish. How ridiculous. Quit being sore just because you were schooled previously on the topic in the Shoutbox. It's noted you fail to address the issue here, regardless of how it's framed, ineffectively relying on a smattering of one-liners to constitute a defense instead.

C'mon, TUA, enlighten us with your "ultimate threat: a nuclear-armed Muslim Europe" theory.

[Ahknaton]

I think it matters because liberals consider Muslims to be similar to "us". In other words, liberals oppose Islam because its a progressive tendency towards organic social order, and they refer to Islamofascism because in their estimation, "we" (Nationalists, Traditional Christians, Muslims, reactionaries) are all the Enemy. I'm reluctant to endorse the platform of a guy like Bawer, considering that people like him are the ones that are laboring tirelessly (with great success I might add) to impose penal liability on people like us for expressing dissent. Muslims and Nationalists wage war on each other in the streets, political-capitalism wins.
Good points, but this is where we need to make a distinction between esoteric "inner doctrine" and exoteric "outer doctrine", i.e. what we believe (because to the best of our ability to make sense of things it's actually the case), and the political allegiances we pragmatically enter into and practical policies that we support. Since I consider most posts on web forums to be "inner doctrine", I'm going to say outright that I don't like the Islamisation of Europe, regardless of the pragmatic consequences to nationalists of liberal-minded opposition to it.

This conflation by liberals of Islamists with Nationalists as "reactionaries" and upsetters-of-the-multicultural-applecart is why I refuse to endorse banning the hijab, since once that happens, it becomes easy for liberals to use it as a precendent to ban pagan symbols (because they are so popular with neo-Nazis and Folk-Nationalist types) and Christmas trees and other Christian symbolism (because otherwise it's a "double-standard" etc). Another precedent I don't like is the meme being spread by some neo-cons that contemporary Islam is really a political movement and not a "real religion" (and should therefore not be protected by "religious tolerance"), because this argument can also be used to attack the right of White people to display folkish symbols (by equating them with the politics of neo-Nazis and WNs, as the ADL does on their "Symbols of Hate" web page).
I'll respond to the body of your post in a bit. You raise important points there.
Looking forward to it.

[Kodos]

Aside from abstract, vague and rather indefensible notions of Folk and/or buying into ridiculous Judeo neo-con media hysteria, why should Americans care about the Muslim Problem in Europe? After all, it's not as if Europeans take great interest in and empathize with America's very similar negro/Mexican Problem.

More insidious communist doubt raising, you indicated your sympathies except you are cleverer then the phora's open commies...

France and England are full fledged nuclear powers, Europe's muslim problem risk their arsenals falling into muslim hands.

That makes Europe's muslims problem a much greater strategic security threat to us then the Soviet Union ever was.

Another precedent I don't like is the meme being spread by some neo-cons that contemporary Islam is really a political movement and not a "real religion"

I rather like it as long as it goes with the understanding that the only other religion thats remotely similiar to this (in believing so strongly in its universality by any means nessecary whether people want it or not) is roman catholicism.

[Warka]

More insidious communist doubt raising, you indicated your sympathies except you are cleverer then the phora's open commies....

Commie now? Yesterday it was Nazi and the day before that it was something else. Please make up your mind.

France and England are full fledged nuclear powers, Europe's muslim problem risk their arsenals falling into muslim hands.

That makes Europe's muslims problem a much greater strategic security threat to us then the Soviet Union ever was.

I'll posit that the U.S. is also a full-fledged nuclear power at risk of falling into Mexican hands...or at least that's certainly as likely or as possible as the scenario you propose. So, to play along, how is a nuclear-armed Muslim Europe worse than a nuclear-armed Mexican U.S.A.?

[Kodos]

Commie now? Yesterday it was Nazi and the day before that it was something else. Please make up your mind.

I don't recall calling you a nazi, as a polack (stupid as they ussually are) you'd have to be really stupid to be one.

I'll posit that the U.S. is also a full-fledged nuclear power at risk of falling into Mexican hands...or at least that's certainly as likely or as possible as the scenario you propose. So, to play along, how is a nuclear-armed Muslim Europe worse than a nuclear-armed Mexican U.S.A.?

I care less about the rest of the world then America. So what happens to it after we've lost... not so important.

But to answer your question. While a lot of Mexicans are criminals they aren't animated by religious fanaticism to subject the earth to a particular form of religious government and religiously obligated to despise all infidels not living under a muslim regime. They also lack a martyrdom conquest.

Those features basically unique to Islam makes muslims much more likely to start a nuclear war if some stupid democracy with nukes ever lets the subhumans* breed themselves into control of the government.

American muslims tend to be a lot smarter then the ones Europe gets though this does not lessen the security risk among that population.

[Warka]

I don't recall calling you a nazi, as a polack (stupid as they ussually are) you'd have to be really stupid to be one.

Well, forgive me if I miscalled that one. You see, I hardly pay much attention to the inane and incoherent ramblings of second-string kane123123s.

I care less about the rest of the world then America. So what happens to it after we've lost... not so important.

Huh? Care to try that in English for me? Thanks.

But to answer your question. While a lot of Mexicans are criminals they aren't animated by religious fanaticism to subject the earth to a particular form of religious government and religiously obligated to despise all infidels not living under a muslim regime. They also lack a martyrdom conquest.

Those features basically unique to Islam makes muslims much more likely to start a nuclear war if some stupid democracy with nukes ever lets the subhumans* breed themselves into control of the government.

American muslims tend to be a lot smarter then the ones Europe gets though this does not lessen the security risk among that population.

Ok, now you're finally making a point, sort of. The thing is, Muslims already have nukes and have had them for awhile now and, so far, they're not making anyone glow in the dark the way you claim they would. What gives? And let's get back to reality for a moment and consider this- do you really believe the French or the British are going to put fanatical Arabs in charge of their nukes? I don't find this plausible at all.

[Hakluyt]

I sympathise with both, but America's demographic problems are due not only to modern multiculturalism like Europe's, but to slavery and corporate greed, so I sympathise a bit less. America is also the progenitor of so much of the modern malaise, and it is harder to feel the same connection to a land that forcibly and psychologically separated itself from Europe in the first place.

[Niko Bellic]

I'll frame it however I please and it's hardly trollish. How ridiculous. Quit being sore just because you were schooled previously on the topic in the Shoutbox. It's noted you fail to address the issue here, regardless of how it's framed, ineffectively relying on a smattering of one-liners to constitute a defense instead.

C'mon, TUA, enlighten us with your "ultimate threat: a nuclear-armed Muslim Europe" theory.

Schooled? What sort of school do you attend to pick up a definition like that. I wish I had saved that shoutbox conversation because I just don't feel like typing it all again.

For those who didn't see it, here's a synopsis.

Prac:Look at this problem, what do you think of this problem?

TUA:I care about that problem, and wish it wasn't so.

Prac:That must mean you don't care about this other problem.

TUA:No, I care about both problems, and here's why...

Prac:You can't care about two different problems! Why? Because that's the way I'm asking the question.


It's clear that what passes for logic in your mind suffered from over exposure to Kane.:rolleyes:

[Niko Bellic]

Then you should not mind if Muslims become a demographic majority in Europe, or for that matter, if Blacks become a majority in your community. The political-social ethos that informs the managerial apparatus that you support dictates that material prosperity and balanced equity eliminates any and all actual or potential conflicts of interest between persons because no fundamental differences exist between populations.

Right, because it's all-or-nothing. You don't even try to account for the possibility that the racial problems could be addressed eventually after more white people become tired of reading nigger crime in the news, and reaching the conlusion that we could fix that, while leaving most of the culture intact.

[Warka]

Schooled? What sort of school do you attend to pick up a definition like that. I wish I had saved that shoutbox conversation because I just don't feel like typing it all again.

For those who didn't see it, here's a synopsis.

Prac:Look at this problem, what do you think of this problem?

TUA:I care about that problem, and wish it wasn't so.

Prac:That must mean you don't care about this other problem.

TUA:No, I care about both problems, and here's why...

Prac:You can't care about two different problems! Why? Because that's the way I'm asking the question.


It's clear that what passes for logic in your mind suffered from over exposure to Kane.:rolleyes:

TUA, that's not how the discussion went at all and you know it. I explained from the very beginning that I was interested only in concrete reasoning from those who view Europe's Muslim Problem as more important than America's negro/Mexican Problem. You started off offering appeal to Folk notions which I explained wouldn't do and then you started offering silly "Muslims are evil!" pronouncements which were also successfully challenged and, finally, in a fit, resorted to some kind of ALL CAPS ad hominem (not dissimilar to what we're seeing from you here) and immediately stopped posting after your desperate "ultimate threat: a nuclear-armed Muslim Europe" theory was shot down. The Shoutbox is archived and anyone can access the discussion.

None of this is really important, though, and it's side-tracking the issue, which you're still failing to address. You offered plenty of arguments in the Shoutbox- let's have them again here if you're confident enough in them for public peer review. Why do you, TUA, view Europe's Muslim Problem as more important than America's negro/Mexican Problem?

[Barjag]

Is that [patriarchal justice] what you call honor killings, FGM, rape victims being punished for the crime, etc. etc.?FGM is done almost entirely by the women (as are many honor killings). When researchers talk to people in these societies, it is the women who come out in support of FGM, even when the patriarchs object.

[Starr]

I cannot say that I am not more concerned with what is happening in the nation I live in, but it is difficult for me to understand how anyone could not be concerned with what is happening in other parts of the white western world. Yes, there are Europeans who don't share my concerns for the country I live in, nor their own nations for that matter, just as there are Americans with that same mindset, but that has little bearing on my concerns. Europe is our ancestral homeland, the continent our people are indigenous to(i know this is the answer you were specifically looking not to hear, but it is one of great importance) the thought of it being taken over by an alien people with an alien culture is extremely disturbing. The fact that they "fight the jew" or whatever else does not mean we should welcome this. For those who believe that jews have too much control of the west, what is it that you see as positive in replacing this alien influence for another? Does anyone for a second believe that Islam is going to liberate us rather than seek to dominate us when they have the numbers inside our nations?

I do not believe Muslims are evil or any ideas like that and I am definitely not in favor of any kind of all out war with them, but that is quite a different thing than shutting off any concern in regards to their growing presence in Europe. If we don't belong in their part of the world, then they don't belong in ours. If our attempted dominance and influence in their part of the world is a negative, the same idea applies to them on our soil. We do not need them to save us and at what expense would this come?

[Warka]

I cannot say that I am not more concerned with what is happening in the nation I live in, but it is difficult for me to understand how anyone could not be concerned with what is happening in other parts of the white western world.

I see now I should have phrased my original question differently. I initially started asking people the question as posted but took issue with some who responded that the Muslim problem in Europe is somehow more important than the similar problem we face here in the U.S.

Contrary to what some have said or implied, I do not believe the European problem doesn't merit attention or that both their problem and ours cannot be addressed simultaneously. What I'm interested in is the rationale behind some Americans' belief that somehow Europe's woes take priority over ours. I apologize for any confusion.

[Daniel Shays]

I just don't see either problem (Mexican / Muslim). I see a black Christian and Jewish problem in America. In Europe, Gypsies and Hindoos along with American influence are the leading problems. Anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican hysteria is all just a tempest in a teacup.

Hindoos commit more crime in London than Muslims. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/newsarticle-23408349-details/Foreigners+commit+20+per+cent+of+crime+in+london,say+police/article.do

Not to mention they drink cow urine. It is called "Gandhi Cola".

[Thomas777]

This is correct however I don't think you are emphasising the difference between a revolutionary (i.e. progressive) versus a reactionary/regressive response to the liberal status quo enough. To a large extent this depends on your view of history and specifically cultural evolution. It is a mistake to see it as merely a pendulum swinging back and forth between authoritarianism and individualism, with the source of the swing being seen as irrelevant just because the ends are (superficially) much the same. History is both circular and linear at the same time. As a culture evolves it may go "full circle" from patriarchal authoritarianism to liberalism and then back again, but it returns at a higher level, (like a winding spiral) with experience accrued in the process.
I think that the issue here is that its almost purely academic to discuss 'reactionary' vs. 'revolutionary' tendencies. I began spending a lot of time with Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss this summer (not just at the behest of our friend Roland) because it became increasingly clear to me that Nationalists, PaleoCons, 'White Nationalists', Revolutionary Socialists, et. al. (in other words disenfranchised dissenting elements) don't enjoy any real-world success because really none of the thinkers that advocate these positions are willing to honestly address the global-political landscape as it is...instead, they seem to stubbornly invoke the language of long past eras and Westphalian sovereignty to substantiate their position.

All of this is very wrongheaded of course, and its a recipe for failure. Something that happened in the aftermath of 1914-45 is (as Schmitt predicted) that the West (under the tutelage of England and America) set about to literally do away with politics. The obstacle to this ideological goal was of course the Eastern Bloc under the leadership of the USSR which (after 1953) sought to do away with politics as well. In other words, the American managerial elite and their counterparts within the Soviet nomenclature eliminated caustic, enduring political conflicts within their own borders by legislative and judicial fiat...and ultimately extrapolated principles of equity (or in the case of the Soviets, principles of 'liberation') to foreign policy initiatives and began aggressively punishing sovereignist and secessionist tendencies worldwide.

In short, the reason(s) why a genuinely 'Conservative' revolution failed in America is because the managerial apparatus outlawed politics after 1945 and set about to make a bureaucratically crafted, civic idenitity available to literally every single person in the world in the interest of furthering that objective.

This leaves us in a position where we can no longer discuss politics in the way that we could have a generation or two ago. We cannot entertain fantasies that we can 'recapture' the State, because the State is the problem. In contrast, Muslims represent a threat to the political-capitalist order because their political-military schema is perfectly adapted to a stateless, globalized strategic landscape. While Rightists and Traditionalists are clinging to the fledging concept of 'National state' the way that a weaned child clings to a security blanket, political-Islam is welcoming its final dissolution and mobilizing its human resources to capitalize fully on total labor-capital mobility.

Do you see my point? The Muslims in Europe are defeating the ability of the (increasingly global) managerial apparatus to continue to suppress politics...which is a condition precedent for ANY political actor to acheive any mode of self-determination.

Muslims may represent an enemy at some future world-historical juncture, but as of now, the foe of all Nationalists everywhere is Leviathan...and until politics can once again be expressed, we will all remain dispossesed, Muslims and non Muslims alike.

[Arminius]

Europe's Muslim Problem: Why Should Americans Care?

It's sad when European Americans loose their ties with their heritage and family history. Even though I live in America, I care deeply what happens in Europe, specifically in Germany.

As far as religion is concerned, I don't like any... but I must say that Islam is far worse than Christianity.

[Eisenhans]

Aside from abstract, vague and rather indefensible notions of Folk and/or buying into ridiculous Judeo neo-con media hysteria, why should Americans care about the Muslim Problem in Europe? After all, it's not as if Europeans take great interest in and empathize with America's very similar negro/Mexican Problem.
Americans should care because whether Americans choose to ackowledge this or not, Europe is still the center of the Civilized world. If Europe would fall to Islam, the rest of the West would fall to it, and the dark ages as well.

[Warka]

Americans should care because whether Americans choose to ackowledge this or not, Europe is still the center of the Civilized world. If Europe would fall to Islam, the rest of the West would fall to it, and the dark ages as well.

It goes both ways. If America were to fall to non-Whites, Europe and the rest of the West would fall also.

[Niko Bellic]

TUA, that's not how the discussion went at all and you know it. I explained from the very beginning that I was interested only in concrete reasoning from those who view Europe's Muslim Problem as more important than America's negro/Mexican Problem. You started off offering appeal to Folk notions which I explained wouldn't do and then you started offering silly "Muslims are evil!" pronouncements which were also successfully challenged and, finally, in a fit, resorted to some kind of ALL CAPS ad hominem (not dissimilar to what we're seeing from you here) and immediately stopped posting after your desperate "ultimate threat: a nuclear-armed Muslim Europe" theory was shot down. The Shoutbox is archived and anyone can access the discussion.

None of this is really important, though, and it's side-tracking the issue, which you're still failing to address. You offered plenty of arguments in the Shoutbox- let's have them again here if you're confident enough in them for public peer review. Why do you, TUA, view Europe's Muslim Problem as more important than America's negro/Mexican Problem?

Here's where it started.http://www.thephora.net/forum/vbshout.php?do=archive&page=276

Pracownik stał
Aside from abstract notions of Folk and buying into neo-con media hysteria, why should Americans care about the Muslim Problem in Europe? It's not as if Europeans give a shit about America's negro/Mexican problems.

Pracownik stał
No one has yet been able to provide an answer to this question.

the Ugly American
Prac because that's where we came from, I don't like seeing it in this sorry state, and I will be pissed if/when the cathedrals and castles are converted into mosques, and art and literature that doesn't jive with sick muslim values is destroyed

the Ugly American
there's your answer

Pracownik stał
UA, that's appealing to abstraction, sorry.

Pracownik stał
I desire concrete answers. Logic, in other words.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac that statement is a load of bullshit

Pracownik stał
You're appealing to 'Folk'.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
it won't be abstract when a centuries old cathedral is bulldozed and a mosque built on its ruins, which they have a history of doing

Pracownik stał
No one wants to see that happen. That is not what I'm asking, though.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
they're doing it today in Kosovo

Pracownik stał
Do Europeans fret about churches in America being razed or Mosques being built here? Nope.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac you asked why I care, because Europe is part of MY history

Pracownik stał
So, why should I care about it happening there?

Pracownik stał
And we are part of them.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
America isn't part of their history, we were a colony, so of course they don't care, but for us it should be different

Pracownik stał
lol? America is certainly part of Europe's history.

Pracownik stał
We are part of a long history of colonization.

Pracownik stał
Muslims already have nukes and Europe isn't really considered a superpower anymore.

Pracownik stał
The rate the U.S. is going, mexicans will have nukes before long.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
what Pakistan? yes they have nukes, and we have our arm so far up Musharref's ass that hes like an American sock puppet, plus a contingency plan to take out his nukes from that British Island in the Indian Ocean if he ever loses his power

Pracownik stał
Like I said, yet you ignore the Nuclear Mexico the US is quickly becoming

Pracownik stał
Why is a Nuclear Muslim Europe more important than that?

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac when have I ignored that? I can think about two ir three things at once you know

Pracownik stał
How is a nuclear Muslim Europe worse than a Nuclear Mexico?

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac Mexicans aren't muslim

Pracownik stał
So? You want the world's lasrgest stockpile of nukes in the hands of mexicans???

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac because Mexico is Catholic and not in any danger of becoming muslim at the moment

Pracownik stał
Huh? Are you suggesting that Mexicans cannot be violent?

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
I'm suggesting that muslims are the worst scum of the earth, all others pale in comparison

Pracownik stał
LOL

Pracownik stał
I'm afraid that's not a logical argument.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
it's an opinion

Pracownik stał
yes

Pracownik stał
The Muslims in America are great.

Pracownik stał
Not violent at all.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac now you sound like a neocon

Pracownik stał
lol? neo-cons embrace Muslims?

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac all of them are very outspoken to differentiate good muslims and bad muslims

Pracownik stał
Well, when i say muslims in America are doing fine, it's backed up by fact.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
to me, the only good muslim is six feet deep, and preferably boiled in pig blood before they are buried

Pracownik stał
Note I am not commenting on those outside the US

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac the "peaceful" muslims will implement their sick agenda without ever firing a shot if they are allowed to grow too big, like i Europe

Pracownik stał
Opinon is fine but I'm looking for a convincing argument

Pracownik stał
So far, all anyone can submit is appeal to abstract and scary ''what if'' scenarios.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac the Balkans, Lebanon, Turkey, India, there's your convincing arguments, they have a history

Pracownik stał
What about those places?

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac all suffer from either being altered by an influx of muslims, or in the case of Turkey, the military has to work day and night to keep the muslims from getting out of hand, Indonesia is going the same direction

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
and the Phillipines

Pracownik stał
And America suffers from an influx of Mexicans, does it not?

Pracownik stał
But, why ignore that and worry about Europe?

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
Prac yes, your "logic" appears to revolve around comparing apples and oranges

Pracownik stał
LOL

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
PRAC WHEN THE FUCK HAVE I EVER IGNORED MEXICO?

Pracownik stał
LOLOLOL

Pracownik stał
UA, relax

Pracownik stał
You're going to blow a gasket

Pracownik stał
You have failed to explain why a Muslim Europe is more worrisome than a Mexican USA.

Pracownik stał
I demonstrated why the nuclear threat is moot.

Pracownik stał
try again.

the Ugly American
[Edit | Delete]
prac you're right, I've seen the light, all of us must pick one problem and focus on that to the exclusion of all others




That was the end of my participation in the pointless, trollish, Ixabertian conversation. Can everyone see why I might have gotten a little frustrated?

The link at the top might be useless because the archive is always growing, this hapened Friday night around 10PM EST

[Hakluyt]

Prac you asked why I care, because Europe is part of MY history
It's pretty much as simple as that.

Europe is part of America's historical identity, but America is not part of Europe's historical identity. The flow of people was one way. There shouldn't be a singular standard applied here.

[Niko Bellic]

It's pretty much as simple as that.

Europe is part of America's historical identity, but America is not part of Europe's historical identity. The flow of people was one way. There shouldn't be a singular standard applied here.

Oh no, it can't be as simple as that, Prac just won't get it.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Aside from abstract, vague and rather indefensible notions of Folk and/or buying into ridiculous Judeo neo-con media hysteria, why should Americans care about the Muslim Problem in Europe? After all, it's not as if Europeans take great interest in and empathize with America's very similar negro/Mexican Problem.

If you are white and pro-white, you should care. Europe is the cradle of our people, and remains our homeland. The Americas are not. Europeans should be more concerned about Europe than America.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Not to mention they drink cow urine. It is called "Gandhi Cola".

Muslims marry small children and are allowed by Islamic law to copulate with livestock and murder their wives under certain conditions. Both of these cultures are grotesque and do not belong among us.

[Daniel Shays]

allowed by Islamic law to copulate with livestockAhh, the old false quotes of Qaddafi and Khomeini again. They're proven fakes. Show me that passage in the Green Book - I've read it.
and murder their wives under certain conditions. That's not true. Extrajudicial killings are outlawed according to Sharia law. Though there are Muslim countries (aswell as non-Muslim countries) where the wife and man caught in flagrante delicto can be killed within a few minutes by the husband legally. In a country w/o Sharia law that is certainly preferable to the wife being able to survive.

[Warka]

If you are white and pro-white, you should care. Europe is the cradle of our people, and remains our homeland. The Americas are not.

Again, appealing to abstract. None of that makes much sense to me when my "people" have lived in America for generations now and my "homeland" is just outside of Detroit, Michigan, USA. I wasn't born in Poland or anywhere else in Europe so how could it possibly be my homeland in any real sense of the word?

Europeans should be more concerned about Europe than America.

Indeed. And Americans should be more concerned about America.

[Basil Fawlty]

Again, appealing to abstract. None of that makes much sense to me when my "people" have lived in America for generations now and my "homeland" is just outside of Detroit, Michigan, USA. I wasn't born in Poland or anywhere else in Europe so how could it possibly be my homeland in any real sense of the word?But it obviously does have an importance for you given that your Polish heritage is obviously something you openly cherish, and so you should.

[Geist]

Aside from abstract, vague and rather indefensible notions of Folk and/or buying into ridiculous Judeo neo-con media hysteria, why should Americans care about the Muslim Problem in Europe? After all, it's not as if Europeans take great interest in and empathize with America's very similar negro/Mexican Problem.

Because Europe is the main communication center of Islamic-extremist activity. The 9-11 attacks were partly planned in Hamburg, Germany. It has also become a major recruitment ground for attacks against US forces as well as a central hub for financing 'jihad'. The network across Europe is probably the most sophisticated drawing elements from Algeria and Morocco into the fray so that extremists once concerned solely about some European countries have been co-opted into the international project of global jihad. If anything the Islamification of Europe, particularly Britain, is perhaps the greatest security concern for the US in the global war on terror.

[Hakluyt]

Again, appealing to abstract. None of that makes much sense to me when my "people" have lived in America for generations now and my "homeland" is just outside of Detroit, Michigan, USA. I wasn't born in Poland or anywhere else in Europe so how could it possibly be my homeland in any real sense of the word?



Indeed. And Americans should be more concerned about America.
Should someone born in Michigan but whose parents were from Pennsylvania be solely concerned with Michigan? The only "abstract" concept we are dealing with here is "America".

[Geist]

As for demographic collapse this seems somewhat unlikely. Muslims represent a tiny percentage of Europe's overall population even in places such as the United Kingdom. The only exception is perhaps France. I think you are all looking at this as some kind of cultural showdown in which Islam somehow consumes Europe when this is perhaps an unlikely scenario. Perhaps certain cities will be subsumed for a time but when new immigrants come Muslims will probably find themselves displaced. There was a time when East London was predominantly Jewish and this is within living memory of some people. The problem is one of occasional terrorism where a lot of hot talk rouses some hot-headed young men to occasionally commit bombings. Consider how few bombings have occurred compared to an IRA or ETA campaign. If anything Islamic-extremism is a fairly inconsistent enemy.

[Basil Fawlty]

If anything Islamic-extremism is a fairly inconsistent enemy.I think its very consistent, consistent with the fact that it is largely fiction. Emmanuel Goldstein and "Islamic terrorism" are very consistent, he appeared every day at the same time for Two Minutes Hate, they appear on virtualy every news broadcast.

[Thomas777]

As for demographic collapse this seems somewhat unlikely. Muslims represent a tiny percentage of Europe's overall population even in places such as the United Kingdom. The only exception is perhaps France. I think you are all looking at this as some kind of cultural showdown in which Islam somehow consumes Europe when this is perhaps an unlikely scenario. Perhaps certain cities will be subsumed for a time but when new immigrants come Muslims will probably find themselves displaced. There was a time when East London was predominantly Jewish and this is within living memory of some people. The problem is one of occasional terrorism where a lot of hot talk rouses some hot-headed young men to occasionally commit bombings. Consider how few bombings have occurred compared to an IRA or ETA campaign. If anything Islamic-extremism is a fairly inconsistent enemy.

I think the threat of demographic collapse is overstated, but immigration trends cannot be addressed merely in terms of raw percentages. If Muslims are only 5% of the UK's population, that is largely meaningless (politically speaking) if they are evenly distributed throughout the country. If that Muslim population is (for example) overwhelmingly concentrated in London, that is a different matter entirely.

Regardless of the implications of these policies (for better or for worse) the EU is creating divided societies all over the Continent...societies that are increasingly beginning to resemble America.

[Felix the Cat]

Some European nations are threatened by Muslims, others are not

Attitudes towards the US and its problems also tend to vary in different parts of Europe

[Geist]

I think its very consistent, consistent with the fact that it is largely fiction. Emmanuel Goldstein and "Islamic terrorism" are very consistent, he appeared every day at the same time for Two Minutes Hate, they appear on virtualy every news broadcast.

There is certainly an element of over-stating the threat.

[Basil Fawlty]

There is certainly an element of over-stating the threat.And that's, erm, understating it somewhat. :rofl:

[Geist]

And that's, erm, understating it somewhat. :rofl:

I've been somewhat swayed toward it being more of a problem that we give it credit for by this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaeda-Europe-Battleground-International/dp/1591024331

[I recommend it to Thomas777 too].

Whilst they are inconsistent enemies and ones exploited for political effect they still represent something of a threat. There are a number of cases in this book I had never heard of before.

[Thomas777]

I've been somewhat swayed toward it being more of a problem that we give it credit for by this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaeda-Europe-Battleground-International/dp/1591024331

[I recommend it to Thomas777 too].

Whilst they are inconsistent enemies and ones exploited for political effect they still represent something of a threat. There are a number of cases in this book I had never heard of before.

I plan to read that book, and thank you again for the recommendation.

Once again, the 'Muslim Problem' in Europe is the result of naivete and catastrophically poor planning on the part of the managerial apparatus. Importing millions of outsiders, effectively banning them from the political process in any meaningful way, while at the same time permitting them to agitate against the Regime and mobilize for military activity is a not only a recipe for disaster but its completely avoidable.

The EU can solve this problem either by deporting problem populations en masse, or by delegating quasi-legislative/judicial authority to the newcomers in Muslim majority communities (pursuant to popular mandate, of course).

I am simply not sympathetic to a regime that bans politics, imports foreign communities, and then declares a state of emergency when those communities don't 'behave themselves'.

[Warka]

But it obviously does have an importance for you given that your Polish heritage is obviously something you openly cherish, and so you should.

Yes, it does hold some importance. I'm not disputing that at all. What I am disputing is that I, as an American, should, for some still undefined reason, feel that the welfare of Poland and greater Europe is more important than the welfare of America. Again, no one has yet put forth any real argument outside of abstract notions of Folk and such while insisting I'm supposed to automatically place Europe as a priority over America. This is the problem.

[Vindex]

Both sides of the Western Pond are in trouble but my feelings of racial loyality and ancestory incline me to naturally want to care. I have family in Europe some who have suffered badly due to the non-White menace. Blood is thicker then water. But while a person should care for a major cradle of the West they should work to put their own Nation in order in American.

I still feel kinship towards England and would hate to see it fall and become new Punjab or Mecca. As the numbers of wogs keep coming in and the fact they breed in much larger numbers then the Whites the racial pole will shift sooner or later. Even a smaller number is still a threat. Blacks make up only about 12% of the population but cause more then that in problems.

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes, it does hold some importance. I'm not disputing that at all. What I am disputing is that I, as an American, should, for some still undefined reason, feel that the welfare of Poland and greater Europe is more important than the welfare of America. Again, no one has yet put forth any real argument outside of abstract notions of Folk and such while insisting I'm supposed to automatically place Europe as a priority over America. This is the problem.I think its daft and unreasonable to expect Americans to "place Europe as a priority over America". Your first responsibility is to your own polity.

However, its another matter to say that the land of your ancestors should and can hold a special place in your affections without intruding on your loyalties to America or duties as a citizen, however you define them. One's political duties and loyaties must be to the state of which one is a citizen but our affections and sense of identity can be towards the mother country. I have known a few Irish-Americans who have come here over the years to live and study and its always a happy experience for them to discover the source of much that has shaped their identity when growing up in their communities in the US. It also dispels any unrealistic and romanticised views of Ireland they may have had earlier. I think all young Americans should try and spend some time in their mother country, or countries as is often the case, be they from Europe or anywhere really.

[Boleslaw]

I must say this is a very interesting discussion. Allow me to take a crack at itl although forgive any faults in my reasoning, I just got off work.

Much of my outlook lines up more with Pracownik stał. But I guess that shouldnt surprise anybody; we're both of the same basic ethnic background(Im more Ukrainian however) and from the same area.

Like Prac, I have no patience with appeals to abstractions and it's my opinion this is a major problem with modern thinking.

Why should America be concerned about Europe? Well, of course because it's from Europe that America has received it's identity. We're essentially part of the same civilization and race. Is that an appeal to abstraction? Not necessarily, but it can be - depending on how you see it.

Rather than appeal to some abstract monolith; European civilization should be seen for what it really is - a loose collection of various different communities. Even a nation by itself is best seen as a community of communities; same logic applies here but on a bigger scale. This helps to put European civilization on a more concrete basis.

There's also another essential difference between abstract "Europeaness"(lack of a better term) and concrete "Europeaness". Abstract "Europeaness" goes from the top-down: concern for the overall race precedes concern your own particular town and village.

Concrete "Europeaness" OTOH moves in the opposite direction: local concerns come before concerns for the race overall. That doesn't mean overall racial concerns are unimportant or to be disregarded; rather it's based on the understanding that the overal racial-civilization identity is built on top on various local-parochial identities. The local-parochial identities are the basic building blocks of the larger civilization; without them there can't be an overall civilization or it's practically meaningless.

The issue of ethnic identity was brought up in regards to Prac's Polish heritage. To that I would answer that I myself maybe Polish(just bear with me) but I'm a Polish-American. It's to the Polish-American community in my particular area that I hold primary loyalty to; much like how a person in Poland would hold primary loyalty to their particular region over against the Polish nation overall.

That doesn't mean neither I nor Prac do not have any deep love and concern for Poland and Polonia(Polish diaspora communities) overall; but we understand that overall love begins with the Polish people that are closest to you.

Sadly ethnic identities can themselves be turned into abstraction, and when that is done it can be a disaster. Steve Sailer made some interesting remarks about this concerning the ethnic pride of Hispanic-Americans:

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_27/article.html


"A 2002 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center found that 48 percent of Latino registered voters felt there were “too many” immigrants in the U.S. today, while only 7 percent thought there were “too few.” This shouldn’t be startling since Hispanics suffer mass immigration’s most direct consequences: lowered wages, stressed schools, and that annoying third cousin from Hermosillo who shows up uninvited and wants to sleep on the couch until he gets himself established in a few years.

Yet when the Pew interviewers immediately rephrased the question in ethnocentric terms to read, “Thinking about Latin American immigrants who come to work in the United States,” suddenly only 21 percent of Latino voters wanted to “reduce the number” and 36 percent wished to “allow more.” Thus, Hispanic activists can easily arouse for their own profit understandable but irrational racial chauvinism.

The emergence of a truly Latino-American leader like the young Chavez, one more interested in the economic advancement of his own American ethnic group than in identity politics, would be good for American Hispanics, good for other Americans, and good for Mexico as well."

This hits onto my main point here; and I think Prac is trying to make this point as well. Ethno-racial identities are important; but they only have real meaning when addressed on a concrete basis.

I'm proud of my ethnic heritage, and it's very important to my own self-identity. But that doesn't mean I want hookers from Warsaw or Kiev polluting the streets of Polish-Ukrainian neighborhoods here. I don't care where you're fucking from, you're not going to destroy the neighborhoods we as a community worked so hard over generations to build and maintain.

And appealing to abstract "Polishness", "Ukrainianism", etc. won't suffice. In fact shame on those who would do so. What exactly is so "Polish" or "Ukrainian" to come into a community, where chances are you'll be welcomed as somebody from the old country, and turn it to a ghetto shithole, to help ruin the livelihood of fellow ethnic kin who are more established here, and to harm the reputation of your ethnic community in general in the eyes of fellow Americans?

These are definately some question Hispanic-Americans need to ask themselves in regards to their attitudes towads their illegal immigrant "brethern".

Anyways....I feel I'm beginning to just ramble off, so I'll end it here. Hopefully I've helped a little.

[Niko Bellic]

Yes, it does hold some importance. I'm not disputing that at all. What I am disputing is that I, as an American, should, for some still undefined reason, feel that the welfare of Poland and greater Europe is more important than the welfare of America. Again, no one has yet put forth any real argument outside of abstract notions of Folk and such while insisting I'm supposed to automatically place Europe as a priority over America. This is the problem.

Where are you getting this? From what I can see, you're the only one mentioning a priority conflict, that's why the entire discussion seems so absurd to me. Of course I care more about Mexicans invading America, I've been outspoken on that over an extended period of time, my vote in the coming Republican primary election is going to be entirely based on the immigration issue, but I also care about Europe's problems. Yes, it's an appeal to "folk" and common culture, which might be vague and abstract in your mind, but it isn't to me. Hell, much of my free time is spent playing dress up in a make-believe Euro culture re-enactment of the past!

Call me silly if you want, but some demographers are predicting Islamic doom for Europe that could happen in my natural lifetime, and if it does happen, part of me will experience a sick pain in the soul, imagining the very real possibility is bad enough.:(

Maybe I need another name change. In some ways, I'm not quite as ugly of an American as I claim. No matter how annoying those French and German fuckers are, I don't want to see them be taken over.

[Warka]

Where are you getting this?

Well, I'm not going to name names but I've heard it from more than one member of this forum. Two have already posted in this thread but haven't addressed it, not surprisingly.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Well, I'm not going to name names but I've heard it from more than one member of this forum. Two have already posted in this thread but haven't addressed it, not surprisingly.

I thought I already addressed that in the shout-box. Since I am obviously one of them, who is the other?

[Basil Fawlty]

In some ways, I'm not quite as ugly of an American as I claim.Some of us have long suspected this, O great ironist. ;)

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I do care about what happens to my kin in the United States or Australia or Zimbawe or Vladivostok.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Synikul: how about the fat American? :D

[Geist]

The EU can solve this problem either by deporting problem populations en masse, or by delegating quasi-legislative/judicial authority to the newcomers in Muslim majority communities (pursuant to popular mandate, of course).


I have never read it as the oblivion of politics, but it seems the constraints the EU places upon its members disbar any effective grand action. Large-scale political acts, even those of defense, are impossible. Unthinkable even in the disposition of the modern European.

[Ahknaton]

Maybe I need another name change. In some ways, I'm not quite as ugly of an American as I claim. No matter how annoying those French and German fuckers are, I don't want to see them be taken over.
Maybe you do need a name change. You're not synikul either by the sounds.

[Kodos]

Maybe you do need a name change. You're not synikul either by the sounds.

Im VERY cynical and as usual I agree with him.

You have to cynical to be a real reactionary american nationalist...

[Kodos]

Well, I'm not going to name names but I've heard it from more than one member of this forum. Two have already posted in this thread but haven't addressed it, not surprisingly.

Me, I got bored with it.

I care about America more then Europe, but Europe filling up with muslims is ironically probably more of a threat to my existence then the mexican flood, which IVE always militantly opposed.

BTW as a catholic if you ever gave a dime to the church you assisted the Mexican flood.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

Me, I got bored with it.

I care about America more then Europe, but Europe filling up with muslims is ironically probably more of a threat to my existence then the mexican flood, which IVE always militantly opposed.

BTW as a catholic if you ever gave a dime to the church you assisted the Mexican flood.

Money given to a parish is used almost entirely within the parish. Most Catholic parishes in the US operate at a loss, and have to be funded by their diosces or archdiosces.

[Kodos]

Money given to a parish is used almost entirely within the parish. Most Catholic parishes in the US operate at a loss, and have to be funded by their diosces or archdiosces.

The church doesn't have to open their books to outside scrutinity and doesn't do so.

I think any claims to operate at a loss are total bullshit, Massachussetts after the sex abuse scandals had some real losing parishes, the new bishop closed em down.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

The church doesn't have to open their books to outside scrutinity and doesn't do so.

Parishes routinely publicize their budgets. Mine posts their annual budget in the church bulletin.

I think any claims to operate at a loss are total bullshit, Massachussetts after the sex abuse scandals had some real losing parishes, the new bishop closed em down.

'Losing' in the sense of incurring great monetary expense or in offering little in the way of pastoral care? Clearly the church will close parishes that have no parishoners.

[Kodos]

'Losing' in the sense of incurring great monetary expense or in offering little in the way of pastoral care? Clearly the church will close parishes that have no parishoners.

LOL, there were whole groups which appealed to Rome about the closures. But they just weren't profitable after the sex abuse scandal.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

LOL, there were whole groups which appealed to Rome about the closures. But they just weren't profitable after the sex abuse scandal.

Few if any parishes actually make money. I would like you to present some evidence to support this slander.

[Warka]

I would like you to present some evidence to support this slander.

As much as I appreciate you defending the Church, db, I'd like you guys to take this elsewhere, if you would. Let's stay on topic here. Thanks.

[Niko Bellic]

Well, I'm not going to name names but I've heard it from more than one member of this forum. Two have already posted in this thread but haven't addressed it, not surprisingly.

So call them out. You've never had a problem with calling me out.

[Kodos]

Few if any parishes actually make money. I would like you to present some evidence to support this slander.

Ive found its like trying to argue with holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorist, people who believe the moon landing is a hoax, believers that human CO2 causes global warming, communist who think their economic system works very well... in short every breed of true believing fanatic that their is.

At least Petr is more interesting when you argue religion with him in that he has his facts in order...

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

Every time I have asked you to provide evidence to substantiate an assertion, you have indulged in an ad hominem attack. This speaks much more to your dogmatism than it does to mine.

[Kodos]

Every time I have asked you to provide evidence to substantiate an assertion, you have indulged in an ad hominem attack. This speaks much more to your dogmatism than it does to mine.

Its more ennui in having been through these arguements before. When the immigration thing was going strong the catholic church came up much more often...

I can't prove whether any parish is profitable or unprofitable or that the church makes or losses money, they are rich enough to have an international bank. And only religious catholics seem to believe they lose money. Everyone else thinks their loaded...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Bank

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

Its more ennui in having been through these arguements before. When the immigration thing was going strong the catholic church came up much more often...

I can't prove whether any parish is profitable or unprofitable or that the church makes or losses money, they are rich enough to have an international bank. And only religious catholics seem to believe they lose money. Everyone else thinks their loaded...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Bank

The Vatican has a great deal of money, individual parishes do not. If you'd bothered to read my post you'd know that I already mentioned that parishes that lose money have to be supported by their archdiosces. Parishes are semi-autonomous entities that run their own finances. Donations that an individual parishoner puts in a collection box do not go to the vatican to be redistributed to all of the parishes in the church, they go directly into the parish itself (otherwise, there wouldn't be any economic disparity among parishes which there clearly is).

[Kodos]

The Vatican has a great deal of money, individual parishes do not

Religious catholics don't seem to get that a parish is like a seperate franchise except thats its owned by corporate headquarters (ie the Vatican) and doesn't have to pay corporate income tax. Money can be transferred back and forth as convient.

You aren't gonna win this one.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

The Vatican has a great deal of money, individual parishes do not

Religious catholics don't seem to get that a parish is like a seperate franchise except thats its owned by corporate headquarters (ie the Vatican) and doesn't have to pay corporate income tax. Money can be transferred back and forth as convient.

You aren't gonna win this one.

The Vatican doesn't micromanage the finances of individual parishes. I find it bizarre that you claim to know more about how a Catholic parish is run than 'religious catholics' despite having absolutely no experience with them, and no relevant evidence (or at least none you are willing to share).

You aren't going to 'win' any time you try to assert your opinion contrary to fact, which seems to happen frequently.

http://www.jknirp.com/filteau6.htm

While Midwest parishes had the lowest average income, however, they had the highest average giving per household, $662. The average parish in the Midwest states -- North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri -- had only 402 registered households, less than half the national average of 935.

In the Pacific region -- Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California -- average parish income was almost $550,000, or $140,000 more than the national average, it said. But the average number of registered households per parish was 1,683, or 80 percent higher than the national average. The average giving per household was $326, lowest in the nation.

"Catholic fund-raisers regularly wonder why Catholics do not match the giving rate of at least mainline Protestants," the study said. "This research report indicates that Catholics give at a rate of 1.04 percent of the median household income for all American households in the entire United States. Members of Protestant denominations normally donate at least twice the Catholic percentage."

The reason Catholic parishes can survive with the lower giving, it said, can be found in "the notion of economies of scale."

"In general, the average household parish cost decreased when the number of registered parish households increased," it said.

the HIGHEST average incomes for parishes in the US are 550k per year. There are millions of individuals who outearn even successful parishes.

[Kodos]

The Vatican doesn't micromanage the finances of individual parishes.

It manages them like a holding company would. Micromanagement more likely if they think its fucking up, just like any holding company.

I find it bizarre that you claim to know more about how a Catholic parish is run than 'religious catholics' despite having absolutely no experience with them, and no relevant evidence (or at least none you are willing to share).


Who is resorting to ad hominems now since you challenged me to argue the point and are now losing.

the HIGHEST average incomes for parishes in the US are 550k per year.

Once they "bleed the books"...

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

The Vatican doesn't micromanage the finances of individual parishes.

It manages them like a holding company would. Micromanagement more likely if they think its fucking up, just like any holding company.

You have showed no evidence to support this.



Who is resorting to ad hominems now since you challenged me to argue the point and are now losing.


What fantasy world are you living in? First off, I made no ad hominem argument. Second, you have offered absolutely no evidence to support your claims. Refresh my memory as to what (other than your own opinion buttressed) you have offered that would convince an observer that the Vatican receives substantial income from parishes. Keep in mind that the Vatican operates St. Peter's Basilica, which attracts millions of worshippers a year, and far more income than some random St. Patrick's in Nebraska.


Once they "bleed the books"...

what incentive would a parish have to decieve a catholic university as to the state of their finances? The purpose of the study was to offer suggestions as to how parishes could be run so as to lift them out of the severe financial straits they find themselves in. If you have any evidence, please show it.

For your edification, an Audit of the Diocese of Lansing. Please note the Revenue column. http://www.dioceseoflansing.org/finance_admin/DOLFinal%20_06-30-2006_Audit.pdf

[Jimbo Gomez]

You're making a whole lot of claims here without proving even one of them weikel. Stop digging, the hole you're in is already more than deep enough.

[Hartmann von Aue]

Catholic plan to take over America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMiE_r6_RE)

The best yet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BorBq2dBUiE)

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Bizarre argument you are bringing forward there Weikel.