Which will rule the West in 50 years? Islam or Marxism?

I said this earlier in the thread - a thread I doubt you bothered to read
"No offense, as this isn't meant as an insult against your people, but is just my own observation, but I don't think the white majority [of England] has the will at all to resist what is coming to their country, so that majority isn't something I think Islam should fret over in the slightest. Even if Nationalism rises again in Europe to drive out the Islamic invasion, which I think is a distinct and very real possibility, I believe England is going to fall.."

This is my opinion based on all my interaction with and all my observations of the people of England. You make it easy to continue to believe that.
Truth be told, I also don't think any of the other Western peoples are going to care. I think most of the world, civilized and uncivilized, has had their fill of the know-it-all Englishman.
I think the West - Europe - will eventually take back the island militarily, but not to liberate for you. To take as part of a new Nationalistic Europe.

I don't have much sympathy for the English. Not very much sympathy at all.

 

I don't have much either - but I expect they'll live. Fortunately there are very few 'white' people here in this island except the dead. There is a very tiny Muslim minority, which, like all previous minorities, will be assimilated. Even the English lack your racist nuttiness, you know. It probably comes from your saluting flags and taking oaths forbidden by Christianity and believing guns make you 'free'..

 

Well, aside from our ideological difference, I guess we can agree on one thing - good riddance to your island.
I do like the Irish, though.

 

No - ********s to all right-wing English and Yanks - but this is a very good Island, thank you very much.

 

Yeah, that's a better way of putting it. Extremism in this case is about the status quo and keeping with it. It doesn't matter which side it is on, both sides can be extreme. And I would say that it has been going towards the right, when you compare it to the 1900's.

- - - Updated - - -

Think of it like this. I'm using two different spectrums here. The first tells us how extreme a society is (liberal and conservative.). Then the next is describing where the extremism is. (left or right)

 

I believe we should be busier securing the Blessings of Liberty.

 

Has anybody ever read the Foundation novels by Isaac Asimov?

Even though they were published in the 50s, they seem almost prophetic regarding our current situation.

 

Neither. Secularism will obviously rule. If not, there will be nothing left to rule, except whichever species takes over after us.

 

you can't force people to believe, that's why Islam is doomed. it's based on the false idea that people minds will follow what they say to save their necks.

 

quit playing the sweet lil old ladies card or i'll get out the puppies and kittens!

 

and 2/3rds the size of Christianity that has a 700 year lead on it, but about the same size as Budhism that's been around a lot longer than Judahism who is about 6000 years old but one of the smallest of the world famous religions.

 

The worst of both worlds ‒ I think there will be a strange unlikely alliance between the Left and Islam, we are already seeing evidence of this.

 

their culture doesn't allow for the indendent actions of subordinates needed for colonies. communications have improved over the last 100 years, but you still can't look over a shoulder from the other side of the planet.

- - - Updated - - -

we like Christmas, bacon and beer too much. it ain't gonna happen.

 

I'm not a Marxist.

You didn't effectively make your point.

 

I dunno, depending on how you define "fastest growing", Islam is probably the fastest growing religion in the world.

But my larger point is that Atheism tends to breed itself out, unless it's sold as a religion, like communism was during the 20th century. Whether it's Islam or some other religion, atheists will always be in the minority.

 

Both are collectivist ideologies.

Collectivist ideologies reign supreme and always have, simply because they are about abject power at any cost and insist on using that power to force themselves on the entire world, that is, what they can conquer of it.

The collectivist began by trying to convince us that he was god, then they tried to convince us that they spoke for God, and then they tried to convince us that there is no God, thus making themselves a god again. So I suppose the only new thing to try is to go backward to saying that they speak for God. That would be Islam, the wave of the future.

 

Insightful.

 

Not really. It just helps knowing history, where mankind has essentially been a slave to other men throughout the ages. Collectivism is just a tool to achieve this end.

Today we are told that we are "free" and can "vote". But in reality, most voters are merely uninformed slaves who have no idea what is really going on and are idle sheep that are easily swayed by government run education and the media.

 

We could be securing the Blessings of Liberty, if only, we could convince our elected representatives to be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws.

 

I would say that the biggest problem a collectivist faces is renaming themselves. Take for example the early socialists. They got a bad name in the US after the failures of the former USSR, Cuba, and China. Then those that leaned toward socialism renamed themselves liberals. However, by the time the Reagan era rolled around the term liberal also became a dirty word after their failed policies, so they renamed themselves progressives. The term progressive tends to imply new cutting age approach and that they are "evolving". However, after reading Plato's "Republic", you will soon see that all of the crap is thousands of years old. Marx is often given credit for this regurgitated collectivist poo but nothing could be further from the truth. All it proves is that Marx can read and he did so about history.

So how will progressives rename themselves after the term is drug through dung by people like Obama?

- - - Updated - - -

Laws mean nothing if there is not the will to enforce them. You know, kinda like the laws on illegal immigration.

 

50 years from now USA will be exactly as it is today. Maybe a 100 million more people, but probably not even that. Taxes will be about the same, market will keep going up and down in fits and spurts, people will still be whining about one or the other party, and once a year everyone will be pi$$ed off at Washington for raising the debt ceiling. Only difference might be cars running on biodiesel, more modern reactors and alternate energy sources, and even hotter women doing porn. Because lets face it - Linda Lovelace and Annie Sprinkle were real woofers.

 

Laws on immigration involve denying and disparaging Individual Liberty for private persons who are not charged with enforcing federal immigration laws and that form of "tax burden", in addition to taxes paid to the IRS.

Why not declaim and decry the sad state of morals regarding bearing true witness to our own laws regarding employment at will, instead?

 

Indeed. It's actually beginning already. The islamist parties are gaining ground, but so are the fascists. Where I live for example there's been a steep rise in activity and membership in the SVP (swede's party), and I don't think I need to tell you about the islamist parties in europe. Not dangerous now, but just wait til something happens.

 

alright, but I don't agree with using liberal and conservative as meaning moderate and extremist.

 

Probably a re-worked version of communism or some form of another direct-democracy . Islam don't have 50 years , i believe muslims will extinct much earlier . Fearful & insecure people we today call nationalists and conservatives will keep on disappearing as psycho-pathology methods improve.