1 Guest viewing this page
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Vilageidiotx
Raw
Avatar of Vilageidiotx

Vilageidiotx Jacobin of All Trades

Member Seen 1 yr ago

There was a distinct shift in doctrine and execution of aspects vital to stability, security and reliability. The first factor is one of the most obvious, in which I mean I point to the neglect of the Korean Peninsula, the expansion of ISIS and its evolutions, the interactions with Iran, ignoring of Israel and of course the on going diplomatic problem which has become Turkey and greater Europe. I will reiterate that this is not leveled squarely on the Obama administration, but under that extended period territory gained all but vanished. They had many opportunities to improve these elements not on a prospect of globalism or "unity", but of national interests; they did not, as was their policy.

The next element is security, which is one that can only be discussed to varying lengths, but the lacking of secured borders, extensive screening and vetting of foreign nationals, and a failure to fight a dynamic threat at its core has escalated the odds (as we have seen with the increased issues of detection for electronic devices). It is sad to comment on, but vehicle ramming type attacks, knife attacks and similarly cheap, expedient, efficient means will continue to rise to. More notably, to address the issue of "nuclear terrorism" that is an extremely unlikely scenario, what is more likely is an improvised radiological device that contaminates an area after detonation because of its psychological, not physical, potential; all of this stems from an eroded environment lacking a focus on physical national security.


They avoided boots on the ground policies, because that is more or less why they were elected to do. If Obama had doubled down on Bush's style of direct intervention, the Republicans would have maneuvered him out in 2012. We still vote for our leaders, and because of this, we cannot pull off the sort of permanent occupations that would be necessary for what you are talking about. Americans have always been reluctant Imperialists, and our unwillingness to fully occupy the middle east for several generations is part of that.

As for the vetting thing, this hasn't been a serious issue. We are not Europe, we do not have Europe's problems. If we were dealing with terrorism on the level of France it would be one thing, but we are not. Shit, in the last eight years school shootings have killed more than Islamic terrorism in the United States.

I'll even go so far as to say that part of Obama's problems is that he kept in place a lot of the security features that people are not comfortable with. The NSA and the drone programs are part of his legacy. The guy wasn't exactly a hippie

As a side note, the real threat of radical Islam is the conversion of the non-native populace and conditioning them to their customs or forcing them to abide laws foreign to their land. This is considered by some to be an "extreme" statement, but it is one I believe to be accurate because the radical Islamic leaders have realized, as a relative whole no matter their particular leaning on Wahhabism, that they cannot alter the strategic level without doing so. Looking at Europe as my point of reference, with its absolute and continued collapse between this factor and a broken economy, I believe it safe to say the mainland might be regrettably lost for the foreseeable future.


It's not so much an extreme statement as a bizarre one. Muslims don't break 10 percent in any European country. The "Europe is now a Caliphate" thing is a meme. Forced conversion to Islam on a large scale is insanely unlikely. Honestly, "The water is turning the freaking frogs gay" is more likely.

To transition to the current topics, the credible threat is not nationalism in any case, be it found in the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and so on. Political ideology is not the greatest external threat to anyone and the abstract demon of capitalist society is, in fact, its saving grace. Since the end of the Second World War, the booming defense industry has continued to display technologies and developments that are on the level of science fiction... all while pinching every pretty penny it can from the pockets of taxpayers. It is just the nature of the beast; it wants to be fed. Conflict and war feed it, with those times in between when it is most hungry. However, without it, I believe we would be worse off. I also need mention that it is not even linked with nationalism in the United States, to which I can only assume you are meaning in majority.


Yup, globalization was great in its earlier stages. If it was 1960 I'd be a rabid capitalist. But it isn't 1960. We have new problems. However, what you are describing isn't what I mean by rising nationalism at all. It's a tricky word because it's definition is so broad, but what I mean by rising Nationalism is an increased emphasis on the Nation as the driving force of society. It's been there for some time obviously, but the driving force of society since Breton Woods has been the expansion and globalization of capitalism. As democracy becomes associated with corruption and global capitalism with economic malaise, we are seeing a rebellion against this seventy year status quo. The problem with nationalism taking the wheel is that, whereas capitalism at the very least wants to keep markets as open as possible and therefore shuns wars between major centers of wealth, nationalism's driving forces are all tied to pride and honor and superiority over other nations, which exacerbates friction. We know this because the period where Nationalism was dominant, roughly 1848 to 1945, culminated in two of the worst wars in human history. I think it would have been much worse too if most western nations hadn't been able to feed Nationalism via colonialism, but since colonialism is more complicated than the world wars imma not count it as a direct cause of nationalism.

Anyway, basic point I'm making is that, now that global capitalism has shot its wad, we gotta figure out how we advance to whatever the next level is, and I'm against Nationalism as our starting point because I think it runs too much of a risk of World War, and we can't afford World Wars anymore what with technology the way it is.

How do I come to that conclusion? No one is under the illusion that these companies have any other objective other than to make money off of martial technology. There's not the honor and superiority of the warfighter in it, but the understanding that without their presence, the United States would be lacking some of its core military assets; air, space and cyber warfare advantages. This is not to ignore how well prepared and equipped the land or sea based elements are, but it is no secret that the future of conflict is moving smaller and larger at the same time. Realistically, the only issues I really have politically with the behemoth is that the government is terrible at making deals and prioritizing anything, especially with independent contractors or agencies, at all levels, local all the way up to federal.


I'm not worried about the military-industrial complex. Sure, it's ugly, but these large scale government projects were required to keep capitalism stable enough to use. We've mostly used it to stir up shit, which again is ugly, but it isn't apocalyptic. What I mean by rising nationalism is grassroots level, like the Trump movement and the Alt-Right and all that fun shit. Movements that attack parts of capitalism conservatism usually doesn't attack, and is filling in ideological gaps with old school Kippling style "Dulce et decorum est, Pro patria mori" nationalism.

The tension I mention is of a different brand and methodology, again which is why I cite it as more dangerous. The fact alone you turned to the prior references is why I use it. In this era you are seeing a portion of the American populace directly sympathize with the enemy, to the extent of supporting or defending them both in word and action. You have citizens of a country attempting to defend tenants of radical Islam, ignoring the aspects of Sharia Law alone, and welcoming fundamental elements of foreign indoctrination that make self-radicalization possible.


The left is mainly driven by a fear of pogroms in this case. Nobody wants sharia law, but not everybody sees sharia law hiding behind every fence post, so for many people this bloated threat-of-Islam rhetoric seems like the a request for another Final Solution type thing.

In closing, perspective is funny I suppose. To me, Radical Islam doesn't even make the top three of America's problems (Which would be, uh, 1: Economic stagnation 2: The Racial Divide 3: The Polarization of the Right and Left). Europe has a problem, sure, but in the passing sense, not in the existential sense. The only part of the world where radical Islam is an existential threat is, obviously, the middle east. But that has been true since at least the seventies. Personally, call me an optimist I guess, but I think this radical Islam shit is a growing pain the the Middle East's path the westernization. The systems proposed by Islamists are inherently Fascist, and as we saw from actually Fascists, their thesis is so wrong that a state like ISIS couldn't survive a generation without collapsing. But also like Fascists, they can only exist to oppose a society lurching to the left, which would mean westernization is happening in the middle east. [/quote]

All this talk of the radical Islamic threat is giving me a nice mid 2000's vibe. Broad swathes of the West are going to implement Sharia law any day now ect ect.


Remember when they had that picture of Obama wearing that silly Mario looking costume and everyone was pointing at it like "See! He's gonna make us all Muslim in that mario costume."

Those were the days, man.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>
Haha. I'm a determinist, which means I don't believe in free will. This the antithesis of libertarianism. : )


I'd say having political opinions in general is the antithesis of determinism, but I suppose you have you couldn't chose not to have political opinions in the first place, wat since that is determined and all.

Oh and to answer your question LolCat, I identify as an Authoritarian Centrist, I'm right of center and left of center on a fairly equal amount of views.


So you are Hillary Clinton, basically.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by Dolerman
Raw
OP
Avatar of Dolerman

Dolerman Chrysalis Form

Member Seen 2 mos ago

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Why not? I'm curious here as I feel I can argue against (or for) any claim I want. The moon is made of blue cheese? No problem. The President is a reptile in a human suit? Sure thing. True communism has never been tried? You got it lol. What makes this particular claim so special that I cannot argue against it?


Alright knock yourself out, lets hear some rational arguments.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Dolerman
Raw
OP
Avatar of Dolerman

Dolerman Chrysalis Form

Member Seen 2 mos ago

@Vilageidiotx bulgaria is a european country and its Muslim population is 11%

Checkmate Liberal.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Kratesis
Raw
Avatar of Kratesis

Kratesis Spiritus Mundi

Member Seen 23 days ago

<Snipped quote by Kratesis>

Alright knock yourself out, lets hear some rational arguments.


There you go with those goalposts again Dynamo. And I can't help but notice you haven't answered my question.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by Dolerman
Raw
OP
Avatar of Dolerman

Dolerman Chrysalis Form

Member Seen 2 mos ago

@Kratesis Jesus, this is getting obtuse. You know what I mean when I say cant make an argument.

I don't mean you are not allowed to argue whatever point you please.

I'm saying you arent able to make a good argument against the position (that the implications/results of politics are serious).

No goalpost has been moved, if you need me to clarify, I will but don't assume I'm trying to say something I'm not. If you learned how to debate from reading T_D posts I suggest you quit while you're ahead.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by The Harbinger of Ferocity
Raw

The Harbinger of Ferocity

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

@Vilageidiotx

As I am aware that was what the administration at the time had their policy of. In either circumstance, that does not change the fact it negatively impacted those factors I mentioned prior, which was only the concerns I was talking about or giving priority to. I have to agree without doubt that the American public's resistance to back its own global endeavors since the Korean War are a factor too; the United States is not fond of occupying or holding territory.

To refer to the vetting issue, the concerns are different both in role and execution. You are correct that Europe faces a different and unavoidable aspect of the threat, but the United States is still severely lacking in terms of proactive fundamentals of foreign national circulation control. Terrorism, by its very function and in this case as a political and ideological effort, does not need mass numbers to gain effect; you cannot equate school shootings to acts of violence which have a specific target and effect under these criteria. Radical Islam employs terrorism as a means to cow, enfeeble and panic its targets, not to cause sizable injury or loss. It affects the morale of a populace to help gain compliance.

And yes, it should be no secret the Obama administration was far from anything "peace loving" in action compared to their word.

To address the "Europe is a caliphate." comment, I explicitly and openly remarked that was not my belief or understanding. No less, I never once claimed forced Islamic conversion through means like those of coercion, duress or threats. What I said was, it is their goal to change the dynamics of the populace to be sympathetic to their cause while actively pursuing advancement of their extreme religious agenda. The "Fall of Europe" is not a literal action where these people are taking the countries by force or storm, but because they are actively subverting traditional European law and values. Radicals have no interest in integration into European, or even American, society.

With response to the perceived threat of nationalism, it isn't even on the metaphorical radar in terms of credible threats that pose catastrophic consequences for the United States and or foreign nations. In fact, some of the technologies you are alluding to are the very reason there is an environment of deterrence over that of aggression. I also need mention that these policies change with each administration, at least in the United States, but to date none of these policies since the 1960s have elevated the concern for those actually involved. In short, the danger of a World War does not lie in your superpowers like the United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom or any of those who conscribe to nationalist policies in them. Your most likely conflicts to expand to a larger theatre are cliché at this point, to which I imagine you know the reference.

And by expand I mean multiple nations waging the war.

But I digress, if you want a basic level assessment of the Alt-Right and the Trump movement, they are not considered a threat to security or safety. In fact, Antifa and its associates fulfill more of those criteria and are becoming increasingly more important in that scope and spectrum. What will come of this? Likely nothing. Both factions, even politically, are not extreme enough to gain enough power to severely leverage or alter the scale. Yes, even the Trump administration is not that powerful or successful despite the opinions of both sides, from those who believe he is Hitler to those who think he's the Messiah. The American pride movement is nothing that was not already present, the difference being it was mobilized by being spoken down to and socially oppressed by its peers; the pendulum now is swinging the other way.

The left is mainly driven by a fear of pogroms in this case. Nobody wants sharia law, but not everybody sees sharia law hiding behind every fence post, so for many people this bloated threat-of-Islam rhetoric seems like the a request for another Final Solution type thing.
Vilageidiotx

And this is why there is no such thing as Islamophobia.

This is the desired, intentional effect of a campaign of terrorism. By design, as I had mentioned earlier, acts of terror are committed to cause panic and fear. This belief and perception, as well as the propagation of the myth that people might consider this reasonable or that some large amount of the population finds it credible, is part of its finer mechanism. It is to create an "us versus them" environment where, in this case, some people sympathize with the radicals and aid them or conspire against them and become "the other extreme". This is more or less a textbook execution of that.

To answer on your closing, I agree from an economic and security angle the stagnation of any market is a danger, although a rebound and both a dip are coming in the relative future; the dip, or rather two dips I know of, are not as concerning as the past, but they do align at a bad time. The rebound I am more skeptical of because, as with others in our age group, a "promising future economy" is usually met with suspicion and rightfully so.

The division on racial lines and Right versus Left, at least in the United States, I believe to be a self-aggrandizing effort. It has been and still is being used to drive political points, of which have only become more exaggerated with time. The "Alt-Right", not to be confused with the actual Alt-Right, or those you see now making up the distinctive political right that helped get Donald Trump elected, in large do not care about the matters of race; they go so far to treat it as a joke now, which further polarizes their opposition in the Far Left that believe in the tenants of social justice.

Again, I cite my earlier concern that domestic terror, to include that political focused as in this case, is in fact likely. I legitimately fear that during some demonstration or incident there will be an attack. Based on what I know, the Far Left is the most likely attacker, which only brings ill omen from the regular right, "Alt-Right" and the Alt-Right. I say this because any such transaction will only prove them "right" and with a right-leaning government, potentially lead to a heavy handed albeit needed response, which will provoke more backlash.

My mindset and talent is in defense, so it is no surprise I see it form this lens. What worries me is that I can see it at all and said, "Maybe." with any amount of reliability in the impulse. That is what concerns me and that is why I believe these things.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

I'm putting 'news' in quotes because there is nothing new about it. The information they recieve is largely lifted from stories that have already been broken by other platforms such as Fox News, Info Wars or Brietbart. And thats not including them lifting from other subreddits such as r/conspiracy


/r/news should probably also be in quotes then, I suppose. This is how reddit works. This is how news aggregators work. This is how news -- period -- works. Ever wonder why CNN is always citing AP?

Are you saying that you cant get Right Wing/Conservative opinions and talking points from left wing comedy shows?


No.

Dont forget Anti Semetic.


Not that I've seen.

Look overall you are right about the donald being popular, but that wasn't the original claim, it seemed like you were coming at it the T_D was the only place to find opinions that were right wing/populist/conservative.


Lemme just repost it.

T_D is a fantastic resource. You get to see (a) what the fanatics are on about, and (b) what the actual real life media actually really doesn't want you to see. The trick is being able to tell which is which -- but if you can do that, you should really browse T_D. If you can't tell the difference, regardless of what side you're on, you should probably stay away. But also (c) they got some pretty decent memes, albeit with a dash of persecution complex. So you can get sucked in easy if you let yourself.


Full stop.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Dolerman
Raw
OP
Avatar of Dolerman

Dolerman Chrysalis Form

Member Seen 2 mos ago

No, see, for that I'd point you to literally any other political subreddit.


Wrong I can think of at least 6 other popular subs with the same rhetoric

T_D is interesting to me because they present facts that get suppressed everywhere else.


Except they dont. Because there are other right wing subs that dont suppress those types of topics.

This is literally my only point of contention, and toward your point about john oliver/colbert/samantha bee, are you SURE youve never seen them critiqued? Does everyone in the right wing circles treat them as untouchables?

I'm never sure why right wingers are so dedicated to trying to make it seem like they are the tiniest, most exclusive, romantic resistance group fighting the Goliath opposition as if they don't make up damn near half of the country.

Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by The Harbinger of Ferocity
Raw

The Harbinger of Ferocity

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

I'm never sure why right wingers are so dedicated to trying to make it seem like they are the tiniest, most exclusive, romantic resistance group fighting the Goliath opposition as if they don't make up damn near half of the country.


Speaking from that center-right, a number of us felt that way because whenever we voiced an opinion contrary to our vocal opposition we were met with cries of "hate speech", "racist", "sexist" and any other throwaway that is cringe worthy at this point.

To give you an anecdote, a subordinate had heard I was considering Donald Trump for my vote back during his earlier running career in 2016. Without any base to stand on, they mechanized anyone who was sympathetic to the left to brand me "racist" because I had also agreed in another instance that illegal immigrants are unlawful citizens and need to be removed from the country.

It is it an anecdote? Beyond a doubt, but having nearly twenty some-odd people jump at you just because they thought you were a true Alt-Right'er tends to give that impression. The good news is, I had the authority to make be still and explain just that - my belief and my considerations of the candidate - but this type of behavior is not limited in scope.

You tend to feel like a small number when there are not a lot of you who feel like you can safely say or do anything without becoming demonized.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

snip


You're, like...... know what don't go to T_D, it would not be good for you. Moving on.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Penny
Raw
Avatar of Penny

Penny

Member Seen 10 hrs ago

<Snipped quote by Penny>

You tend to feel like a small number when there are not a lot of you who feel like you can safely say or do anything without becoming demonized.


As a woman and an immigrant I can relate. It isn't a fun feeling.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by The Harbinger of Ferocity
Raw

The Harbinger of Ferocity

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

As a woman and an immigrant I can relate. It isn't a fun feeling.


If you are a lawful citizen, you have my sympathy that some people might shuffle you into such a place. However, I have still yet to see a case of legitimate or potentially valid misogyny that demonizes women within my life and lifetime. This is not to say it has not or does not happen, as that would be far flung, but I can only report reliably on what I know of in concrete and through repeat observation.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Penny
Raw
Avatar of Penny

Penny

Member Seen 10 hrs ago

I'm not a citizen but I am a legal resident. Those who are here illegally are likely even more scared and have the advantage of having already been demonized without opening their mouths at all.

As for misogyny, I can personally vouch for you that it is a problem, as can countless other women.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by The Harbinger of Ferocity
Raw

The Harbinger of Ferocity

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

Unfortunate as it is to say, as they should be uneasy in the United States when they have done so illegally. There is a set of rules, regulations, and procedures in place to become part of the nation. The only issue I take is that anyone who is abiding by those rules of immigration and naturalization being treated unfairly because of their background as an immigrant; those following the law should have no such weight placed upon them, be it socially, politically or otherwise.

Perhaps because of where I find myself located, despite my travels, can you elaborate on examples of misogyny, @Penny? I am not speaking to the renegade or rogue people who are just detestable personalities innately. A major incident such as being accosted or something vastly affecting people, namely women, is what I am referring to.

As a portion added later, I ask this question as well, "What do you consider to be misogyny or sexism?"
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by Penny
Raw
Avatar of Penny

Penny

Member Seen 10 hrs ago

If I lived in El Salvador and similar places where poverty, gangs violence, rape and brutality are epidemic I'd make a run for it too. I don't condone breaking the law but I have more sympathy than not for people in that position. I was fortunate in that I came by choice from a comparative paradise.

I am not speaking to the renegade or rogue people who are just detestable personalities innately. A major incident such as being accosted or something vastly affecting people, namely women, is what I am referring to.


By that logic anyone who commits any sort of 'major' misogynistic act is defined out of the problem by being innately detestable.

I initially made a list of examples but I changed my mind about it. Plenty of material exists online unless you are in Saudi or something and I felt gross about opening up my own wounds.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by The Harbinger of Ferocity
Raw

The Harbinger of Ferocity

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

I believe some people are simply poor human beings to others for any number of reasons, punctuated at their worst by making certain specific targets of groups on grounds such as this one of gender alone. I was specifically and definitively speaking to an unusual circumstance wherein someone who appeared and behaved as a normal functioning member of society otherwise turned out to have a deep and dedicated sexist leaning. Or, contrarily, a series of continued, measurable instances you were aware of relating to this issue that recurred. Given you are not comfortable or interested in sharing those, it is not my business to pressure you for them but to instead state the following on it; in my opinion, women are treated fairly in the United States by and large.

To move back from that topic, again the reality of illegal immigration is that while these people might be escaping those things, they need abide by the laws of the nations they pass through and seek shelter in. It cannot be endorsed or incentivized that this behavior is acceptable or fair to the people of the country affected.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Penny
Raw
Avatar of Penny

Penny

Member Seen 10 hrs ago

In my opinion, women are treated fairly in the United States by and large.


As a woman in the United States I'll do my best to respect your opinion.

As for the illegal immigration piece. If I or my family were in danger I can't say I'd hesitate to flee to safety, regardless of lines on a map or laws where I was going. If you would do otherwise, then I must stand in awe of your commitment to law. I can appreciate that people don't feel super comfortable with people entering the country illegally.

Should they be 'incentivized' to stay? They are already' incentivized' because they know what they left behind. Should there be some sort of legal endorsement of their status? That is a thorny question, on an emotional level it dosen't seem fair, but from a practical standpoint what is the solution? Deport millions of people? Not really practical, even if you had thousands of agents combing the nation with all sorts of intrusive ID checks, expensive legal proceedings, bureaucratic red tape ect. It couldn't be managed. This doesn't even begin to consider the issues of splitting parents away from children with legitimate citizenship, not that moral concerns tend to carry the day.

I myself went through extensive vetting before I was given my green card, extensive and expensive and beyond the reach of an illiterate South American peasant. It took an extremely long time too, well over a year and a half from start to finish, of course no one was shooting up my neighborhood while I waited.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Dolerman
Raw
OP
Avatar of Dolerman

Dolerman Chrysalis Form

Member Seen 2 mos ago

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Speaking from that center-right, a number of us felt that way because whenever we voiced an opinion contrary to our vocal opposition we were met with cries of "hate speech", "racist", "sexist" and any other throwaway that is cringe worthy at this point.

To give you an anecdote, a subordinate had heard I was considering Donald Trump for my vote back during his earlier running career in 2016. Without any base to stand on, they mechanized anyone who was sympathetic to the left to brand me "racist" because I had also agreed in another instance that illegal immigrants are unlawful citizens and need to be removed from the country.

It is it an anecdote? Beyond a doubt, but having nearly twenty some-odd people jump at you just because they thought you were a true Alt-Right'er tends to give that impression. The good news is, I had the authority to make be still and explain just that - my belief and my considerations of the candidate - but this type of behavior is not limited in scope.

You tend to feel like a small number when there are not a lot of you who feel like you can safely say or do anything without becoming demonized.


This is a legitimate concern, I absolutely believe you and yes there are hateful, reationary people who treat anyone to the right of them like shit and call them names. No argument from me there.

The point of contention is, while people on the right might get called sexist, racist, facist etc. People on the left may get called cucks, beta males, blue pillers, white knights, feminazis, Dindus, and the list goes on and on.

Basically it sucks to be part of damn near any group as there will be people out there to attack you and de-legitimize your beliefs when they run out of rational arguments.

I absolutely believe you have been the target of slurs against the right
I know for fact Doggo has been the target of slurs against the left

and @Penny has absolutely faced some issues for being a woman/immigrant, which you could argue is worse, because these are things that cant be as arbitrarily shifted/changed as something like a political views.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

You're, like...... know what don't go to T_D, it would not be good for you. Moving on.


Except like doggo said, I've already been there, got bored of the repetitive rhetoric and stale memes and moved on. Keep hanging out there, but if you think the facts on that sub are getting suppressed everywhere else then it might be helpful to occasionally browse other parts of reddit before you start to really believe that as truth.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Vilageidiotx
Raw
Avatar of Vilageidiotx

Vilageidiotx Jacobin of All Trades

Member Seen 1 yr ago

@Vilageidiotx bulgaria is a european country and its Muslim population is 11%

Checkmate Liberal.


Bulgaria was part of the Ottoman Empire up into modern times, and is also 9 percent Turkish, so I think their situation is more complicated than "Immigrants".

To refer to the vetting issue, the concerns are different both in role and execution. You are correct that Europe faces a different and unavoidable aspect of the threat, but the United States is still severely lacking in terms of proactive fundamentals of foreign national circulation control. Terrorism, by its very function and in this case as a political and ideological effort, does not need mass numbers to gain effect; you cannot equate school shootings to acts of violence which have a specific target and effect under these criteria. Radical Islam employs terrorism as a means to cow, enfeeble and panic its targets, not to cause sizable injury or loss. It affects the morale of a populace to help gain compliance.


I honestly don't think terrorist operations in the United States are common enough to meet those goals. Whatever terrorists would like to do here, they aren't succeeding, which would suggest to me that our process is adequate. I brought up school shootings because they show that random violence is surpassing terrorist violence here, both in scope and in effect.

To address the "Europe is a caliphate." comment, I explicitly and openly remarked that was not my belief or understanding. No less, I never once claimed forced Islamic conversion through means like those of coercion, duress or threats. What I said was, it is their goal to change the dynamics of the populace to be sympathetic to their cause while actively pursuing advancement of their extreme religious agenda. The "Fall of Europe" is not a literal action where these people are taking the countries by force or storm, but because they are actively subverting traditional European law and values. Radicals have no interest in integration into European, or even American, society.


Then I miss understood where your were going with that. Radicals have no interest in integration, naturally, that is almost tautological. The question is about whether or not they are succeeding at converting the west, which I don't think they are. I can't speak for the Sunni community, but among westerners I really really doubt radical islamification is happening. Aside from the occasionally goofy liberal who wears hijabs in solidarity or some shit, we aren't seeing westerners Islamify. I mean, we still like our alcohol and our gays, booty shorts are still out there, bacon is doing so well it has broken into the cheap t-shirt market.

With response to the perceived threat of nationalism, it isn't even on the metaphorical radar in terms of credible threats that pose catastrophic consequences for the United States and or foreign nations. In fact, some of the technologies you are alluding to are the very reason there is an environment of deterrence over that of aggression. I also need mention that these policies change with each administration, at least in the United States, but to date none of these policies since the 1960s have elevated the concern for those actually involved. In short, the danger of a World War does not lie in your superpowers like the United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom or any of those who conscribe to nationalist policies in them. Your most likely conflicts to expand to a larger theatre are cliché at this point, to which I imagine you know the reference.


Not now, because the Alt-Right is a fringe movement. If they remain a fringe movement, global capitalism stays in the drivers seat. But if western countries get Alt-Right ideologues in power, the threat of general war becomes greater. At this point there really isn't an Alt-right ideologue in power. Trump is the closest we got, and he doesn't seem to be much of an ideologue.

But I digress, if you want a basic level assessment of the Alt-Right and the Trump movement, they are not considered a threat to security or safety. In fact, Antifa and its associates fulfill more of those criteria and are becoming increasingly more important in that scope and spectrum. What will come of this? Likely nothing. Both factions, even politically, are not extreme enough to gain enough power to severely leverage or alter the scale. Yes, even the Trump administration is not that powerful or successful despite the opinions of both sides, from those who believe he is Hitler to those who think he's the Messiah. The American pride movement is nothing that was not already present, the difference being it was mobilized by being spoken down to and socially oppressed by its peers; the pendulum now is swinging the other way.


Anti-fa doesn't seem to be an existential threat. They ruin protests. Right now, that's about as much as they do. I don't see them fielding serious candidates, and their revolutionary abilities are pretty questionable.

I do agree the pendulum is in effect. The Alt-Right is probably a fad, like libertarianism was ten years ago. If I were a betting man I'd bet on centrist democrats becoming popular by 2020, so long as they don't do something stupid like run Hillary.

And this is why there is no such thing as Islamophobia.

This is the desired, intentional effect of a campaign of terrorism. By design, as I had mentioned earlier, acts of terror are committed to cause panic and fear. This belief and perception, as well as the propagation of the myth that people might consider this reasonable or that some large amount of the population finds it credible, is part of its finer mechanism. It is to create an "us versus them" environment where, in this case, some people sympathize with the radicals and aid them or conspire against them and become "the other extreme". This is more or less a textbook execution of that.

To answer on your closing, I agree from an economic and security angle the stagnation of any market is a danger, although a rebound and both a dip are coming in the relative future; the dip, or rather two dips I know of, are not as concerning as the past, but they do align at a bad time. The rebound I am more skeptical of because, as with others in our age group, a "promising future economy" is usually met with suspicion and rightfully so.

The division on racial lines and Right versus Left, at least in the United States, I believe to be a self-aggrandizing effort. It has been and still is being used to drive political points, of which have only become more exaggerated with time. The "Alt-Right", not to be confused with the actual Alt-Right, or those you see now making up the distinctive political right that helped get Donald Trump elected, in large do not care about the matters of race; they go so far to treat it as a joke now, which further polarizes their opposition in the Far Left that believe in the tenants of social justice.

Again, I cite my earlier concern that domestic terror, to include that political focused as in this case, is in fact likely. I legitimately fear that during some demonstration or incident there will be an attack. Based on what I know, the Far Left is the most likely attacker, which only brings ill omen from the regular right, "Alt-Right" and the Alt-Right. I say this because any such transaction will only prove them "right" and with a right-leaning government, potentially lead to a heavy handed albeit needed response, which will provoke more backlash.

My mindset and talent is in defense, so it is no surprise I see it form this lens. What worries me is that I can see it at all and said, "Maybe." with any amount of reliability in the impulse. That is what concerns me and that is why I believe these things.


There is Islamophobia. I mean, those guys who beat ups Sikhs are an example, in that they create a boogeyman version if Islam that ends up leading them to attack people who aren't even Islamic. If you are actively scared of random Muslims you meet in public, you would be Islamophobic.

Also, regarding attacks in every day politics, both sides have had violent extremists, and in both cases they have been isolated. I suppose the left is more likely to be active in the streets because they are currently locked out of the political system, but thus far all we have had are isolated incidents.

I will say that, for those few serious anarchist agitators among all the LARPers in the Anti-fa movement, the right-wing cracking down is exactly what they want. Marshal law would make the right wing pretty unpopular pretty quickly.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Dinh AaronMk
Raw
Avatar of Dinh AaronMk

Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)

Member Seen 6 mos ago

I do agree the pendulum is in effect. The Alt-Right is probably a fad, like libertarianism was ten years ago. If I were a betting man I'd bet on centrist democrats becoming popular by 2020, so long as they don't do something stupid like run Hillary.




There is Islamophobia. I mean, those guys who beat ups Sikhs are an example, in that they create a boogeyman version if Islam that ends up leading them to attack people who aren't even Islamic. If you are actively scared of random Muslims you meet in public, you would be Islamophobic.

Also, regarding attacks in every day politics, both sides have had violent extremists, and in both cases they have been isolated. I suppose the left is more likely to be active in the streets because they are currently locked out of the political system, but thus far all we have had are isolated incidents.

I will say that, for those few serious anarchist agitators among all the LARPers in the Anti-fa movement, the right-wing cracking down is exactly what they want. Marshal law would make the right wing pretty unpopular pretty quickly.


To add to the AntiFa bit: it's pretty easy to piss off conservatives. Shit, fucking walking out over Pence's speech in protest against him is considered by people in he and Trump's court as being literally equivalent to setting fire to a limo. I've read posts by old conservatives brought to my attention by friends of these people firing off about how it's disrespectful and how those students at Notre Dame shouldn't have stood up and left when he started speaking.

With things given how they are now, you can probably get the same ultimate effect by holding up a sign saying how much you hate the powers that be and it'll rile up an already excited right and AntiFa would get the crackdown to validate themselves.

But like with Islamic lone-wolf attacks it may also be a case of each one giving validation to the next for happening. In a strange way - coming from a self described anarchist myself - would be to simply ignore AntiFa and the protests in general and not add to discussions of Europe's next great explosion. The thing being to cut the flow of news and validation from source to receiver and deny those people that need validation to do what they want to do in the first place.
1x Laugh Laugh
↑ Top
1 Guest viewing this page
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet