Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  • Most Liked  



  • Rank
    Simtropolis Geek

Recent Profile Visitors

4,904 Profile Views
  1. My SC4 CJ Scrapbook | Important update and news!

    Dear sir/madam/whoever will read this! This profile, this CJ and the Ln X profile are now defunct. Computer problems and issues with accessing my Imageshack account meant My SC4 CJ Scrapbook was lost and utterly irretrievable. This setback put me off SC4 for many months and I was fuming with what happened. So angry I didn't want to show my face (metaphorically speaking) on this site again and I decided to pull the plug. It was embarrassing and three years of pictures, comments and inspiration was gone. Apologies for the inconvenience and for the lost pictures- that's why I was fuming. And some of you will be fuming too. Because of this any continuation here would require a fresh start- a clear differentiation of the past and the future. Now that SC4 itch did not go away and it had to be scratched! I have started afresh with a new account here- The British Sausage The URS is a spiritual successor to the SC4 CJ Scrapbook. Some comments say it is similar to "Ln X's style" because it is my style, except with a few improvements as I have worked out to put SC4 models onto transparent lots and make them into parks. That and other cosmetic improvements which only come through further experience and inspiration. With this update this will be the last time I visit my original Simtropolis account- admin/mods feel free to remove it or do whatever you need to do. I have no further use for the Ln X (BLANKBLANK) account. Three years have been lost but the future will provide new memories, new delights and new treasures. With regards, Miles Saunders-Priem aka. Ln X aka. The British Sausage
  2. From wikipedia: Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Was there intentional indiscriminate violence? Check. Did it create terror and fear? Check. Was it committed to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim? Well for the last point it could be checked off if the attack was waged as part of jihad. Even if the killer was a lone-wolf, his political views did not come out a vacuum, he was probably watching too many Islamic militant propaganda videos and decided to wage his own personal holy jihad. What was the goal? (Presuming the attacker was an extremist Muslim) Death to the infidels. Now then did the suicide bomber terrify people? He sure did- he terrified thousands of people in Manchester Arena. He has also shocked a nation- it shocked me when I first heard of the news. So he succeeded in his aims. Furthermore there will be stricter security measures in concerts and public events, so that means more money spent on security and so that is another victory for this suicide bomber. He forced a country to raise its defences a bit more. So one attacker, who may have spent several hundred pounds for his bomb, has now forced a country to spend probably a few hundred million pounds for tighter security measures. That's effective terrorism if you ask me because its produced a strong defensive outcome. Mark my words- there will be tighter security measures after this. Already there will be reviews set up and committee hearings to analyse what could have been done to prevent the attack and what can be done in the future. Right now in this country (UK) there a few hundred people, mostly Muslim, who are being tracked and monitored by MI5 and the other intelligence services, these are people actively planning to commit acts of terror. Many of these will be arrested within five years. Then there are several thousand people who are sympathise with terrorist groups or may have worked with terrorist groups before in the past. Now here's a fallacy: saying all the recent terrorist attacks -- sorry spate of killings -- in Europe are just the work of murderers. Repeating a mantra of "we fear ISIS and other groups if we consider these attacks actual terrorism" is fearing ISIS; denial is a form of fear. If this were to really hold true then security measures would not have been increased, Muslim communities would not be monitored and so forth. If it looks like terrorism, and it feels like terrorism then it bloody well IS terrorism. Right now in Europe there are a few thousand extremist Muslims who want to kill people, sometimes they succeed but the vast majority of the time they get caught and their terrorist plans are thwarted. As long as there is chaos and mass exoduses in the Middle East then a little bit of it will spill over into Europe. So this Islamic terrorism is here to stay for a while. Maybe it will lessen when ISIS collapses this year or next. That's the situation- arguing about what constitutes terrorism will not change this situation. And now I'm done- I've said my bit and I'm going out for a walk. Peace.
  3. Yeah the IRA were real SOBs, but as you said at least they had an end goal and there was something to negotiate with. And lone-wolf, or part of a terror cell, or Al-Qaeda or ISIS, that suicide bomber was a terrorist. And this suicide bomber can't have been that mentally unstable because he had the brains to assemble a bomb without getting caught. He also had the brains to attack just after the concert is over when security becomes more lax as parents and friends arrive to pick up those who were in the concert. Committing really evil acts doesn't necessarily equate to mental instability- just amorality and wickedness.
  4. Yeah it's the second worse Islamic terror attack of this century in the UK. Before this year MI5 and the UK police had a pretty good track record of keeping the Islamic terrorists at bay. Thing is if it was a lone-wolf attacker then there is no terror cell and nothing to really track. I'll put money it was a lone-wolf Muslim terrorist or someone from an Islamic terror cell. Or maybe ISIS will pipe up sometime today and claim it was behind it. Besides there will be tens of millions of people in the UK who see the news and think what I'm thinking- another Islamic terrorist attack, ISIS or the like. Maybe it was someone else... But I doubt it. That's the pattern. Anyway I said a prayer for all those affected then I moved on- it used to shock me these terror attacks. But it's become the norm in Europe every month or couple of months. So that's the state of the world.
  5. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40010124 It happened at about 10:30pm last night in Manchester Arena. There were also nail bombs on the suicide bomber too. So far 22 dead, 59 injured. Sometime today police will confirm it was a Muslim, that he was probably on a terror watch list or something of the like. So Wahabbism and its terror related affiliations strikes again. The last time Manchester had a terrorist attack was in 1996 when the IRA detonated a truck bomb, at least the IRA were kind enough to send a warning 90 minutes before they detonated.
  6. Feminism and religion

    Thanks! Yes, at its true core religion is a front to justify war and oppression when it has happened throughout history. But I fundamentally disagree with what you said next about how the types of conflict in the Middle East would have been different if there were all Buddhists, Atheists or Christians or whatever... The Shia vs Sunni conflicts, Saudi Arabia vs Iran, Salafism/Wahhabism vs the rest of Islam, the Byzantium Empire versus the Persian Empire and Arabian Empire, the Crusades, the wars the Ottoman Empire waged against Europe, the Armenian Genocide, the Iraq vs Iran war... It's not that Islam has never been liberal or tolerant- see its hey day with the Arabian Empire. The issue is Wahabbism, and how it takes a very fundamentalist approach to Islam and tries to emulate as much as possible Muhammed and his most earliest pious followers. There is the cultural component of Bid'ah which helps to place changing practices, new technologies and systems into the vast Islamic culture. Bid'ah is religious innovation and a key tenet of Wahabbism is rejection of Bid'ah. So that's a big problem when you want to emulate the ways of someone who is living not only in the 7th century AD but at a time when slavery, tribal violence, polygamy and patriarchy were standard practice. Islam is a very practical religion and one of the first to exhort the values of the state and of country, the Prophet Muhammed himself was an incredibly practical man who became a tribal warlord to help create a proper country/empire/state in Arabia at the time. So putting aside all questions of morality, does it make any sense to emulate the practical ways of a man who lived in the late 6th and early 7th centuries? This rejection of Bid'ah probably explains why, after the Iranian Revolution, countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt and others in the Middle East became far more stricter about Islamic tradition. Western clothing, the lax application of veils and headscarfs all changed overnight. Even for women university students who went to Western countries to study their style of dress changed too. It was conform or face the mutaween (religious police and generally a Wahabbi practice). So the problem is not religious attire but the systems which enforce it through violence and oppression, systems which are found in large parts of the Middle East. Which is why so many Middle Eastern countries have human rights problems and violations. The most peaceful and prosperous of countries which reconciled Islamic practice with Modern values were: Libya, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Israel. Libya is now a failed state and has fallen to the scourge of Wahabbism and Islamic extremism, Turkey is moving steadily closer to Salafism/Wahabbism, Syria has been devastated and could have fallen to Wahabbism had the Islamic militant scum prevailed, Jordan has thankfully dodged a war but is burdened with refugees and Israel has a large Muslim population (17.5%) and where Jews and Muslims live side-by-side VERY peacefully- as it should be and as it was for most of Islam's existence. But these Wahabbis... What the right wing don't seem to see is that many of the problems reported in Germany and Sweden from the influx of refugees: no-go zones, rapes, low-level violence, gangs of men, etc. has by and large been caused by a small number of individuals who are extremely committed to Wahabbi practice. It is also Islamic militants and Wahabbi extremists that have, since 2014, caused a Christian exodus in the Middle East and North Africa (including parts of South Asia). It's bordering on a low-level, slow and fragmented genocide of Christians. Which is another insult to Islam because its Quranic law to protect peoples of previous revelations (Moses and Jesus).
  7. Feminism and religion

    For the very first sentence you wrote it's simple God tests us: if a Great Being from the Sky really came down and told us what to do would there be any evil or suffering or despair in the world? In this mortal world there is no evidence to prove that God exists, that heaven exists, that souls exist, that the words of the Prophets had a Divine origin, that there were miracles and the like- not one shred of evidence. And there never will be. Which is why there is faith Believe me there is progress and I'm glad religion is conforming to modern social standards. Do you want the dark days of superstition, of heresy, of rampant homophobia, of sexism, of a patriarchal society to come back? Which brings me to your third paragraph- it is NEVER going back to a patriarchy. Far from it as the reverse is happening and in many parts of the third-world and developing world lots of women are fighting for better conditions, equality, justice and cultural standards, women in India, Iran, the Middle-East and elsewhere. The obstacles for these women are numerous ones which are cultural and religious. Religion is not a static thing, it evolves with the sensibilities of the time. While I believe all monotheistic religions have in general good moral guidelines, it is inherently false to say that religion brought morality to humanity. Morality has always existed but there are always new situations, events, technologies and beliefs which add complexity to the application of morality. Furthermore one must consider the period of origin for these religions- this period of origin has shaped the laws and views on morality which each religion espouses. For the fourth paragraph one can do both: acknowledge its (religion's) good parts and bad parts. But one can cherry pick the good bits of religion and ignore the bad bits in relation to modern moral values, like Christianity has done today. Christianity has by and large adapted to the modern world and those moral teachings of the Bible (in particular the New Testament) are those that have been timeless: tolerance, love of ones neighbour, forgiveness, justice, etc... In the times of heresy, witch-burnings, punishment of adulterers and the like, all of it was justified because the Bible said so- because it was at the time the morally right thing to do. It was morally right because it had been interpreted as God's Will. Which brings the shocking thing about religion: anything can be justified, no matter how wicked or wrong, if enough people believe that definition and are willing to live their lives by that interpretation. Case in point: ISIS. They believe they are following the most purest form of Islam, they believe it so much that they will kill anybody who disagrees- Muslim or not. This is manifest delusion on the point of ISIS. Thanks for the link! I could do with a laugh!
  8. Multiculturalism and "Core Culture" and Segregation

    Good point about the plasticity. A quid pro quo thing to some extent? I'm not sure.
  9. Feminism and religion

    Nah, I enjoy my life and I'm very privileged to live in the UK and to be with the family I have. Now I do have a passing interest in these topics that's about it, I do enjoy debating with you though! But I'm not political, merely curious. Part of that curiosity stems from story-writing. I guess if I had to label myself I would be a centrist and quite possibly an egalitarian. But I still feel in general that Feminism and other Civil Rights movements have kept a rightful check on religious practices which have curtailed people's freedoms, it is has clamped down on religious orthodoxy by and large and that is a good thing. One interesting thing that occurred to me last night the application of hate speech laws and the Equality Act in the UK. How it squares with discriminatory religious practice is a mystery to me. Case in point the non-existant numbers of female mullas and imams. From a feminist point of view this is a situation ripe for affirmative action and gender quotas. It does not appear to be evenly applied, for instance in Christianity this is steadily happening as there are more and more female vicars and I think there may be a female bishop in several years time. So this is an example of the church becoming more progressive and changing its views. Why can't Islam do the same in the West? Or is it an "have a cake and eat it" situation? Equality laws, anti-discriminatory laws and hate speech laws protect Islam in the UK but overlook numerous breaches of these laws within Islam? I mean what it is? Islam is just another religion like Christianity, or it is a case that some religions are more equal than others? In fact if equality, anti-discriminatory and hate speech laws were enforced with Islam in the UK and other pro-liberal European countries it would totally destroy the right-wing, populist platform, and of course vindicate the left-wing and liberal-inspired equality laws, anti-discriminatory laws and hate speech laws. The point is the application of these laws is going to be more important as Muslim communities become larger and larger, there's probably going to be more waves of immigration over the next ten, twenty years as the Middle East continues to be engulfed by several warzones and numerous political and religious tensions. Before 9/11 no gave a damn about Muslim populations living in European countries, they were just there. If anything Europe should look to Russia- for hundreds of years there was harmony between Christians and Muslims (before the Soviet Union and some time later after the collapse of the Soviet Union). I only know this much Islamic society and Western society are very different. So my only prediction is that this difference is going to become more and more obvious in the next ten and twenty years in Europe- unless of course there is a widespread Feminist and/or Renaissance movement in the Middle-East. Now I recognize Islam, Quran and Muhammed as being genuinely coming from God, it is Divine. I'm not a Muslim but I believe it. Muhammed came from God like Jesus and Moses did. But just like Christianity had to adapt and evolve to reflect changing times, so to does Islam. The horrors that are happening in the Middle East is because large parts of Islam are stuck in the past. Guess where the biggest source of Islamophobia comes from? Other Muslims: ISIS, extremist groups, orthodox versus secular, Sunni vs Shia. The biggest enemies of Muslim are Muslims, they don't need SJWs or Feminists or left-wing groups to protect them. Muslims know how to protect themselves as they have very strong, tight-knit communities- which is of course arising from laws in the Quran. The hate that far-right groups have towards Muslims pales in comparison to the hate some Muslims have shown to their brothers and sisters in the Islamic faith.
  10. Feminism and religion

    Maybe it's a case of strange bedfellows, kind of like how Saudi Arabia and Israel are close allies. Or perhaps both sides -- Feminism and Islam (in the West) -- are using the other? I dunno. I mean consider the reverse... Would Islam in a Muslim country show solidarity with say feminist groups that are in the minority? Or maybe third-wave Feminism has so gone off the rails with identity politics, liberalism and multiculturalism that it secretly craves regression? A return of the bad times for women to justify its continued existence?
  11. I came across this interesting article about a proposal in Germany to help with integration for the new arrivals and with Germany as a whole. The phrase "parallel societies" was quite striking to me because it would seem like a mild form of cultural segregation: if there are separate cultural identities and they can't be diluted as part of a whole... Then what does that leave? Socially acceptable segregation? Or sub-cultures fiercely protective of their identity that "integration" is seen as a threat to their identity? Or the majority or the right-wing feel threatened by sub-cultures and "parallel societies" which have different values to the countries main values? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-19/we-dont-wear-burkas-germany-unveils-cultural-integration-initiative-immigrants So this is a thread about multiculturalism, "Core Culture" (common values within a country and its citzenry) and segregation. Has multiculturalism made things more harmonious and peaceful between the majority and the minorities? Between the non-religious and the religious? Or has it inadvertantly caused things to move back culturally and accidently create segregation? This seems like a pertinent issue today!
  12. Feminism and religion

    For the point highlighted in bold- true that. But conversely since you are neither a Muslim nor a woman can you judge too- in a positive or negative light? Why protect something you don't fully understand or have experienced? It's a silly point because people are going to talk regardless and they're going to judge regardless because of a feeling. My shtick is not about "ragging" Muslims nor being a sudden "protector" of Muslim women. My shtick and misgivings are Feminists getting cosy with Islam, because Feminism and Islam are a dichotomy when it comes to women's rights and freedoms. Now let's get down to brass tax. Feminism has been a very powerful and great balance to political and religious institutions that have curtailed women's freedoms and/or placed them in social situations with no easy way out. Case in point would be divorce and the former stigma attached; divorce was very difficult thing to do a century ago. Another case in point would be abortion, abortion was illegal based on religious and Christian grounds- at least in the West and in the UK. So Feminism has curtailed religious practices and thus religious freedoms in the past- in particular with Christianity. Oppression is not just limited to violence: it can be slander, ostracization, expectations made under duress, keeping people ignorant about stuff, family pressures linked to cultural practices, etc. etc... Here's another funny thing: it's the Muslim men* who have the final say on what a Muslim women should wear in public- not the women. And why is that? Well let's get the other obvious thing out of the way first: Islam and Muslim communities are male-dominated through and through. Where are the female mullas and imams? There aren't any, or there are a few but it would be rare. So males thus have the authority to interpret the Quran and apply its teachings. This ain't rocket science- if the men dictate the practice of the religion then do you really think they are going to consider the best interests of the woman? No they won't; the men will determine what they think are the best interests of the women. So this is an entity (Islam) where women have no representation which would be acceptable to Western standards. This is feminism 101 man! If there's only men in an organisation/government then how can it represent the women and their interests? Now if this were government or some other religion the Feminists would be all over it screaming patriarchy and lack of women's representation- and so they should. Islam is like an open-goal for the Feminist movement; there are serious systemic sexist and patriarchal issues in Islam. And please don't try to say otherwise because it does stem in the Quran and Islamic teachings and Hadiths (accounts and stories) from the Prophet Muhammed, his companions, family and chosen ones. For instance a woman has only half the rights of a man according to the Quran, a woman must veil herself and dress "modestly", a woman must have two male witnesses to prove she did not commit adultery. Now if a non-Muslim said that to a woman or to any feminist in the UK they would be rightly outraged. But right now Feminism has a blind spot to Islam. It surprises me because 3rd wave Feminism is about flushing out every last pocket of sexism and patriarchy- as I understand it, but guess what? There's a whole bunch of sexism and patriarchy in Islam that's just begging to be sorted out. If Feminism put Christianity in its place in the West then why is it so afraid of putting Islam in its place in the West? And as for the Feminists and woman donning the hijab in the Woman's March on the 20th of January, one does not just "try out" a hijab. It's supposed to be ALWAYS worn in public, so just "trying it out" is an insult to Islamic practice. Or a genius tactic of proselytization on those Muslim women who want to bring in new followers to Islam. Just think about it- they got women who support feminism to get cosy with parts of Islamic practice which are patriarchal. That's why I'm so amazed at what I saw in those videos. Seriously think about it. And that's the other thing about religions Lexus- they are cunning in luring people in and covertly proselytizing! I have seen it through and through. So they (religious people) will agree with different opinions and views from people if they (religious people) feel there's a chance of those people coming into the flock so to speak. Which brings me back to the why? Why are parts of Feminism getting cosy with Islam in the West and/or overlooking sexist practices in Islam? I have theories but I'm only interested in highlighting the contradiction- not the reason for this contradiction arising. *I'm talking about orthodox communities in the West and of course Middle East nations, many orthodox Muslim countries and any Muslim community where a more secular and modern approach is eschewed.
  13. President Donald Trump and his Administration

    Anyway, here is the current state of relations of the media with regards to Trump!
  14. President Donald Trump and his Administration

    There's choice and illusion of choice. I'm not criticizing a Muslim woman choosing to wear a hijab, you're twisting my words. I'm saying the choice is very much one-sided because not wearing the hijab, the veil, can lead to ostracization and from accounts in the news it is a horrible process for Muslims who have been forced out of their communities. Now, a Muslim woman not choosing to wear the hijab in an orthodox community is a big deal and these communities are very male-orientated; like it is in Arabic culture. It's a form of oppression and its bigoted, so as a feminist why support that? Which begs another question: is it alright for one group to oppress another group if for that first group it is acceptable? But in Western countries Muslim communities can't be left alone to do their own thing because the issues of honour killing, FGM, arranged marriages and women being stuck in marriages they don't want to be in, those issues crop up. So in the UK at least social services get called in and sometimes the police, so cultural practices which are incompatible with UK values are being dealt with. Don't tell me there are no issues and there isn't a compatibility problem, they are two very different cultures: UK and Islamic. Sure Muslims have every right to practice their religion and Islam, but the state has every right to support those Muslims who have been shunned by their own community. The state has the right of not respecting Muslim practice to ensure the rights of a Muslim who has been forced out (an infidel in the eyes of their fellow Muslims) are protected. Otherwise that state is not following the law. Heck, in the UK religious communities can abide by their own laws and religious laws, so long as it conforms to UK law and/or does not lead to situations where UK laws will be broken. Clear instances of where UK laws would be broken is Islamic polygamy, honour killing, radicalization and the like. The most shocking thing about the hijab is that it is a cultural obligation, not a religious one. The Quran only mentions that woman should dress moderately and cover themselves which is open to all kinds of interpretations. But Islam and Muhammed's teachings (including the Quran) are not exactly the same thing. There are parts of Islam which have foundations in Arabic culture many centuries ago, then of course there are the thousands of hadiths -- accounts of the Prophet's life, descendants, his close companions and holy followers -- which carry some weight and can help to interpret the teachings of the Quran, but the hadiths are often contradictory. Then of course there are abrogations in the Quran which contradict earlier passages but even these abrogations are open to interpretation- as the hijab is. My point is Muhammed did not reveal a clear agency for Divine interpretation of the Quran, thus the ambiguities in the Quran will remain unresolved AND -- this is very important! -- and any agreed answers to these ambiguities are human interpretations and not Divine or Quranic. Which is why there is so much strife in Islam and in the Middle East at the moment: orthodox meets secularist, and so forth. Islam is where Christianity was before the Renaissance. Christianity and its practice had horrific cultural practices too five centuries ago: adulterers hung, witch-burnings, women who committed adultery forced to wear a badge of shame, women punished for having children out of wedlock, women punished for having abortions, women punished for dressing immodestly, gays imprisoned or castrated or killed. Sounds pretty similar to Islamic practice today don't you think? Now it's Islam's turn to modernize and leave behind the backwards ways of a dozen centuries ago. If Christianity can do it so can Islam- it needs to for the sake of peace, prosperity and well-being in the Middle East. So I'm just saying that Feminists supporting Islam is a real grey area considering Islam's atrocious track record for women's liberties, rights and freedoms. It's a contradiction! There's no way around it. It's all about image and the hijab is a symbol of cultural oppression- by Western standards. In fact donning the hijab to "try it out" is a gross insult of Islamic practice because to wear the hijab is to ALWAYS wear it in public, so the feminists were even disrespecting Islamic culture. Or perhaps "culturally appropriating"! So the whole thing is just dumb and disrespectful all around, it's not symbolic and it most certainly isn't a symbol of progress. It is pure ideological stupidity on the part of feminists. Or maybe feminism has gone so far off the rails that it is now welcoming actual oppressive cultures in small doses. Put it this way- I could never see a second-wave feminist donning the hijab in solidarity of Islam. Western women would be outraged if they had to live by Islamic custom and culture, then they would quickly shut up when the police and gangs of men start beating all those that don't wear the hijab, and when some women are made examples of by stoning and imprisonment. This is a standard means of enforcement in Iran and most Arabic countries. In Iran a lot of women are fighting right now not to make the headscarf obligatory, they don't want this cultural obligation anymore. So those women and feminists on that Woman's March in Washington wearing the hijab... Dear me God, do they know the struggles women face in the Middle East for their rights and liberties? I mean what's next? BLM becoming buddies with the KKK? That's how different Feminism is from Islam when considering woman's rights! I don't care if I get called bigoted or narrow-minded because that's the way I see it. Anyway to continue this conversation let's create a new thread or drop it. The focus of these posts should be on Trump and his administration. So that's my final stay on the matter of Islam and the hijab. And if the mods don't like what have I said then they are free to remove this post if they want to. No skin off my nose... Peace.
  15. President Donald Trump and his Administration

    Trumpcare has yet to be passed and has every chance of being blocked by the Senate and thus going back to Congress. Executive Orders are pretty limited in their reach. If Trump can do anything really different with NAFTA then I will be astonished- I think the renegotiations are going to be largely cosmetic. I think the wall will get built but only when healthcare is "addressed". The travel ban has yet to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, they will decide whether it is constitutional or not. Lexus... If Marxism was a critique on the economic disparities, the class struggle and of course the desire to force things to be made equal: everyone has a just share of the profit based on the fruits of their labour. Then Cultural Marxism is a critique on every cultural/racial disparity, the struggle of minorities and of course the desire to force things to be made equal: everyone is to be treated equally but some more equal than others based on how oppressed they have been (currently... historically...). That's why I call it Cultural Marxism, it wants diversity of appearance but not diversity of thought. Which is why so much feminist theory and their proponents end up cannibalising themselves. Why liberals don't like blacks voting conservative- 'cos the Democratic Party is the only party of choice 'cos the Dems ended the Jim-Crow laws (even though a century and a half ago the Democrats were for slavery- Ahem!) Why colour and ones cultural identity is the defining characteristic of a person, but I thought we were supposed to move away from that, I thought we are human beings: not white human beings, or black human beings, and so forth, but just human beings. I would even go as far as to say that what BLM are doing spits on the face of what MLK and the Civil Rights movements were fighting for back in the 1960s: to break down racial barriers and to break down the whole white/black thing. Or more recently a coming together of some Feminist groups with parts of Islam in the West- which I find bizarre. Because Feminism and Islam are a clear dichotomy when it comes to women's rights; it's in the Quran as a woman has half the rights of a man. And it's not like one can cherry pick verses of the Quran to abide by because to be a Muslim is to abide by the Quran, by Allah's teachings as written by the Prophet Muhammed and revealed by the Angel Gabriel. Still... I find it fascinating that certain small sections of these two groups: Feminism and Islam, have found some common ground. I was looking at videos of the Woman's March in DC this year and to see some woman put on the hijab... Incredible. I thought Feminism was against the oppression of woman? It -- this entity of Cultural Marxism -- also distorts things horribly, for instance the notion that white people and their past slavery of others and their killing of others. But slavery and genocide has never been just from white people. Guess where the whites got their black slaves? From the slaves of African Kingdoms. Black sold black into slavery. Or the Barbury Pirates who raided the Mediterranean and captured white people and sold them into slavery. And as for genocide: Japanese slaughtering the Chinese in WW2, the Armenian Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, the chaos of India and Pakistan becoming sovereign nations where Muslims killed Hindus and Hindus killed Muslims, the Rwandan Genocide and that's just in the 20th century. Mongolians, warriors of East Asia, devastated the Arabian Empire and destroyed much of the Persian Empire in the 13th century. The Huns, nomads of Central Asia, pillaged the Roman Empire in mid 5th century AD. And the list goes on and on. It's not just white people who have done slavery and genocide, the view that white people were the worst with regards to slavery and genocide is complete bunkum. While the biggest enemy of white people is... <drumroll> Other white people. Just look at WW1 and WW2. So when I say Cultural Marxism I am referring to tendencies and actions amongst certain left-wing groups, feminists, liberals, SJWs, etc. which fit into the Cultural Marxist mould but would not be called by the initiators of such actions as Cultural Marxism. And no- I don't believe in the whole Cultural Marxist is something to destroy the West. But there are cultural Marxist tendencies which run through third-wave Feminism and BLM. See that's the attraction of Marxism and Cultural Marxism: there are problems and disparities in the world, but the answer offered by Marxism and Cultural Marxism only makes thing worse. That's why Communism, the logical offshoot of Marxism, never took off in the West because the capitalist system by and large worked. But Cultural Marxism is quite clever because there has been much racism and cultural/racial disparity in the past with Western countries, and parts of continue to linger on. But we should not feel ashamed or guilt-ridden for actions long done in the past, what matters is what is happening now and today. Constantly looking at the present through the injustices of the past will only make the present very unpleasant to live in. If there's anything to feel guilty about it is mistakes made today that we may regret in the future. Anyway, to discuss this further maybe create a new topic in the current events: "Cultural Marxism in the West" or something to that effect. This is a topic about Donald Trump and his administration.