Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "Joe Rogan u0026 Gad Saad - Islamic Immigration" video.

Just goes to show that "tolerance," much like "diversity" or "inclusivity" is not always an inherently good thing, even though that's the narrative the Left always peddles. Tolerance (in most contexts that its used in political discourse) just means moral and cultural relativism. People often forget that a culture or civilization is defined just as much by what they DON'T tolerate as they are by what they tolerate.
14
Just goes to show that "tolerance," much like "diversity" or "inclusivity" is not always an inherently good thing, even though that's the narrative the Left always peddles. Tolerance (in most contexts that its used in political discourse) just means moral and cultural relativism. People often forget that a culture or civilization is defined just as much by what they DON'T tolerate as they are by what they tolerate.
13
@bayron45 Singapore is extremely authoritarian and to quell ethnic conflict, they mandated that English be spoken as a universal language. I have been to Singapore when I was in the military, and it's the only place I've ever been that has signs at the airports saying the penalty for drug smuggling is death. And I've been to some horrible countries. We shouldn't have to live in an authoritarian dictatorship just so we can be multicultural/multiethnic. They are arguably not even multicultural, only multiethnic. Multiethnic states can exist, but only if there is a dominant uncompromising monoculture that incoming groups willfully and even joyfully embrace. Multiculturalism doesn't work, and America's dominant ethnocultural majority is under outright hostile attack. Most new immigrants do not want or need to adapt, and more and more people and cultural institutions either do not expect them to adapt or outright discourage them from adapting. The obstacle of having a multiethnic state is that every ethnicity has their own culture that they instinctually desire to preserve. If aspects of that culture are incompatible with the host culture and adaptation is discouraged, it will cause serious problems. In earlier waves of immigration, the expectations were totally uncompromising and there was way more social and economic incentive for migrants to adapt. There was no welfare state. The schools and cultural institutions did not adapt to the migrants, the migrants adapted to them. And those migrants were far more similar (racially, culturally, religiously, etc.) than the newer groups that are immigrating now. Some groups are just way too different, and are even hostile towards the West as a whole. How can we expect those people to be positive additions to our countries given all these circumstances? So our countries are not just failing at integrating migrants, globalists (who hold basically all the power) are deliberately undermining the possibility of immigration even being a potentially positive thing. They are weaponizing it and making it totally destructive for the nation state, and that is the whole point. They don't want nation states to exist. So really, the problem is more complicated, and is due to a series of globalist lies. Globalist/leftist lies will be the undoing of this experiment. Their cultural relativism, their attacks on integration standards, their attacks on traditional culture...all of it is designed to destroy the United States as we know it.
9
@johannpopper1493 The U.S. has explicit values that theoretically should be accepted by all residents, but are not. They are not even universally accepted/shared among native born Americans. Among foreign people, they are usually only reluctantly accepted (if at all), and are constantly being tested and framed as a form of oppression. Inundate the country year after year with millions of people with totally different values, and the system collapses. That's the whole problem with importing culturally incompatible population groups. Cultural relativism is moral relativism. Open borders equals open values. Culture and values are linked, and culture is strongly correlated to ethnicity. Hence, ethnicity is NOT arbitrary at all when it comes to migration. It is only in the West that we pretend it doesn't matter for fear of social repercussions. Also, the idea of "reasonable" tolerance is subjective. My version is likely far different than yours.
8
@ystconnection Lol
5
Whenever I hear it, I think about the fact that it makes no sense. "Radical" is the opposite of fundamental. Saying the type of Islam practiced by Salafists is "radical" insulates the barbaric foundational tenets of Islam from being exposed and criticized for what it is. So-called "Islamists" are following a fundamental, literalist interpretation of their holy scriptures. The real radicals are the ones trying to reform Islam so it's no longer a 7th century death cult, and they get a fatwa for their troubles.
3
@leonslovo2932 Give instead of take, eh? I wouldn't say that your people have a reputation for being generous. In fact, the stereotype is the opposite, and stereotypes are based upon observed patterns.
3
@Chicagocubbiegirl They believe their God is everyone's true God. So even if it is between them and their God, the idea that they are Chosen is still a belief in their inherently divine superiority over other groups.
2
@johannpopper1493 I don't think freely isolating or preserving an exclusive nation-state is inherently supremacist. I also don't think it harms the group. Quite the opposite, I think it is the only viable vehicle which can preserve a group and their unique biocultural diversity. The reason most people think the ]evvs are supremacists is only partially due to the jus sanguinus naturalization policies of their ethnoreligious state. It is more to due with their general attitudes towards those outside their tribe, which is said to be a cultural manifestation of supremacist passages in their holy scripture. But I agree with you that what you call "isolationist supremacism" is harmless to others. That said, why are people of European descent called evil when we express a desire or take action to create our own exclusive communities or states? I also agree that universal conquest supremacism is tyrannical, and that's really the most overt form of supremacism.
2
When I hear it, I think about how Islam is the only religion where the fundamentalists are called "radicals." Those who follow a literalist interpretation of every other religion are called fundamentalists or ultra orthodox. Radicalism is by definition a divergence from the fundamental nature of something. It is the opposite of fundamentalism. This might seem trivial or semantic until you really stop and think about the psychology behind this and WHY Islamic fundamentalists are called "radicals." I think it's basically a form of projection and a way of insulating the fundamental principles of Islam from criticism. They call fundamentalists "radical" so that people believe that fundamentalists are practicing some extreme form of Islam, when really they are just following the literal ordainments of their holy scriptures.
1
@IbrahimKhan-gv6cw Yes, we really appreciate all those beautiful trucks of peace here in the West.
1
@jenniferharnett3296 Obviously, your group isn't a collective entity, and therefore you cannot be assigned with collectivized guilt. So the actions of Israel shouldn't make you cringe unless you felt a sense of belonging and therefore, onus, for the actions of Israel. I think it's natural to feel a little onus, even if it's slightly illogical. That said, I have a question. In my country, members of your group totally dominate the New Left movement. Members of your group basically pioneered Critical Race Theory, which collectively frames my people and our culture as inherently evil and in need of dismantling, which leads a lot of people to hate your group, given that members of your group are the ones mainly responsible for the creation, maintenance, and distribution of these borderline genocidal ideologies. So I guess my question is twofold: 1.) since you feel onus for the actions of Israel, do you also feel any sense of onus for the overwhelming overrepresentation of your people in movements that are designed to subvert and destroy Europeans as well as traditional Western culture and civilization? I'm asking this honestly and not in bad faith. I'm genuinely curious and I rarely get a chance to speak to anyone from your group. I always wondered why more of your people don't denounce the actions of those within your group. I think if more of them did, there wouldn't be nearly as much anti-Semitism.
1
Or that another religion is supremacist. Pot...meet kettle.
1
 @a.f.6929 I never said that. Are you implying that I don't read any history?
1
The idea of Chosenness is widely agreed upon by anthropologists to be a form of ethnocentrism. I wouldn't really say that ethnocentrism is inherently supremacist, but Gad's religious tribe is certainly supremacist in other ways. The Talmud is filled with references to their superiority and divine right to dominate other groups. So I would say they are both supremacists in their own way. Islam is obviously also a supremacist doctrine in that it seeks to dominate and conquer all other groups.
1
@leonslovo2932 Conquest is not a prerequisite for supremacism. For example, the Nazis are not known as supremacists because they conquered, but because they were extremely ethnocentric and thought of themselves as superior. That said, many in your group are extremely ethnocentric and do think of themselves as superior, and the reason is because that notion is reinforced in your ethno-religious dogma and embraced in your culture. You can peddle any excuse in the world, but it won't change the facts. I can and will use actual passages from the Talmud and Torah to prove the existence of ingrained supremacism in your ethno-religion. Just let me know if you want me to provide those. The best argument you could make is this: supremacism within your ethno-religion exists, but is not the norm, because your people have chosen to ignore the parts of your holy scriptures that reinforce that notion. Denying that supremacism even exists in your ethno-religion is a losing argument.
1
@johannpopper1493 Reasonableness is subjective, of course. I would say change is often portrayed as inherently healthy and necessary by those who are not satisfied with traditional ways, even if the change has a significant potentiality of leading to something totally destructive. They take the risk anyways. But complete isolation and failure to change is indeed harmful to a population. Still, I still it's possible for a nation that is exclusive to one group to not be totally isolated and adverse to change.
1