Thread: A new wave of racism?

In politics:

Far right movements gradually turn to be more and more strong. As an example in France, after watching Socialists as somehow unbelievers to their beliefs besides the problem of immigration, something that may happen elsewhere.

In economy:

Economical bulbs. When do they burst? Crisis which come like waves."There is no sufficient facility for all, so some should be sacrificed"
gradually more and more individuals accept this abominable argument.

In science:

The theories that speak the different types of combinations of various types of human beings, the possible mutations, some places in the globe more and some places less and the types of structures of minds and different percentage of substances in brains among races,.... .

In History:

Our generation is sufficiently far from WII, enough to forget the pains of wars.Besides, the possibility of fighting some instead of the others.

Do they all provide a new wave of racism?
Do these elements combined each other to make new theories for racism?
If it is so, will it be a moderate one or not?

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

In politics:

Far right movements gradually turn to be more and more strong. As an example in France, after watching Socialists as somehow unbelievers to their beliefs besides the problem of immigration, something that may happen elsewhere.

In economy:

Economical bulbs. When do they burst? Crisis which come like waves."There is no sufficient facility for all, so some should be sacrificed"
gradually more and more individuals accept this abominable argument.

In science:

The theories that speak the different types of combinations of various types of human beings, the possible mutations, some places in the globe more and some places less and the types of structures of minds and different percentage of substances in brains among races,.... .

In History:

Our generation is sufficiently far from WII, enough to forget the pains of wars.Besides, the possibility of fighting some instead of the others.

Do they all provide a new wave of racism?
Do these elements combined each other to make new theories for racism?
If it is so, will it be a moderate one or not?

I'm afraid some of what you say is not entirely clear, due to some difficulties you seem to be having with English. But I think I understand your basic point.

The wish to blame a group of outsiders for troubles in society is a very old problem, certainly. In France, the rise of Le Pen and the FN is associated with blaming immigrants for social ills, when in fact a lot of it is due to weak economic management by successive French governments. But of course muslim immigrants in particular have not done enough to adapt themselves to the society they have joined, and this has not surprisingly bred resentment. But muslims are a religious group, not a racial one.

I think the days when science was used to justify theories of racial superiority are thankfully long gone. I do not think nowadays there are ANY intellectually respectable theories of race and there are not likely to be.

However, theories of religion that brand non-adherents as infidels, to be forcibly converted, do unfortunately exist in today's world. Such theories deserve contempt.

Is it really racism or fear ? Nature has wired most of the animal kingdom including humans a basic instinct that could be described as the three f's when confronted with danger. The first instinct is to freeze. The second instinct is flight. The third instinct is to fight. Currently, some small portion of the Muslim group have been threatening all of the people of the world causing fear. This is justified fear as there have been terrible consequences for those that these people interact.

Recently a group of Muslims was found taking pictures of schools in Mississippi. This action, while perfectly legal, is very suspicious and creates more fear.
Muslims caught videotaping schools from a van - Detroit Traditionalist Catholic | Examiner.com

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Recently a group of Muslims was found taking pictures of schools in Mississippi. This action, while perfectly legal, is very suspicious and creates more fear.
Muslims caught videotaping schools from a van - Detroit Traditionalist Catholic | Examiner.com

Have you read that pile of paranoid crap?
1. The event is anecdotal: third hand at least.
2. The men were not identified as muslims, but as persons of apparently middle eastern origin.
3. The spelling and grammar are atrocious.
4. The author deliberately incites suspicion of middle eastern ethnicity.
5. Later in the article a different author notes they have been warning for some time that Russia and China have covert troops inside the US to take part in attacks that will lead to the declaration of martial law.

Originally Posted by John Galt

5. Later in the article a different author notes they have been warning for some time that Russia and China have covert troops inside the US to take part in attacks that will lead to the declaration of martial law.

You mean the same way as how Russia had/has covert troops in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine? Oh wait. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact.

I'm sure Putin probably has at least a few agents in the USA. The FSB is very active around the world. He may even have a speculative plan set up to do exactly what this author is warning, but it's probably only speculative. Not a serious operation. Just a skeleton project that he can add funding and manpower to later, if the situation changes in a way that makes it seem more likely to work.

The project in Crimea had to have been the result of lots of advanced planning, with at least a few full time dedicated agents working on it for years before it actually went into motion. Drawing up plans, identifying personnel that could be used and what roles to assign to which soldiers. But all just a speculative operation. We'd never have known the project existed if the Maidan events hadn't created a situation that was ideal to put it into motion.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Recently a group of Muslims was found taking pictures of schools in Mississippi. This action, while perfectly legal, is very suspicious and creates more fear.
Muslims caught videotaping schools from a van - Detroit Traditionalist Catholic | Examiner.com

Have you read that pile of paranoid crap?
1. The event is anecdotal: third hand at least.
2. The men were not identified as muslims, but as persons of apparently middle eastern origin.
3. The spelling and grammar are atrocious.
4. The author deliberately incites suspicion of middle eastern ethnicity.
5. Later in the article a different author notes they have been warning for some time that Russia and China have covert troops inside the US to take part in attacks that will lead to the declaration of martial law.

This article was to demonstrate that fear can cause a perceived racism. Here are a few other recent articles that suggest a terror attack.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

A SMALL number of Islamic radicals have “settled intentions” to conduct terrorist attacks in Australia, bolstering the case for the nation’s spy chief to recommend an increase in the terror threat level, which could happen as early as tomorrow. ASIO director-general David Irvine and Australian Federal Police acting commissioner Andrew Colvin had been expected to outline today the threat facing the community and lay the ground for an increase in the public alert level, but the planned press conference has been cancelled.

Terror alert to rise as two men arrested after Islamic bookshop raid

Terror Alert News, Photos and Videos - ABC News

The perceived danger is all over social media as well. Videos posted and shared on facebook do influence those that are getting all of their world view from these posts. This fear cause a mistrust of middle eastern people and Muslims in general to a large portion of the population. This mistrust can be perceived as racism to those that the mistrust is directed.

Originally Posted by pineapple007

This mistrust can be perceived as racism to those that the mistrust is directed.

It can also be perceived as racism bu elderly, middle class white males, largely because it is.

I can't really talk about social trends in other countries, as my direct experience of them is almost non-existent. But in the United States, it seems to me racism is indeed an increasingly visible trend.

IMO the main driver is the media, especially TV. As the television market has splintered into hundreds of cable channels, network programmers struggle to grab and hang onto any market share they can. The pressure has led to the rise of "infotainment". The days of Walter Cronkite and unbiased, informative news programming are long gone. Today's "news" broadcasts are dominated by the most attention grabbing spectacular stories the producers can find or create. The notion of informing the public has become laughably old fashioned, the idea now is to grab the viewer's attention and hold his interest through the next commercial break. One proven formula is to cater to extremist ideas, and a dose of paranoia is very helpful in creating viewer loyalty. WE understand you, watch OUR show, people who tell you we're spreading nonsense have ulterior motives, don't believe them.

Racism is a perennially handy device for whipping up paranoia. Want to get conservative extremists to watch your programming? Rant about the evils of illegal immigrants. These foreigners enter our country illegally, steal our jobs, use our government services at considerable cost to taxpayers, but rarely pay taxes themselves. Kick 'em out! Not wanting to send a mixed message, the shows don't mention that the immigrants are drawn here by predominantly Republican employers who find it convenient to hire low cost, unreported workers without having to deal with such annoyances as worker safety laws, health insurance, and social security taxes. Want to get the liberal folks watching your programming? Nothing draws the self righteous liberal crowd like a good story about cops shooting or beating blacks. It scarcely matters how rare such incidents are, in a country with half a million police officers, you can find a ONE doing something reprehensible on an almost daily basis. Stir in the extremism, convince people these incidents represent common practice instead of isolated incidents, and you have your viewers hooked.

It is hard to separate the message from the reality. Is racism really becoming more common, or does it just seem that way because of the constant TV coverage? My take is that real, hateful, deluded racism is an actual growing trend, not just a popular source of sound bytes. But it IS a trend largely because of the validation the media's unscrupulous tactics are giving racist ideas.

You make some excellent points danhannegan. On the other hand, when I entered the oil and gas industry there were no black faces in any position of responsibility and I witnessed deliberate acts of prejudice in hiring policy. Today, while I cannot claim that the situation is perfect - it is dramatically improved on what it was in the 70s.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by pineapple007

This mistrust can be perceived as racism to those that the mistrust is directed.

It can also be perceived as racism bu elderly, middle class white males, largely because it is.

I doubt that John. It is fear that creates the mistrust for most. People living in the USA, for the most part anyway, are not segregated.

I notice that a persons appearance seems to be a cause of apprehension that often times seems like racism. An example would be a person at night wearing a hoodie versus a person not wearing a hoodie, viewed by a person that views people wearing hoodies at night as trouble. Until the persons with the apprehensions understands there is nothing to be afraid of their actions could seem racist.

This would be very much like long haired males back in the 60's and 70's who were viewed as troublesome to those that feared long haired pot smokers.

The same could be said of groups of people in various situations. With the Muslims only a small percentage are extremists but because of their attacks on civility people are becoming apprehensive or afraid of them.

John. what race do you think I am ? It seems that you may think of me as a middle aged Caucasian, not that it would matter to me, but by assuming so wouldn't that make your above statement racist ?

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by pineapple007

This mistrust can be perceived as racism to those that the mistrust is directed.

It can also be perceived as racism bu elderly, middle class white males, largely because it is.

I doubt that John. .............
John. what race do you think I am ? It seems that you may think of me as a middle aged Caucasian, not that it would matter to me, but by assuming so wouldn't that make your above statement racist ?

Your doubt is mistaken. The elderly, middle class white male I referred to was me. I have no idea what race you are, and trust I do not cause any offense by saying it is of little interest to me. Oh, hell. I do like a challenge. You are a thirty two year old Chinese female and your dog is called Arthur.

George Carlin - pride - YouTube

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by pineapple007

This mistrust can be perceived as racism to those that the mistrust is directed.

It can also be perceived as racism bu elderly, middle class white males, largely because it is.

I doubt that John. It is fear that creates the mistrust for most. People living in the USA, for the most part anyway, are not segregated.

I notice that a persons appearance seems to be a cause of apprehension that often times seems like racism. An example would be a person at night wearing a hoodie versus a person not wearing a hoodie, viewed by a person that views people wearing hoodies at night as trouble. Until the persons with the apprehensions understands there is nothing to be afraid of their actions could seem racist.

This would be very much like long haired males back in the 60's and 70's who were viewed as troublesome to those that feared long haired pot smokers.

The same could be said of groups of people in various situations. With the Muslims only a small percentage are extremists but because of their attacks on civility people are becoming apprehensive or afraid of them.

John. what race do you think I am ? It seems that you may think of me as a middle aged Caucasian, not that it would matter to me, but by assuming so wouldn't that make your above statement racist ?

From your use of the term "Caucasian" I deduce you are a North American. But I cannot guess your race.

By the way, muslims are not a race either. I do not think we have a term for someone who despises a person on the grounds of their religious belief.

This is a tricky moral area, I think. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with, or even to despise, particular beliefs that a person may have. And it is quite hard to show the same respect towards someone with beliefs one thinks are misguided and to someone whose beliefs appear to be more sensible.

exchemist, as a fellow Brit, at least until tomorrow, would you agree with my perception that the legal use of the term race has been greatly extended in the UK to cover what I - and I suspect, you - would think of as cultural groupings?

Originally Posted by exchemist

....I do not think we have a term for someone who despises a person on the grounds of their religious belief. ...

I thought fundamentalist would describe that person in most cases, but yes I agree there should be a term for religious bigotry as well, even if it was just for the sake of definition.

Originally Posted by John Galt

exchemist, as a fellow Brit, at least until tomorrow, would you agree with my perception that the legal use of the term race has been greatly extended in the UK to cover what I - and I suspect, you - would think of as cultural groupings?

Yes I think there has been a drift in that direction. Tony Blair, you may recall, was brought up short (quite rightly)when he tried to pass a law forbidding anyone to show disrespect towards particular religious beliefs. But he was just trying cover what is often perceived as a gap in our legislation. But what you put your finger on is the somewhat woolly area of cultural groupings. These need not be explicitly religious of course, though often they are.

I recall a demonstration in London some years ago, in which a load of fellows with long beards marched with banners shouting "death to democracy" and suchlike. I really, really, struggle to show "respect" towards people like that, any more than I manage to respect a bunch of Ulster Orangemen marching deliberately through a Catholic housing estate, on the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne. And frankly I think the State has no business to tell me I have to.

I think you could have a tough time proving all fundamentalists despise those who do not adhere to their own beliefs. That seems to me to be a distorted use of the term, based more on tabloid journalism than sound lexicography.

Again I say that there's only one race, the human race, then there are ethnic groups within that.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by pineapple007

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by pineapple007

This mistrust can be perceived as racism to those that the mistrust is directed.

It can also be perceived as racism bu elderly, middle class white males, largely because it is.

I doubt that John. .............
John. what race do you think I am ? It seems that you may think of me as a middle aged Caucasian, not that it would matter to me, but by assuming so wouldn't that make your above statement racist ?

Your doubt is mistaken. The elderly, middle class white male I referred to was me. I have no idea what race you are, and trust I do not cause any offense by saying it is of little interest to me. Oh, hell. I do like a challenge. You are a thirty two year old Chinese female and your dog is called Arthur.

lol ... Your comment made me grin even though your a bit off on your guess with the exception of your knowledge of my dog Arty.

.

Stanley,
Racism is like the plaque as it is depicted in "The plaque", it is not clear when it arise again.
Unfortunately it has scientific side too.All makes it very compliceted problem, predicting it is difficult.
We know that most people have some share in it, even when practically they are against it.
By the way your comment, as an possible controled conspricy theory, seems to me more valuable
to pay attention.Could you expand the explanation of this possible theory?
Do some powerful hands try to have more harsh faces and why?
Simply to gain power by some groups? Having more solidarity?Or a new plan that has worldwides aspects?or ... .

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Stanley,
Racism is like the plaque as it is depicted in "The plaque", it is not clear when it arise again.
Unfortunately it has scientific side too.All makes it very compliceted problem, predicting it is difficult.
We know that most people have some share in it, even when practically they are against it.
By the way your comment, as an possible controled conspricy theory, seems to me more valuable
to pay attention.Could you expand the explanation of this possible theory?
Do some powerful hands try to have more harsh faces and why?
Simply to gain power by some groups? Having more solidarity?Or a new plan that has worldwides aspects?or ... .

I would not waste time on conspiracy theories if I were you. The reasons behind the rise of the NF in France are clear: stubbornly high unemployment and hence the resentment that goes with relative poverty, combined with increasing numbers of N African muslim immigrants, who have not adapted to the culture of France and seem, therefore, to be undermining it.

We have the same thing in Britain, due to Pakistani immigration. Muslim immigrant communities pose a particular problem due to their tendency not to adopt the culture of the country they immigrate to. The problem is made worse today by the unpleasant influence of Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam, promoted by money from Saudi Arabia. We find in Britain an upsurge of men with long beards, Middle Eastern dress and wearing disapproving expressions, women dressed entirely in black and fully veiled, cut off from social contact. This is alien to British culture and it is not in the least surprising that the indigenous population finds it disturbing. I imagine the same is true in France, probably more so in view of the more distinctive and unique local culture of the French.

In my opinion, both countries need to make clear that conforming to local cultural norms is a requirement for residence and that, on that basis, the indigenous inhabitants need to respect the immigrants communities as full citizens. I think the "multicultural" experiment of the last 20-30 years has been a failure, leading to ghettoes and tension between communities: assimilation is the answer, through promoting cultural norms and mixed education. The banning of the veil in France was a welcome move in the right direction, for example.

Your last post is somehow the matters that all thinks and it is usual known ideas, at least the key words among these type of ideas are the same.But, the post of stanely514 has some new ideas(more exactly some new "possible theories" exists that shows some more possible complexities.
I cant say his ideas are true or not, but it is new and noticable even not true.Anyhow, the major reasons behind this problem remains the same.

But what are these major reasons?
Exchemist, you forget that most of these people works for their new society hard, and you make bold some exceptions.
Also, you forget the enrichments of western culture by mixing these different vrious types of ideas.
For example, in Britain in the last rebels your problem wasnt muslim and pakistanis, but the other groups and ethnical groups that seemingly adopt themselves to your culture(to your new culture maybe) takes part in it and pakistanis and Hindustanis were mostly aganist these movement.Their problems mainly wasnt Islamic culture and its confronatation to western culture, the problem were mostly a mixture of "destruction of the family structure" and injustice.but the direction of propagandas are something else and it devisages the reality.
Your major problems were not the matters that they anounce or they try to induce people.
Do not forget that Saudi Arabia is western most closed friend and their hands are open to what they do.It is why some conspiracies theories in some level could be true.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Your last post is somehow the matters that all thinks and it is usual known ideas, at least the key words among these type of ideas are the same.But, the post of stanely514 has some new ideas(more exactly some new "possible theories" exists that shows some more possible complexities.
I cant say his ideas are true or not, but it is new and noticable even not true.Anyhow, the major reasons behind this problem remains the same.

But what are these major reasons?
Exchemist, you forget that most of these people works for their new society hard, and you make bold some exceptions.
Also, you forget the enrichments of western culture by mixing these different vrious types of ideas.
For example, in Britain in the last rebels your problem wasnt muslim and pakistanis, but the other groups and ethnical groups that seemingly adopt themselves to your culture(to your new culture maybe) takes part in it and pakistanis and Hindustanis were mostly aganist these movement.Their problems mainly wasnt Islamic culture and its confronatation to western culture, the problem were mostly a mixture of "destruction of the family structure" and injustice.but the direction of propagandas are something else and it devisages the reality.
Your major problems were not the matters that they anounce or they try to induce people.
Do not forget that Saudi Arabia is western most closed friend and their hands are open to what they do.It is why some conspiracies theories in some level could be true.

[/QUOTE]

I don't deny that just about all these immigrants work hard, pay their taxes, etc, etc, but that is not the point. The point is they are perceived, by people who are already resentful and looking for a scapegoat, as alien invaders.

I'm not sure what you mean by "last rebels". The last incident when lots of innocent people were actually killed in Britain was the suicide bombings in 2005, carried out by muslim nutcases. The police and the muslim community have done a lot of good work since to stamp out the kind of mad thinking that led to that incident.

The only conspiracy theory I am prepared to think may have something to it involving the Saudis is the possibility that wealthy Saudis are funding extremist madrassas to spread Wahhabism. What I would really like to see is the development of a moderate strand of Islam that can come to terms with modern Western society and stand up to Wahhabism.

.

These Pakistanis...!
Exchemist, the subject of our discussion were some modern countries like Britain and France, not balcan or a country in Africa, the problem of these coutries are
much more complicated, and they are not as similar as you depicted.
By last rebels I mean, UK riots in 2011. These types of riots shows deeply some aspects of a problem in a society.The layers of society that has taken part in that
clearly suffers two major problem:destruction of family structure and injustice about them. Besides they have no common points with muslim attitudes.
On the contrary the layers that suffer less about this mixture didnt take part in in it or even in the case of Pakistanians and Hindustanis they were somehow against it.
Just after it wee watched the deviation of the real problem to Muslims treats by some scenarios which are quite doubtful.
It seems muslim are misused to deviate the real and major problems to marginal one.They are sacrificed in this respect.
seemingly they cant speak too much about that.
Saudi Arabia is an element of a chain, and it is the weakest part of this chain, it is not an realy independent country, so he has not too much space to manouvre
except they give him permission.
France and Britain problems are different, although there are some similarities, their culture are different and the culture of the imigrents of them are different too much too. You cant say so freely independent of the details of their cultural and systematic differences too.
Do not you think that the role of pakistanis are somehow similar?And these Islamphobia give you a deformed picture of reality of the situation?An oversimplification of problem which in first step possibly help you as a calmatev but the possibility of some disasters later.
Some words of you are similar to the words of "My battle" of Hitler the parts that why he has hated Jews.He was too worried about how they dress(It is possible I make mistake about the text)..It is strange and dreadful for
an anyhow educated person(self educated) like him that he had no real analysis about the problems(positive and negative) around jews and overexageration about it.I hope I make mistake about this similarity.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

These Pakistanis...!
Exchemist, the subject of our discussion were some modern countries like Britain and France, not balcan or a country in Africa, the problem of these coutries are
much more complicated, and they are not as similar as you depicted.
By last rebels I mean, UK riots in 2011. These types of riots shows deeply some aspects of a problem in a society.The layers of society that has taken part in that
clearly suffers two major problem:destruction of family structure and injustice about them. Besides they have no common points with muslim attitudes.
On the contrary the layers that suffer less about this mixture didnt take part in in it or even in the case of Pakistanians and Hindustanis they were somehow against it.
Just after it wee watched the deviation of the real problem to Muslims treats by some scenarios which are quite doubtful.
It seems muslim are misused to deviate the real and major problems to marginal one.They are sacrificed in this respect.
seemingly they cant speak too much about that.
Saudi Arabia is an element of a chain, and it is the weakest part of this chain, it is not an realy independent country, so he has not too much space to manouvre
except they give him permission.
France and Britain problems are different, although there are some similarities, their culture are different and the culture of the imigrents of them are different too much too. You cant say so freely independent of the details of their cultural and systematic differences too.
We have a famous novel that is translated to English as "My uncle Napeleon" Iraj pezeshrad about the last years of the British Empire and its affection on Iran it is comic and Tragic, and some people who thinks any problem is related to London.Of course one major parameter was it, but we had many other even more important major problems.
Do not you think that the role of pakistanis are somehow similar?And these Islamphobia give you a deformed picture of reality of the situation?An oversimplification of problem which in first step possibly help you as a calmatev but the possibility of some disasters later.
Some words of you are similar to the words of "My battle" of Hitler the parts that why he has hated Jews.He was too worried about how they dress(It is possible I make mistake about the text)..It is strange and dreadful for
an anyhow educated person(self educated) like him that he had no real analysis about the problems(positive and negative) around jews and overexageration about it.I hope I make mistake about this similarity.

Yes, indeed there are similarities between the distrust of extreme muslims due the different way they dress and their different customs and the distrust of Orthodox Jews in Hitler's Germany, for the same reasons. I am suggesting to you that the processes at work are quite similar, and that this may help account for the rise of the NF in France.

Of course, today, having learnt from the experience of Hitler's Germany, both Britain and France have laws explicitly to protect people from unfair discrimination. Nevertheless, the distrust can be there under the surface.

I am further suggesting that such religious minority immigrants ought to help themselves by making an effort to integrate and adapt to local customs as far as possible, just as Europeans are well advised to when they visit Muslim countries, for example. Nobody minds one or two people in a local community who look different and behave differently, but when, as in East London, an entire district is transformed, within a single generation, from Cockney working class to a Middle Eastern souk, then it is not surprising there will be trouble from the original inhabitants, who are effectively excluded from their own neighbourhood.

These alien monocultural ghettoes are a social disaster. I have reluctantly come to the view that governments should demand a degree of integration (require people to learn the language, ban the veil or burqa, etc), in order to prevent the development of them.

In the last posts some points are forgotten. Comparing Japan and Saudi Arabia to European countries!

The problem is Western countries are not simply some progressed countries, they have ideological claims and history, to be the cradle of Modernism and generating a complete new culture.These needs some diversity and dialogue in society that Homogenous cultures are not able to do that, even they will be so efficient.
In this respect, coping them doesnt seem respectful. But is there another solution?
I think yes, it exists if we pay attention more to the structure of Liberal democracies.
The problem is the countries that are liberal democracies, their problems are not simply to be liberal and democrat.
Besides all, they are complicated societies. For deciding well about some daily affaires in the usual life and to understand them,
it is required that we know huge information about Sociology, Economy and History. It shows a paradox, if people wants to go this side who works who go the other type of sciences,... .
There is no compelete solution for this paradoxical situation, simply some solutions to ease it.(Using some immigrents is related to this subject).
But the major solution for that is 'Education".The centeral subject here is how to educate people for this combination of Liberalism, Democracy and Complicated societies.
The role of people, theire demands and their protest should shift to this side.
I remeber nearly 15 years ago it happened in France when students asked changement in education and to have higher education, a progress respet to their fathers demandings.
Such movements means going in a higher rank, and this is realy respectful and adopted to what we expect from
these countries.But I think this do not contiued as it should be, unlesssomehow in academic spaces but not in
social protestings.After 11 september the rank of ideas in this respect decreases.
As a sum, The liberal democracy structure for so many reasons needs a high rank of educated people, even more than now.
Watching some ethnical groups and imigrants as simple workers contradicts this principal, and it leads these societies to some problems as you see now.
For example, educated mislims even hard belivers usually never goes to extremist wahabist center as you said.
They usually choose the aspects of Islam that is related to Sofism(Erfan) or the sides that is related to justice or
saving family structures.Usually they have democratic manner even not quite liberalistic.
Your society needs such a muslims more and more rather than wahabi exterimists.These people exists in west but they have not the money that come from petrol.If these people grows more in the places which you call Getho,
Problems drastically will be changed.
People in west usually do not know the huge potential of Islamic texts for new theories, and muslims are reluctant about forming and creating it although there are some hopes.By forming more and more these theories and ideas and groups we will see a cultural convergence instead of divergence.
Anyhow, the base of education is family and primary school, later academic level.We learn in family then primary school that how we works by system, the people that has not rich experience about will make problem.
The problem is: we should go to a social discourse in these steps in different levels, and about muslim you need to pay more attention to educated muslims that has higher cultural points.
Seemigly, In general the societies should go to be large universities.Not only Liberal democracies, it is true for
Islamic countries.
If it happens, the problems like different types of dressing will be forgotten and seems superstitude.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

For example, educated mislims even hard belivers usually never goes to extremist wahabist center as you said.
They usually choose the aspects of Islam that is related to Sofism(Erfan) or the sides that is related to justice or
saving family structures.Usually they have democratic manner even not quite liberalistic.
Your society needs such a muslims more and more rather than wahabi exterimists.These people exists in west but they have not the money that come from petrol.If these people grows more in the places which you call Getho,
Problems drastically will be changed.

The problem is that the Sofists are content to let the Wahabists speak for them.

How do you reasonably expect outsiders to understand that?

Are the Wahabists and Sofists two separate groups, with separate messages? If they are, then why do they treat one another as allies if they obviously aren't allies?

If you are an ally to the Wahabists, and I am at war with the Wahabists, then I am at war with you too. However if the Sofists (and others) clearly state that they are not allies of the Wahabists, and refuse to ever treat a Wahabist as an ally, then they will probably not get drawn into the Wahabists' wars.

i cant belive the comments i can read on facebook from the right and the mindless do nothing bs from the left too

I can't believe you waste time readings comments on Facebook.

Here the problem is not the differences between approaches to Islam, and I don't mean to highlight one against the others but you prefer the worse cases among these groups. The problem is who leads Muslims there?
Education and justice and discussions between these two are Central concepts in your society.
In liberal democracies, when you give people a large amount of freedom and in a large with high variety society, how you prevent the society to fall in a chaos?
It is required to have a common language and to learn people how to be well ordered. This is could be done by
education. Education in different spaces: Family, school and academic places.The groups should be leads by educated people too.Justice plays his own role there as any other society.The places that these two are weak
is like injured places ready to be infected.
It is interesting the comparison of your society and ours.
Although the above discussion exists in our society but the major discussion in our society is:
Values and oligarchy and the complicated relations and contradictions and confrontations between them.
The contradictions so many times leads us to hypocrisy and Machiavellian-ism and the reactions for purification
discussions among different measures of values specially confrontation between tradition and modernism.
These discussions and confrontation between values and oligarchy are deemed and pained in your societies,
although people think about oligarchy specially in England.
Now these discussions go to the standards of life, competitions and immigrants is considered in this respect.

By the way, john galt, why do you think that reading face books posts are wasting the time, it could shows some hidden sentiments too.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Here the problem is not the differences between approaches to Islam, and I don't mean to highlight one against the others but you prefer the worse cases among these groups. The problem is who leads Muslims there?

If a renegade faction of the USA's military started setting off bombs in Cairo, Egypt, do you think the USA could just shrug and tell you that they're a renegade faction? Or would it be the USA's responsibility to send a military force in to stop its renegade soldiers?

Islam as a whole will never be taken seriously by the West until the whole group starts taking responsibility for the actions of its dissidents. Until then, Muslims will always be thought of as irresponsible children who need the West to go in and build their nations for them.

The difference between children and adults is the ability to take responsibility.

Education and justice and discussions between these two are Central concepts in your society.
In liberal democracies, when you give people a large amount of freedom and in a large with high variety society, how you prevent the society to fall in a chaos?

You put limits on their freedom, and you back up those limits with guns.

Originally Posted by kojax

Islam as a whole will never be taken seriously by the West until the whole group starts taking responsibility for the actions of its dissidents. Until then, Muslims will always be thought of as irresponsible children who need the West to go in and build their nations for them.

They are starting to take responsibility. Too bad that there are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcsDqrrTfq0#t=79[/FONT]]too few that have the courage.

Originally Posted by kojax

Islam as a whole will never be taken seriously by the West until the whole group starts taking responsibility for the actions of its dissidents.

Really? Have Christians taken responsibility for the actions of Anders Breivik or James Holmes? Have whites taken responsibility for the actions of Putin? Has the NRA taken responsibility for the actions of Adam Lanza? Does that mean none of those groups as a whole deserve to be taken seriously?

That's the problem with dividing the world into "us" vs. "them." Sometimes you accidentally end up on the "them" side.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by kojax

Islam as a whole will never be taken seriously by the West until the whole group starts taking responsibility for the actions of its dissidents.

Really? Have Christians taken responsibility for the actions of Anders Breivik or James Holmes?

Yes, they did, there was an overwhelming response from people dissociating themselves from such crimes and criminals.

Have whites taken responsibility for the actions of Putin?

There are large numbers of Russians condemning Putin and his actions.

Has the NRA taken responsibility for the actions of Adam Lanza?

Adam Lanza wasn't NRA.

That's the problem with dividing the world into "us" vs. "them." Sometimes you accidentally end up on the "them" side.

The point was that few if any muslims have taken responsibility. Try to stay on topic, the standard deflections "have X taken responsibility" are just that, deflections. Besides, the groups that you mentioned HAVE taken a stance. The muslims, not so much. But they seem to be starting (see the previous post).

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Yes, they did, there was an overwhelming response from people dissociating themselves from such crimes and criminals.

Show me one Christian who took responsibility for what Breivik or Holmes did. (Which, by the way, is the OPPOSITE of dissociating themselves from a deed.)

Now, if you're going to revise Kojak's statement to just "dissociating" - then yes, the vast majority of Muslims have dissociated themselves from what the Islamic extremists are doing.

Have whites taken responsibility for the actions of Putin?

There are large numbers of Russians condemning Putin and his actions.

Just as there are a large number of Muslims condemning what ISIS is doing.
But in any case - I asked if whites have taken responsibility for the actions of Putin. Why haven't they?

Has the NRA taken responsibility for the actions of Adam Lanza?

Adam Lanza wasn't NRA.

================================
Adam Lanza, the man behind the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., possessed a National Rifle Association certificate in his name, new reports say.

Reuters reported that according to documents released on Thursday, police discovered NRA certificates in the name of Lanza and his mother, Nancy Lanza — whom he killed before starting the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The two reportedly frequented gun ranges together as Adam Lanza was growing up.

An NRA guide to pistol shooting basics was also discovered, NBC News reported, citing authorities.
================================

That's the problem with dividing the world into "us" vs. "them." Sometimes you accidentally end up on the "them" side.

The point was that few if any muslims have taken responsibility.

There you go revising your story again. No whites have taken responsibility for Putin's crimes. No Christians have taken responsibility for Breivik's crimes.

However, lots of Christians have dissociated themselves from Breivik's crimes - just as lots of Muslims have dissociated themselves from what ISIS and Al Qaeda do.

In the future please don't change your definitions halfway through the discussion to try to distort the issue.

Originally Posted by billvon

Has the NRA taken responsibility for the actions of Adam Lanza?

Adam Lanza wasn't NRA.

================================
Adam Lanza, the man behind the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., possessed a National Rifle Association certificate in his name, new reports say.

Reuters reported that according to documents released on Thursday, police discovered NRA certificates in the name of Lanza and his mother, Nancy Lanza — whom he killed before starting the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The two reportedly frequented gun ranges together as Adam Lanza was growing up.

An NRA guide to pistol shooting basics was also discovered, NBC News reported, citing authorities.
================================

Puffington Post confirms he wasn't, you need to learn how to check your facts, being an engineer, you should have learned that. For answers to the other issues , I suggest that you research the subjects all by yourself, google is a good starting point.

Originally Posted by billvon

But in any case - I asked if whites have taken responsibility for the actions of Putin. Why haven't they?

You think Russians aren't white, heh? Anyway, it is easy to disprove your BS claims.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Puffington Post confirms he wasn't, you need to learn how to check your facts

I did not claim he had a membership in the NRA. I said the NRA refused to take responsibility for his crimes, despite him having taken NRA training classes, having a lot of NRA material in his house, and clearly being an avid follower of the NRA.

You think Russians aren't white, heh? Anyway, it is easy to disprove your BS claims.

Putin is white. White people are not taking responsibility for his actions. Breivik was a Christian. Christians are not taking responsibility for his actions. Yet you want only certain religions to take responsibility for the actions of their followers. That is hypocritical. Like many Islamophobes, your beliefs result in you holding Muslims to different standards than you hold yourself; this makes it easier to attack them.

Kojax,
The countries that make the mess are allies of western, and if you mean what happens in middle east, the problem here is tied to some geopolitical problems
like: resources in middle east, the more than two hundred years conflicts between west and russia, and preserving worldwide power and hegemony of western specially US
besides supporting their allies in middle east.
This subject will send us to the other problem sometimes targic and funny, like when some nondemocratic countries in middle east asked Syria to be democratic!
To do this dollars of them support terorists that destroyed syrian infrastrucrues, and this strategy is continued first in supporting terrorists and now fighting with terorists.The events in middle east shows we are in a grim wold. similar strategies are used in Africa.
In other words, for your points and clarifying it we need another tread, since the parameters come into discussions have the other types of nature and key words of discussion totally would be changed.Anyhow Your point is so related to the subject, but not exactly in the same line.

Originally Posted by kojax

If a renegade faction of the USA's military started setting off bombs in Cairo, Egypt, do you think the USA could just shrug and tell you that they're a renegade faction? Or would it be the USA's responsibility to send a military force in to stop its renegade soldiers?

Islam as a whole will never be taken seriously by the West until the whole group starts taking responsibility for the actions of its dissidents.

Double standard? If the USA acts like a rogue country ("taking unilateral action" if you prefer the euphemism) what responsibility have its allies like Canada or NATO countries? Isn't it up to them to restrain the rogue country's aggressions? (EDIT: Or as you suggest launch an indignant war against the USA.) But we (Canadians) just roll our eyes when it gets ugly.

Within your own, you can just wait four years then say "oh, that was the previous administration, we're different, don't hold us responsible for what that president did". Where's the responsibility?

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Puffington Post confirms he wasn't, you need to learn how to check your facts

I did not claim he had a membership in the NRA.

Now, you are outright lying.

Putin is white. White people are not taking responsibility for his actions.

Russians are white, Russians are criticizing Putin and are protesting his actions. You must have failed your logic class (or never took it) at MIT.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Have whites taken responsibility for the actions of Putin?

Do you claim that Putin committed some crimes against non-whites?

He's been pretty indiscriminate in the people he targets - so yes. Yet white people refuse to take responsibility for his actions!

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Have whites taken responsibility for the actions of Putin?

Do you claim that Putin committed some crimes against non-whites?

He's been pretty indiscriminate in the people he targets - so yes. Yet white people refuse to take responsibility for his actions!

If you were to list the people Putin has targeted I think you will be able to see why (from a Russian point of view).
OK I might not agree with his reason and a lot don't and make it quite clear Putin's action don't represent the views of all whites.

Originally Posted by kojax

Islam as a whole will never be taken seriously by the West until the whole group starts taking responsibility for the actions of its dissidents. Until then, Muslims will always be thought of as irresponsible children who need the West to go in and build their nations for them.

The difference between children and adults is the ability to take responsibility.

You expect people wholly unrelated to some terrorists in Iraq or Syria, for example, who have nothing to do with them, do not know them, are completely unconnected to them, to take responsibility for their actions because they happen to be Muslim as well?

That is absurd.

And stupid.

How do you expect them to take responsibility for them? Give them a stern talking to? Change their religion? Run out, screaming and wailing in the streets about how they are not like them?

Come out and say they disagree with their actions?

Does that mean that if you are white, you should be taking responsibility for every crime committed by a white guy somewhere, out there in the world? Did you take responsibility for the "White widow", credited as being the one who was in charge of the terrorist attack in the shopping mall in Kenya? Since you know, you're the parent and she is the child and all. What about black people? Should they also take responsibility for all crimes committed by black people anywhere in the world? Did America take responsibility for their blocking all UN action during the Rwandan genocide, which resulted in nearly a million deaths in 3 months? How about all Caucasians, did you all take responsibility when Putin's weapons were used by your fellow Caucasians to shoot down a passenger jet full of innocent men, women and children? Did you, Kojax, take responsibility when US armed forces shot down a passenger jet full of innocent Iranian civilians? Because try as I might, I don't see the West taking responsibility for that either.

Perhaps if you and your fellow Westerners who believe as you do did not have such colonial aspirations and grandiose beliefs of how your 'shit don't stink', people might not laugh at you so much on a collective scale. Or hate you as much. You have yet to rebuild a nation and I would wager that the Muslim countries you have invaded, probably don't want you to rebuild, since your rebuilding efforts have resulted in some of the worst human rights violations of our time. From supporting and funding the Taliban against the Russians, to supporting what is now ISIS during the start of the civil war in Syria, to supporting puppet regimes when it suited. I'm still waiting for you to take responsibility for those as well by the way. Chop chop.

The belief that all Muslims are somehow to blame for the actions of the minute few, and with over a billion of them, it is a minute few who are 'bad', is a stupid ideology steeped in bigotry and racism.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

You expect people wholly unrelated to some terrorists in Iraq or Syria, for example, who have nothing to do with them, do not know them, are completely unconnected to them, to take responsibility for their actions because they happen to be Muslim as well? That is absurd. And stupid.

Exactly.

How do you expect them to take responsibility for them? Give them a stern talking to?

Some people really think this - that all Muslims (or all blacks, or all Jews) are pretty much the same and hold meetings (or at least Internet discussions) all the time to set their political agenda. So if an Islamic extremist blows up a school, all Muslims must be complicit in it, either explicitly (by "supporting" him) or implicitly (by not objecting at the meeting where he proposed it.)

Which, as I mentioned above, is like claiming all Christians are complicit in Anders Breivik's terrorism, or all whites are complicit in Putin's misdeeds.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Tranquille

You expect people wholly unrelated to some terrorists in Iraq or Syria, for example, who have nothing to do with them, do not know them, are completely unconnected to them, to take responsibility for their actions because they happen to be Muslim as well? That is absurd. And stupid.

Exactly.

How do you expect them to take responsibility for them? Give them a stern talking to?

Some people really think this - that all Muslims (or all blacks, or all Jews) are pretty much the same and hold meetings (or at least Internet discussions) all the time to set their political agenda. So if an Islamic extremist blows up a school, all Muslims must be complicit in it, either explicitly (by "supporting" him) or implicitly (by not objecting at the meeting where he proposed it.)

Which, as I mentioned above, is like claiming all Christians are complicit in Anders Breivik's terrorism, or all whites are complicit in Putin's misdeeds.

Well I think there has been a lack of Muslim leaders reinforcing the idea that jihad is not the way to go. I heard the President of US say it and the British PM say it and yet they aren't Muslims.

Can you list 20 Muslim leaders clerics that have spoken out against terrorism? Has any Muslim tried to set up a petition claiming anti-jihad views.
I want to see their leaders speaking up publicly.

1.My personal experience doesnt show any correlation between to be white and having responsibility, among us I heard only one word that white children specially white boys are more naughty , I have one and in this very liited sample it seems true! and even very true!!. Anyhow we see more such things as joke, but I dont know have the others the same feeling or not.Suppose we get seriouse such a word here, and know whites and blonds as naughty ones that all problems are somehow related to them (at least in my home it is so) we should arrest some of our brothers, sisters, daughters and sons, send them to gettos to have a calm space!!It is strange that so many times some mad ideas turn to be the prevailing idea of a society, not just in fiction but in reality.

2.Approximately any scholar which I know condemns terorism, but there is a problem about concept of terorism, who is terorist who is revolutionary,
who are people who defends simply their homes and homelands.The concept of terorism is used as a weapon, and it makes them conservative to enter to this subject too much.

.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by John Galt

5. Later in the article a different author notes they have been warning for some time that Russia and China have covert troops inside the US to take part in attacks that will lead to the declaration of martial law.

You mean the same way as how Russia had/has covert troops in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine? Oh wait. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact.

I'm sure Putin probably has at least a few agents in the USA. The FSB is very active around the world. He may even have a speculative plan set up to do exactly what this author is warning, but it's probably only speculative. Not a serious operation. Just a skeleton project that he can add funding and manpower to later, if the situation changes in a way that makes it seem more likely to work.

The project in Crimea had to have been the result of lots of advanced planning, with at least a few full time dedicated agents working on it for years before it actually went into motion. Drawing up plans, identifying personnel that could be used and what roles to assign to which soldiers. But all just a speculative operation. We'd never have known the project existed if the Maidan events hadn't created a situation that was ideal to put it into motion.

If Russia and China teamed up to take on the US military, it would be a beat down so hard and so fast that neither nation would be able to pick up the pieces of their nation faster than we tore it apart, much less do any actual damage. This isn't gung ho patriotism. This is the simple fact that China's military would be pathetic at fighting any sort of modern war and, in the practical sense of air force and navy, incredibly weak. Russia, while it has decent war tech, doesn't have the planes or navy to pose a credible military threat to the US. We couldn't occupy Russia effectively but we could dismantle their military effectiveness pretty quickly. The fact that over 40% of all military spending in the world comes from the US is largely responsible for our vast, unchallenged military dominance. Fear mongering over Russia and China is just that. Neither of those countries would have anything to gain by such a conflict nor would they stand a chance. It's absurd paranoia.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I think that Orania, a white-only town (village?) in South Africa is a good example of the ultimate solution to racism problem.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Orania, Northern Cape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lets all racists to move in their own towns, cities and territories and problem will gone. In order to prevent racists from using federal or state money their territories have to be obligated to conduct their own tax/budget policies.

This is far from the ultimate solution. It is the absolute worst solution to racism. All this does is ensure that racism will perpetuate, grow, and the youth will have very little chance to realize how stupid they are. This kind of solution is the precursor to racial wars and genocides. It's a terrible idea.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

All this does is ensure that racism will perpetuate, grow, and the youth will have very little chance to realize how stupid they are.

That's good. Stupid people are better to keep from the rest of society to prevent them hurt anyone. And how would you propose to make them clever, use electric shock therapy? And what is your mind on the Amerindian reserves in U.S.? Should they be banned?

This kind of solution is the precursor to racial wars and genocides.

If racist live isolated and feel happy, why wars and genocides would start? How?

I'm not talking about the old codgers. I'm talking about their children. The cycle of racism is broken largely by children interacting with members of the hated race and realizing they are human beings. You can't just let old racists move to whitesville and assume they'll sit quietly and let their racists ways die out. They will breed a whole new generation of hate mongers and the poor kids won't have much opportunity to choose their belief system. It's practically child abuse.

Besides, every genocide and hateful society works this way. Always. Name one hyper racist society, from early 20th century US to apartheid era South Africa, where this model of 'the racist upper caste isolates themselves' wasn't used as a way to perpetuate the racist system? Racists always try and live away from the 'lower races.' We shouldn't enable them. They should be shamed for their attitudes. They should have a difficult time living in an area where they can avoid the targets of their racism. Interaction with other ethnicities and social shaming are the only ways their behavior and beliefs might change.

The Indian Reservations were implemented by a racist system, by the way. And the conditions on the rez are still terrible more often then not. They are not a good example for your case. The Native Americans should of course retain ownership of their lands, but that doesn't mean we should ever try such a solution again. The, "Let's make Indians live apart from us that way there won't be strife," only served to increase racial tension and racism. Not to mention it was used as a way of oppressing them.

And a town where only whites can live is synonymous with a town where blacks aren't allowed.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Besides, every genocide and hateful society works this way. Always. Name one hyper racist society, from early 20th century US to apartheid era South Africa, where this model of 'the racist upper caste isolates themselves' wasn't used as a way to perpetuate the racist system? Racists always try and live away from the 'lower races.' We shouldn't enable them. They should be shamed for their attitudes. They should have a difficult time living in an area where they can avoid the targets of their racism. Interaction with other ethnicities and social shaming are the only ways their behavior and beliefs might change.

I believe that human rights code should be based on actions of people only, not on their thought or feelings. How do you know that they believe somebody is lower race? You cannot judge people for their thoughts. Internal world of a person should be a privacy and thus untouchable. Also I think any people have rights for self-isolation if they want so.

I'm not talking about the old codgers. I'm talking about their children. The cycle of racism is broken largely by children interacting with members of the hated race and realizing they are human beings. You can't just let old racists move to whitesville and assume they'll sit quietly and let their racists ways die out. They will breed a whole new generation of hate mongers and the poor kids won't have much opportunity to choose their belief system. It's practically child abuse.

Unfortunately, I do not see what could be done in this case, largely. Parents are free to educate their children as they want unless they teach them to commit an outright crime. In any case govt. cannot intrude any time when parents jeopardize interests of their children. For example if parents want to live somewhere in village, deep in the forest instead of large city, it may jeopardize access of children to better education. So would you propose govt. withdraw a children from their parents and settle them in an foster home? I do not know what is starting age currently in U.S. that children have rights to live without their parents. Also children are subjected to media where they could hear an alternative viewpoints and free to go anywhere they want even in foster home. Sorry, but to prohibit parents to live where they want just because of their children is silly. If children dislike parents they may ask for a foster home, though.
Take the Amish community for example. They are all white and live isolated. They use no TV, listen no radio, etc. Use no many means of modern technology. So, govt. suppose to dissolute their community, blame in racism and take children away from them? Absurdity. I would sorry them...

I'm talking about ethics, not law. You implied this isolation was the best solution. I argued why it is actually an immoral solution. I didn't argue that it should be stopped via government interference. Although a township trying to ban various races would warrant intervention.

Now, a group buying a thousand acre plot of private land and starting up Whitesville; population moron, may not be illegal. This does not mean we should encourage them, or think that it is okay. And a close eye should be kept on them to make sure the populace is not kept in line via threats of violence and that children are not subjected to cult-levels of indoctrination.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

And a close eye should be kept on them to make sure the populace is not kept in line via threats of violence and that children are not subjected to cult-levels of indoctrination.

Not a worst idea, but I didn't hear about such precedents up to now.

There aren't near enough precedents, to be sure. All too often, in these cult like communities, women and children are hostages to insane 'men of the house.' If one of the women or children try and leave, they are beaten and locked away for a time as punishment. Ironically, we allow this in the name of 'freedom.' In order to respect the liberties of these fringe people, we foolishly remove the safeguards that would normally allow an enslaved wife or child to get help.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

There aren't near enough precedents, to be sure. All too often, in these cult like communities, women and children are hostages to insane 'men of the house.' If one of the women or children try and leave, they are beaten and locked away for a time as punishment. Ironically, we allow this in the name of 'freedom.' In order to respect the liberties of these fringe people, we foolishly remove the safeguards that would normally allow an enslaved wife or child to get help.

Is it a typical case in white separatist communities? Could you give some link about it? Interesting...

Yes, as well as polygamist communities and similar cults. It won't be hard to find articles about it. A year or so ago there was a massive case about a woman who finally escaped the town after being stopped, imprisoned, and beaten multiple times. When feds rolled in, they found child brides married against their will to older men and raped habitually for years. This was an extreme case, but there are slightly more tame but still appalling stories that occur regularly.

.

Here is an article about that particular community. I'm glad I wasn't an old school Wild West judge over this case, because I would have hung every last one of the grown men from the nearest tree. Polygamy Survivor Carolyn Jessop - TIME A cursory google search produces dozens of such results. The FLDS church is pure evil. The worst kind of wickedness. Why anyone tolerates the sect at all is beyond me and why more of its prominent men aren't spending their lives behind bars for countless cases or rape, child molestation, kidnapping, enslavement, and abuse I find equally bizarre.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Here is an article about that particular community. I'm glad I wasn't an old school Wild West judge over this case, because I would have hung every last one of the grown men from the nearest tree. Polygamy Survivor Carolyn Jessop - TIME A cursory google search produces dozens of such results. The FLDS church is pure evil. The worst kind of wickedness. Why anyone tolerates the sect at all is beyond me and why more of its prominent men aren't spending their lives behind bars for countless cases or rape, child molestation, kidnapping, enslavement, and abuse I find equally bizarre.

What exactly "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" have relation to question of race? From what I know the Mormons aren't racist in general, they have at least many Asians among their followers even in Northern America. I do not know about their fundamentalist though. I was talking about communities which are based on race separation (self-definition) idea in particular who aren't members of any other cult in the same time. Similar to those guys from South Africa. I didn't read somebody has been kept by force in Orania, for example.

The FLDS is hyper racist. They believe black people are commonly instruments of the Devil and their skin color is the mark of Cain to denote a curse. I'm not positive, but I think they are in line with the CIM in their doctrine that the Devil himself, as opposed to Adam, sired blacks making them inherently demonic. While the standard LDS has many non white members, FLDS is a white supremacy cult based partly on the doctrine that white people are chosen by G-d to be the superior race. The other races are, I think, the 'beasts of the field' mentioned in Genesis, lacking G-d's spirit. Jews are masquerading as the Israelites. The FLDS are truly the Chosen People.

Orania very well may not do these things, but that doesn't mean that race separatist towns are not an inherently evil idea whose ideas are central to every attempt at segregation ever.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Orania very well may not do these things, but that doesn't mean that race separatist towns are not an inherently evil idea whose ideas are central to every attempt at segregation ever.

Why do you think that idea of segregation is always and inherently evil? As long as a people keep to themselves and abuse no one around, where the problem does arise?

Separation is the mother of racism and hate.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Separation is the mother of racism and hate.

So, the very problem is that some actions may lead to bad views and feelings rather than some views may lead to a bad actions? Then the problem is somebodies alleged views, not an actions?
And what is your relation to existence of different sovereign countries in the World? Do borders between them is sign of racism and hate and desirably should be eliminated? So people from poor countries would completely freely go to the richer countries, etc?

Political borders do breed division. I'm not really a fan, no. While this would reduce the wealth of richer countries, it would increase the wealth of poorer people. I'm practical enough to realize that simply opening all borders wouldn't really work, though.

But anyway, the kind of people who go to whites only towns are going to be racist. And in that environment, there is almost zero chance of their views ever changing. They've surrounded themselves in a society where they can ignore that which they dislike. It is a sign of willful ignorance, which I think is an unethical state of mind.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

But anyway, the kind of people who go to whites only towns are going to be racist. And in that environment, there is almost zero chance of their views ever changing. They've surrounded themselves in a society where they can ignore that which they dislike. It is a sign of willful ignorance, which I think is an unethical state of mind.

First of all, why we suppose to care if their view will change or not? The only thing we suppose to care if they are dangerous or not. Their possible actions. If they would have no armies, tanks and heavy weapon they are unlikely to attack a state they live in, it would be foolish and rather unlikely. Will they come in large cities just to kill a person of a different race? I didn't hear it would be typical. And why do believe that if they will live in multiracial cities they have more chances to change for better instead of killing or injuring someone? If they grew up in multiracial cities and became racists, then how possible that continue to do the same will have completely opposite effects? Whites and colored live in U.S. cities for hundreds of years together. Are ethnic neighbourhoods rare now? If hundreds of years didn't change that where is you hope came from it will happen tomorrow overnight? So, you believe majority of racists aren't hopeless and could change by simply communicating with people of other races? And they became racists because they simple never closely encountered a person of a different race? And their racism isn't based on some general and abstract knowledge (they believe they possess)?

Living and working together in the same jobs, schools, restaurants, etc. absolutely helped to alleviate racism in my country. No doubt about it. It was the major goal of the civil rights movement to integrate public places and schools and housing districts and places of employment. Because the freedom marchers knew that it would reduce racism. Racism is ignorance, and it is a lot easier to dehumanize a people you never see than one you interact with on a daily basis. And if these people are so racist that they are, as you say, likely to kill or injure someone? I certainly don't want a bunch of people like that to get together in a community where they will only rile each other up and permit all sorts of heinous behavior.

Segregation is the primary tool of institutional racism. There is no more powerful weapon.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

And if these people are so racist that they are, as you say, likely to kill or injure someone? I certainly don't want a bunch of people like that to get together in a community where they will only rile each other up and permit all sorts of heinous behavior.

And instead you would prefer to keep them closer to community where you live? This is certainly strange way of thinking...

Better they stay somewhere where they can actually be policed. They aren't going to get any punishment for hate crimes by Sheriff Racist McBigot. Regardless, most racists aren't going to be that crazy so the crazies shouldn't be the primary people we factor into the equation.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

And if these people are so racist that they are, as you say, likely to kill or injure someone? I certainly don't want a bunch of people like that to get together in a community where they will only rile each other up and permit all sorts of heinous behavior.

And instead you would prefer to keep them closer to community where you live? This is certainly strange way of thinking...

But it seems to have worked. One of the best way to get through to a homophobe, for example, is for him/her to realize that his neighbor who he's lived in peace with for years is gay. It's a lot harder to think that gays are all promiscuous and agenda-driven (or Muslims are all violent extremists, or that blacks are all welfare queens, or whatever) when you see them watering their lawns, going to work and raising their kids every day.

.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I'm not talking about the old codgers. I'm talking about their children. The cycle of racism is broken largely by children interacting with members of the hated race and realizing they are human beings. You can't just let old racists move to whitesville and assume they'll sit quietly and let their racists ways die out. They will breed a whole new generation of hate mongers and the poor kids won't have much opportunity to choose their belief system. It's practically child abuse.

You can argue that anyone who teaches a child anything you don't agree with is "committing child abuse". In the eyes of a Muslim or Christian fanatic, maybe your refusal to teach them to praise Jesus/Allah is a form of abuse?

Or Christian Ethics, anyway. Because of course we all know that Xianity's view of the world, where everyone needs to join hands, hug, and sing "Kumbaya" is the only right one.

Maybe hate is just the dark side of love? One that must coexist in balance with its opposite, like the white and black parts of the Taoists' Yin Yang. What if we got rid of all hatred, and then found we didn't love either? Because we had simply eradicated that part of ourselves?

Originally Posted by kojax

Maybe hate is just the dark side of love? One that must coexist in balance with its opposite, like the white and black parts of the Taoists' Yin Yang. What if we got rid of all hatred, and then found we didn't love either? Because we had simply eradicated that part of ourselves?

Hmm. People haven't had to become more intolerant towards gays in the US just because we are seeing more tolerance overall. I don't think it's a zero-sum game.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

But it seems to have worked. One of the best way to get through to a homophobe, for example, is for him/her to realize that his neighbor who he's lived in peace with for years is gay. It's a lot harder to think that gays are all promiscuous and agenda-driven (or Muslims are all violent extremists, or that blacks are all welfare queens, or whatever) when you see them watering their lawns, going to work and raising their kids every day.

Then how you explain this topic starter claims racism is on the rise and in Western Europe anti-immigrant parties gain votes and places in parliament? Does it indicate all problems more and more solved? Or unsolved?

Human beings take two steps forward and one step back. But, overall, racism goes down. Violence goes down. IQ goes up. Medicine goes up. Temporary set backs are not indicative that human beings aren't improving.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I'm not talking about the old codgers. I'm talking about their children. The cycle of racism is broken largely by children interacting with members of the hated race and realizing they are human beings. You can't just let old racists move to whitesville and assume they'll sit quietly and let their racists ways die out. They will breed a whole new generation of hate mongers and the poor kids won't have much opportunity to choose their belief system. It's practically child abuse.

You can argue that anyone who teaches a child anything you don't agree with is "committing child abuse". In the eyes of a Muslim or Christian fanatic, maybe your refusal to teach them to praise Jesus/Allah is a form of abuse?

Or Christian Ethics, anyway. Because of course we all know that Xianity's view of the world, where everyone needs to join hands, hug, and sing "Kumbaya" is the only right one.

Maybe hate is just the dark side of love? One that must coexist in balance with its opposite, like the white and black parts of the Taoists' Yin Yang. What if we got rid of all hatred, and then found we didn't love either? Because we had simply eradicated that part of ourselves?

Everyone has to draw their own line. To some people, beating their kids senseless isn't abuse. To some people, slicing up a girl's vagina isn't child abuse. To some people, slapping a toddler on the hand is child abuse. There is no objective definition to any of it. To me, teaching children to hate an entire people and denying them access to said people by isolating them in cult like cities is definitely child abuse. And that is what we are talking about with these 'segregation cities.'

I do not think racism is necessary for love. If hate is necessary for love, hate other things. Hate injustice. Don't hate people groups. I've never found that people who have racism have more love in their hearts. Hate begets hate. Whenever I see someone really hate someone, it becomes easier for them to hate the next person. And love begets love. People who find more people to love generally find loving easier.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Human beings take two steps forward and one step back.

Possibly. The only question is where exactly they made this step back.
But generally, I agree. For example slavery seem to be on rise once again. That's a really step back.

But it is seems unlikely slavery will reach the point it was at, say, four hundred years ago.

.