British Liberal Media's Multicultural Fascism Exposed

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

6 hours ago, soon said:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????????

You want class unity ostensibly and yet its fairly clear that you have issues with darkies who dont stay in 'their' diminutive lane. In my reading you are the one splintering away from class solidarity - and its precisely what the powers want, division.

I rant a bit:

  Reveal hidden contents

You also take the myriad concept of Black Power and condense it to a monolith, you then imply that its bad. But meanwhile, the notion of an indivisible structure of race and class was birthed and developed in those very black power movements!!! And now you want to throw them to the bin, smh. Not everyone was Eldridge Cleaver m'man. And even he maintained solidarity with Timothy Leary, by housing him in Algiers after the Weather Underground liberated Leary from prison. 

- White people hid Davis as a fugitive

- George Jackson Brigade was mixed race, class, etc

- SLA was mixed race and class, lead by a black power militant

- The Weather Underground also worked closely with the Black Liberation Army.

I cold go on and on. Theres no way that the praxis of "Black Power" has ever been with out class unity and solidarity.

Well, I mean, yeah, the word came into being as necessitated by the ideology, actions and anxieties that you are expressing about Islam. People have an irrational fear = phobia. 

Describing it as "invented" to "Silence" tips your hand, bro. Its not a conspiracy!  All words came into being at one point or another, thats no conspiracy. Every year the dictionaries are updated. Again the word was needed to describe the phobia of Islam. If just saying the word magically shuts down islamophobia, then cool, I dont think its does and thats certainly not why the term exists. 

 

Class unity has gone in Britain, due to the mass immigration and multiculturalism under Blair's New Labour. Most traditional Labour supporters have gone to anti-immigration parties like UKIP. Corbyn's Labour are all about race and immigration, neglecting the white working-class even more than New Labour, supporting Britain's enemies etc.

New Labour used to plough money into the Muslim communities to try to integrate them, and stop them being radicalised, so my demographic got neglected. 

A report out today showed drug deaths are at an all time high: with heroin from Muslim countries the biggest killer, and white working-class the biggest victims. A documentary about it by a shocked decent Muslim (hopefully like you) recently found that the dealers considered it 'haram' (okay under Islam) to sell it to non-believers. 

As a Guns fan metaller I was no innocent when younger, and I know there's a lot of white people involved in the 'underworld', but like many other bad things exacerbated by immigration, just because we've got a bit of it doesn't mean we should accept much more!

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

On 02/07/2019 at 9:48 PM, Graeme said:

Wow a lot of this thread is giving me a headache. I can understand that no culture or belief should be exempt from criticism (the example of Female Genital Mutilation is a very powerful one) but if the basic concept of multiculturalism, of people from different places and backgrounds aiming to coexist peacefully and respectfully is what's drawing your ire in today's world, you probably need to readjust your priorities.

When one culture is very controlling, sexist and has a paedophile prophet, and the other is very liberal and traditionally 'free' there's almost bound to be trouble: it's like keeping predators and prey together in a zoo. And Multicultural Fascism took away any defence the prey had!

I don't know about where you live, but in Yorkshire there's evidence all the time. These stories didn't make 'national television news':

Rotherham abuse trials: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/five-men-who-exploited-vulnerable-teenage-girls-in-rotherham-child-sex-scandal-are-jailed-for-a-total-of-63-years/ar-AAGz98G?ocid=sf

A local woman said 'no' to a recent Muslim immigrant, and was viciously stabbed to death: https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/16/killer-stabbed-woman-21-to-death-in-explosive-rage-after-she-refused-sex-10579245/

[Dazey]

41 minutes ago, Axl's Agony Aunt said:

When one culture is very controlling, sexist and has a paedophile prophet, and the other is very liberal and traditionally 'free' there's almost bound to be trouble: it's like keeping predators and prey together in a zoo. And Multicultural Fascism took away any defence the prey had!

I don't know about where you live, but in Yorkshire there's evidence all the time. These stories didn't make 'national television news':

Rotherham abuse trials: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/five-men-who-exploited-vulnerable-teenage-girls-in-rotherham-child-sex-scandal-are-jailed-for-a-total-of-63-years/ar-AAGz98G?ocid=sf

A local woman said 'no' to a recent Muslim immigrant, and was viciously stabbed to death: https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/16/killer-stabbed-woman-21-to-death-in-explosive-rage-after-she-refused-sex-10579245/

Islam is no more abhorrent than Christianity and  any number of other religions (they're all fucking awful) it's the very same god after all. The only difference is that Christians conveniently ignore the worst bits of their faith. 

[Powderfinger]

Yep, kill all religion. 

[soon]

Secular fundamentalism is the worst of all fundamentalism as its solely premised on causing division and conflict. Its also the enemy of social movements that produced things like workers rights and public health.

But, whatever, its just a silly hobby of catharsis. 

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, soon said:

Secular fundamentalism is the worst of all fundamentalism as its solely premised on causing division and conflict.

I think it is premised on the understanding that humanity would be better off without religious nonsense.

 

18 minutes ago, soon said:

Its also the enemy of social movements that produced things like workers rights and public health.

I can only speak for myself (and I don't consider myself a fundamentalist), but my conviction that theism is holding humanity back has no implications on my thoughts on workers' rights and public health. One can easily have workers' right and public health in a completely secular society. Just like atheists are found all over the political spectrum.

 

20 minutes ago, soon said:

But, whatever, its just a silly hobby of catharsis. 

If you really believed it is just a "silly hobby of catharsis" then it doesn't make sense you consider it "the worst of all fundamentalism".

[soon]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I think it is premised on the understanding that humanity would be better off without religious nonsense.

The hubris of secular fundamentalism allows the adherent to admit to fundamentalism! Fundamentalism is never okay. All fundamentalism is abhorrent.

I think we should cancel all you fundamentalists. 

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I can only speak for myself (and I don't consider myself a fundamentalist), but my conviction that theism is holding humanity back has no implications on my thoughts on workers' rights and public health. One can easily have workers' right and public health in a completely secular society. Just like atheists are found all over the political spectrum.

You are a secular fundamentalist. In NA workers rights and public health were won by broad coalitions of people who understood the value of unity and solidarity. Something that secular fundamentalism does not understand. If you lot were there in our history we'd have lost.

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, soon said:

Secular fundamentalism is the worst of all fundamentalism as its solely premised on causing division and conflict. Its also the enemy of social movements that produced things like workers rights and public health.

But, whatever, its just a silly hobby of catharsis. 

I was reading an article on it all, the history of Atheism, as I couldn't quite point out what was different from say twenty years ago, and it seems this new brand of militant atheism is known as New Atheism, over which Dawkins and Hitchens are the ''apostles'' I suppose, and even many of the more intelligent and fair atheists have actually turned against New Atheism due to its crudity and obsessive nature. They are so utterly horrendous, even atheists are saying, ''what a bunch of nobheads'' haha.

PS

I once flicked through one of their books, The God Delusion?, and found it rather unoriginal. Merely recycled Hume and Hume was writing in the 18th century so that is deeply unoriginal indeed haha 

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

48 minutes ago, soon said:

The hubris of secular fundamentalism allows the adherent to admit to fundamentalism! 

Who has admitted to being a fundamentalist? 

[SoulMonster]

49 minutes ago, soon said:

Fundamentalism is never okay. 

Of course not. It is quite a stupid position to take. We should all be flexible in our positions and go with the evidence, even when it changes. 

51 minutes ago, soon said:

You are a secular fundamentalist. 

Eh, no 

[soon]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Eh, no 

I guess you just dont know what that is either. 

[SoulMonster]

52 minutes ago, soon said:

In NA workers rights and public health were won by broad coalitions of people who understood the value of unity and solidarity. 

Eh, okay. I assume this broad coalition also included atheists, because there is no reason to assume atheists would be against workers' rights or public health. I can only speak for myself, as an atheist and anti-theist, and I am in favor of both. 

2 minutes ago, soon said:

I guess you just dont know what that is either. 

One that has a fundamentalist approach to secularism? Or just give me your definition and we go on from there. 

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I once flicked through one of their books, The God Delusion?, and found it rather unoriginal. Merely recycled Hume and Hume was writing in the 18th century so that is deeply unoriginal indeed haha 

Yeah, the idea that god is a delusion is not exactly a modern realization. Did you actually think it was? 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, the idea that god is a delusion is not exactly a modern realization. Did you actually think it was? 

Then, working on the assumption you're correct, why was that book such a runaway bestseller, and such a media splash? I could have saved you all the hassle in merely pointed you to Hume before that book was even released!

[soon]

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I was reading an article on it all, the history of Atheism, as I couldn't quite point out what was different from say twenty years ago, and it seems this new brand of militant atheism is known as New Atheism, over which Dawkins and Hitchens are the ''apostles'' I suppose, and even many of the more intelligent and fair atheists have actually turned against New Atheism due to its crudity and obsessive nature. They are so utterly horrendous, even atheists are saying, ''what a bunch of nobheads'' haha.

PS

I once flicked through one of their books, The God Delusion?, and found it rather unoriginal. Merely recycled Hume and Hume was writing in the 18th century so that is deeply unoriginal indeed haha 

 

Well said. I think New Atheism is the term they hide behind. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). But secular fundamentalism is a belief system that seeks to erase faith, tradition and customs. It believes it knows best and others must be made to fall in line. Its synonymous with imperialism, academic imperialism, neo con ideology and intolerance.

Those creepy old men filled youngsters heads with neo con sympathetic views and spaghetti monsters and then directed them to come debate us. Its actual rather cruel of those pasty old dudes and one is compelled towards compassion when their followers try to debate Christianity but havent the slightest clue about christianity.  Harris too is sympathetic to neo con ideology. He's IDW even! 

I can tell you that the vast majority of the sober and committed secular Left laughs daily at the foolishness that is secular fundamentalism. It is fully and utterly rejected. And when I utilize that secular left analysis of secular fundamentalists, the SA's say "you only say that since you are a christian!"  The bigoted prejudice towards christians and the ignorance of the current politically realities blinds them 

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Eh, okay. I assume this broad coalition also included atheists

Yes, atheists, not secular fundamentalists. That was my point.  

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Then, working on the assumption you're correct, why was that book such a runaway bestseller, and such a media splash? 

Probably a mix of reasons. It was the right time for it with neoatheism being in fashion. Dawkins really timed it right. And Dawkins is a popular author. And he writes well. Maybe good promotion, too? 

Hume is less accessible. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Probably a mix of reasons. It was the right time for it with neoatheism being in fashion. Dawkins really timed it right. And Dawkins is a popular author. And he writes well. Maybe good promotion, too? 

Hume is less accessible. 

Dawkins is to Hume what Led Zeppelin are to Howlin' Wolf. 

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, soon said:

Well said. I think New Atheism is the term they hide behind. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). But secular fundamentalism is a belief system that seeks to erase faith, tradition and customs. 

Never heard of anyone who wants to "erase faith, tradition and customs". I am an anti-theist in the sense that I want humans to stop believing in gods existence. It is just an aspect of being against any irrational beliefs, whether that is beliefs in homeopathy, reincarnation or supernatural entities like gods. I think it is bad for us. I think we would be better equipped to deal with challenges ahead if did not think it was okay to believe in stuff for which there is no evidence. It is a dumbening thing. 

I want theism to be extinct the same way as we have (mostly) stopped believing in other silly things like flat earth, vitalism, young earth and witches. 

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, soon said:

It believes it knows best and others must be made to fall in line.

I am sure you believe that your worldview is more correct than mine, too. In a broader context, everybody who believes anything think they are right, otherwise they wouldn't believe it. The position "I am not more correct than others" sort of undermines the belief, doesn't it?

I don't particularly like "others must be made to fall in line". What a terribly sinister way of phrasing it . In my opinion, and experience, atheists arguing against theism is no different than any other ideological discussion, and they don't more think that "others must be made to fall in line" than political opponents. 

I think this feeling that atheists are more extreme is a combination of religious people being extra affronted when having their sacred beliefs attacked (and not to the same extent accustomed to it as, say, politicians) and religious people cynically trying to protect themselves against criticism by invoking feelings of sympathy among everybody who for traditional reasons thinks that religion should be exempt from criticism. 

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

If everybody was agnostic it would surely be a more peaceful world - concerning religious wars anyway, as there's lots more reasons for war; we should be worshipping water!

The truth is nobody knows, and the more we learn about our time and place on Earth and in the Universe the more questions that are raised, and usually previous assumptions disproved.

To me, the Middle-East monotheist religions of 2500 - 1500 years ago are like islands of history in the great ocean of human existence, but they still control the vast majority of the world's minds. 

Islam is worse because it was created for war -  and used to try and conquer the world. It is still the only religion at war with all other religions across the world. 

It usually claims it's a victim - Europe, South Asia, Far East, Africa - in places its taking over; and sometimes does become one after either instigating trouble, or it erupting; while claiming the Middle-East is all theirs - kaffir non-believers not welcome etc.

[soon]

15 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I think this feeling that atheists are more extreme is a combination of religious people being extra affronted when having their sacred beliefs attacked (and not to the same extent accustomed to it as, say, politicians) and religious people cynically trying to protect themselves against criticism by invoking feelings of sympathy among everybody who for traditional reasons thinks that religion should be exempt from criticism. 

You said this after id already explained where my arguments come from. Its too perfect!

Id said:

16 hours ago, soon said:

I can tell you that the vast majority of the sober and committed secular Left laughs daily at the foolishness that is secular fundamentalism. It is fully and utterly rejected. And when I utilize that secular left analysis of secular fundamentalists, the SF's say "you only say that since you are a christian!"  The bigoted prejudice towards christians and the ignorance of the current politically realities blinds them 

 

[DieselDaisy]

A key difference between Islam and Christianity is that, Islam was militant from the onset. The establishment of a geo-political empire is inherent to its growth as a religion. Muhammad himself conquered most of Arabia by the 620s, and his heirs, the caliphates, founded one of the greatest empires ever seen.

Christianity's early history by contrast was one of marginalisation and persecution under the Caesars. Early Christianity consequentially was more quiestist, anti-worldly, transpiring into asceticism and separation from society. It was more cellular - secretive even. Another difference is Christianity struggled with schism immediately in its history, firstly whilst wrestling with its Hebraic inheritance in the face of Gentile proselytes, secondly as part of - to modern eyes rather arcane and complicated - disputes over the nature and substance of Christ pertaining to the father. Islam was more ideologically unified. When schism did occur, it was essentially an politico-inheritance crisis over the true heir of Muhammad, not a dramatic rendering of the nature of the religion - although consequentially, ideological differences have transpired between Sunni and Shiite.

Edited September 2, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

20 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

A key difference between Islam and Christianity is that, Islam was militant from the onset. The establishment of a geo-political empire is inherent to its growth as a religion. Muhammad himself conquered most of Arabia by the 620s, and his heirs, the caliphates, founded one of the greatest empires ever seen.

Christianity's early history by contrast was one of marginalisation and persecution under the Caesars. Early Christianity consequentially was more quiestist, anti-worldly, transpiring into asceticism and separation from society. It was more cellular - secretive even. Another difference is Christianity struggled with schism immediately in its history, firstly whilst wrestling with its Hebraic inheritance in the face of Gentile proselytes, secondly as part of - to modern eyes rather arcane and complicated - disputes over the nature and substance of Christ pertaining to the father. Islam was more ideologically unified. When schism did occur, it was essentially an politico-inheritance crisis over the true heir of Muhammad, not a dramatic rendering of the nature of the religion - although consequentially, ideological differences have transpired between Sunni and Shiite.

Yes, and as Soon has often written, it was ironically under the Romans that Christianity turned from 'cultish' to 'dominant' under Constantine in the 4th century AD; doubly ironic because it was the Romans who crucified Christ, and their conversion to Christianity was at the end of their great empire.

As a New Age Pagan I'd like to write the conversion to Christianity caused the Roman Empire to crumble, but it was actually an attempt to save it that failed. 

Although like Islam after it failed to conquer the world, it regrouped and continues to wield great power and influence... unfortunately for the planet, wildlife and humans!

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

Veteran BBC journalist John Humphrys criticises BBC's 'institutional liberal bias' in new memoir: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/john-humphrys-says-bbc-simply-could-not-grasp-why-anyone-would-vote-for-brexit-in-new-memoir/ar-AAHBpeL?ocid=sf

I, AAA, consider myself a liberal myself, and a hedonistic rock n' roller most of my adult life, like most Guns fans, it's just when it's used to promote or ignore bad things; and especially for me personally, bad things against the country and my demography (the native people); and indirectly, animals and the environment (although the BBC is still better than most on drawing awareness of animal welfare and the environment, mass immigration and cultures that don't care about animals and the planet have a negative effect).

Edited September 22, 2019 by Axl's Agony Aunt
BRACKET

[soon]

13 minutes ago, Axl's Agony Aunt said:

I, AAA, consider myself a liberal myself, and a hedonistic rock n' roller most of my adult life, like most Guns fans, it's just when it's used to promote or ignore bad things; and especially for me personally, bad things against the country and my demography (the native people; and indirectly, animals and the environment (although the BBC is still better than most on drawing awareness of animal welfare and the environment, mass immigration and cultures that don't care about animals and the planet have a negative effect).

Bolded part - my faith has a specific focus on ecology like how your Paganism does too. And I too am horrified by the lack of coverage of the Climate Crisis. That said, sometimes it seems that you asking for your Pagan values to be centred. But Paganism isnt the official British faith just like Islam isnt. So in asking the BBC to cover events the way a Pagan would prioritize it is kinda asking for multiculturalism, no?