NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4816

Thoughts?

Idiotic.

He makes a good point about combatting Islamism on a moral, political level, as well as with the military, but this is a serious mischaracterisation or Marxism.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4816

Thoughts?

Buh?

This article is right up there with 'Why Right is the New Left'.

Wait... was that supposed to make any sense?

oh look an idiot who likes to separate Muslims from the western population

what a surprise that he also seems to get a hard on linking socialism and communism, before he goes on about teh ebil commies!!!11

After reading those posts after mine, I feel that some elaboration on my original point is need:

Extremely Idiotic.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4816

Thoughts?

Hey! This guy stole ideas from my article, "Why CD players are the new tomatoes"!

piss poor.

typical aussie. nearly what passes for rational and civilised.

Hey! This guy stole ideas from my article, "Why CD players are the new tomatoes"!

What the world needs now is an article entitled Why 'why X is the new Y' is the new Z.

That's funny, I thought Islam was the new orange. Guess I was wrong.

What the world needs now is an article entitled Why 'why X is the new Y' is the new Z.

What about my article:

Why "Why "Why Islam is the new Marxism" is the new "Why CD players are the new tomatoes"" is the new "Why "Why Atheism is the new Fascism" is the new "Why bulldozers are the new socks".

By: Heikoku.

Inanity, fallacy, false alarm, generalization, inanity, inanity, fallacy, fallacy, generalization, inanity, stupidity, fake conclusion.

Wow, that sucks. First the developing world gets ruined and exploited by Marxism, and now it has to go through it all over again with Islam. I feel sorry for Africa, man.

Wow, that sucks. First the developing world gets ruined and exploited by Marxism, and now it has to go through it all over again with Islam. I feel sorry for Africa, man.

Please, PLEASE tell me you're joking.

Please, PLEASE tell me you're joking.

No, Marxism ruined the hell out of Africa just as bad as the kleptocratic capitalism used in places like Zaire. They were both terrible.

No, Marxism ruined the hell out of Africa just as bad as the kleptocratic capitalism used in places like Zaire. They were both terrible.

The issue is the idea that Islam is "the new Marxism", not the idea that Marxism did to Africa what forced capitalism did to Brazil in the 60's.

The issue is the idea that Islam is "the new Marxism", not the idea that Marxism did to Africa what forced capitalism did to Brazil in the 60's.

It's saying that Islam is appealing to the poor in the same way that Marxism did back in the 1960's and 1970's, and if that's the case it's a pretty bad thing since Marxism failed everywhere it was imposed.

It's saying that Islam is appealing to the poor in the same way that Marxism did back in the 1960's and 1970's, and if that's the case it's a pretty bad thing since Marxism failed everywhere it was imposed.

So "appealing to the masses" means "it won't work"? Fallacy.

So "appealing to the masses" means "it won't work"? Fallacy.

It's already not working. Islamic states already have some of the most repressive governments and poorest living conditions in the world.

So "appealing to the masses" means "it won't work"? Fallacy.

Not only that, but it makes the claim that Islam appeals to the poor-which is untrue. There are plenty of rich Muslims, plenty of middle-class muslims. The mid-east has a large amount of poor Muslims not because it appeals to the poor, but instead because of the politics of the region, and policies from foreign powers.

It's already not working. Islamic states already have some of the most repressive governments and poorest living conditions in the world. Its failure is already demonstrable.

The issue here is defining "Islam", the religion, as representative for states that act un-Islamic in and of themselves (as Islam doesn't proselytize, whereas said states force religion). You can argue that theocracies are the new Marxism, but not that ISLAM is it.

It's already not working. Islamic states already have some of the most repressive governments and poorest living conditions in the world.

Due not to Islam, but instead to politics.

Honestly, back when Christianity had control of Europe, the exact same thing happened. Immensely repressive governments with horribly poor living condition for almost everyone.

The issue is less that Islam is some sort of new ideology for the west to combat, than it is an issue of reaction to western ideology. It's appealing to the middle-east, because it is a homegrown solution to the idea that foreign influence corrupts.

Due not to Islam, but instead to politics.

Honestly, back when Christianity had control of Europe, the exact same thing happened. Immensely repressive governments with horribly poor living condition for almost everyone.

And that's exactly why the spread of political Islam is a very bad thing. I don't think anyone would want us to return to medieval Christian Europe, so why would we want the same thing to happen today?

If anything, this is way worse than Marxism could ever be; at least they respected secular law and didn't sentence rape victims to death in the name of "honor".

The issue here is defining "Islam", the religion, as representative for states that act un-Islamic in and of themselves (as Islam doesn't proselytize, whereas said states force religion). You can argue that theocracies are the new Marxism, but not that ISLAM is it.

Well, yes. Theocracies are the problem, though; the spread of Islam in and of itself isn't a bad thing, just like any other religion throughout history. It's when that religion becomes a political movement that you get your problems.

So is the spread of political Christianity.

I agree. Politicized religion of any stripe is a bad thing.

And that's exactly why the spread of political Islam is a very bad thing. I don't think anyone would want us to return to medieval Christian Europe, so why would we want the same thing to happen today?

If anything, this is way worse than Marxism could ever be; at least they respected secular law and didn't sentence rape victims to death in the name of "honor".

So is the spread of political Christianity.

And that's exactly why the spread of political Islam is a very bad thing. I don't think anyone would want us to return to medieval Christian Europe, so why would we want the same thing to happen today?

If anything, this is way worse than Marxism could ever be; at least they respected secular law and didn't sentence rape victims to death in the name of "honor".

Alright, I see your point now.

However, one must remember that the rise of political Islam is largely due to Western influences in the region. Honestly, we really should try and stop sticking our noses into that which we don't belong. Never ends up well.

Alright, I see your point now.

However, one must remember that the rise of political Islam is largely due to Western influences in the region. Honestly, we really should try and stop sticking our noses into that which we don't belong. Never ends up well.

I agree with that as well. Our resource imperialism in the region has produced untold numbers of terrorists and fanned anti-Western sentiment for decades. The political games of the USA and USSR during the Cold War are also a major contributor to the problem, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn't help either.

Not surprisingly, people don't like being used as pawns in international power politics, and that has a lot to do with why there is such strong anti-Western (anti-American especially) sentiment in the region today.

So you understand that, religion or not, the people used that way are pretty damn pissed off, and, thus, would use whatever reasoning to wreak their "revenge"?

Oh, I understand it. I also know it will end up hurting them immensely.

I agree with that as well. Our resource imperialism in the region has produced untold numbers of terrorists and fanned anti-Western sentiment for decades. The political games of the USA and USSR during the Cold War are also a major contributor to the problem, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn't help either.

Not surprisingly, people don't like being used as pawns in international power politics, and that has a lot to do with why there is such strong anti-Western (anti-American especially) sentiment in the region today.

So you understand that, religion or not, the people used that way are pretty damn pissed off, and, thus, would use whatever reasoning to wreak their "revenge"?

So you understand that, religion or not, the people used that way are pretty damn pissed off, and, thus, would use whatever reasoning to wreak their "revenge"?

It's not about revenge, it's about defining oneself. It's a means of gaining more control over what goes on in one's life.

It's not about revenge, it's about defining oneself. It's a means of gaining more control over what goes on in one's life.

Under any ideology or religion.

Islam is the new Marxism in the sense that it's the fuel/excuse for the wave of McCarthyism sweeping over the United States as of late.

It's baffles me how you Americans seem to be so naive to the politics of fear your politicians use to maintain control over their electorates.

Okay, look... for those who didn't notice:

MARXISM IS NOT COMMUNISM. MARXIST-LENINISM IS.

That is all.

MARXISM IS NOT COMMUNISM. MARXIST-LENINISM IS.

What?

(And it's Marxism-Leninism).

No, Marxism ruined the hell out of Africa just as bad as the kleptocratic capitalism used in places like Zaire. They were both terrible.

Zaire wasn't capitalist.

Zaire wasn't capitalist.

Yes, actually that is a mistake. I believe I confused Zaire's close relations with the US and its anti-Communist stance with its economic policies.

Yes, actually that is a mistake. I believe I confused Zaire's close relations with the US and its anti-Communist stance with its economic policies.

Interestingly, Zaire wasn't even sure of its own ideology. The MPR (the sole legal party) described itself as "neither left nor right nor even center" and called for "the repudiation of both capitalism and communism."

Mmm-mmm, oatbran. It's what you want.

Q. Why (is) Islam the new Marxism?

A. Because Marxism isn't scary anymore and we desperately need a new menace to fear.

Q. Why (is) Islam the new Marxism?

A. Because Marxism isn't scary anymore and we desperately need a new menace to fear.

Why Islam? Why not something really scary, like, oh I dunno...Richard Simmons?

Just add it to The Chart (http://thediagram.com/6_3/leisurearts.html) I guess.

Why Islam? Why not something really scary, like, oh I dunno...Richard Simmons?

Eh, they're trying everything. Homosexuals didn't work. No more Communist Boogeymen. "Liberals" was a good go. Now they finally found the niche' of the 21st century.

And that's exactly why the spread of political Islam is a very bad thing. I don't think anyone would want us to return to medieval Christian Europe, so why would we want the same thing to happen today?

If anything, this is way worse than Marxism could ever be; at least they respected secular law and didn't sentence rape victims to death in the name of "honor".

Islam used to be a very tolerant and open religion. Many people fled to arabic countries where they could live in peace. Arabic countries had a very developed culture before and many things we have today comes from them. For example our numbers. Nowadays it's different but I can tell you. I know many muslims and almoust all of them are nice and tolerant people which cannot be said about all to many people in today's world. The religion itself isn't worse than any other religion but it's the way it's beeing used from politicians. There's many stupid things in the Quoran as in the Bible but everyone isn't a fundie.

Okay, look... for those who didn't notice:

MARXISM IS NOT COMMUNISM. MARXIST-LENINISM IS.

That is all.

Marxism is the theories about how we should achieve communism. So is M-L but M-L is stupid cuz according to it a strong party controlled by a couple of people should lead us to communism. This what system the Soviet used and it fell.

How can Islam be the "new" anything, when Islam is already over 1300 years old?

Exactly how stupid do you have to be to act as if the religion of Islam is this new thing that just got created a few years ago?

How can Islam be the "new" anything, when Islam is already over 1300 years old?

Exactly how stupid do you have to be to act as if the religion of Islam is this new thing that just got created a few years ago?

As smart as the ones who claims that pink is the new black.

Everybody knows that black is the new black... or is it satin now?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4816Thoughts?

Utter bullshit. Idiocy and sensationalism. And doublethink plusgood goosetongued.

Quoted from the article:

Furthermore, the Iranian revolution was in part a reaction to the perceived Godlessness of communism knocking at its doorstep.


The Iranian revolution was a reaction against a Western-subsided dictator. Ask yourself why Persia had F-14s (now they're a bunch of scrap metal).
And it was the embassy of god-abiding USA, not the embassy of godless CCCP that got invaded, iirc.

Anyway. Islam =/= Marxism.
Islam is a religion. Marxism is a economical-political theory.
Islam has a fixed set of laws. Marxism hasn't.
Islam believes in God. Marxism is part of the Hegelian Left (see Feuerbach).
Islam doesn't focus about democracy. Marxism does (not about liberal democracy, of course, but democracy is considered essential for socialism and communism).

Islam is the new Marxism in that crushing Islam is now what stupid fat American rednecks think about while they masturbate.

So is the spread of political Christianity.
I really wish I understood the mentality of people who have to go "But Christianity is just as bad!!!!1!1!11" every time someone criticizes Islam. Vetalia was not even arguing in favour of the former. It seems to have become a kneejerk reaction.

Okay, look... for those who didn't notice:

MARXISM IS NOT COMMUNISM. MARXIST-LENINISM IS.
Define Communism then.

Well, yes. Theocracies are the problem, though; the spread of Islam in and of itself isn't a bad thing, just like any other religion throughout history. It's when that religion becomes a political movement that you get your problems.

Truth, or when a political movement absorbs religious qualities, like Marxism has done. I swear to my post-it notes, Marx was thoroughly wrong about where revolutions would occur, the nature of the state after a revolution and countless other factors. His followers randomly adapt stuff, and argue "Oh, it's only because the time is not right, that the revolution has not occured."

It's just like the Seventh Day Adventists.

Wow, Australia really has become the premiere Islamophobic state of the industrialised world.

Islam is the new Marxism in that crushing Islam is now what stupid fat American rednecks think about while they masturbate.

Wrong. I think of Keira Knightley crushing Islam between her thighs.

Islam is the new Marxism in that crushing Islam is now what stupid fat American rednecks think about while they masturbate.

You win, old chap.

Wrong. I think of Keira Knightley crushing Islam between her thighs.
Then clearly you're not a real stupd fat American redneck, and by default are a freedom hating islamist terrorist.
You win, old chap.

:D

Because it's the new way to say that people are BAD AND WRONG with a single word?

50 years earlier - "You are a Marxist, go and fuck right off"
Nowadays - "You are an Islamist, get orf moi land"

Okay, look... for those who didn't notice:

MARXISM IS NOT COMMUNISM. MARXIST-LENINISM IS.

That is all.
Marxism isn't communism, you're right, it's more about describing what may or may not come to be (as it stood in thet 19th century).

And Marxist-Leninism wasn't really communism either, although it's probably the closest that we've come so far.
What?

(And it's Marxism-Leninism).
No, you're wrong, it's Marxist-Leninism.

See The British Communist Party Marxist-Leninist's name.

The article talks about "islamists" but the headline is about "Islam."

It's no more sophisticated than blabbing about how Jews are Marxists. Damn Jews!

Basically, it's a fucking racist, ignorant blog that no one should read. Naturally, everyone will read it, including me. Fuck.

The article talks about "islamists" but the headline is about "Islam."

It's no more sophisticated than blabbing about how Jews are Marxists. Damn Jews!

Basically, it's a fucking racist, ignorant blog that no one should read. Naturally, everyone will read it, including me. Fuck.

Well, be that as it may (and I don't believe there is a threat from Islam), do you believe that something can be an existential threat?

Something that isn't in the form of a state actor?

It's already not working. Islamic states already have some of the most repressive governments and poorest living conditions in the world.

Why don't you name some Islamic states, because most states with a Muslim majority are dictatorships that happen to do no worse than the neighbouring dictatorships without a Muslim majority...

Well, be that as it may (and I don't believe there is a threat from Islam), do you believe that something can be an existential threat?

Something that isn't in the form of a state actor?

Of course. For example, lung cancer threatens the existence of many lives.

Marxism isn't communism, you're right, it's more about describing what may or may not come to be (as it stood in thet 19th century).

And Marxist-Leninism wasn't really communism either, although it's probably the closest that we've come so far.

No, you're wrong, it's Marxist-Leninism.

See The British Communist Party Marxist-Leninist's name.

It's Marxism-Leninism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism-Leninism

Why don't you name some Islamic states, because most states with a Muslim majority are dictatorships that happen to do no worse than the neighbouring dictatorships without a Muslim majority...
So you're basically saying that most Muslim majority states are repressive dictatorships, but they're no more repressive than other dictatorships, therefore Islamic states are not repressive? :confused:

So you're basically saying that most Muslim majority states are repressive dictatorships, but they're no more repressive than other dictatorships, therefore Islamic states are not repressive? :confused:

This is unfair. There isn't one form of theocracy that's not repressive.

So you're basically saying that most Muslim majority states are repressive dictatorships, but they're no more repressive than other dictatorships, therefore Islamic states are not repressive? :confused:

No I was saying that states with a Muslim majority are not Islamic states.

Moreover I was stating that the economic and political problems associated with a Muslim majority, can be found in neighbouring states.

Therefore these problems are not caused by Islam

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4816

Thoughts?

He is mistaken on so many levels. Communism was never defeated, but rather the Soviet monopoly on socialism, which is something that all leftists can rejoice about. Political Islam has no radical aspirations about transforming society. They mostly just want the US and Israel to butt out of their lives. And conflating two hyped up "evils" is never a recipe for good journalism.

Why Islam is the new Marxism


The article makes me ask: When did butt become the new head?