the climate change scam

kinglear said:

yeah see that's what your heart is telling you and that's good but we also need to hear what our head is saying

there was a couple in the news in the UK in recent years who took a homeless guy off the street into their home to try and help him. he stole from them and then murdered them

Click to expand...

Unfortunately those things happen and it's horrible that an act of kindness resulted in that but nevertheless people can be murdered by their loved ones too, etc. So, to me, the issue is society and how they e.g. tackle mental health, homelessness, etc. I don't think the issue is showing kindness. Although, I don't think I would bring a homeless person home while in UK so, yes in some areas the way we show kindness needs to be appropriated in a way. Further, I would definitely not bring a homeless person home if I had children because kids learn by our example and who knows maybe one day they would have that fabulous idea of inviting a total stranger to the house while I'm not there.
Anyway, we are off topic. I am sympathetic that some individuals that voted had little to no awareness of the consequences.

Lady Jolanda said:

arguments

Click to expand...

You can't eat me, I'm Herbert Mooooon!

LOL oh man... I love you guyz.

*group hugs group hugs*

kinglear said:

wow that is a refreshing level of maturity!

what we need to keep in sight here is that behind all these narratives and rhetoric is an IDEOLOGICAL struggle

what is called 'the left' by the corporate media is really not a movement for the people at all. It is corporate socialism which ends up with the capitalist oligarchs in total control

In order for them to achieve their vision for global control they must first smash nation states and the mass movement of people is one means by which they do this. Another means by which they do this is to teach youngsters in university to hate their own country by pushing overly simplistic narratives about history that don't really dig down into the who's and the wherefore's

The aim of this 'critical theory' is to condition (brainwash) young people into hating their country but without ever really thinking in depth about the workable solutions to the worlds problems (and the world DOES have problems)

What the corporate socialists (capitalist oligarchs) do to keep everyone fussing and fighting among themselves is they divide society into competing factions through identity politics and then they teach those factions to use 'political correctness' to silence anyone who questions any of the elites narratives

By doing this they make many people into the unwitting dupes of the elites scheme to enslave humanity under their technocracy

So if you question weaponised (orchestrated) MASS immigration then according to what the elites deem through THEIR media to be 'politically correct' you are a 'racist'

It doesn't matter if you actually really care about the plight of the immigrants but share a different view of what can be done about the situation (eg ending third world debt to the corporate socialists and getting the financiers claws out of their countries)

This then shuts down any nuanced discussion about the IDEOLOGY that is behind this thereby preventing the public from ever being able to have a proper debate about what sort of society they would actually like to have

Click to expand...

Hi @kinglear, you raise some interesting concerns here, and I feel obliged to point out that they are legitimate concerns which are rationally explicated.

Of course you know that personally I don't think these things are being orchestrated at a global level by some kind of grand conspiracy - of that you have yet to convince me.

However, you made some points which are pertinent in the light of this meta-debate we're having about censorship and name-calling ('racist', &c.).

On the point about nation-states and mass migration, it's clear that certain commonly held opinions preclude a clear debate on this, because signaled membership of a particular clique is more important than the truth. So we can't typically even entertain questions like:

Are western nation-states worth defending?

Does mass migration threaten the internal stability of such polities?

I think the probable answer to both of these questions is 'yes', and I don't think that means I am a 'racist'. I have experienced actual racism first hand and typically define myself as a leftist.

What genuinely gets to me, though, is a trend on the left which you yourself describe and which has been given the name 'oikophobia': this fear or hatred ow the home or one's own culture or nation.

I understand where it comes from - it's the guilt of imperialism and slavery, &c. Quite understandable, and of course I have engaged in it myself.

However the problem is that it has become the knee-jerk reaction to view everything in this light. To constantly say that 'the real enemy is my own country and its imperialism/&c.' rather than apportioning blame to where it truly belongs.

And the consequence of this is that our institutions which ought to be defended, are not.

For example, it is patently obvious to anyone that the English common law is ethically superior to Sharia. And when I say 'superior', I literally mean that - ask any Saudi woman who has your confidence.

This kind of value judgement makes my fellow leftists cringe, because it seems as if we would therefore be trying to impose or inflict something upon another culture, and we naturally gravitate towards defending the underdog.

It's a noble impulse, but it can blind us into oikophobia and forgetting to defend those things in our civilisation which are worth defending.

Deleted member 16771 said:

Hi @kinglear, you raise some interesting concerns here, and I feel obliged to point out that they are legitimate concerns which are rationally explicated.

Of course you know that personally I don't think these things are being orchestrated at a global level by some kind of grand conspiracy - of that you have yet to convince me.

However, you made some points which are pertinent in the light of this meta-debate we're having about censorship and name-calling ('racist', &c.).

On the point about nation-states and mass migration, it's clear that certain commonly held opinions preclude a clear debate on this, because signaled membership of a particular clique is more important than the truth. So we can't typically even entertain questions like:

Are western nation-states worth defending?

Does mass migration threaten the internal stability of such polities?

I think the probable answer to both of these questions is 'yes', and I don't think that means I am a 'racist'. I have experienced actual racism first hand and typically define myself as a leftist.

What genuinely gets to me, though, is a trend on the left which you yourself describe and which has been given the name 'oikophobia': this fear or hatred ow the home or one's own culture or nation.

I understand where it comes from - it's the guilt of imperialism and slavery, &c. Quite understandable, and of course I have engaged in it myself.

However the problem is that it has become the knee-jerk reaction to view everything in this light. To constantly say that 'the real enemy is my own country and its imperialism/&c.' rather than apportioning blame to where it truly belongs.

And the consequence of this is that our institutions which ought to be defended, are not.

For example, it is patently obvious to anyone that the English common law is ethically superior to Sharia. And when I say 'superior', I literally mean that - ask any Saudi woman who has your confidence.

This kind of value judgement makes my fellow leftists cringe, because it seems as if we would therefore be trying to impose or inflict something upon another culture, and we naturally gravitate towards defending the underdog.

It's a noble impulse, but it can blind us into oikophobia and forgetting to defend those things in our civilisation which are worth defending.

Click to expand...

Well put!

kinglear said:

lets put this in context
so the context is as we all know here regardless of how much melanin we have in our skin that tensions in society are rising and that certain groups are creating a race consciousness in the public

Click to expand...

I personally think that's ridiculous. A melanin shouldn't dictate an individual view of the other. However, I'm not disagreeing that such tension in society exists and that certain groups are creating race consciousness in public. Nevertheless, most people at one time or another have thought that one cannot judge a book by the cover and, have used that argument when they feel judged. So, why can some of the same people allow themselves to judge others by superficial appearance?
Appearance means null because we all will die and honestly, I doubt that people will say or the obituary will contain: 'oh man, that melanin'. Nah, people remember how you made them feel.
Same thing goes with race. Humanity is still learning 'us vs them' - liking and loving certain individuals is all part of social bonding.

kinglear said:

so originally the left wanted to create a 'class consciousness' in the public to create a 'revolutionary consciousness' so that the working class would overthrow the bourgeousie however when it came to a war between nation states the working class abandoned that struggle and they rallied to the flag

Click to expand...

Dis iz tru

kinglear said:

I suggest this is because all humans really want a homeland...somewhere to call home and to feel safe

Click to expand...

Yes, fundamentally we want to feel safe - it's important for our own growth. However, the loudest ones are usually afraid.

kinglear said:

So prior to the two world wars there had been a lot of communist agitations and its fair to say that jews were central to that but another thread broke off which is zionism

Click to expand...

True

kinglear said:

So one thread was calling for a world revolution and the other thread was calling for a jewish homeland. Both of those threads are still existing today. The jewish homeland rejects mass immigration and wants to ensure jewish sovereignty. So zionists work to ensure a jewish state while communists work to ensure that no one else is allowed a homeland of their own

Click to expand...

True

kinglear said:

Now it becomes hard to speak factually sometimes because sometimes the facts are not palatable for people but the fact remains that the 10 most safe countries in the world are also some of the least diverse. 9 are white majority countries and the other is japan

Click to expand...

That's correct. Let's take Iceland for example due to low population and easy to track changes: prior, that country wasn't diverse at all. Also, it was pretty much a 2-3rd work country prior to WW, well there was relatively small population of immigrants spread across the country - most notably Serbian, Thai, etc. However!, there was little to non arguments of them being there
So, why were they welcomed there?
Even if there weren't many immigrants they were still measurably noticeable due to low population.
One would say that they were welcomed because Icelandics are very open towards adopting children from racially different countries;
Their history with North Americans;
Becoming an exchange student is very common; Learning 4-6 languages is considered a norm in Iceland which means that from early age they are introduced to different cultures.
Then there is also, that Icelandics can trace their ancestry to far away countries that would be seen racially different.

Further, when immigration started to increase in Iceland increasing number of individuals refused to learn the language - to Icelandics whom are very protective of their language and values.. many became worried that the language would be harmed and started to wonder how other individual values could harm their own overboarded sense of safety.
Every country has 'that thing' that they protect but 'that thing' varies by nation.

So, to make a long story a little bit shorter: I honestly don't think it has got to due with anything but commonalities and perception of some form of safety.
....sorry for the essay but I did a lot of research on Norwegian vs Icelandics vs. UK when it comes to immigration. Although I'm only giving example of the icelandics now lol

kinglear said:

The current leftist mantra is that multiculturalism is a moral imperative but there is no evidential proof anywhere in the world that it is the best path to stability and prosperity. In fact there is increasing evidence that it has a destabilising effect

Click to expand...

Honestly, I think that it is still moral imperative and actually is the best path to stability and prosperity.. despite the evidence. The evidence can be altered when other components are taken in and other measures taken. I mean, how much does one nation do to assist immigrants to adapt?
Also, taking in individuals from war ridden nations - no matter what race it is but obviously they are going to be suffering from psychological illnesses. I myself have PTSD so, I find it a common sense that certain individuals have a harder time to adjust and, to integrate with the nation.
Therefore, the nations must ensure that it is made easier for immigrants to adjust to it! Usually nations do this: 'yeah, come on over have a little cultural shock and cognitive dissonance. We won't help you though but just don't make a mess! ' THEN once someone makes a mess it becomes so easy to point the finger at them and use race, religion, or the colour of their skin as an excuse.
For me, sadly, I find that looking at how nations rehabilitate their prisoners gives insight into how they sometimes approach immigrants. It's 'us vs them'. Immigrants aren't part of 'us' nor are prisoners. Both belong to 'them'. or, that it has to do with pre-existing 'class'. Yup, I'm not even kidding.

kinglear said:

Am i arguing for purely ethno-nationalist states? No but i am discussing the harsh realities of human dynamics. I'm not saying things are entirely black and white but the thing about democracy is that it is rule by the majority and that means that a majority can then legally oppress a minority

Click to expand...

True. Minority should yell, kick and, scream for ice cream. But mainly look at ways to stabilise their home.

kinglear said:

For this reason in multicultural societies people are splitting up into tribes that all want to hold the reins of power and they see the way to achieve that as being to make their demographic the largest in the country

Click to expand...

..

kinglear said:

so the question is: in this atmosphere of racial politics what happens to the group that ends up the minority especially if they have been demonised by the majority in the process?

Click to expand...

They..hide.. get resentful and then kick and scream for something other than ice cream.

kinglear said:

I have seen a clip of open border activists in california who decry 'white nationalism' and 'white supremacism' while they themselves are waving mexican flags thereby showing themselves to be mexican nationalists and calling for a reconquista of the americas by brown people thereby showing themselves to be brown supremacists

Click to expand...

I dunno... haven't seen it.

kinglear said:

So i think we need to appreciate that 'supremacists' come in all colours because essentially what is happening is that each identity group wants theirs to be the majority

Click to expand...

Yeah but those that are loudest are usually afraid. To me, it's just scared people that need a hug.

kinglear said:

here watch this clip and listen to some of the rhetoric and ask yourself what happens to white, black and yellow people living in california if brown supremacists take control? Would people that are arguing that they are reconquering lands that belong to them be tolerant of any ethnic groups outside of their own? In fact would they be tolerant of native americans because surely their claim to the land would make them competition in the land rights narrative argument...

Click to expand...

This I have a seriously hard time understanding .. every single American that I know is very open and warm. I know.. stereotype, but still. It's true!
How has it dramatically reduced their quality of life? How is US meeting them?
I mean obviously, it does affect but .. why & how? What commonalities need to be recognised? what's different? Pointing at someones skin is easy and lazy.
Even though that chick was preaching that they will 'take control' - why was she saying that? Maybe she meant different control then is perceived? Maybe they fundamentally feel like they are unwelcome and therefore, are trying to force that they become welcomed? I don't know really, perhaps it is the result of the immigration camps that were set up? it's a retaliation against that?. I honestly don't know.
But I do think it's important to come to understanding that each group is simply trying to have a voice and, when people feel like they need a voice they feel threatened. So why does each group feel threatened? what is their 'thing' ?
_________________
People need to find a commonality for them to perceive the other as less of a 'threat'. But what they perceive as a threat varies by nation - a threat to an Icelandic would be the language and a threat to their feeling of (overboard-)safety, UK sums a lot down to governship and, maintaining class-safety, Norway safety for the nation and prosperity, Sweden.., etc, etc.

...maybe it's also a threat against some pecking order? I mean, often when kids start a new school or join a new group of friends they try to stay in that neutral zone, and keep a low profile and then slowly climb the ladder.. I dunno

rant over
edit: I think I'm naive and idealistic when it comes to these things.

Deleted member 16771 said:

Forgive me, the 'racist' label was used in another thread ('Vote (or not)'). But let me clarify my objection (and btw, Skare is one of my favourite people, so I say this as something that any right-minded person can engage in, me included).

As @Ren and @Puzzlenuzzle and @Lady Jolanda have pointed out, being labelled a 'racist' is a very serious thing to happen to you in contemporary Western society. It can be career ending, and I can think of very few other terms which have the effect of practically immediate ostracism if they stick.

In the context of a debate, therefore, an ad hominem attack of such magnitude as this can often have the effect of seriously damaging the credibility of the party so labelled whether it is true or not.

We must reflect that it is a powerfully dehumanising label: once it sticks, anything you say or think is ignored, and hence we should apply it to individuals only with extreme caution or certainty.

For example, take the following true statement and reflect how strange it makes you feel:

Sometimes racists make good points

Or what about this:

Sometimes racists make good points, and we should listen to them!

Racism was perhaps the greatest evil of the twentieth century, and we should be right to be sensitive about it, but we have an equal duty to make sure that our civil discourse is healthy and accepting of all sincerely held opinions, otherwise these opinions get driven underground, away from the critical light, and may one day come back to bite us.

So the admonition is a simple one: attack the ideas not the man, because human beings are simply too precious to be discarded and discounted in such ways.

'Erroneous' or fallacious opinions should be argued against, not used as evidence of someone's inherent corruption. Otherwise this democracy we have is farcical at best.

I am a sincere believer in the 'public forum' and in democracy, and perhaps the avoidance of ad hominem attacks, however tempting, however true, is just part of the duty we must exercise in order to uphold these institutions in the long term.

Click to expand...

Okay - he is anti-immigrant then.
(was also taken out of context)
Which to me is a racist way of thinking in the way he expressed it.

Puzzlenuzzle said:

I personally think that's ridiculous. A melanin shouldn't dictate an individual view of the other. However, I'm not disagreeing that such tension in society exists and that certain groups are creating race consciousness in public. Nevertheless, most people at one time or another have thought that one cannot judge a book by the cover and, have used that argument when they feel judged. So, why can some of the same people allow themselves to judge others by superficial appearance?
Appearance means null because we all will die and honestly, I doubt that people will say or the obituary will contain: 'oh man, that melanin'. Nah, people remember how you made them feel.
Same thing goes with race. Humanity is still learning 'us vs them' - liking and loving certain individuals is all part of social bonding.

Dis iz tru

Yes, fundamentally we want to feel safe - it's important for our own growth. However, the loudest ones are usually afraid.

True

True

That's correct. Let's take Iceland for example due to low population and easy to track changes: prior, that country wasn't diverse at all. Also, it was pretty much a 2-3rd work country prior to WW, well there was relatively small population of immigrants spread across the country - most notably Serbian, Thai, etc. However!, there was little to non arguments of them being there
So, why were they welcomed there?
Even if there weren't many immigrants they were still measurably noticeable due to low population.
One would say that they were welcomed because Icelandics are very open towards adopting children from racially different countries;
Their history with North Americans;
Becoming an exchange student is very common; Learning 4-6 languages is considered a norm in Iceland which means that from early age they are introduced to different cultures.
Then there is also, that Icelandics can trace their ancestry to far away countries that would be seen racially different.

Further, when immigration started to increase in Iceland increasing number of individuals refused to learn the language - to Icelandics whom are very protective of their language and values.. many became worried that the language would be harmed and started to wonder how other individual values could harm their own overboarded sense of safety.
Every country has 'that thing' that they protect but 'that thing' varies by nation.

So, to make a long story a little bit shorter: I honestly don't think it has got to due with anything but commonalities and perception of some form of safety.
....sorry for the essay but I did a lot of research on Norwegian vs Icelandics vs. UK when it comes to immigration. Although I'm only giving example of the icelandics now lol

Honestly, I think that it is still moral imperative and actually is the best path to stability and prosperity.. despite the evidence. The evidence can be altered when other components are taken in and other measures taken. I mean, how much does one nation do to assist immigrants to adapt?
Also, taking in individuals from war ridden nations - no matter what race it is but obviously they are going to be suffering from psychological illnesses. I myself have PTSD so, I find it a common sense that certain individuals have a harder time to adjust and, to integrate with the nation.
Therefore, the nations must ensure that it is made easier for immigrants to adjust to it! Usually nations do this: 'yeah, come on over have a little cultural shock and cognitive dissonance. We won't help you though but just don't make a mess! ' THEN once someone makes a mess it becomes so easy to point the finger at them and use race, religion, or the colour of their skin as an excuse.
For me, sadly, I find that looking at how nations rehabilitate their prisoners gives insight into how they sometimes approach immigrants. It's 'us vs them'. Immigrants aren't part of 'us' nor are prisoners. Both belong to 'them'. or, that it has to do with pre-existing 'class'. Yup, I'm not even kidding.

True. Minority should yell, kick and, scream for ice cream. But mainly look at ways to stabilise their home.

..

They..hide.. get resentful and then kick and scream for something other than ice cream.

I dunno... haven't seen it.

Yeah but those that are loudest are usually afraid. To me, it's just scared people that need a hug.


This I have a seriously hard time understanding .. every single American that I know is very open and warm. I know.. stereotype, but still. It's true!
How has it dramatically reduced their quality of life? How is US meeting them?
I mean obviously, it does affect but .. why & how? What commonalities need to be recognised? what's different? Pointing at someones skin is easy and lazy.
Even though that chick was preaching that they will 'take control' - why was she saying that? Maybe she meant different control then is perceived? Maybe they fundamentally feel like they are unwelcome and therefore, are trying to force that they become welcomed? I don't know really, perhaps it is the result of the immigration camps that were set up? it's a retaliation against that?. I honestly don't know.
But I do think it's important to come to understanding that each group is simply trying to have a voice and, when people feel like they need a voice they feel threatened. So why does each group feel threatened? what is their 'thing' ?
_________________
People need to find a commonality for them to perceive the other as less of a 'threat'. But what they perceive as a threat varies by nation - a threat to an Icelandic would be the language and a threat to their feeling of (overboard-)safety, UK sums a lot down to governship and, maintaining class-safety, Norway safety for the nation and prosperity, Sweden.., etc, etc.

...maybe it's also a threat against some pecking order? I mean, often when kids start a new school or join a new group of friends they try to stay in that neutral zone, and keep a low profile and then slowly climb the ladder.. I dunno

rant over
edit: I think I'm naive and idealistic when it comes to these things.

Click to expand...

Even if this is an idealistic view, I don't think your idealism is misplaced, Nuzzles - in the very long term, if Humanity is to survive and thrive, the divisions between people must dissolve into something like trivia.

However, it's the speed at which this is taking place that is troubling to some people, and I think it is probably the case that 'multiculturalism' must be radically redefined for it to work safely.

The good news is that this has been done before. For most of human history, most people have lived in multiethnic empires, subscribing to some common, core 'imperial' culture but maintaining regional variations and distinctions.

The weird thing about the 20th century, however, is that it has largely been one of ethnic disaggregation and not about 'race mixing' at all. The old multiethnic empires were broken up, and these strange, 'artificial' ethnostates were created in their place. Millions of people were moved en masse to conform to the new border situation, and communities which once coexisted peacefully, now feel tensions.

So yes, historically it has been that multiethnic polities were the norm rather than the rule, and that these were the most successful kinds of polities. However this always came with a very important caveat.

Everybody must also subscribe to the imperial core culture.

Why was it that the Jews and Christians were disliked in the Roman Empire? Well mostly that their religion was exclusivist, which pissed off the religiously plural society which harboured them.

In our modern conception of 'multiculturalism', what is missing in ideological (if not de facto) terms is the imperial core culture, and it isn't difficult to see what this core culture might look like in the West (tolerance, democratic spirit, &c.). Let's call this the 'Western Imperial Culture'.

Now, it must be asserted that there are some cultures globally that are simply incompatible with Western Imperial Culture, and so far we have been timid in recognising this. The way some sects of Islam (E.g. Wahabism) treat women, for example, is of course incompatible with Western Imperial Culture, and yet is tolerated out of what seems purely to be the fear of being labelled 'racist'.

It's understandable, since the memory of the Holocaust, and 19th century imperialism, is still very very raw, and colours our behaviour in fear. You might even say that the West has PTSD because of the Holocaust, and anything which seems even superficially to resemble that kind of racialised thinking triggers the 'fear of racism' response.

However, that does not mean that we should be willing to discard a culture which we are all, deep down, protective of. I've called it here 'Western Imperial Culture' simply because we must at some point recognise again its 'imperial' character, and not flinch at that description; must be allowed to say 'democracy is superior to despotism', 'equality is superior to discrimination', &c.

Deleted member 16771 said:

Even if this is an idealistic view, I don't think your idealism is misplaced, Nuzzles - in the very long term, if Humanity is to survive and thrive, the divisions between people must dissolve into something like trivia.

Click to expand...

Deleted member 16771 said:

However, it's the speed at which this is taking place that is troubling to some people, and I think it is probably the case that 'multiculturalism' must be radically redefined for it to work safely..

Click to expand...

How would you redefine multiculturalism? multiculturalism is literally what it is. The way we interact with cultures is the problem. One can redefine whatever there is but the core value and problem will be the same.

Deleted member 16771 said:

The good news is that this has been done before. For most of human history, most people have lived in multiethnic empires, subscribing to some common, core 'imperial' culture but maintaining regional variations and distinctions..

Click to expand...

Yeah but what happened before before subscribed to the common? Also, then, people were more punished towards going against the norm. E.g. the head of the empire largely contributed to what the norm was? The view of individuals wasn't the same as it is now. So yes, it has been done before but the context is vastly different even though the problem was the same. Does that mean that the way forward is communism?

Deleted member 16771 said:

The weird thing about the 20th century, however, is that it has largely been one of ethnic disaggregation and not about 'race mixing' at all. The old multiethnic empires were broken up, and these strange, 'artificial' ethnostates were created in their place. Millions of people were moved en masse to conform to the new border situation, and communities which once coexisted peacefully, now feel tensions..

Click to expand...

It's not weird at all.

Deleted member 16771 said:

So yes, historically it has been that multiethnic polities were the norm rather than the rule, and that these were the most successful kinds of polities. However this always came with a very important caveat..

Click to expand...

....

Deleted member 16771 said:

Everybody must also subscribe to the imperial core culture..

Click to expand...

Communism?

Deleted member 16771 said:

Why was it that the Jews and Christians were disliked in the Roman Empire? Well mostly that their religion was exclusivist, which pissed off the religiously plural society which harboured them..

Click to expand...

And how did that make the others feel? How did they interact? Did the Jew and Christian try to convert individuals?

Deleted member 16771 said:

In our modern conception of 'multiculturalism', what is missing in ideological (if not de facto) terms is the imperial core culture, and it isn't difficult to see what this core culture might look like in the West (tolerance, democratic spirit, &c.). Let's call this the 'Western Imperial Culture'..

Click to expand...

That's ideology. Cultures in the west clash as well and regarding an imperial culture- that's pejorative.
Also, there are deeper layers to 'core culture' also, a culture is just a concept that governs different mindsets, values, norms etc. Further, tolerance and democratic spirit doesn't play out the same way in all western cultures.

Deleted member 16771 said:

Now, it must be asserted that there are some cultures globally that are simply incompatible with Western Imperial Culture, and so far we have been timid in recognising this. The way some sects of Islam (E.g. Wahabism) treat women, for example, is of course incompatible with Western Imperial Culture, and yet is tolerated out of what seems purely to be the fear of being labelled 'racist'..

Click to expand...

Dynamics are completely different between cultures in the west and, there are also men in the 'Western Imperial Culture' that mistreat women just the same or worse but then, we put a blind eye to that and just compare it to Wahabism. Not everyone in Wahabism mistreats women.

Deleted member 16771 said:

It's understandable, since the memory of the Holocaust, and 19th century imperialism, is still very very raw, and colours our behaviour in fear. You might even say that the West has PTSD because of the Holocaust, and anything which seems even superficially to resemble that kind of racialised thinking triggers the 'fear of racism' response..

Click to expand...

Not really what I meant though.. I meant that there should be awareness that people from war zones suffer psychologically. Not tackling that will create negative effects and therefore, risk creating more 'racism' and, I mean that in the present tense.
However, there is also the memory of other events e.g. Armenia, Rwanda, slavery etc etc....
There are ptsd in every part of the globe and west surely doesn't have more PTSD then let's say certain parts of Africa or Middle East.

Deleted member 16771 said:

However, that does not mean that we should be willing to discard a culture which we are all, deep down, protective of. I've called it here 'Western Imperial Culture' simply because we must at some point recognise again its 'imperial' character, and not flinch at that description; must be allowed to say 'democracy is superior to despotism', 'equality is superior to discrimination', &c.

Click to expand...

Why?