ScottSA

Oy vey. WW II happened. Do you need a citation for that too?

Perhaps we can encourage you to bestir yourself to go over there and do what you can to releave them of the onerous burden we put on them by giving them modern medicine, teaching them how to triple food output, giving them modern technology, teaching them table manners, and lending them money? Perhaps you'd like to reacquaint them with the joys of frolicking freely in the sylan pre-industrial wilderness, three steps ahead of starvation and two steps ahead of various enemies, both human and animal?

The Koran is not "slightly more" violent than the New testament Mikey. If you don't know that, I suggest either a reading course or electric shock therapy. One says "peace" and the other says "Jihad". One has come through time interpreted as peace, and the other has come through time interpreted as Jihad, with bombs replacing swords, except in those cases where beheadings can be undertaken with paring knives for better camera effect. But that's not really the point here, is it? We're talking about a significant and swelling number of Muslim leaders who not only talked about taking over power, but ACTED to do so. There is evidence in front of your eyes, yet you prefer to appeal to anecdotal "I know some Muslims, and they're nice, so none of this can be true." Two days in logic 101 would teach you that using a specific to argue against a general doesn't even make it off the ground, never mind fly. The west has a superior culture to anything Islam ever spawned. Even it's alleged inventions were largely products of other civilizations. Today if anything it's worse than it ever was. I read a stat not long ago, referenced to an academic document that there are more titles published in a single year than have been published in Islamic countries since the barbarian had his first psychotic hallucination. I don't know if that means anything to you Mikey, but to me it dispells any notion of cultural relativism. Here's some food for thought...coming from a great and prescient man long before 911: "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men." "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." (Winston Churchill / 1874-1865)

Why would you say I'm confused Mikey? I have more experience by an order of magnitude than you with the third world, with Muslims, and with violence. Nor have I, to my knowledge, ever behaved with any degree of "confusion." I pretty much know what I think, know what I mean to say, and unlike those you'll notice when you pass a mirror, I say it, rather than sneak around using innuendo and lies.

Perhaps we ought to take the advice of a certain bishop from the Albigensian Crusade, and kill them all, leaving God to sort out the souls.

They don't do it from Canada. They get on the horn and get the thugs back home to do it, and then express their innocence and duly "condemn violence" while planning the next round of it.

Well that's different. I'm down in the slimepit half the time flinging odure at the lefties. But that's another topic altogether.

"lean, mean, tree hugging machine"

So speaks the face of a culture with millenia of top down authoritarian government. The only thing that's changed is that Chinese patriarchy has switched from father knows best to government knows best. Our tendency to disbelieve that is another tenet of our civilization you'll probably never understand.

Judging by the flood of mexicans across the US border, what we are seeing in Canada is the beginning of the same thing. If we don't set up procedures to stop it now, in it's tracks, and become known as a refugee unfreindly country, we're in for a long, painful, and very expensive haul.

Well, actually, Kuzzad is wrong. The Taliban were not connected to the US in any way shape or form at the time of the invasion, and had indeed already become international pariahs. Kuzzad is obviously attempting to link them as of the date of invasion, no doubt through ignorance rather than deceit. Attempting to call the Taliban US lackeys is rather like calling the Soviets US lackeys by virtue of the help the US sent during the war.The rest of your rant is the standard boilerplate of the left and not worth replying to.

No problem. I don't mind being chased around the block by the usual suspects, but when sane folks start throwing bricks it concerns me a bit...

You'll find that our government is hogtied by political correctness, and that it will move with all dispatch against Christian sects, but pussyfoot around to an amazing degree when "new Canadians" are involved. The practice of marriages arranged at birth are rampant in the "Indo-community", and fgm is also practised occasionally in Canada as a "cultural" practice. I have no idea whether it's illegal or not, but a blind eye is turned to it on a regular basis. Link It's not that the left supports them, but the left is full of paradoxes, and find's itself balancing its outrages in the most discordant ways. It's blind devotion to 'tolerance' in this case forces it to both defend and condemn practises like this, or at least keep a low profile when the subject comes up.

This sort of talk is indicative of one of two things: either they are profoundly ignorant of international relations and don't realize that peacekeeping is different from peacemaking, which is a euphemism for hot war; or they are dishonest to the core and are just trying to lead a bunch of ignorant lefties around by the nose, as usual.

No matter how you rationalize it, you just backed up what Argus said. To most of the literate in the west, the ability to speak freely is of overwhelming importance, and because we have been through all the slippery slopes long ago, we know that "just" modifying it a bit here and there is unacceptable. You on the other hand, as a presumed future immigrant, feel that "feelings" are more important. They're not. Free speech is the fundamental starting point of democracy. It's not some slogan we all like to shout for fun...but you wouldn't understand that. Speaking personally, I think your attempt to use streetcorner psychology to pigeonhole all anti-immigrant sentiment as some kind of economic failing is not only wrong, but actually laughable. I'm certainly not a "loser" in the economic world, and I don't want more Chinese here. As a writer, I can be fairly certain you're not going to take my job, so that can't be the reason. As a former Calgarian who used to work on the edge of Chinatown, it's not some kind of "phobia," and as a well educated and well travelled individual, you can't chalk it up to "ignorance." I don't want Chinese here for a number of reasons, not least of which is the problems that will inevitably arise in the event of almost inevitable tensions with China, and the ethnic Balkanization already well under way on the west coast. Our proud multicultural experiment won't last a week if we end up at war with China, and the west coast will likely explode. Worse than that, we may even be hamstrung and unable to go to war even though it's needed. But frankly I don't need an excuse to not want anymore immigrants here. I want my culture to remain the way it is...as ethnically homogenous as it can possibly be after 4 decades of third world immigration, Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian, and just plain nice. "Tolerance" is a virtue only if it is severely circumscribed...not an end in itself.

Oh well, so sad. That was 200 years ago and most of the treaties have been settled to the letter long ago. Move on. Get jobs.

What a silly conversation. A bunch of FAS thugs beat up someone in his own property. Nothing else matters; certainly not whether it was a baseball bat, 2x4 or log that the beating was done with. The OPP should have gone in and arrested them, and if it couldn't handle the job, the army should have gone in and arrested them, preferably with a large expenditure of bullets. And arrest the rest of the tribe and force them into workfare, so they don't have so much time on their hands to sit around drinking and feeling dispossessed.

Most people try to hide their ignorance. Others take great pride in running it up the flagpole and flapping it about.

I take it that's not an apology. Oh well.

Jerry, with due respect, you've already made the point you want to make, but your unintelligible gibberish simply clogs up the thread. You are failing to make a distinction between fascism and the historical effects of fascism. Arbitrarly denying the right to political expression, and then enforcing your sanction with proactive violence against middle aged men in suits, who happen to be duly elected is something easily found in Germany in the 20s and 30s, but rarely found in advanced democracies. In fact I can't think of a single case in the democratic west since 1945 where a peaceful demonstration was broken up by baton wielding thugs for simply standing there.

Let me rephrase this doctrinal orthodoxy to put in the context the other side understands: "If you don't want to kill someone, then don't. In the meantime, get out of my life." You see there ARE two sides to the debate, but you are merely adopting one and dismissing the other. Either you are killing someone or you're not. "Rights" have nothing to do with it.

Excellent post. As a rule I'm for as little governmental interference as possible, but I think encouraging birthrates with cash is important just from the POV of survival.

I have no idea why the silly notion of white superiority evolved, nor do I pretend to. For all I know, it's as ancient as the prehistoric duality between darkness and light, but I have no grounds to defend that theory, so I'll leave it undefended. What I do know is that colonialism didn't cause it. It didn't cause pre-columbian American legends of white winged Gods, since that was millenia older than the advent of European colonialism or even exploration. It didn't cause African line whitening. It didn't cause Asian line whitening. I've heard some, not well defended, arguments suggesting that line whitening in the Caribbean is an aftershock of slavery, but if it is, it's an aberration with I suspect roots much deeper than that. The Chinese practised it eons before the first contact with the west. Today it is accepted as a norm for around 5+billion people across the globe. On a personal note, I think it's ridiculous, and more than that it's dangerous, because with admiration goes a great deal of resentment and hatred, which we see and manage to ignore or internalize every day from the mouths of such luminaries as Jackson and the Rev. I'm all for destroying the myth, but not at the cost of making up history, and not at the cost of blaming my civilization for a genetic game of chance.

Great rehashing and pasting together of a mishmash of theories as old as the hills, but how do you explain the fact that color selection predated colonialism by millenia, in some cases, as in the Americas, long before Caucasians had even been seen? Europeans have benefited by this foolishness, to be sure, but they didn't invent the myth of white superiority. Trying to fit history into your wish to blame yourself is kind of silly, don't you think?

Go back and read what I said. I'm not interested in you picking out tidbits of text in the old testament, or even uncontextual tidbits from the new testament. I want you to show me where Christ, under orders from God: 1 Raped women 2 Boinked a 9 year old girl 3 Slaughtered or enslaved a tribe or two of Jews 4 Practised banditry 5 or did anything remotely....remotely...like any of the above. Have fun.