What's new

In defence of Western values

If so mamy people hate west and its liberalism, why not pack your bags and move to russia, africa or your ancestoral country.

Dont you guys call afghans as namak harams just for that?

The irony is they are able to spout this nonsense because the West has granted them the privilege to free speech. The pro Chinese/Russian guys wouldn't come running back to the West if they had to live in either China or Russia. Saying a bad word against them in their terrority is a death wish.
 
If so mamy people hate west and its liberalism, why not pack your bags and move to russia, africa or your ancestoral country.

Dont you guys call afghans as namak harams just for that?

No one hates West or for that matter any civilization, i don't atleast. Calling out the hypocrisy when someone wants to prove one superior to others is called showing them the mirror.
 
The irony is they are able to spout this nonsense because the West has granted them the privilege to free speech. The pro Chinese/Russian guys wouldn't come running back to the West if they had to live in either China or Russia. Saying a bad word against them in their terrority is a death wish.

Does the post have any context or relevance? OP started a thread saying 3-4 countries including UK are like the beacons of human civilization, many posters negated it with their thoughts. Where is Russia, China or their policies coming in the discussion?
 
The irony is they are able to spout this nonsense because the West has granted them the privilege to free speech. The pro Chinese/Russian guys wouldn't come running back to the West if they had to live in either China or Russia. Saying a bad word against them in their terrority is a death wish.

Its funnyz becuase the same usual suspects come out in such threads bashing west and praising russia and china as if they are some standard.

And its funny, these are the same kind that will bash india or pakistan for bombing children but at the same time have no issue with ehsanullah ehsan going free or us having relations ttp.

They will bash the afghanis for being namak haram if they live in other countries and dont confine to their life style while they themselves talk against west and want russia to take over them

Than there is the anti zionist brigade who think even their lives are controlled by them. Zionism lives in their mind rent free.

You are spot on that they get to say all this because of western privledge of free speech. It was funnt seeing the list by one poster who keeps on making 20 posts say thay west gave capitalism and so and soz to which a poster replied that other economic school of thoughts and the internet also came from the west aswell
 
If so mamy people hate west and its liberalism, why not pack your bags and move to russia, africa or your ancestoral country.

Dont you guys call afghans as namak harams just for that?

A Zardari fan will never get it. :zardari

Going against FOREIGN policy isnt hating but the opposite caring for the future of your country.

Zardari opposed IK's foreign policy, does he also hate Pakistan? :zardari
 
The irony is they are able to spout this nonsense because the West has granted them the privilege to free speech. The pro Chinese/Russian guys wouldn't come running back to the West if they had to live in either China or Russia. Saying a bad word against them in their terrority is a death wish.

Going against FOREIGN policy isnt hating but the opposite caring for the future of your country.

Surely you're intelligent enough to get this bro?
 
Residents of The subcontinent, in particular Pakistani and Bangladeshi users, who aspire to Western values, only do so through Movies, Magazines, Photos, etc. They have never lived in the West, nor set foot in the West. To them, Western values is an advertisement to the beacon of civilisation, little do they know, there is no such thing as freedom and democracy in the West, it’s all an illusion. In fact, the only reason said people would want to set foot in the West in this day and age, is to sponge off the tax payer, seeing as they’ve never paid tax in their lives, they have no idea of what hard work entails either.

Orwell nailed it - 1984.
 
Going against FOREIGN policy isnt hating but the opposite caring for the future of your country.

Surely you're intelligent enough to get this bro?

They don’t get it bro, you know why? Living in Pakistan they support crooks like PDM. To them, the government can do no wrong, especially if receiving hand outs.
 
Going against FOREIGN policy isnt hating but the opposite caring for the future of your country.

Surely you're intelligent enough to get this bro?

But it isn't just foreign policy, it is the past, the present, the future and their values/beliefs/ethos/creed. I know it is still leaves a lot to be desired for, no place is perfect but still I am grateful to be living here. Are you?
 
One point that most of you, if not all of you, need to understand.

In the UK we are told we live in a free society, this is a complete lie, we live in a tolerant society.

Coloured immigrants/born citizens, are tolerated, they are not accepted as native Brits.
Building new mosques/temples, is tolerated, not embraced by the Christian majority society.
Supporting any country other than England in sports, is tolerated, not accepted by English fans.
Speaking against the government/establishment is tolerated, not accepted.

There are so many examples of tolerance (and intolerance) in the UK, compared to countries in the ME for example, where there is less tolerance.

There is no such thing as a free society in the West, or any part of the world, this is a complete myth.
 
Coloured immigrants/born citizens, are tolerated, they are not accepted as native Brits.
Building new mosques/temples, is tolerated, not embraced by the Christian majority society.
Supporting any country other than England in sports, is tolerated, not accepted by English fans.
Speaking against the government/establishment is tolerated, not accepted.

Can’t agree on this, extremely general and inaccurate comments that do a disservice to the many decent people who live in the UK.
 
If so mamy people hate west and its liberalism, why not pack your bags and move to russia, africa or your ancestoral country.

Dont you guys call afghans as namak harams just for that?

You should reallly think before making simplistic and insulting comments. Western values include the views you are raging against. It's why on the one hand you can have tough talking female PM's like Maggie T, and also you could have a mincing effeminate PM candidate in the future who might resemble your hero Bilawal.

Western values are fluid, and they change down the ages.
 
Can’t agree on this, extremely general and inaccurate comments that do a disservice to the many decent people who live in the UK.

Decent people in the UK do exist, but in a minority.

Perhaps I should qualify my opinion by stating my opinion is based on anecdotal evidence living in London all my life.
 
Can’t agree on this, extremely general and inaccurate comments that do a disservice to the many decent people who live in the UK.

Funnily it is the liberals who are more tolerant and welcoming not the small c conservatives.
 
Decent people in the UK do exist, but in a minority.

Perhaps I should qualify my opinion by stating my opinion is based on anecdotal evidence living in London all my life.

There is life in the UK outside London of course.

Undoubtedly there is a significant minority of people in the UK who carry all of the views you listed (and worse) but many Brits IMHO are just decent ordinary people who accept the differences in others and are mainly interested in getting on with their own lives.

A lot of the racism IMHO in Britain comes at an institutional / structural level which again has been caused and is perpetuated by a relatively small number of people to suit their own continuing interests.
 
Funnily it is the liberals who are more tolerant and welcoming not the small c conservatives.

Think this is less based on liberal/conservative politics and more based in personal values.
 
There is life in the UK outside London of course.

Undoubtedly there is a significant minority of people in the UK who carry all of the views you listed (and worse) but many Brits IMHO are just decent ordinary people who accept the differences in others and are mainly interested in getting on with their own lives.

A lot of the racism IMHO in Britain comes at an institutional / structural level which again has been caused and is perpetuated by a relatively small number of people to suit their own continuing interests.

I think there is a significant majority who are tolerant but not accepting. All you have to do is look on social media/ news sites, which provide a raw insight into public opinion via the comments section, on topics involving coloured people, religion, politics, sports etc. it’s unreal.

You want to fix the majority of UK’s problems? Change the MSM narrative, because it’s the MSM narrative that is perpetuating a perception that is not even close to the truth - perception is reality.

The decent folk who accept differences are few and far between, certainly in London, which represents almost a 3rd of UK’s population. London is a rat race, you will do well if you find decent honest altruistic people who are not motivated by money.

Decent people exist in poor and rich communities, but these people are not swayed by money or MSM - which is why they get on with their lives.
 
I think there is a significant majority who are tolerant but not accepting. All you have to do is look on social media/ news sites, which provide a raw insight into public opinion via the comments section, on topics involving coloured people, religion, politics, sports etc. it’s unreal.

You want to fix the majority of UK’s problems? Change the MSM narrative, because it’s the MSM narrative that is perpetuating a perception that is not even close to the truth - perception is reality.

The decent folk who accept differences are few and far between, certainly in London, which represents almost a 3rd of UK’s population. London is a rat race, you will do well if you find decent honest altruistic people who are not motivated by money.

Decent people exist in poor and rich communities, but these people are not swayed by money or MSM - which is why they get on with their lives.

68 million people live in the UK and 9 million in Greater London, that’s not 33% it’s 13%. Just over an eighth, which is nowhere near a third.

Social media and news comments sections are a bombsite of binnable opinions but they don’t represent the whole country, only a portion of it.
 
I think we should keep the PTI vs the choars debate out of this particular thread. Clearly the OP has suddenly realised the strength of feeling against western foreign policy on this forum and has decided to counter this by essentially informing us of how barbaric our ways are and how western values are far superior. This very thread itself simply exemplifies the problem.

For years we have heard how the enlightenment was the best thing since slice bread. How it made the world an amazing place with unicorns and rainbows.

However what they forget to tell you is the secret part. That from 1492 (largely seen as the beginning of the west) to now all we have seen is murder pillage and pain. Also just remember they talk of their values but which ones? The ones that say a black person is a descendant of apes. ( as in black women mated with apes not evolution). Where non whites are literally seen as sub human. But they will pretend that isn't true and their values are superior..

Our values are belittled. We are to be informed and taught how we are savages and our values backwards. Yet we didn't invent industrial scale genocide or spread the falsehood that black and brown men are subhuman. So quiet down chaps and listen to them as they educate you on how you are actually savages and must believe what they believe after all a subhuman must be educated and only humans can educate subhumans.
 
The irony is they are able to spout this nonsense because the West has granted them the privilege to free speech. The pro Chinese/Russian guys wouldn't come running back to the West if they had to live in either China or Russia. Saying a bad word against them in their terrority is a death wish.

Free speech isn't a privelege granted by westerners Mr Topspin. It may surprise you but people from other parts of the world have fought it as well, although most think of it as a right not a privelege.
 
68 million people live in the UK and 9 million in Greater London, that’s not 33% it’s 13%. Just over an eighth, which is nowhere near a third.

Social media and news comments sections are a bombsite of binnable opinions but they don’t represent the whole country, only a portion of it.

Almost 19 Million. 28% of UK population, pretty close to a 3rd.

The resident population of Greater London and those counties (partly) within the Metropolitan Green Belt was 18,868,800 in 2011. Much of the undeveloped part of this area lies within the designated belt, which, save as to existing buildings, yards and gardens, covers nearly all of Surrey, eastern Berkshire, southern Buckinghamshire, southern and mid Hertfordshire, southern Bedfordshire, south-west Essex, and western Kent. Largely in these counties, three Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the Chiltern Hills, Surrey Hills and North Downs AONBs) surrounding the Thames basin are within the commuter belt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_metropolitan_area

[results from 2021 consensus are still being processed]

Yup most social media comments are binnable, but they do provide insight into what people are thinking and feeling, especially sites which offer anonymity. Anytime there is an election, the comments section is pretty accurate on what the nation is thinking, and ultimately reflect the outcome of an election.

LBC
Talk Radio
Daily Telegraph
The Times
Financial Times
Daily Mail
BBC

These are just a handful of sites that allow anonymity, and if you want to know who wins the next election, just read the comment section on the sites above.
 
But it isn't just foreign policy, it is the past, the present, the future and their values/beliefs/ethos/creed. I know it is still leaves a lot to be desired for, no place is perfect but still I am grateful to be living here. Are you?

You're confused. All CITIZENS should always hold their governments to account. Not sure what you mean by past and present, we can also hold them to account for previous wrongs/crimes to compensate certain people they have wronged.

I have the means to live anywhere, I choose the UK as I grew up here and contributed a lot, the country is grateful to have me. Are you on a student visa bro? :afridi
 
Clearly the OP has suddenly realised the strength of feeling against western foreign policy on this forum and has decided to counter this by essentially informing us of how barbaric our ways are and how western values are far superior. This very thread itself simply exemplifies the problem.

I don’t think he has done that at all. Stating one’s values is not saying that others have lesser values. He is alarmed at how many appear to be siding with Putin, who is a monster.

For years we have heard how the enlightenment was the best thing since slice bread. How it made the world an amazing place with unicorns and rainbows.

However what they forget to tell you is the secret part. That from 1492 (largely seen as the beginning of the west) to now all we have seen is murder pillage and pain. Also just remember they talk of their values but which ones? The ones that say a black person is a descendant of apes. ( as in black women mated with apes not evolution). Where non whites are literally seen as sub human. But they will pretend that isn't true and their values are superior..

Everyone is a descendant of apes. We are all apes - just smarter than other ape species.

The Enlightenment was a good thing. White supremacy was and is a bad thing.

I have not heard of 1492 CE as the beginning of the West. It saw the end of Al-Andalus and the start of Christian Spanish colonialism. But the Caliphs were themselves colonisers. They had fallen to fighting each other, and in disunity were picked off by the Catholic Monarchs funded by the Pope who declared a Crusade.

Our values are belittled. We are to be informed and taught how we are savages and our values backwards. Yet we didn't invent industrial scale genocide or spread the falsehood that black and brown men are subhuman. So quiet down chaps and listen to them as they educate you on how you are actually savages and must believe what they believe after all a subhuman must be educated and only humans can educate subhumans.

Again, I don’t see any belittlement of Eastern values here.
 
Western values:

Far more of the people killed have been civilians. More than 387,000 civilians have been killed in the fighting since 2001.

Millions of people living in the war zones have also been displaced by war. The U.S. post-9/11 wars have forcibly displaced at least 38 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria. This number exceeds the total displaced by every war since 1900, except World War II.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human

Western Freedom and Liberty folks.
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION],
I don't accept the argument that the British Empire ended just because we couldn't afford to maintain it.

Apart from micro-territories, the French have maintained fairly highly-populated territories - largely for strategic reasons - across the Caribbean (Guadeloupe and Martinique), Indian Ocean (Reunion) and Pacific Ocean (New Caledonia and French Polynesia). Even the Dutch continue to control several significant Caribbean countries.

It would have been easy - actually easier than to decolonise - for Britain to have elected in the early 1960s to retain to this day the following territories:

Federation of the West Indies (Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, St Vincent and the Grenadines, probably not Jamaica or T+T).

Mauritius

Seychelles

Fiji

Gilbert and Ellice islands

Solomon Islands

Belize

It would have been easy to retain those islands, and as the French have discovered, the residents of those places prefer the material benefits to independence.

But British values changed.

Until the start of the NHS in the late 1940's, the British working class lived short, poor, blighted lives and were indifferent to the fate of colonial subjects of the Empire. But by the early 1960s, most Labour and Liberal voters acknowledged that having an Empire was morally wrong, and today centrist Conservatives like myself do too.

People forget that Amber Rudd - who should be the new Tory leader now - resigned as Home Secretary on principle over the Windrush Affair.

A Tory Home Secretary resigning on principle because of the appalling treatment of West Indian people who had wrongly been denied their birthright of British nationality.

I don't expect @Technics_1210 or [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] to understand the significance of that. But you and I both know that she gave up being a future PM on principle.
 
Last edited:
^ When you learn the ability to debate the points only then tag me.

See my reply earlier and please reply to each point. Not doing so shows you are clueless even though its obvious.
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION],
I don't accept the argument that the British Empire ended just because we couldn't afford to maintain it.

Apart from micro-territories, the French have maintained fairly highly-populated territories - largely for strategic reasons - across the Caribbean (Guadeloupe and Martinique), Indian Ocean (Reunion) and Pacific Ocean (New Caledonia and French Polynesia). Even the Dutch continue to control several significant Caribbean countries.

It would have been easy - actually easier than to decolonise - for Britain to have elected in the early 1960s to retain to this day the following territories:

Federation of the West Indies (Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, St Vincent and the Grenadines, probably not Jamaica or T+T).

Mauritius

Seychelles

Fiji

Gilbert and Ellice islands

Solomon Islands

Belize

It would have been easy to retain those islands, and as the French have discovered, the residents of those places prefer the material benefits to independence.

But British values changed.

Until the start of the NHS in the late 1940's, the British working class lived short, poor, blighted lives and were indifferent to the fate of colonial subjects of the Empire. But by the early 1960s, most Labour and Liberal voters acknowledged that having an Empire was morally wrong, and today centrist Conservatives like myself do too.

People forget that Amber Rudd - who should be the new Tory leader now - resigned as Home Secretary on principle over the Windrush Affair.

A Tory Home Secretary resigning on principle because of the appalling treatment of West Indian people who had wrongly been denied their birthright of British nationality.

I don't expect @Technics_1210 or [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] to understand the significance of that. But you and I both know that she gave up being a future PM on principle.

Are you sure you are a liberal? From what I am reading I don’t think you even know what values you stand for thus your OP just seems to be a knee jerk reaction for lack of credible input in the Ukraine thread, and your fight against ‘anti-semitism’.

I would also like to know which history books you read? You do not believe the British Empire ended just because ‘we’ couldn't afford to maintain it? Britain was facing bankruptcy after WW2, and that was the beginning of the end of the British Empire as we know it, and the start of Amreekan imperialism after dropping 2 nukes on Japan.

For the record readers, Amber Rudd was a Tory!
 
Are you sure you are a liberal? From what I am reading I don’t think you even know what values you stand for thus your OP just seems to be a knee jerk reaction for lack of credible input in the Ukraine thread, and your fight against ‘anti-semitism’.

I would also like to know which history books you read? You do not believe the British Empire ended just because ‘we’ couldn't afford to maintain it? Britain was facing bankruptcy after WW2, and that was the beginning of the end of the British Empire as we know it, and the start of Amreekan imperialism after dropping 2 nukes on Japan.

For the record readers, Amber Rudd was a Tory!

There are two ways a country can manage an Empire economically.

You can do what Russia and China do, and subjugate the population and essentially make the colonised area into a money-generating unit. Or you can do what Britain did, and spend large amounts of money trying to develop the place rather than exploiting it.

You seem to be struggling to understand what liberal actually means.

As I wrote at the start, 95% of British Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative voters identify as socially or ideologically liberal.

As [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] will tell you, I am an old-fashioned One Nation paternalistic Conservative. I believe in universal free healthcare, a woman's right to choose and high-enough taxes to look after vulnerable people from the cradle to the grave. And I think that the BBC is the world's greatest - and most neutral and objective - broadcaster, and is the cultural jewel in Britain's crown.

As such I get on very well with Liberal Democrats and Labour voters, and not so well with the far right of my own party.

So I am a Conservative voter but an ideological liberal. In fact, this is so normal that here in Australia the right-wing party is called the Liberal Party - not the Conservative Party.

Now, I tolerate other people's views and defend their right to hold them. But frankly, I view the very word "Conservative" in terms of ideology as a form of backwardness. I look at my American cousins in the Republican Party and lament how their party has been taken over by what our own former PM David Cameron described as "mad, swivel-eyed loons".
 
There are two ways a country can manage an Empire economically.

You can do what Russia and China do, and subjugate the population and essentially make the colonised area into a money-generating unit. Or you can do what Britain did, and spend large amounts of money trying to develop the place rather than exploiting it.

LOL WUT? Britain spent large amounts of money trying to develop their colonies rather than exploit them? I have read it all now, and I think you are trolling.

By the way, I am not confused about what Liberalism is, I do however think you are.

Also, you sure have a lot of cousins, in Ukraine, and now USA? Basically, the white population. I should have guessed.
 
LOL WUT? Britain spent large amounts of money trying to develop their colonies rather than exploit them? I have read it all now, and I think you are trolling.

By the way, I am not confused about what Liberalism is, I do however think you are.

Also, you sure have a lot of cousins, in Ukraine, and now USA? Basically, the white population. I should have guessed.

I think you have a rosy-eyed view of where ex-colonies would be if they had not been colonised. 99% of them were previously run by royal families who exploited the vast majority of the population even worse than the British did, but without developing a middle-class cadre like the British did.

Have you ever listened to Jinnah or Gandhi or Nehru talk? They were much more highly educated than 95% of British residents at the time.

Lastly, go on YouTube and look at film of Lourenco Marques in 1970 (as the capital of Portuguese Mozambique) and Maputo today (as the capital of independent Mozambique).

Which place was more developed? Who spent that money to build it?

Imperialism is wrong, but frankly most of the development of many countries happened because of it.
 
I think you have a rosy-eyed view of where ex-colonies would be if they had not been colonised. 99% of them were previously run by royal families who exploited the vast majority of the population even worse than the British did, but without developing a middle-class cadre like the British did.

Have you ever listened to Jinnah or Gandhi or Nehru talk? They were much more highly educated than 95% of British residents at the time.

Lastly, go on YouTube and look at film of Lourenco Marques in 1970 (as the capital of Portuguese Mozambique) and Maputo today (as the capital of independent Mozambique).

Which place was more developed? Who spent that money to build it?

Imperialism is wrong, but frankly most of the development of many countries happened because of it.


So the British Empire never looted or pillaged from its former colonies? Is this what you are saying?

Sure, the Brits invested in railroads (just like the Romans did with roads) and laid a transportation infrastructure, but it was for their benefit, to transport looted goods, and to speed up trade. The majority of Indians were living in poorly conditions and akin to slavery, while a select few licked the boots of the British and were designated Raj’. As it just happened, if you were white and from other colonies under British rule, you had a better chance of survival, I wonder why, oh wait, the British Empire was inherently racist.

Any development/investment by the British was to support their massive trade network, and the Brits still taxed the crap out of their colonies. And even if I grant you your wishy-washy version of events, the only developed colonies from the British Empire, happened to be white countries - what a coincidence! Canada, USA, Australia, and NZ. Or better known as THE 5 EYES.

As I said, I think you are trolling, and I would be surprised if users actually agree with your view of the British Empire.
 
There are two ways a country can manage an Empire economically.

You can do what Russia and China do, and subjugate the population and essentially make the colonised area into a money-generating unit. Or you can do what Britain did, and spend large amounts of money trying to develop the place rather than exploiting it.

You seem to be struggling to understand what liberal actually means.

As I wrote at the start, 95% of British Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative voters identify as socially or ideologically liberal.

As [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] will tell you, I am an old-fashioned One Nation paternalistic Conservative. I believe in universal free healthcare, a woman's right to choose and high-enough taxes to look after vulnerable people from the cradle to the grave. And I think that the BBC is the world's greatest - and most neutral and objective - broadcaster, and is the cultural jewel in Britain's crown.

As such I get on very well with Liberal Democrats and Labour voters, and not so well with the far right of my own party.

So I am a Conservative voter but an ideological liberal. In fact, this is so normal that here in Australia the right-wing party is called the Liberal Party - not the Conservative Party.

Now, I tolerate other people's views and defend their right to hold them. But frankly, I view the very word "Conservative" in terms of ideology as a form of backwardness. I look at my American cousins in the Republican Party and lament how their party has been taken over by what our own former PM David Cameron described as "mad, swivel-eyed loons".

Potw. I find it hilarious that people take pride in being conservatives while bash others for being liberal.

Liberalism where people are thought to have an open mind
 
Have you ever listened to Jinnah or Gandhi or Nehru talk? They were much more highly educated than 95% of British residents at the time.

What's your point? The 3 names you have mentioned all studied Law IN ENGLAND! You may have had a point if citizens of India had access to the same level of education under British rule, turns out the majority in India ended up illiterate.

Tell me, are you actually of Asian descent? Have you ever been to India or Pakistan? Do you have family that were effected by the partition, because the more you post about the West, and your cousins in Ukraine, USA, and Australia, the more I am inclined to believe you are not from the subcontinent at all, and jist like to argue for the sake of it.
 
So the British Empire never looted or pillaged from its former colonies? Is this what you are saying?

Sure, the Brits invested in railroads (just like the Romans did with roads) and laid a transportation infrastructure, but it was for their benefit, to transport looted goods, and to speed up trade. The majority of Indians were living in poorly conditions and akin to slavery, while a select few licked the boots of the British and were designated Raj’. As it just happened, if you were white and from other colonies under British rule, you had a better chance of survival, I wonder why, oh wait, the British Empire was inherently racist.

Any development/investment by the British was to support their massive trade network, and the Brits still taxed the crap out of their colonies. And even if I grant you your wishy-washy version of events, the only developed colonies from the British Empire, happened to be white countries - what a coincidence! Canada, USA, Australia, and NZ. Or better known as THE 5 EYES.

As I said, I think you are trolling, and I would be surprised if users actually agree with your view of the British Empire.

You have completely missed my point - the UK and especially Ireland had the same mass, grinding poverty as the rest of the Empire.

In those days an extreme form of capitalism prevailed in which infrastructure was built for the businesses of the rich, and the masses were kept poor so that they would be desperate to work for peanuts. But democracy was just democracy for rich males until the 1920s.

You can play the victim all you like, but my family in Yorkshire was dirt poor until a century ago. My family tree is littered with not just infant mortality, but pretty much every adult being dead by 40. And I haven't even started on the workhouse.......
 
You have completely missed my point - the UK and especially Ireland had the same mass, grinding poverty as the rest of the Empire.

In those days an extreme form of capitalism prevailed in which infrastructure was built for the businesses of the rich, and the masses were kept poor so that they would be desperate to work for peanuts. But democracy was just democracy for rich males until the 1920s.

You can play the victim all you like, but my family in Yorkshire was dirt poor until a century ago. My family tree is littered with not just infant mortality, but pretty much every adult being dead by 40. And I haven't even started on the workhouse.......

So now you have come round to agreeing with me. You are not even answering my question on whether the British looted/pillaged from former colonies, no instead you have switched your view because most of us know that former colonies did not benefit from the British Empire, the only nation that benefited was Britain.

As for the North of England, Industrial revolution changes the landscape with industries and factories and jobs booming.

It's you sounding like a victim, I couldn't care an iota of life in the UK 100 years ago in Yorkshire, so what? Your family was the only family littered with infant mortality and death before 40? Your family were the only ones who were poor? Pull out the violin. Have you stopped to think how the British brutalised their former colonies during their reign?

And you really need to brush up on your geography, you mention Ireland, I got news for you, Ireland never was part of Great Britain - England, Scotland, and Wales made up Great Britain, thus the epicenter of the British Empire. The spoils of the British Empire ended up in Great Britain.
 
What's your point? The 3 names you have mentioned all studied Law IN ENGLAND! You may have had a point if citizens of India had access to the same level of education under British rule, turns out the majority in India ended up illiterate.

Tell me, are you actually of Asian descent? Have you ever been to India or Pakistan? Do you have family that were effected by the partition, because the more you post about the West, and your cousins in Ukraine, USA, and Australia, the more I am inclined to believe you are not from the subcontinent at all, and jist like to argue for the sake of it.

Gandhi studied law in South Africa, not England.
 
Gandhi studied law in South Africa, not England.

Really?

Born and raised in a Hindu family in coastal Gujarat, Gandhi trained in the law at the Inner Temple, London, and was called to the bar at age 22 in June 1891. After two uncertain years in India, where he was unable to start a successful law practice, he moved to South Africa in 1893 to represent an Indian merchant in a lawsuit. He went on to live in South Africa for 21 years. It was here that Gandhi raised a family and first employed nonviolent resistance in a campaign for civil rights. In 1915, aged 45, he returned to India and soon set about organising peasants, farmers, and urban labourers to protest against excessive land-tax and discrimination.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

Gandhi studied Law in England, then practised law in SA?
 
Really?

Born and raised in a Hindu family in coastal Gujarat, Gandhi trained in the law at the Inner Temple, London, and was called to the bar at age 22 in June 1891. After two uncertain years in India, where he was unable to start a successful law practice, he moved to South Africa in 1893 to represent an Indian merchant in a lawsuit. He went on to live in South Africa for 21 years. It was here that Gandhi raised a family and first employed nonviolent resistance in a campaign for civil rights. In 1915, aged 45, he returned to India and soon set about organising peasants, farmers, and urban labourers to protest against excessive land-tax and discrimination.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

Gandhi studied Law in England, then practised law in SA?

Maybe I'm wrong here. Never knew Gandhi studied law in UK.
 
Really?

Born and raised in a Hindu family in coastal Gujarat, Gandhi trained in the law at the Inner Temple, London, and was called to the bar at age 22 in June 1891. After two uncertain years in India, where he was unable to start a successful law practice, he moved to South Africa in 1893 to represent an Indian merchant in a lawsuit. He went on to live in South Africa for 21 years. It was here that Gandhi raised a family and first employed nonviolent resistance in a campaign for civil rights. In 1915, aged 45, he returned to India and soon set about organising peasants, farmers, and urban labourers to protest against excessive land-tax and discrimination.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

Gandhi studied Law in England, then practised law in SA?

Maybe I'm wrong here. Never knew Gandhi studied law in UK.

Correct, he trained in jurisprudence in England at UCL in London, and then worked as a lawyer in South Africa. In the film “Gandhi” there is a scene where he has this conversation with a racist South African guard who throws him off a train — based on a real experience that helped to shape Gandhi’s political beliefs.
 
I have the means to live anywhere, I choose the UK as I grew up here and contributed a lot, the country is grateful to have me. Are you on a student visa bro? :afridi

The country is grateful to have you? But is the feeling mutual? That is the question I asked you, are you grateful to have the UK as your home? I am guessing that I won't get a straight answer. It would be easier to pin jelly to the wall.

I will have to be satisfied with you admitting earlier in this thread that you cared for this country. That somewhat answers my question.
 
Correct, he trained in jurisprudence in England at UCL in London, and then worked as a lawyer in South Africa. In the film “Gandhi” there is a scene where he has this conversation with a racist South African guard who throws him off a train — based on a real experience that helped to shape Gandhi’s political beliefs.

Sadly it only partly shaped Gandhi's political beliefs.

He was an outrageous anti-African racist by modern standards. He certainly did not exhibit "liberal western values".

Gandhi, after all, was responsible for the following gems......

"In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."

Mind you, his sexual behaviour also fell well outside the liberal western values that this thread is about, given that:

"In his late 70s, before he died at 78, he slept naked with his grandniece when she was in her late teens. He said he wanted to test his willpower to abstain from sex."

So it's not just that Gandhi abandoned western customs/dress/profession for concocted Indian attire. He also had attitudes towards both black people and young women which would land a man in jail in any western country if he tried to behave that way now.
 
You have completely missed my point - the UK and especially Ireland had the same mass, grinding poverty as the rest of the Empire.

In those days an extreme form of capitalism prevailed in which infrastructure was built for the businesses of the rich, and the masses were kept poor so that they would be desperate to work for peanuts. But democracy was just democracy for rich males until the 1920s.

You can play the victim all you like, but my family in Yorkshire was dirt poor until a century ago. My family tree is littered with not just infant mortality, but pretty much every adult being dead by 40. And I haven't even started on the workhouse.......

It’s a good point. The British ruling class benefited from Empire. The common folk stayed crash-poor. The 1945 Labour government gave them decent housing, schools and health - by which time the Empire was starting to fall.

To get a good idea of life before the Welfare State for the white working class, see Cider with Rosie by Laurie Lee.
 
I don’t think he has done that at all. Stating one’s values is not saying that others have lesser values. He is alarmed at how many appear to be siding with Putin, who is a monster.



Everyone is a descendant of apes. We are all apes - just smarter than other ape species.



The Enlightenment was a good thing. White supremacy was and is a bad thing.

I have not heard of 1492 CE as the beginning of the West. It saw the end of Al-Andalus and the start of Christian Spanish colonialism. But the Caliphs were themselves colonisers. They had fallen to fighting each other, and in disunity were picked off by the Catholic Monarchs funded by the Pope who declared a Crusade.



Again, I don’t see any belittlement of Eastern values here.

This is what makes me angry. Responses like the above. Are you his lawyer. Your response smacks of the very issue I was talking about. The apes comment itself is quite revealing. Are you saying you agree that Locke was right when he said black people are the product of mating between black women and apes?.

The enlightenment was a racist endeavour that ultimately lead to the various holocausts carried out by Europeans. It gave us brown people nothing. It gave Europeans the supposed scientific and philosophical foundation to spread their white supremacy to the rest of the world.

His posts smack of racism and your defending of him exemplifies the issue.

Let me make it quite clear for both of you lest you fail to understand.

We are Pakistanis. Yes many of us our born in the uk but our thinking is not the same as yours. Thus your enemies are not our enemies. Putin is a European. He is what you are just a different side of the coin. When he was flattening Muslims in Chechnya you secretly cheered as he was killing terrorists. You jailed people who raised funds for the chechens. Now the chechens fight for Putin. You feed our enemies like Israel and India and expect us to help you hold the spoon. You want us to bow down to your values many of which we find hypocritical and frankly illogical.

We are not the same. Do not expect us to bow down and say yes masta. This is not a plantation and we are no longer your slaves. Putin is a European problem. Because he is a European. Another product of your centuries long forays into geopolitics that has turned this world into a hellscape.

It is high time you start to listen to what we are saying. And if you can't don't preach to us. We are not interested I your ** anymore. Liberalism is merely the other side of fascism. Liberals will bomb us for our benefit while fascists will just bomb us. Your not that different.

When you were bombing falluja it was an anti terror operation blamed on hussein. Putin is doing the same. He's just a gangster from a different family than yours.
 
For me, the Taliban far exceeds it, whereas Israel, for example, does not given that its Arab citizens enjoy a higher level of democracy, freedom, education, healthcare and wealth than Arabs in any other Arab country.

Yeah, maybe? They are still highly discriminated against in terms of employment, housing etc. which has led to wholescale rioting and tension between the two groups.

You have also failed to mention they occupy, oppress and brutalise a whole people on their own lands. In this day and age, that is wholly unacceptable if you're judging by western standards of decency and values.

Doesn't take a genius to work out if the shoe was on the other foot; the west would have intervened long ago to go about initiating 'regime change' and teaching those pesky brown sand people a lesson. As they have done in other parts of the middle east.
 
Yeah, maybe? They are still highly discriminated against in terms of employment, housing etc. which has led to wholescale rioting and tension between the two groups.

You have also failed to mention they occupy, oppress and brutalise a whole people on their own lands. In this day and age, that is wholly unacceptable if you're judging by western standards of decency and values.

Doesn't take a genius to work out if the shoe was on the other foot; the west would have intervened long ago to go about initiating 'regime change' and teaching those pesky brown sand people a lesson. As they have done in other parts of the middle east.

The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are oppressed. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is talking about the Arab citizens of Israel I think.
 
This is what makes me angry. Responses like the above. Are you his lawyer. Your response smacks of the very issue I was talking about. The apes comment itself is quite revealing. Are you saying you agree that Locke was right when he said black people are the product of mating between black women and apes?.

The enlightenment was a racist endeavour that ultimately lead to the various holocausts carried out by Europeans. It gave us brown people nothing. It gave Europeans the supposed scientific and philosophical foundation to spread their white supremacy to the rest of the world.

His posts smack of racism and your defending of him exemplifies the issue.

Let me make it quite clear for both of you lest you fail to understand.

We are Pakistanis. Yes many of us our born in the uk but our thinking is not the same as yours. Thus your enemies are not our enemies. Putin is a European. He is what you are just a different side of the coin. When he was flattening Muslims in Chechnya you secretly cheered as he was killing terrorists. You jailed people who raised funds for the chechens. Now the chechens fight for Putin. You feed our enemies like Israel and India and expect us to help you hold the spoon. You want us to bow down to your values many of which we find hypocritical and frankly illogical.

We are not the same. Do not expect us to bow down and say yes masta. This is not a plantation and we are no longer your slaves. Putin is a European problem. Because he is a European. Another product of your centuries long forays into geopolitics that has turned this world into a hellscape.

It is high time you start to listen to what we are saying. And if you can't don't preach to us. We are not interested I your ** anymore. Liberalism is merely the other side of fascism. Liberals will bomb us for our benefit while fascists will just bomb us. Your not that different.

When you were bombing falluja it was an anti terror operation blamed on hussein. Putin is doing the same. He's just a gangster from a different family than yours.

POTW.

Brilliant.
 
This is what makes me angry. Responses like the above. Are you his lawyer. Your response smacks of the very issue I was talking about. The apes comment itself is quite revealing. Are you saying you agree that Locke was right when he said black people are the product of mating between black women and apes?.

The enlightenment was a racist endeavour that ultimately lead to the various holocausts carried out by Europeans. It gave us brown people nothing. It gave Europeans the supposed scientific and philosophical foundation to spread their white supremacy to the rest of the world.

His posts smack of racism and your defending of him exemplifies the issue.

Let me make it quite clear for both of you lest you fail to understand.

We are Pakistanis. Yes many of us our born in the uk but our thinking is not the same as yours. Thus your enemies are not our enemies. Putin is a European. He is what you are just a different side of the coin. When he was flattening Muslims in Chechnya you secretly cheered as he was killing terrorists. You jailed people who raised funds for the chechens. Now the chechens fight for Putin. You feed our enemies like Israel and India and expect us to help you hold the spoon. You want us to bow down to your values many of which we find hypocritical and frankly illogical.

We are not the same. Do not expect us to bow down and say yes masta. This is not a plantation and we are no longer your slaves. Putin is a European problem. Because he is a European. Another product of your centuries long forays into geopolitics that has turned this world into a hellscape.

It is high time you start to listen to what we are saying. And if you can't don't preach to us. We are not interested I your ** anymore. Liberalism is merely the other side of fascism. Liberals will bomb us for our benefit while fascists will just bomb us. Your not that different.

When you were bombing falluja it was an anti terror operation blamed on hussein. Putin is doing the same. He's just a gangster from a different family than yours.

You are making yourself angry by inventing in your head things you think are in my head, but aren't. You haven't answered any of my points.

Enlightenment was the rise of science, and that people should think for themselves and not blindly follow the Church.

Locke was a genius in his work on identity and empiricism, who inspired Jefferson and the US Founding Fathers, but wrong about White Supremacy (while opposing the institution of slavery). While he championed property rights, he also thought that "primitive" societies such as the Native Americans hold no property and therefore can be driven off as one would drive off a lion or tiger.

The apes comment is scientific fact. We are all of us descended from apes. I don't know how your drew your false conclusion from my statement. If I think black people are less human that white people, why did I marry a black woman? Tell me. Come on, tell me why you think I did that.

Russia is not Europe and Putin is not a European. Russia extends all the way to the Far East. Putin comes from a different historical and philosophical tradition.

Don't put your words in my mouth please - I did not cheer when Putin slaughtered the Chechens (I looked on in stunned shock), and I did not put anyone in jail for fundraising. I do not support Israel or India (the latter has leaned toward Moscow since 1948, not the West). I didn't bomb Fallujah - remember, every one of the MPs from my party voted against that intervention.

You seem to think all white Western people are an homogenous unit and all think the same. We are not and do not.

Liberalism is diametrically opposed to fascism in the same was that communism is diametrically opposed to capitalism. The problem is predators who want to impose their will on others - be they Genghis Khan, the Caliphs, the imperial Europeans, the imperial Japanese, the USSR, the Bush-era neoconservatives, or Putin.
 
The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are oppressed. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is talking about the Arab citizens of Israel I think.
Correct.

And Israeli Arabs are healthier, richer, better educated and have more democratic rights than Arab people in any Arab country.
 
The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are oppressed. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is talking about the Arab citizens of Israel I think.

Correct.

And Israeli Arabs are healthier, richer, better educated and have more democratic rights than Arab people in any Arab country.
And there are 2 million Arab citizens of Israel out of a population of 9.7 million.
 
Last comment about Israeli Arabs, but to illustrate how western Liberalism delivers better lives.

2 million Israeli Arabs share GDP of $80 billion.

242 million Pakistanis share GDP of $347 billion.

Israeli Arabs live almost 15 years longer than Pakistanis and their GDP per capita is almost thirty times higher.

Israeli Arab infant mortality rate is 6.2 per 1,000 live births, while in Pakistan it is 55.7.

Israeli Arabs have always had a vote, with no periods of military dictatorship.

Who should feel sorry for whom?
 
Last edited:
Last comment about Israeli Arabs, but to illustrate how western Liberalism delivers better lives.

2 million Israeli Arabs share GDP of $80 billion.

242 million Pakistanis share GDP of $347 billion.

Israeli Arabs live almost 15 years longer than Pakistanis and their GDP per capita is almost thirty times higher.

Israeli Arab infant mortality rate is 6.2 per 1,000 live births, while in Pakistan it is 55.7.

Israeli Arabs have always had a vote, with no periods of military dictatorship.

Who should feel sorry for whom?

Steady on though, the Palestinians are in Occupied Territory where the invader (Israel) is not adhering to the Geneva Conventions, forcing people to leave the homes, spraying skunk gas and demolishing housing and utilities, and shooting protesters in numerous Bloody Sunday style incidents.

So it’s not a fair comparison.

It’s no wonder that the Palestinians have turned to Hamas in order to resist.
 
Western liberalism delivers on debt. Save the lies that Liberalism improves lives, it only does when you borrow money! If all Asians in the subcontinent could borrow above their means it would be a totally different world
 
Last comment about Israeli Arabs, but to illustrate how western Liberalism delivers better lives.

2 million Israeli Arabs share GDP of $80 billion.

242 million Pakistanis share GDP of $347 billion.

Israeli Arabs live almost 15 years longer than Pakistanis and their GDP per capita is almost thirty times higher.

Israeli Arab infant mortality rate is 6.2 per 1,000 live births, while in Pakistan it is 55.7.

Israeli Arabs have always had a vote, with no periods of military dictatorship.

Who should feel sorry for whom?

You're s Pakistani -phobic, pro israeli Bangladeshi?. Cool
 
I would stay clear from anyone who claims to be a Conservative centrist, but hates the word Conservative, so will vote Liberal Democrats because they live in a Liberal society.

Bonkers all round.
 
The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are oppressed. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is talking about the Arab citizens of Israel I think.

Correct.

And Israeli Arabs are healthier, richer, better educated and have more democratic rights than Arab people in any Arab country.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. My first sentence was about that. The Arab Israelis are highly discriminated against with basic necessities such as housing, employment etc. which has led to attacks against each other's communities.

I don't really see this as a valid example. I'm sure there are also well off and economically comfortable Arabs in the wealthy Arab nations such as UAE and Qatar.

Also you can't really hold them as people with moral values if they're basically occupying, blockading and killing another people.
 
You are making yourself angry by inventing in your head things you think are in my head, but aren't. You haven't answered any of my points.

Enlightenment was the rise of science, and that people should think for themselves and not blindly follow the Church.

Locke was a genius in his work on identity and empiricism, who inspired Jefferson and the US Founding Fathers, but wrong about White Supremacy (while opposing the institution of slavery). While he championed property rights, he also thought that "primitive" societies such as the Native Americans hold no property and therefore can be driven off as one would drive off a lion or tiger.

The apes comment is scientific fact. We are all of us descended from apes. I don't know how your drew your false conclusion from my statement. If I think black people are less human that white people, why did I marry a black woman? Tell me. Come on, tell me why you think I did that.

Russia is not Europe and Putin is not a European. Russia extends all the way to the Far East. Putin comes from a different historical and philosophical tradition.

Don't put your words in my mouth please - I did not cheer when Putin slaughtered the Chechens (I looked on in stunned shock), and I did not put anyone in jail for fundraising. I do not support Israel or India (the latter has leaned toward Moscow since 1948, not the West). I didn't bomb Fallujah - remember, every one of the MPs from my party voted against that intervention.

You seem to think all white Western people are an homogenous unit and all think the same. We are not and do not.

Liberalism is diametrically opposed to fascism in the same was that communism is diametrically opposed to capitalism. The problem is predators who want to impose their will on others - be they Genghis Khan, the Caliphs, the imperial Europeans, the imperial Japanese, the USSR, the Bush-era neoconservatives, or Putin.

No. The enlightenment was a racist endeavour that lead to the colonisation and mass slaughter of my ancestors. And now your friend above claims we are playing the victim for merely mentioning this fact. Locke was a genius but a racist like Kant. So were the founding fathers and the other racists who founded the US. The British empire was a racist enterprise that you and your friend above continue to benefit from.

Putin is a European. You can try and disown the Russians all you want..they are Europeans just as the byzantines were. We see them as another European nation in another European war. We will not take sides on your wars. End of.

As for marrying a black woman . That's your issue. You should have accepted Locke and Co as racists instead you give me the evolution diatribe..Kant locke or voltaire I forget which one literally thought black people were a product of mating with apes..do you agree with this? Don't give me the evolution answer..do you agree that they thought non whites were subhumans?

Liberalism is the otherside of the coin of fascism. Your record speaks for itself..liberal interventions in the 21st century have killed millions. And continue to do so.

When I meant "you" I meant the people that espouse your values that your shoving down our throat in this thread..

What next gonna throw your toys out of your pram and call those that disagree with you savages or terrorist sympathisers? Remember Prevent was a policy created by liberals and will now be expanded. So thanks alot for that one. Your values and liberalism gave us famines and over 60million dead. Those are your values. Supremacy and racism. These are western values. And now you want us to go marching to face the Russians? Nope sorry, your war, your problem.

You literally benefit from loot and pillage and have the gall to shove your values in our faces.?
 
Last comment about Israeli Arabs, but to illustrate how western Liberalism delivers better lives.

2 million Israeli Arabs share GDP of $80 billion.

242 million Pakistanis share GDP of $347 billion.

Israeli Arabs live almost 15 years longer than Pakistanis and their GDP per capita is almost thirty times higher.

Israeli Arab infant mortality rate is 6.2 per 1,000 live births, while in Pakistan it is 55.7.

Israeli Arabs have always had a vote, with no periods of military dictatorship.

Who should feel sorry for whom?

Western liberalism? I think you just proved my point that it relies on colonisation and the occupation and murder of another to give itself the benefits younhave touted above. how about you speak to an Israeli Arab and ask them how they love living in occupied territory. Wow they have the vote..wow..a vote to ensure their continued marginalisation and oppression..let's have some applause..your idiotic deranged posts simply exemplify the issue..the liberal a closet racist who believes they are superior to others who disagree with them and is willing to spread their liberal values using their F35's and aircraft carriers..
 
No. The enlightenment was a racist endeavour that lead to the colonisation and mass slaughter of my ancestors. And now your friend above claims we are playing the victim for merely mentioning this fact. Locke was a genius but a racist like Kant. So were the founding fathers and the other racists who founded the US. The British empire was a racist enterprise that you and your friend above continue to benefit from.

Putin is a European. You can try and disown the Russians all you want..they are Europeans just as the byzantines were. We see them as another European nation in another European war. We will not take sides on your wars. End of.

Capitalism was what led to the mass slaughter of your ancestors - the East India Company. The liberal John Stuart Mill spoke out against the brutal suppression of the Indian mutiny.

Europe ends at the Bosphous Bridge. Asia begins there. 95% of Russia is to the East of the Bosphorus. Russia is neither Europe nor Asia, though many of her people look more like you than like me.

I wouldn't call [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] my friend - we have never met. If you look at post #3 on this thread you will see that I differ with him on several points. I think you are setting up a series of strawmen to attack, based on what you want me to mean, rather than what I mean.

As for racism and slaughter, the Caliphs were the biggest slavers by far, taking many millions of white Europeans including some 6000 from Cornwall and as many from Ireland. Jefferson shut part of that down, by burning the Barbary Corsair ports.


As for marrying a black woman . That's your issue. You should have accepted Locke and Co as racists instead you give me the evolution diatribe..Kant locke or voltaire I forget which one literally thought black people were a product of mating with apes..do you agree with this? Don't give me the evolution answer..do you agree that they thought non whites were subhumans?

I have not read Kant and Voltaire, and Locke did not describe blacks as subhuman to my knowledge - as I said he described Native Americans them as being outside property and therefore could be chased off property as they had no rights. I disagree with that. I think the American settlers should have coexisted with the Natives, but they were too hungry for land and profit.

The evolution argument is the only one that explains our origins. Black Africans moved up into Europe. Eventually they developed lighter skins under the pressure of natural selection. The first people who lived in what is called Britain now were black with blue eyes. I am their descendant.


Liberalism is the otherside of the coin of fascism. Your record speaks for itself..liberal interventions in the 21st century have killed millions. And continue to do so.

If we cannot agree about the basic meaning of words, there is no point continuing.

I reject the idea that liberalism led to mass slaughter this century - that was the neocons, who hate the liberals. Supported militarily by several Middle Eastern and Gulf states, I might add.
 
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. My first sentence was about that. The Arab Israelis are highly discriminated against with basic necessities such as housing, employment etc. which has led to attacks against each other's communities.

Ah, I didn't know that.

I don't really see this as a valid example. I'm sure there are also well off and economically comfortable Arabs in the wealthy Arab nations such as UAE and Qatar.

Also you can't really hold them as people with moral values if they're basically occupying, blockading and killing another people.

I didn't hold them so. Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories are illegal and reprehensible.
 
East Indian Trading company was, and remains, the only traded company in the world, which had a private Army.

The company was dissolved in 1874, way before the British Empire ended. All of its administrative and taxing powers, along with its possessions and armed forces, were taken over by the Crown when the company was dissolved. This was the start of the British Raj, a period of direct British colonial rule over India which continued until independence in 1947.

Since 1874, for the next 100 years, the British Empire, continued to loot and pillage from its former colonies, with the exception of USA, Canada, Australia, and NZ, and these aforementioned nations plus Britain, form the 5 eyes alliance we know today.

Get this, Britain loves to talk about democracy, well democracy really came into existence in the 1880s, after East Indian Trading company ceased, when the vote was extended to a majority of adult males. Prior to this, Britain was ruled by the Monarchy, therefore the East Indian Trading company was run by the Crown.

East Indian Trading company was racist. It expanded on the back of the slave trade. It was involved in illegal trades, such as Opium, which lead to the Opium wars and consequently hooked an entire nation (China) on drugs, halting the progression of China.

It is intellectually dishonest to even suggest the British Empire existed on a capitalist ideology, when in fact, the company was a private corporation, not a public corporation, which was controlled by the crown, and the Empire continued to expand even after the East Indian Trading company had dissolved.

Empires are initiated on Political and Military expansions first. Economics play a role, but not primarily. No empire in the world decided to expand thinking they can trade first, no, first it is a land grab (war) then taking control of the land by instilling political and military pillars (puppet politicians & military commanders), THEN, come the spoils of war/brutality.

There is nothing capitalist about the British Empire whose sole aim was to pillage its former colonies and safeguard/wealth among the elite in Britain.

And for those who are interested, the date the British Empire finally came to an end was 1 July 1997 - the day UK handed Hong Kong back to China.
 
Last edited:
I must say the analysis of the philosophy of liberalism on this thread is forcing me to think about the limits of my beliefs.
 
I didn't hold them so. Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories are illegal and reprehensible.

Of course, that was to Junaids for his flawed and outrageous example.
 
I must say the analysis of the philosophy of liberalism on this thread is forcing me to think about the limits of my beliefs.

Every belief system is flawed. If there was a perfect one then everyone would be following it
 
This isn't about the perfect belief system or ideology, but rather the daylight hypocrisy of governments promoting an ideology on the heels of values.
 
I believe liberalism started off okay but it has taken a radical turn.

Modern day liberalism is cancerous. Radical liberals have hijacked it.
 
I believe liberalism started off okay but it has taken a radical turn.

Modern day liberalism is cancerous. Radical liberals have hijacked it.

Radical liberals are the likes of Jefferson and Lincoln.

The people you refer to are not liberals, because they seek to exert control. They are another type of authoritarian.
 
Every belief system is flawed. If there was a perfect one then everyone would be following it

A perfect system would explain everything. Indeed, it would be the same thing as the universe itself. Models are just that: maps of reality.
 
It seems this thread has reached a very fair conclusion with good arguments presented from certain posters.

1. There are NO values (good) which are unique to the west or invented by the west.

2. Values can only be judged by actions or policies. The WEST has shown to the world their values are by far mostly of injustice, oppression, control, bloodshed, deception.

Anyone or any nation/culture can claim anything but the proof is in the pudding. West has shown values of darkness not of light to the world.

Many Brits have great values which are other people do. Good and Bad exists in all but western governments and sadly many of their people(like others) are not good , some are bad and others outright evil.
 
Back
Top