Muslim vs. White Nationalist DEBATE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ogntH6_KF4&t=89s

This Muslim is a verbose moron.  I can't tolerate listening to him.  I think my discussion was much better.

https://youtu.be/fJpdtBUzejc

I have only watched the first hour so far but I think what I have seen of him is very good:

* He recognizes modern Western culture as being the problem

* He recognizes both the faults of liberalism (which attacks Islamic values but sometimes lures in Muslims by accepting them in name), and the faults of American conservatism (which on a superficial level shares some values with Islam, but attacks Muslims with its military and through its support of Israel)

* He is tolerant of the white nationalist, finds common ground with him, supports white nationalists in their ethnic nationalism, since it is analogous to what Muslims want for themselves, while remaining skeptical of whites because of his recognition that whites are responsible for creating the mess of liberalism

* He seems to have some mass appeal as can be seen in the comments. He is charismatic. The video looks somewhat professionally done.

I did not find him to be verbose although he did at times seem to interrupt the white nationalist.

Of course the discussion between Allen and the Muslim guy is better but it lacks the mass appeal of this one.

All serious Muslims recognize modern Western culture as being the problem.

He doesn't recognize the faults of liberalism.  He confuses liberalism with the Enlightenment.  He thinks the problem is liberty which is totally wrong.  I didn't listen enough to know what he says about American conservatism.

Serious Muslims are generally tolerant, so nothing special there.  But blaming a race for an ideology is both stupid and counter to Islam.

Of course only morons have mass appeal, which is why the internet is a wasteland.

He is incredibly repetitive.  There are better ways to spend one's time than listening to him repeat himself over and over again.

I think what he was referring to by liberty was solely individual liberty, which is how the modern West sees liberty. It is not good to place too high a value on this because it can for example interfere with group level liberty. The individual liberty to dress like a slut interferes with the society's liberty to be a modest society.

If whites caused the mess then they are to blame. That doesn't necessarily mean they ought to be punished for it, but something about the way they were must have been to blame if they were the ones who created liberalism. I suppose Eastern European whites weren't to blame, but I think when he said white he probably meant only anglo Saxon whites.

OmegaKV wrote

I think what he was referring to by liberty was solely individual liberty, which is how the modern West sees liberty. It is not good to place too high a value on this because it can for example interfere with group level liberty. The individual liberty to dress like a slut interferes with the society's liberty to be a modest society.

He specifically criticized the Enlightenment which was a period of sane individual liberty (freedom but not to harm others) and was very conservative.  In other words, what he wants is an authoritarian cesspool.  This kind of thinking helps explain why modern Muslim societies are so pathetic.

If whites caused the mess then they are to blame. That doesn't necessarily mean they ought to be punished for it, but something about the way they were must have been to blame if they were the ones who created liberalism. I suppose Eastern European whites weren't to blame, but I think when he said white he probably meant only anglo Saxon whites.

Only cultures and religions can be blamed.  If he blamed English culture, I would disagree but at least that isn't an un-Islamic position.  He seems to understand neither history nor his own religion.

fschmidt wrote

He specifically criticized the Enlightenment which was a period of sane individual liberty (freedom but not to harm others) and was very conservative.  

Much like modernity in the 1950s. The disease had taken hold but they hideous symptoms had not yet manifested themselves.

Allen wrote

Much like modernity in the 1950s. The disease had taken hold but they hideous symptoms had not yet manifested themselves.

We disagree on this.  Catholics are generally against the Enlightenment, but at least they have a coherent argument similar to yours.  But this Muslim had no argument and fails to recognize that the Enlightenment was conservative (at least for a time).

fschmidt wrote

Only cultures and religions can be blamed.  If he blamed English culture, I would disagree but at least that isn't an un-Islamic position.  He seems to understand neither history nor his own religion.

In the video when he criticizes whites he qualifies it by saying that there are whites who are good Muslims, which makes me think that when he says whites he means white culture, not white genetics. The fact is that some cultures are most easily identified by race of the majority of its members. And western culture before the 1950s was very much a white culture, and anglo Saxon countries like America and Australia had whites-only naturalization policies, and anti-miscegenation laws. This is not to say that it is good or bad, only that if a culture has whiteness as a requirement, then whiteness would seem to be a good identifier of that culture. You might say that the culture can be defined only by protestantism, but were black protestants responsible for the mess we see today? I don't think so - in the grand scheme of things they were only victims.

fschmidt wrote

Catholics are generally against the Enlightenment, but at least they have a coherent argument similar to yours.  But this Muslim had no argument

I think these are accepted by the mainstream as being consequences of the enlightenment:

* Belief in individual liberty, which is a prerequisite for modern Western version of individualism, however sane it was practiced at the time
* Led to the evil technology which perverts the human way of life for the majority of the world today
* Led to industrial revolution and mass centralization we see today. Wikipedia cites the "public sphere" concept as being the reason for this.
* Globalism:

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren" --Thomas Paine.

"It will, perhaps, be as well to distinguish three species and degrees of ambition. First, that of men who are anxious to enlarge their own power in their country, which is a vulgar and degenerate kind; next, that of men who strive to enlarge the power and empire of their country over mankind, which is more dignified but not less covetous; but if one were to endeavor to renew and enlarge the power and empire of mankind in general over the universe, such ambition[106] (if it may be so termed) is both more sound and more noble than the other two." --Francis Bacon

* America was founded during the enlightenment, on enlightenment principles, and it ended up being the country that does the most damage in the world, and does the most to spread modern Western values around the world.

When a thing is the source of a bunch of bad things, I think it is fair to assume that the thing itself is bad until proven otherwise.

Yes the Enlightenment supported individual liberty, which I consider a good thing.

Yes the Enlightenment produced technology, which I consider a good thing.

Yes the Enlightenment let to the industrial revolution, which I consider a good thing.  No this doesn't lead to mass centralization.  Late Rome also had mass centralization.  In our time, mass centralization is the result of corporations which shouldn't exist and aren't a product of the Enlightenment.

Globalism is the product of Christianity itself, not the Enlightenment.  Francis Bacon is considered to be before the Enlightenment, so your quote supports my point.

The higher a culture rises, the more damage it does when it falls.  This was also true of Athens which did huge harm by spreading Plato.  The Enlightenment did not solve the problem of eventual cultural decay, but I don't blame the Enlightenment for this.  Both Ancient Athens and early America were high points in human history.

The Enlightenment and Modernity are basically the usual suspects destroying organic human society while using various devices to maximize their profits from the destruction at every stage. We are now reaching the end state we were always headed for.

Ok let's exclude globalism.

For the other things I listed I would say it is hard to judge if they are good or bad in an absolute sense. But what is easy to judge is that they are currently working together to make humanity worse. Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable for this to make one conclude that the enlightenment as a whole is bad.

If you want to live without liberty or technology, there are plenty of backward countries that you could move to.  If you don't move, then I don't see how you can criticize these things.

Technology keeps spreading year by year and will eventually spread to the backwards countries. If I tried to escape the technology, and raise a family in some undeveloped land in a backwards country, then at some point the technological industrial system would want this land for some reason (e.g. they want to extract resources from it), and would antagonize me for living this primitive lifestyle. Think of what the Colonials did to the Native Americans. So it would not solve the problem in the long term and in the short term just makes life difficult.

My current belief is that good intelligent people must be technologically "on top", so that they are not disempowered relative to modern scum, but they should work to keep that "top" short, due to the evils technology inflicts on humanity. I think the ideal end game scenario would be for good and intelligent people to use technology to destroy itself, so then the whole world can go back to the stone age and we can live happily ever after.

As for liberty, in primitive countries there is a natural liberty, because technology assists tyranny. You would not need as many laws protecting your rights, because if the government wanted to violate your freedom in a certain way it might not even have the ability to do it.

You should at least visit a backward country to see if you like it.  You have made assertions that technology and liberty are bad without any evidence, just based on the anecdote of our current culture.

I think that success is the cause of failure for most societies.  This has been true throughout history, regardless of technology and other factors.  And I say that technology and liberty helped cause the success of Western culture which in turn caused the failure.  So are you against success?  Are you against intelligence, since that too is a contributing factor to success?

I am not against success.  Rather, I would like to identify why success causes failure and then find a remedy.  My Arkian idea is my suggested remedy.

The success modern technology provides is bundled with centralization. All of the technology we use today relies on mass centralization, and when the masses buy it they are feeding the system of mass centralization. Transistors are so cheap when produced by the technological-industrial system that if you buy a pack of them on Amazon they only cost a few cents each. But if you wanted to make a transistor on your own, you would never be able to do it for a few cents - they absolutely must be mass produced; they require mass centralization to produce efficiently enough that every day people can afford them. I think this makes it clear that the technology we enjoy today is inseparable from mass centralization. So you must either be for technology (as we know it today), or against mass centralization. I was exaggerating a bit when I said "stone age" - I do not see technology that does not require mass centralization as being a threat.

As for liberty, every culture sees tyranny as being a bad thing. What made the early Americans unique is they saw liberty as something that ought to be maximized at the expense of everything else, and they formed their value system this way. If someone exercises his liberty to strangle someone, this is only wrong because it infringes on the other person's liberty to breathe. Liberty works in this case, but the problem is that when a slut fornicates with someone she is infringing on absolutely no one's liberty. If my neighbor and a hunk fornicate behind closed doors, it interferes with none of my liberties; I am prevented from doing absolutely nothing as a result of my neighbor fornicating. But punishing them for fornicating would deprive them of liberty. So liberty is not a very good ideal in this case, since it would only serve to protect the fornicators. If Americans didn't tolerate sluts in early America, it is likely just a holdover from the West's deeply religious past.

fschmidt wrote

I think that success is the cause of failure for most societies.  

It appears to be on a smaller scale, but the larger scale cause is climate. When climate allows individual success to turn into hedonism (through multiple circumstances that have to be intact, including a large enough population, civilization, technology), the decay will inevitably start, and we'll get the waves of cultures emerging and collapsing, until the larger scale waves in the climate are such that they don't allow individual success to turn into hedonism, for a while.

CONTENTS DELETED

CONTENTS DELETED