The past week on my facebook newsfeed, has been a damn horror show. The sheer amount of xenophobia and hipocrisy that reared its ugly head, is unbelievable.

No, the bible is fucked up all on its own.

That its adherents have made it worse is no surprise, when your moral code comes from a book that endorses slavery, rape, xenophobia, child sacrifice, genocide, war, homophobia, torture.

Oh and 12 year olds getting married? Oh look, religion endorsed that too.

And there's a reasonable argument to be made that rapists and child molesters were "born that way" in that they may have serious mental issues. That doesn't excuse them acting on it, but one day with enough study, we might be able to identify and treat them before it becomes an issue.

The "integration" of foreign cultures into Danish society should not be blamed for the current political or economic state of the country. Particularly when it is the very xenophobia (to put it generously) expressed in that sentiment which is more likely at the root of those difficulties. The historical success of the economic model in Denmark was not dependant upon the monoethnic values that existed in the country before the current influx of immigrants. Although it's fair to say that the collectivism inherent in the tribal attitude of Nordic countries was key in smoothly implementing and maintaining successful socialism in the region, it is not fair to blame new immigrants if it falters. Perhaps true integration would have been beneficial to the system, rather than segregation and blame.

Puting all that aside, the US would never, could never, implement Nordic socialism. It is true that we are a different culture with a very different set of goals and challeneges. If socialistic policies were implemented it would be a distinctly American Socialism. In speaking of political or economic systems we often err by contextualizing them in absolute terms. As if "socialism" means only one thing. But the fact is that the democracy we practice in the US shares little with the democracy practiced by the ancient Romans. When speaking of socialism, we need to put it in context. Is it post WW2 Swedish socialism? Modern Sri Lankan socialism? These are necessarily different things. Similarly, it is possible to implement modern US Socialism as a system that is uniquely reflective of our culture. In theory anyway. In reality, the challenge of employing socialism in, arguably, the most individualistic culture in the world, may be insurmountable.

Pretty pessimistic and defeatist attitude there.

With displacement from various global warming issues, genocides, wars, and extreemists, we're ALL going to see influx of immigrants to our countries. If we can't figure out how to get along, and prosper together, the species, or at the very least civilization, is doomed.
I don't think anyone thinks it's surprising that a near homogeneous society is having trouble integrating new cultures, but to say it's impossible (and imply it will never work in other situations) is not only not true, it's quite harmful and fosters xenophobia in the extremes.
This writer comes from that homogeneous culture, and apparently believes America has the same thing today, a homogeneous culture...not understanding that the USA is comprised nearly SOLELY (since natives often remain separate and essentially non-citizens on the reservations...another topic for another day) of immigrants from every country and culture in the world, if we could not deal with immigrants from other cultures, we would never have existed.

So the lesson to be learned for Denmark : this CAN and HAS been done, even with a country of more than 300 million armed opinionated inhabitants and a population mix that runs the entire spectrum in nearly every way.

I have to agree with Bill that Islam DOES instruct it's followers to spread the religion with the sword....but I must also say he has recently ignored that ALL religions do the same. The difference with Islam these days is the fundamentalists have taken control in many Islamic countries...but a fundamentalist Christian just introduced a bill in America to allow people to shoot homosexuals based on the bible, so lets not pretend hate and murder is just an Islamic thing.
Xenophobia is a religious thing, not just an Islamic thing. I wish Bill would remember that, it might have kept the PC police from starting their latest campaign against him.

God the US will miss Chomsky when he's gone.

So will the ROW (the 19 out of 20 people on Earth that US power considers disposable meat..)

BTW from the outside it looks like the last days of Rome.. crazy all round, torture, non-judicial murder, mobs burning things, unchecked power, total obfuscation and confusion sown all around by rogue members of the powerbase for their own reasons, xenophobia, public statements of religious eschatology.. ..

Take it from a Brit - the end of total global power does not HAVE to be an apocalypse.. you guys need to get into tea and cricket, stat..

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?

It's not so much racism as xenophobia. The Russians might be white, but during the cold war, they may as well have been Martians.

And no, I don't believe Americans support drone strikes because the "get" to kill brown people. It's simply that they don't care as much about them.

You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. It goes way beyond terrorism. And it's not even a US issue either.

Look at other tragedies, natural disasters, etc.

Katrina killed 1800 people. Undoubtedly a significant event. The 2004 tsunami killed nearly a quarter of a million people, but which one got more media coverage in the developed world?

So, once again, answer the question. Would you have been ok with the British government drone striking Ireland in the 80s?

Ok, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to be serious, so...

You're wrong.

The video debunks exactly what it says it does, the myth that MSG is bad for you, when in fact, it's in all kinds of food.

You got headaches after eating Chinese food from one restaurant; do you know what that means? Absolutely nothing. Your anecdote is completely and utterly irrelevant, unless you've never eaten any other food with MSG in it (like any of the list @Sarzy mentioned).

And yeah, "perfectly safe for the vast majority of people" is a completely acceptable standard. You can pick pretty much any food on the planet and a small number of people will get sick or even die from eating it. But it's "perfectly safe for the vast majority of people". Otherwise, we'd have to ban peanuts, shellfish, gluten, dairy, eggs, soy, garlic, meat... need I go on?

If eating at one Chinese restaurant gives you headaches.... don't eat there.
But don't blame it on some mythical MSG boogie man that was basically drummed up out of xenophobia.

I think it's because Quebec has a shortage of doctors because Quebec in it's infinite stupidity and xenophobia do not allow doctors to practice unless they speak high level french (the same reason I can't get Permanent Residency here while other Aussie friends in BC and Ontario had no issue). I guess we simply didn't have a serious shortage in Australia. It's so easy to find a GP, I guess it might be harder to find one that Bulk Bills (medicare takes the entire cost of consultation) for low income earners.

My experience at hospitals is limited. When i got hit on the head by a cricket bat, i had to wait 2 hours, I think (was a long time ago), to get stitches. And when I had my tonsils out, I had to wait 6 months for the elective surgery because we didn't have private insurance.

My girlfriend had to go to the ER when she had mono here, we had to wait an hour or two before she was seen by a doctor. While we were there, the hospital was fucking decrepit, the waiting room was freezing (there was a lady who had a broken arm and she was violently shivering), and nearer the end of the day (my GF had to have an IV drip so we had to wait around there all day to see if it helped her) an old lady was called up and as she was walking past she said she had been there since 8 in the morning and they had literally forgotten about her.

One of my friends has an issue with kidney stones, they build up and he has to have surgery to get them out. He had a procedure booked for I don't know how long, went to the hospital and they told him they didn't have any beds left and he had to wait another week.

The Jewish General has now been instructed to turn away off-island patients. It has the best cancer treatment facility of any hospital, so people with cancer are now instructed to kindly fuck off.

The new, mega hospital in Vendome is waaaay over budget and time, and people (particularly old people) can't even get to it from the metro station right near it!

I'd love to move to Vancouver...

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
you didnt click the link i shared did you?
it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to.

which leads us further into the rabbit hole of governments role.
which by your response it appears i need to describe a tad further.

so lets change the question from:
"what is governments role?"
to
"what,if at all,is the FEDERAL governments role"?

which of course we can refer to the federalist papers or the articles of confederacy.
one is a great argument in regards to what federal powers should be the other was an absolute failure and needed to be discarded.(too much anarchy lol)

that argument is still going on today.
well,between people like you and i,not from the political class.

i agree with your position.
i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part.

what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will point to the government and say "there..thats the problem"
while someone from a more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit.

you need to understand i point to both.
hence my "plutocracy" argument.
so while you are correct that a corporation cannot throw you in jail,they can and DO influence our legislation (in the form of alec,lobbyists,campaign funding) to enact laws which may make anything their competitors do "illegal" or keep them out of the market completely.or make anything they do "legal".both governments and corporations do this for their own survival and self-interest.

the war on drugs and the private prison system come to mind.since weed is becoming more and more acceptable "illegal" immigrants will become the new fodder for the prison.

in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a civilized society.
fairness,justice and truth.

now how we get there is the REAL discussion (like you and i are having right now).

i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing.

this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local communities and municipalities.

for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced apathetic coma and participate and become informed.

no easy task.
in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
but worthy..so very very worthy.

active citizenship basically.

when we consider the utter failures of:
our political class.
the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
and the venal corporate class.

which all have served,wittingly or unwittingly, to create the corporate totalatarian surveillance state we now find ourselves living in.
there can be ONLY one recourse:

we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people.

nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence.

we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of its own hubris and self-aggrandizing.

even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to watchdog.

the institutions that existed 50 years ago to put pressure on the levers of power are gone,destroyed and crushed or outright abandoned.

when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people.those rights and privileges were hard fought for by social movements.
in fact,america had the longest and bloodiest of labor movements on the planet.
the woman sufferagists.
the liberty party in its stance against slavery.
the civil rights movement.

it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political class.

we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political class.

we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it.

power is petrified of peoples movements.

there will be another movement.
i do not know when or how it will manifest.
i just hope it will not be violent.

because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being subjected to today.
civil disobedience.
and i aim to misbehave.

this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns into a burning flame.

i am a radical.
a dissident.
but radical times call for radical thinking.

you and i both want fairness,justice and truth.
everybody does.
some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other.
this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political class and propaganda corporate tv.

the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me.
that does not serve their interests.
fear and division serve their interests.
hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.

i aim to disappoint them.

now go watch that video i posted for ya.
when ya got time of course lol.

maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
just some of the people who have influenced me greatly.

anyways.
loving this conversation.
i am in 3 other debates with highly educated people.
nowhere near as polite and awesome as you.
then again..i am kicking the crap out of them.
arrogance really annoys me,makes me vulgar and beligerent.
peace brother man.

@SDGundamX

I cannot agree with that definition. The problem I have with the concept of "Islamophobia" is as I've stated above: it conflates the individuals and the ideology, thus causing those who use the term to be guilty of the error they are often accusing their opponents of. And that conflation lets it be used - by Islamists as well as by self-righteous (or ill-placed-guilt-ridden) lefties - to silence criticism of Islam. This term has been particularly abused in this manner in Europe, where the ghost of the Holocaust weighs a lot heavier on politicians and the media than it does in the US.

"Muslimphobia" may not roll of the tongue quite as nicely, but it would at least be a more honest and acceptable term to denote the irrational fear/hatred of Muslim people. Mostly, what people refer to as "Islamophobia" is a combination of religious discrimination, xenophobia and racism, and we should not be afraid to use those meaningful terms in our criticism of such discriminatory behaviour. It may even help to break it down in that way, instead of trying to wrap it up in a simplistic and ambivalent term.

There is another big problem with "Islamophobia" which I have already discussed here: http://videosift.com/talk/Dare-we-criticize-Islam, (the difference to be made between what one is and what one believes).

As for Harris' unfortunate and highly irrational/illogical defense of racial profiling, the Cephalopod Prof says it better than I can (as he often does).

edit: ach, how can I be such a cad and forget to thank you for the kudos? I still have much to learn, but thank you for taking note of my reduced antagonisation, knee-jerk reactions and general verbal belligerance.

>> ^lantern53:

I guess the GOP will continue to lose until fiscal responsibility, limited gov't and free markets are not seen as 'white' values.


Or until the GOP learns fiscal responsibility, supports limited government in personal/moral affairs and "free market" means more to them than a code word for corporatism and preferential treatment for the financial elite.

Or we could ALL culturally accept the values of selfishness, xenophobia and...selfishness.

>> ^A10anis:

Atheists cannot, even in a jocular fashion, be remotely compared to any cults like those of Koresh or Jones, they are the very opposite. In fact, atheists have no agenda other than freedom from the shackles of dark age myths. They do not want to have to confront religions/cults but have no choice when, daily, the destructive nature of them blight so many lives. If a "believer" wants to be a slave to some god and/or preacher, that's fine, they can do so in private. But they must keep their poisonous, controlling, brainwashing, tenets, out of our schools and government.


I believe the gray bloke is being snarky and referential, namely referring to the misogyny of the second two "preachers" and their hordes of MRA-holes (one would need to be up to date on the FtB/Reddit affairs). Condell must be in there for his perceived xenophobia.