The Politically Correct and the Islamists are Odd Bedfellows

Australias fastest growing Religions (as per 2016 Census) are as follows: 1. Hindu, 2. Buddhist and 3. Islam. It's time to stop giving all religions free press and make them earn it. Only 20% of Australians now follow a particular Religion. It's time for us all to relax about the threat posed by marginal religions. At least in my Country!

originally posted by: imwilliam
It's really not that difficult. For some significant segment of liberals, Christianity is the enemy. Islam is a tool they use to assault Christians/Christianity with.

They don't approve of or love Islam, they just hate Christianity/Christians enough to get in bed with the devil, in order to harm Christians/Christianity, or at least attempt to.

They will ultimately fail, and face total destruction along with Islam and Zionism.

Only the TRUTH will prevail...it is written in the sky..

a reply to: Kali74

Islam is much more than a religion..it is a political system...and you ARE affected whether you like it or not.

The word HONOR you used is interesting.

Islam as a whole will either change and see the light or dissolve into the ether..they will be FIRST to go...hopefully the lefties do not stand in the way.....

All government systems that operate in the zionist manner face the same fate...literally at the same time...again the repression of all of humanity will be eliminated.

The problem the left has..is they do not AT ALL understand that what they are currently doing does not jive with a balanced world.

Dichotomy of the highest degree...well meaning people who are being used in ways they do not see.

And yes..you left are now FAR more on the dark side of the moon than the right is.

Realize this and rectify it..we need you to be HEALED.

So you can help us deal with the REAL problems on Earth and beyond.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I didn't see anything wrong in the Louis Smith video. He was drunk and having a laugh. If you can't have a laugh these days without offending someone, then you may aswell become a Monk.

It wasn't even Louis himself on the Mat, it was the other guy he was with.

originally posted by: Kali74
Also it is complete horse dung that liberals and lefties hate the West and everything white. Those of you that believe that have some serious screws loose.

Stop labelling everything and believing in the labels given to you and others.

YOUR WHOLE MOVEMENT IS OPPRESSING BY WAY OF LABELS.

A DE-LABELER is about to appear on the scene to help you all remember why you were trying to help in the first place...an echo from the inner soul.......

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Drawing from the title I get the analogy in my head from Star Trek (I forget the episode or movie) I can hear Scotty saying
" But Captain! , I can't guarantee what will happen if we mix matter with anti-matter!! "
Thesis meet antithesis.
Surely one will destroy the other eventually.

Indeed..what remains after the 2 no longer MATTER.

Pure truth.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Personally I think it is too late, at least for Europe. My only hope now is that the truth leads people away from their evils before violence occurs.

The slavic peoples will save them ALL...the total opposite of the fake news in the Book of Revelations.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sadly you may be right - but there is season for everything. When we were in Crete last year a local told us over a coffee that a 90 year old woman was killed by Albanians who broke in at night demanding miserable Euros. Whilst not directly relevant to the topic the lawlessness is worrying.

EDIT By season for everything I am not advocating violence

Turn the other cheek of Jesus times is as failed as Lucifers kill em all approach.

The winners and losers will choose THEMSELVES.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well I wasn't the first in the thread but if you want to use that to ignore my points and continue your false narrative....

Your "points" ignored everything I wrote. I'm not even sure who you were talking to.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Asktheanimals

It can be rebuilt - nothing is impossible, but after the wars the rebuilding was focused on infrastructure - and the beginning of the Cold War ideology. We don't want it to get to that. It is more insidious in that dissent is drowned out actively by Governments, totalitarianism in effect where free speech is lacking. If voices are silenced then there can be no holding the ideology back.

It would have to be a Pan-European revolution. Western European leaders and the EU have gone too far already and will make no effort to reduce the numbers of immigrants from the Islamic world. They are willing to completely destroy their own cultures in the effort to accommodate multiculturalism. Either the people reclaim their own governments (only possible by force IMO) or they are doomed to a program of ethnic replacement. Given birthrate demographics it's only a matter of time until native Europeans are minorities in their own countries.

One only need to look at California to see the results of 50 years of uncontrolled immigration. Where Whites once made up 90% of the population they are now less than 50% and steadily shrinking both because of birth rates and white flight. Nobody asked the American people if they wanted a huge shift in demographics, it was the result of the 1964 immigration act by Ted Kennedy who promised it would not change the face of America by shifting immigration to Latin America instead of European countries as we had always done. It was also the failure to enforce immigration laws by allowing illegal aliens to remain in the US. Both Europe and US have made the grave mistake of allowing generous welfare benefits to those arriving from other countries. They aren't coming because they want to be Americans or Europeans, they are coming for the freebies which allow them to live in comparative luxury without having to work.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

To your original post: unfortunately I feel like this is a consequence of long lasting "peace" throughout a large collective society. When a society becomes too comfortable due to their structure/leadership/organization/success it always seems like its guard comes down, and then in come those who are too weak to fight but wish to lead. They will neuter the protective qualities that originally built their comfortable living because they are too violent, and it will leave them open to be taken over by still masculine societies. "Love prevails over hate." But that does not translate with those who still bear hate in their mind. Thanks for the post.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

We should never dismiss that there are actual racists and bigots who are anti-Muslim, and they reflect that stupidity in how they treat others. Such sentiment has led to the murder of innocents and other acts of hatred unbefitting of pluralistic and liberal societies. But why would we not hold that same contempt for the racists, sexists, bigots and murderers of the Islamic faith, and to criticize the content of the very beliefs that lead them to such actions, and for the exact same reasons?

This paragraph stood out to me.

First, a quick aside. It is also interesting that Christians, who can have similar beliefs and motives to Muslims (just less extreme) are so against Muslims. But it does make more sense on the surface than liberals supporting Muslims. The religions have a history of being hostile towards each other, after all.

At any rate, if it came down to it, and liberals had to deal with Muslim extremists promoting anti-women or anti-gay rhetoric in the U.S. government, I'm positive they would be opposed to it.

Liberals give the same treatment to Muslims that conservative Christians probably wish they got from liberals, and that is to treat everyone as an individual, and not to let a few extremists talk for the whole religion.

Republicans, meanwhile, wish to do things like blanket ban refugees, who are running from Muslim extremists. This makes little sense and is not very humanitarian. Republicans like to shout about what the Muslim extremists say, fearmonger, and blow things out of proportion, even to the point of being deliberately misleading. The Republican approach is to treat all Muslims as the same - a threat.

This unrealistic way of thinking is what most leftists attack. I have seen a few (but not many) liberal articles criticizing specific Muslims and the like. ISIS is not supported by mainstream liberals, for example, although I would think Republicans (given their pro-war stance) would be more likely to deal with them effectively.

Democrats see Islam as a complex issue, not something to be simplified to black and white. Sure, I would be in support of calling out specific Muslims or Muslim regimes that are being sexist or homophobic, or even outright barbaric. But I can't support fear mongering and racial profiling.

The victims of Muslim extremists can often be other Muslims like women or children or gays, for example, so shouldn't we support those Muslims? Why would we treat the victims with hostility the same as the perpetrators? Just because they are all Muslim?

This is just my take, I'm sure I'm missing a lot of details on both sides as this is a topic that is not discussed as often as others.

Insanity is ruling the world these days. You can't be critical of certain religions or even ideologies like AGW... If you say or post anything that criticizes Islam, or AGW you are "branded" as a "racist", or a 'climate denier" as in the case of being critical to AGW.

In sum, when you criticize or show how erroneous such ideologies are, you get branded with labels that have nothing to do with the ideologies you criticized in the first place. Not to mention that many people who adhere to such ideologies try to use embarrassment, and resort to false defamation of character, and those people even try to negatively affect the lives of anyone who dares disagree with these people.

a reply to: darkbake

How is the "travel ban" racial profiling of Muslims who come from regions where ISIS, and other extremist Islamic groups like DAESH/Al-Qaeda control, when Muslims are not one race but in fact you can find Muslims who are part of every race that exists in the world?

Another question that many people like yourself keep avoiding is; how is it racist to do what rich Muslim nations decided to do, more so when once again there are Muslims who are part of every race that exists on Earth?

Why was it that rich Muslim nations, which are closer to the areas where many Muslim are leaving, stated that they could not, and would not accept any Muslim refugees"?...

Somehow, apparently in the minds of many people in the left it is completely okay for Muslim nations to not accept any Muslim labeled as a "refugee". Yet when any western nation does the same those nations are branded as "racist", and even global groups like the EU try to impose sanctions, and legal lawsuits against any western nation that tries to do what Muslim nations did...

They're perfect for each other if they are trying to destroy America from within.

I think it comes down to something more simple, these are both groups of people who demand that others do as they say or we will commit violence against you, we will destroy your life for not giving me all that you have worked for because we deserve it more than you because we have less.

Well, when you think of it logically. The Old Testament says that if a man's words come to pass then he is a prophet. Joseph Smith Jr., Mormonism's founder was shown by Richard Abanes book, One Nation Under God, to have failed many prophecies, including those specific to his own wife. He prophesied that she, Helen Mar Kimball would be destroyed by God if she left him or the cult. She did both, and was in fact not destroyed.

On the other hand, Muhammed had hundreds of fulfilled prophecies.

AND! In the Old Testament, people were killed by an angel in one sitting for willfully following a known false prophet such as Smith who led them down the path of illegality. For example, Smith threatening 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball if she left him or the belief system. There is nothing legal about that. The Bible says that a bishop must be the husband of one wife.

So, the US government by allowing this religion, the false prophet Smith is endangering the people by possibly subjecting them to divine judgements to prevent people from following falsehoods, especially dangerous ones that prohibit interfaith marriage, encourage violations of scripture like being monogamous only, and engaging in psychological and sexual abuse of 14 year old girls in the name of false religions.

What if an angel were to strike the land with ebola, and earthquake the Washington DC monument? This is why freedom of religion is in opposition to scriptural authority.

a reply to: Kali74

Like Mormons, Mennonites, Hasidic Jews etc? Many of those Mosques in the UK accused of such have actually reported people they were concerned about... including the monster that blew up the concert.

If its a cult its a cult. Sure a mosque may have reported it. What the intelligence community do with it may be another matter, and I think there is another agenda there from Western IC to push for more draconian laws, keep people in fear.

What I have noticed is that no-one calls for sanctions on the mosques that the "radicalized" spring from.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I don't find anything unreasonable in your post