Saturday, 29 March 2008

It is no longer Left vs Right, but pro-Western vs anti-Western

10 comments:

judiciousoversight said...

Neo-conservativism is pro-western?! If it were, it wouldn't be so fervently pro-immigration. Immigration is what has caused the disaster with Muslims. Whoever created that chart is an idiot or liar. It's contradictory even in its own terms: the religious right is allied with neo-conservativism.

Roland Dodds said...

While I think Marko’s “egg chart” has some basic faults to it, the previous comment made is ridiculous. How is being pro-immigration anti-western? If anything, it is at the heart of the western ideal, that all people can be liberal and enlightened regardless of their ethnic and religious background.

marvin said...

I agree roland. judiciousoversight is a loon, I think he's thinking of Western society in the 19th Century.

judiciousoversight said...

How is being pro-immigration anti-western?

The west is white European. As the west ceases to be white European, it ceases to be the west. People who come from other parts of the world import their native culture and the more of them there are, the more they re-create their non-western homeland. That is why immigration is anti-western. You will, of course, follow your brainwashing and reject those truths as "racist". Your brainwashing is Marxist. Marxism is anti-western.

If anything, it is at the heart of the western ideal, that all people can be liberal and enlightened regardless of their ethnic and religious background.

No, that's at the heart of a) the Guardian-reader half-wit ideal; b) the lying Marxist ideal. That ideal handed Rhodesia over to Robert Mugabe, who proceeded to disprove it very thoroughly. That ideal let blacks and Muslims into the UK and they are also disproving it. Without whites, there is no west.

I agree roland. judiciousoversight is a loon, I think he's thinking of Western society in the 19th Century.

Yes, a loon that made you admit you were wrong about Jews being the canaries in the coalmine. Here are some questions for you:

When did mass immigration start? (Hint: 1948)

When did a majority of the British vote for it? (Hint: Never)

Are vote-rigging, consanguineous marriage and honour killing Western values? (Hint: No)

Are those things more prevalent in the UK as a result of mass immigration? (Hint: Yes)

If they are more prevalent, how is being pro-immigration helping defend the west? (Hint: It isn't)

Tu S.Tin said...

judicious,
There is this place called the world, combined with a concept known as time.
Together they make what we refer to as history.
I won't assume you know nothing so I will skip over the lesson.Why are you so focused on race? or should I say skin colour?
...and I'm confused what you consider to be the west?
are you excluding the united states and the rest of us over here?
Immigration into europe started way before 1948 .... and I'm sorry but the post WWII workers were invited, but you must know that or you wouldnt have added "majority" into your question........

Should I list the negatives in our society and call them "western values".... even as they become more prevalent?
including your racist ideas.

marvin said...

Well said Tu S.Tin

Roland Dodds said...

Well judiciousoversight, I fell I have outspent my Marxism long ago, and I hate the current incarnation of the Guardian with a passion, so I don’t know where you will place me.

Immigration to the west of those who believe in individual liberty and freedom is a benefit to our societies, and always has been. Only a fool would argue that those people should be kept out.

judiciousoversight said...

Marvin -- You say elsewhere that "Retards are running the country". I quite agree. Further proof is that those retards are all in favour of mass immigration.

T. Tusin --

Tu S.Tin said...

judicious,
There is this place called the world, combined with a concept known as time.
Together they make what we refer to as history.
I won't assume you know nothing so I will skip over the lesson.


Thanks, that's good of you.

Why are you so focused on race? or should I say skin colour?

Because race -- involving far more than skin colour -- is important. Zimbabwe is what happens when whites lose control and blacks take over. South Africa will soon provide an even bigger and better example.

Immigration into europe started way before 1948 ....

Yes, that's why I said MASS immigration. You do understand what MASS means, don't you? On a scale unlike anything seen before of people from races and cultures alien and hostile to the white Christian British.

and I'm sorry but the post WWII workers were invited,

They weren't invited by the people, who did not want them here.

but you must know that or you wouldnt have added "majority" into your question........

I see. So it's okay to "invite" huge numbers of people into a country even when the majority oppose their presence. You don't believe in democracy, then?

Should I list the negatives in our society and call them "western values".... even as they become more prevalent?
including your racist ideas.


My racist ideas were accepted as normal until very recently. Racist ideas are western. They're also Japanese, Chinese and Indian. No other part of the world is expected to open its borders and allow non-natives in as we are. And other parts of the world don't do it.

Roland Dodds said..

judiciousoversight, I fell I have outspent my Marxism long ago, and I hate the current incarnation of the Guardian with a passion, so I don’t know where you will place me.

You're probably a neo-con, i.e. pro-Zionist liberal.

Immigration to the west of those who believe in individual liberty and freedom is a benefit to our societies, and always has been.

But Muslims don't believe in individual liberty and freedom. Nor do blacks. They're here to take advantage of a society whites have created, not to contribute to that society. Except in negative ways: crime, fraud, drug-dealing, etc. You say "always", but non-white mass immigration is only a recent phenomenon.

Only a fool would argue that those people should be kept out.

No, only a fool would say allowing people from the Third World into a First World nation will benefit the First World nation. Japan doesn't do it, Israel doesn't do it, China doesn't do it. Are they all "fools"?

Tu S.Tin said...

I'm sorry I don't like to debate, I prefer to go right to the truth, if and when it can be found so easily.
I don't know what to say in response to you without a lesson now?

"Because race -- involving far more than skin colour -- is important. Zimbabwe is what happens
when whites lose control and blacks take over. South Africa will soon provide an even bigger and better example."


I guess thats one way to look at it... (when youre trying to prove a racist point)

..... dont forget the rest of africa.
after the whites lost "control" >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_East_Africa

but never fear! - the united states is still here to blame for all that.

I am in fact a very big supporter of democracy, an enforcer of it even!
It's only our definitions that differ - according to your version the islamic revolution was a democratic movement then?
Your right, racism is pretty universal, and I think its pretty safe to say ...ummmm.... the reason those views have changed is that they tend to lead to things we should have learned are bad or wrong,
you know.... part of those western values we are defending.

look judicious... no one says we have no problems, that they should be ignored, or catered to in anyway what so ever!! EVER!!

"But Muslims don't believe in individual liberty and freedom. Nor do blacks. They're here to take advantage of a society whites have created, not to contribute to that society. Except in negative ways: crime, fraud, drug-dealing, etc."


in more than one way, that has got to be the most ridiculous and ignorant statement ever made!!!
now I am curious though to know what your perfect world looks like.
do please share.....

Azarmehr said...

Interesting diagram! seems correct to me.