× Register Login What's New! Contact us
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... Last
Results 1 to 20 of 80
  1. #1
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,156
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    448
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Report bad ads?

    Salaam

    An establishment take on why the Liberal International order is declining, an interesting read nevertheless.

    Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    America’s decision to abandon the global system it helped build, and then preserve for more than seven decades, marks a turning point, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.

    NEW DELHI – After a run of nearly one thousand years, quipped the French philosopher and writer Voltaire, the fading Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. Today, some two and a half centuries later, the problem, to paraphrase Voltaire, is that the fading liberal world order is neither liberal nor worldwide nor orderly.

    The United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and others, established the liberal world order in the wake of World War II. The goal was to ensure that the conditions that had led to two world wars in 30 years would never again arise.

    To that end, the democratic countries set out to create an international system that was liberal in the sense that it was to be based on the rule of law and respect for countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. Human rights were to be protected. All this was to be applied to the entire planet; at the same time, participation was open to all and voluntary. Institutions were built to promote peace (the United Nations), economic development (the World Bank) and trade and investment (the International Monetary Fund and what years later became the World Trade Organization).

    All this and more was backed by the economic and military might of the US, a network of alliances across Europe and Asia, and nuclear weapons, which served to deter aggression. The liberal world order was thus based not just on ideals embraced by democracies, but also on hard power. None of this was lost on the decidedly illiberal Soviet Union, which had a fundamentally different notion of what constituted order in Europe and around the world.

    The liberal world order appeared to be more robust than ever with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. But today, a quarter-century later, its future is in doubt. Indeed, its three components – liberalism, universality, and the preservation of order itself – are being challenged as never before in its 70-year history.

    Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence. Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country’s media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions. Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies.

    It is increasingly difficult to speak of the world as if it were whole. We are seeing the emergence of regional orders – or, most pronounced in the Middle East, disorders – each with its own characteristics. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing. Protectionism is on the rise; the latest round of global trade talks never came to fruition. There are few rules governing the use of cyberspace.

    At the same time, great power rivalry is returning. Russia violated the most basic norm of international relations when it used armed force to change borders in Europe, and it violated US sovereignty through its efforts to influence the 2016 election. North Korea has flouted the strong international consensus against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The world has stood by as humanitarian nightmares play out in Syria and Yemen, doing little at the UN or elsewhere in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. Venezuela is a failing state. One in every hundred people in the world today is either a refugee or internally displaced.

    There are several reasons why all this is happening, and why now. The rise of populism is in part a response to stagnating incomes and job loss, owing mostly to new technologies but widely attributed to imports and immigrants. Nationalism is a tool increasingly used by leaders to bolster their authority, especially amid difficult economic and political conditions. And global institutions have failed to adapt to new power balances and technologies.

    But the weakening of the liberal world order is due, more than anything else, to the changed attitude of the US. Under President Donald Trump, the US decided against joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. It has threatened to leave the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. It has unilaterally introduced steel and aluminum tariffs, relying on a justification (national security) that others could use, in the process placing the world at risk of a trade war. It has raised questions about its commitment to NATO and other alliance relationships. And it rarely speaks about democracy or human rights. “America First” and the liberal world order seem incompatible.

    My point is not to single out the US for criticism. Today’s other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing, not doing, or both. But the US is not just another country. It was the principal architect of the liberal world order and its principal backer. It was also a principal beneficiary.

    America’s decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...-haass-2018-03
    Last edited by Junon; 03-30-2018 at 10:37 PM.

  2. Report bad ads?
  3. #2
    Misbah-Abd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Darul Kufr
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    495
    Threads
    7
    Reputation
    767
    Rep Power
    10
    Likes (Given)
    120
    Likes (Received)
    311

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Remember, the motto is "Ordo Ab Chao" or Order out of Chaos. If L.W.O. is in its demise then that means it has exhausted its usefulness. Perhaps this is the era of disorder that will bring about the advent of the Dajjal who will come in and establish "Order" where the masses will flock to him as their savior from all the fitnah that will have taken place. And Allah Knows Best.
    Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    "When a person sees the road as too long, he weakens in his walk." - Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah

  4. #3
    Futuwwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,250
    Threads
    10
    Reputation
    5711
    Rep Power
    54
    Likes (Given)
    28
    Likes (Received)
    586

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Quote Originally Posted by Junon View Post
    The United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and others, established the liberal world order in the wake of World War II. The goal was to ensure that the conditions that had led to two world wars in 30 years would never again arise.

    To that end, the democratic countries set out to create an international system that was liberal in the sense that it was to be based on the rule of law and respect for countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. Human rights were to be protected. All this was to be applied to the entire planet; at the same time, participation was open to all and voluntary. Institutions were built to promote peace (the United Nations), economic development (the World Bank) and trade and investment (the International Monetary Fund and what years later became the World Trade Organization).
    Nonsense. US respect for and promotion of rule of law, other countries' sovereignty and territorial integrity and human rights always ended wherever its Cold War realpolitik interests began. That, and the wants of politically influential factions within the US.

    The only place where the US created such a liberal order was in Western Europe, and that too was because it needed Western European powers to stop fighting each other and form a common front against Communist Eastern Europe.
    | Likes Yahya., AllahIsAl-Malik liked this post

  5. #4
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Antipodes
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,288
    Threads
    13
    Reputation
    1561
    Rep Power
    68
    Likes (Given)
    68
    Likes (Received)
    202

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    The Zionist Liberal World Order is getting stronger not dying at all. All the United Nations lefty liberal rants are getting louder and more intensive. Even the News is just globalist liberal propaganda trying to bash down all cultures to conform to the Zionist ideal of global cultural Marxist hegemony.
    | Likes AllahIsAl-Malik liked this post

  6. Report bad ads?
  7. #5
    Zafran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Earth -UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,731
    Threads
    17
    Reputation
    12758
    Rep Power
    76
    Likes (Given)
    1103
    Likes (Received)
    557

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa View Post
    The only place where the US created such a liberal order was in Western Europe, and that too was because it needed Western European powers to stop fighting each other and form a common front against Communist Eastern Europe.
    Dont forget Japan and south Korea.

    Liberalism is bound to fail. The people that sing its praises also cant seem to stay liberal themselves. People are moving more towards nationalism, fascism and socialism and anarchism - thats what happens when you don't have a religious paradigm anymore.
    Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Do you think the pious don't sin?

    They merely:
    Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
    Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
    Took ownership of it and don't justify it
    And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim

  8. #6
    AllahIsAl-Malik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Dar al-Kufr
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    65
    Threads
    6
    Reputation
    249
    Rep Power
    9
    Likes (Given)
    191
    Likes (Received)
    34

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    I feel a little disappointed. I clicked this thread hoping eagerly that I would see evidence for what the title suggests.

    However, this was not the case. I don't feel a need to restate it- Karl has stated it perfectly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    The Zionist Liberal World Order is getting stronger not dying at all. All the United Nations lefty liberal rants are getting louder and more intensive. Even the News is just globalist liberal propaganda trying to bash down all cultures to conform to the Zionist ideal of global cultural Marxist hegemony.

  9. #7
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,156
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    448
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    Quote Originally Posted by Zafran View Post
    Dont forget Japan and south Korea.

    Liberalism is bound to fail. The people that sing its praises also cant seem to stay liberal themselves. People are moving more towards nationalism, fascism and socialism and anarchism - thats what happens when you don't have a religious paradigm anymore.
    Yes its advocates have a habit of saying one thing and doing another. There was was always something not right about them which made me crazy. Then I came across books that articulated what I was feeling.






    This is an interesting book on the impossibility of fruitful dialogue between liberals and conservatives (or you could put in people of faith).

    The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree

    Blurb

    The theme of The Great Divide is that the populations of the democratic world, from Boston to Berlin, Vancouver to Venice, are becoming increasingly divided from within, due to a growing ideological incompatibility between modern liberalism and conservatism. This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human nature, on homosexuality and gay marriage, on freedom, on the role of courts … and much more, can barely speak with each other without outrage (the favorite emotional response from all sides). Clearly, civil conversation at the surface has been failing -- and that could mean democracy is failing.

    This book is an effort to deepen the conversation. It is written for the non-specialist, and aims to reveal the less obvious underlying ideological forces and misconceptions that cause the conflict and outrage at the surface -- not with any expectation the clash of values will evaporate, but rather that a deeper understanding will generate a more intelligent and civil conversation.

    As an aid to understanding, the book contains a handful of Tables directly comparing modern liberal and conservative views across a range of fundamental moral and political “issues” so that curious readers can answer the book’s main question: “Where Do You Stand?” An interesting result in testing this exercise has been the number of people who find they “think” one way, but “live” another.


    Last edited by Junon; 04-01-2018 at 07:23 PM.
    | Likes AllahIsAl-Malik liked this post

  10. #8
    AllahIsAl-Malik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Dar al-Kufr
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    65
    Threads
    6
    Reputation
    249
    Rep Power
    9
    Likes (Given)
    191
    Likes (Received)
    34

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Quote Originally Posted by Junon View Post
    Salaam



    Yes its advocates have a habit of saying one thing and doing another. There was was always something not right about them which made me crazy. Then I came across books that articulated what I was feeling.






    This is an interesting book on the impossibility of fruitful dialogue between liberals and conservatives (or you could put in people of faith).

    The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree

    Blurb

    The theme of The Great Divide is that the populations of the democratic world, from Boston to Berlin, Vancouver to Venice, are becoming increasingly divided from within, due to a growing ideological incompatibility between modern liberalism and conservatism. This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human nature, on homosexuality and gay marriage, on freedom, on the role of courts … and much more, can barely speak with each other without outrage (the favorite emotional response from all sides). Clearly, civil conversation at the surface has been failing -- and that could mean democracy is failing.

    This book is an effort to deepen the conversation. It is written for the non-specialist, and aims to reveal the less obvious underlying ideological forces and misconceptions that cause the conflict and outrage at the surface -- not with any expectation the clash of values will evaporate, but rather that a deeper understanding will generate a more intelligent and civil conversation.

    As an aid to understanding, the book contains a handful of Tables directly comparing modern liberal and conservative views across a range of fundamental moral and political “issues” so that curious readers can answer the book’s main question: “Where Do You Stand?” An interesting result in testing this exercise has been the number of people who find they “think” one way, but “live” another.


    wow that post is a goldmine. thank you. i want to add all those books to a list now.

    i deal with a lot of these authoritarian liberals and i deal with them on a pretty much daily basis.

    as I see it, they engage in ideological colonialism. they want to force people who believe in God to think in secular terms. i don't care if they believe what i believe yet they are constantly trying to force godless ways of thinking on me. i seriously want all those books so i can better understand who im dealing with.

    what shocks me for example is... i had a liberal become super aggressive with me because i would not agree that everyone should have their guns taken away and i would not negate that people have a right to defend themselves. how can a person become aggressive in the name of that belief? they were yelling at me and becoming very belligerant. all i did was respectfully not agree with their view.

    this happened to me a day ago again. i was talking to a liberal. i almost never raise my voice at anyone. i did not agree with them on something and they became very loud and yelling and caused a huge scene.

    very often these liberals who sermonize about "tolerance" and "open-mindedness".... they very often become very hostile and belligerant to me and often even verbally abusive and yelling towards me simply because i have a different point of view. i almost never raise my voice at anyone and i almost always try to speak in a calm manner. i dont mind people thinking differently and so it is very strange to me how people will start yelling and making a scene simply because i won't agree with their beliefs. for example i had a professor try to single me out and humiliate me because i believe in God. i didn't even mention God. the professor just was able to tell that I believe in God and was trying to make me into an object of humiliation and also tried to force me to write from a postmodern point of view which would be implicitly atheistic. i was so shocked. where i grew up, almost all my teachers believed in God and I had no idea how to react.

    liberal culture is so strange and foreign to me. i am not from a liberal place and so liberal culture is baffling to me.

    i don't mention this stuff meaning to complain. I don't mind that liberals have yelled at me and got belligerant with me. If you have to raise your voice in an argument i think the embarrassment is upon the one who raises their voice- not the one who is calm. but i just find it bizarre that people will suddenly become super belligerant for example if you won't say you're for homosexuality or abortion or things like that. it is puzzling to me and i struggle to understand the mindset. so thank you for posting those books. i would like to read them so i can understand this strange culture i encounter.
    | Likes Junon liked this post

  11. #9
    beleiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Jedi
    Posts
    224
    Threads
    7
    Reputation
    331
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    172
    Likes (Received)
    86

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Liberal? Its been a right wing corporate world order for as long as i been alive, the word liberal is a smoke screen..
    What we are seeing is the well planned hard right turn to facism.

    Dissenting voices have been silenced by corporate/state media for decades. There is no other side of the debate or discussion of ideas that go against the corporate usery agenda.

    Liberal 1.
    willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.


  12. Report bad ads?
  13. #10
    AllahIsAl-Malik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Dar al-Kufr
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    65
    Threads
    6
    Reputation
    249
    Rep Power
    9
    Likes (Given)
    191
    Likes (Received)
    34

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Quote Originally Posted by beleiver View Post
    Liberal? Its been a right wing corporate world order for as long as i been alive, the word liberal is a smoke screen..
    What we are seeing is the well planned hard right turn to facism.

    Dissenting voices have been silenced by corporate/state media for decades. There is no other side of the debate or discussion of ideas that go against the corporate usery agenda.

    Liberal 1.
    willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

    is that what they claim? I was wondering what this word "liberal" is supposed to mean.

    In my experience, people who call themselves "liberal" are people who become hostile if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs that liberals are into.

    Liberalism like other isms can be one thing in theory and something totally different in real life.

    People can say what they want about conservatives but you can disagree with them and they're generally pretty calm about it.

    For whatever reason, in my experience the conservatives are more tolerant the liberals. You disagree with the conservatives and they'll calmly disagree. The liberals... the liberals you say the wrong thing and they can become belligerent. I'm not saying in all cases. I know a liberal who seems laid-back. But this is my experience and I've lived in both conservative and liberal areas.

    And I'm on neither side. I'm just a Muslim. I don't identify with left, right, up, down or diagonol.

  14. #11
    beleiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Jedi
    Posts
    224
    Threads
    7
    Reputation
    331
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    172
    Likes (Received)
    86

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Quote Originally Posted by AllahIsAl-Malik View Post
    is that what they claim? I was wondering what this word "liberal" is supposed to mean.

    In my experience, people who call themselves "liberal" are people who become hostile if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs that liberals are into.

    Liberalism like other isms can be one thing in theory and something totally different in real life.

    People can say what they want about conservatives but you can disagree with them and they're generally pretty calm about it.

    For whatever reason, in my experience the conservatives are more tolerant the liberals. You disagree with the conservatives and they'll calmly disagree. The liberals... the liberals you say the wrong thing and they can become belligerent. I'm not saying in all cases. I know a liberal who seems laid-back. But this is my experience and I've lived in both conservative and liberal areas.

    And I'm on neither side. I'm just a Muslim. I don't identify with left, right, up, down or diagonol.
    Me too i dont like to identify with left right and all that devicvie nonsense, i can see merits from both sides and can see how words describing political genres have been hoplessly distorted from their original meanings over time..
    The quote i used was the english language definition of 'liberal' which kind of proves my point.

    My original point was more of a world political deception where politically we are heading from the right wing to the extreme right wing conservatism..there has been no left or liberal in geo politics for a while..
    for example, in the 80s the largest growing political movement in the world was the landless peoples movement, but because they endorsed squatters rights they were deemed illegal and prohibitted from politics, they questioned the world debt and how it enabled multinational corporations to own the land and rescources while displacing the indigenous populations on the conditions that governments brought millitary hardware so to ensure the people couldnt rise up and form their own governments..Any movement that questioned corporate property rights over the peoples was deemed 'marxist' and the enemy.
    The banking system that enables this also resulted in the media being owned by a smaller more concentrated group that protects the same system.
    Its a global corporate system, corporate being right wing, there have been no real left wing governments in the world that have not been deposed of by the worlds corporate elite..
    The war on drugs/humanity is another one, there is no room in the corporate world for reasonable debate where behaviour or opinions or even Truth are heard or respected, not in the political world at least..Governments simply dissmiss or ridicule those that speak Truth on such matters..And those matters extend beyond just the issues of illegal drugs but our everyday medecine, monopolised and sold at great cost to us by the corporations.

    But i agree, on a personal level consevatives can be open minded enough, but there are a lot of far right deluded morons out there that hide behind a 'liberal' mask..Few people i ever met identify as a Liberal these days.

  15. #12
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,156
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    448
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    Quote Originally Posted by AllahIsAl-Malik View Post
    is that what they claim? I was wondering what this word "liberal" is supposed to mean.

    In my experience, people who call themselves "liberal" are people who become hostile if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs that liberals are into.

    Liberalism like other isms can be one thing in theory and something totally different in real life.

    People can say what they want about conservatives but you can disagree with them and they're generally pretty calm about it.

    For whatever reason, in my experience the conservatives are more tolerant the liberals. You disagree with the conservatives and they'll calmly disagree. The liberals... the liberals you say the wrong thing and they can become belligerent. I'm not saying in all cases. I know a liberal who seems laid-back. But this is my experience and I've lived in both conservative and liberal areas.

    And I'm on neither side. I'm just a Muslim. I don't identify with left, right, up, down or diagonol.
    This is my experience, liberalism in the abstract might sound very appealing but it is in practice where it counts, though this ideology has evolved over the centuries its advocates have always been self interested and have a tendency to be dedicated to the perpetuation of state power/banks/corporations etc.

    Even though I don't agree with the Right or conservatives on many issues I actually prefer talking to them or the apolitcal types who you can just have a conversation with.

    You only have to look at the ones from time to time who pop into this forum, in the end they always try to coopt you and then try to convert you, it gets old after a while.

    More book that you might find interesting

    Traditionalism the only radicalism by John Dunn

    Blurb

    It is a feature of twenty first century modernity that the tenets around which society is built and organised exist unchallenged. When there is only one cultural perspective and no alternative story, where is the judgement about the worth of the existing regime meant to come from? The left-right political dichotomy serves liberalism by not challenging it. Democracy sustains the status quo by offering the illusion of choice with no choice. Genuine opposition can only emerge if there is an alternative story with which to counter the current mythos. And how that mythos is maintained! By the great world enterprise, with its digital mountain of media propaganda, Hollywood-fashioned histories, global corporate HR masquerading as an education system and pseudo-religious convictions riddled with liberal ethics. Against this multi-billion dollar programme of maintenance, a few mere words could hardly be said to endanger the global regime. Yet John Dunn contends that the weakness of liberalism lies in the shallowness of its roots. The belief in its apparent virtues can only be sustained by lies, and even these cannot disguise liberalism's materialistic origins and sustaining raison d'être. Those who live under its all-seeing eye are left either consciously bereft of meaning or deluded into laughing despair. The world state cannot be opposed from outside. There is no longer any outside. Yet the opposition that must come from within is fragmented. Redemption will not be possible until today's heresies coalesce into a new mythos. Enough of scholarship therefore, original work is needed to expose the essential wheel in the working of things, the eternal struggle between good and evil. Only then will moral choice be clear and a meaningful political dichotomy emerge, with sufficient distance to make liberalism the other. John Dunn was inspired to write this book by the hope of contributing towards the redemptive coalescence of thought and deed.



    SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day

    Blurb


    Social Justice Warriors have plagued mankind for more than 150 years, but only in the last 30 years has their ideology become dominant in the West. Having invaded one institution of the cultural high ground after another, from corporations and churches to video games and government, there is nowhere that remains entirely free of their intolerant thought and speech policing. Because the SJW agenda of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality flies in the face of both science and observable reality, SJWs relentlessly work to prevent normal people from thinking or speaking in any manner that will violate their ever-mutating Narrative. They police science, philosophy, technology, and even history in order to maintain the pretense that their agenda remains inevitable in a modern world that contradicts it on a daily basis. The book is named after the First Law of SJW: SJWs always lie. SJWS ALWAYS LIE is a useful guide to understanding, anticipating, and surviving SJW attacks from the perspective of a man who has not only survived, but thrived, after experiencing multiple attempts by Social Justice Warriors to disqualify, discredit, and disemploy him in the same manner they have successfully attacked Nobel Laureates, technology CEOs, broadcasters, sports commentators, school principals, and policemen. It analyzes well-known SJW attacks as well as the two most successful examples of resistance to the SJW Narrative,




    Oh I forgot to add, related

    Barren Metal; A history of capitalism as the conflict between labour and usury
    Last edited by Junon; 04-02-2018 at 10:03 PM.

  16. #13
    beleiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Jedi
    Posts
    224
    Threads
    7
    Reputation
    331
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    172
    Likes (Received)
    86

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Being a warrior for social justice is bad how?

    The whole SJW thing is a strawman to lead us down the path to Fascism that will remove many good things people struggled a long time to acheive.

    Milo is a profesional hate preahing liar who exells in what i call Orwellian double speak.

    When 'Liberal' ideology and 'social justice' is defeated, then we will know all about real thought police and good luck to openly practicing Islam then.
    | Likes czgibson liked this post

  17. #14
    AllahIsAl-Malik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Dar al-Kufr
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    65
    Threads
    6
    Reputation
    249
    Rep Power
    9
    Likes (Given)
    191
    Likes (Received)
    34

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Quote Originally Posted by Junon View Post
    Salaam



    This is my experience, liberalism in the abstract might sound very appealing but it is in practice where it counts, though this ideology has evolved over the centuries its advocates have always been self interested and have a tendency to be dedicated to the perpetuation of state power/banks/corporations etc.

    Even though I don't agree with the Right or conservatives on many issues I actually prefer talking to them or the apolitcal types who you can just have a conversation with.

    You only have to look at the ones from time to time who pop into this forum, in the end they always try to coopt you and then try to convert you, it gets old after a while.

    More book that you might find interesting

    Traditionalism the only radicalism by John Dunn

    Blurb

    It is a feature of twenty first century modernity that the tenets around which society is built and organised exist unchallenged. When there is only one cultural perspective and no alternative story, where is the judgement about the worth of the existing regime meant to come from? The left-right political dichotomy serves liberalism by not challenging it. Democracy sustains the status quo by offering the illusion of choice with no choice. Genuine opposition can only emerge if there is an alternative story with which to counter the current mythos. And how that mythos is maintained! By the great world enterprise, with its digital mountain of media propaganda, Hollywood-fashioned histories, global corporate HR masquerading as an education system and pseudo-religious convictions riddled with liberal ethics. Against this multi-billion dollar programme of maintenance, a few mere words could hardly be said to endanger the global regime. Yet John Dunn contends that the weakness of liberalism lies in the shallowness of its roots. The belief in its apparent virtues can only be sustained by lies, and even these cannot disguise liberalism's materialistic origins and sustaining raison d'être. Those who live under its all-seeing eye are left either consciously bereft of meaning or deluded into laughing despair. The world state cannot be opposed from outside. There is no longer any outside. Yet the opposition that must come from within is fragmented. Redemption will not be possible until today's heresies coalesce into a new mythos. Enough of scholarship therefore, original work is needed to expose the essential wheel in the working of things, the eternal struggle between good and evil. Only then will moral choice be clear and a meaningful political dichotomy emerge, with sufficient distance to make liberalism the other. John Dunn was inspired to write this book by the hope of contributing towards the redemptive coalescence of thought and deed.



    SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day

    Blurb


    Social Justice Warriors have plagued mankind for more than 150 years, but only in the last 30 years has their ideology become dominant in the West. Having invaded one institution of the cultural high ground after another, from corporations and churches to video games and government, there is nowhere that remains entirely free of their intolerant thought and speech policing. Because the SJW agenda of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality flies in the face of both science and observable reality, SJWs relentlessly work to prevent normal people from thinking or speaking in any manner that will violate their ever-mutating Narrative. They police science, philosophy, technology, and even history in order to maintain the pretense that their agenda remains inevitable in a modern world that contradicts it on a daily basis. The book is named after the First Law of SJW: SJWs always lie. SJWS ALWAYS LIE is a useful guide to understanding, anticipating, and surviving SJW attacks from the perspective of a man who has not only survived, but thrived, after experiencing multiple attempts by Social Justice Warriors to disqualify, discredit, and disemploy him in the same manner they have successfully attacked Nobel Laureates, technology CEOs, broadcasters, sports commentators, school principals, and policemen. It analyzes well-known SJW attacks as well as the two most successful examples of resistance to the SJW Narrative,


    Yes it's easy to think liberals sound good... when you live in a conservative area and you've never actually had to really deal with liberals on a day-to-day basis.That was my experience. When I grew up, I only saw liberals on TV and read about them and I thought they sounded pretty good. But now I actually live in a super liberal area and I experience for myself how intolerant they actually are. I have to deal with iberals being hostile and hateful towards me simply because I don't agree with them. Even though I am quiet and don't push my beliefs. They simply are aware that I am of a different perspective and they are hostile for that reason. Furthermore, they have this smug, self-righteous attitude which is very annoying.What is very puzzling is their attitude towards Muslims.They remind me of this story from Aesop. There was a dog and some other animal- I think a rabbit or something. I'll say a rabbit.The dog one minute is playing with the rabbit. Playing playfully and being friendly. Next minute the dog is attacking the rabbit.The rabbit finally gets fed up and says something to the effect of "make up your mind- are you my friend or my enemy? For you to one minute be my friend and next my enemy is worse than for you to simply be my enemy".And that is how I feel. I prefer an open enemy to one of those slimy types of people who are sneaky and one minute pretending to be a friend and the next minute being an open enemy.I am not at all a fan of Nicki Minaj and her music (I don't listen to music- except in cases where annoying people play music around me and I can't avoid such annoyingness). But there was one song where she said "pick a side, pick a side". I seriously think she serves the devil. And apparently even the devil wants people to pick a side. Let people pick a side. Are people serving God or Shaytaan? Let people pick a side. It is repugnant when a person one minute is trying to serve God and the next is trying to serve the devil. Let people just a side and stick with it.This is why I prefer the conservatives to the liberals. In a lot of ways the conservatives are openly antagonistic. A lot of times they openly support imperialism and neocolonialism. Of course I am opposed to that. But the liberals are sneaky imperialists, sneaky neocolonialists. Let them pick a side and just stick with their side. They need to quit trying to be on the fence.One minute the liberals are against Muslims, the next they want to portray themselves as friends of the Muslims.What is very interesting I notice is that the liberals- the everyday liberals are basically just pawns. They don't set the liberals' agenda- people higher up set the agenda for the liberals and the everyday liberals are just followers.The liberals' "schizophrenic" (more accurately, split-personality) attitude towards Muslims I believe is intentional.One minute they are anti-Muslim, one minute they're posing for pictures with women in hijab. They're worse than open imperialists. They're just sneaky imperialists. Rather than simply openly oppose the Muslims, they want to subvert us. They want to force their garbage on us.For some reason they want to equate being anti-Islam with racism. Even though Islam is not a race thing (although some of the anti-Islam stuff is racially motivated in the minds of bigoted Westerners).Basically, their agenda is "oh yeah.... of course we LOOOOOOVE Muslims. Look at us with our pictures with our token Muslim friends (COUGHCOUGHMALALACOUGHCOUGH). We are cool with Muslims. Except... we want Muslims to adopt OUR values and to impose OUR values as Muslims. Muslims are wonderful- as long as they are willing to accept the imposition of OUR values. We accept the hijab. Look how tolerant we are! But of course... Muslims are noble savages (in their minds) and they need to accept our superior values and accept feminism, abortion, homosexuality, filthy music and a bunch of other garbage that we promote".I detest this. I am friendly and I am polite with the liberals but I keep a distance from them. Their fake friendliness to cover their desire to impose cultural imperialism and hegemony- it does not fool me. We should be aware of their two-faced nature. Some of them are smiling psychopaths. Say "God," "sin," words like that around them- and some of them will suddenly explode and become belligerant. "Triggered" in their lingo.

    Another thing i hear about is a bunch of nonsense about "unity". We shouldn't want to "united" with liberals. If we are not united within the fold of Islam, we don't need to be united. Let me keep my distance from them and not have to hear their sermons about how walking around half-naked is "empowering" for women and a bunch of nonsense promoting gay stuff, abortion, etc.Furthermore, to me it is very simple. I am not for the left or the right. I am against both. And I don't want them to forget their differences and become united. I am perfectly fine with them being divided and let them stay that way. The last time they became united, the result was the invasion of Iraq. If that's "unity", then "unity" is horrible. If they're united, they'll inflict horror. Therefore let them be divided and attack each other so they can leave others alone and not bother us. If the liberals get the upper hand, I think let's support the conservatives. If the conservatives get the upper hand, I think let's support the liberals. I think we should support whichever side is weaker so they stay divided and their capacity to meddle is weakened. I can't stand people trying to meddle in what isn't their business. And these days the liberals have the upper hand over the conservatives. Whoever says otherwise is simply not being objective in my opinion.

  18. Report bad ads?
  19. #15
    AllahIsAl-Malik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Dar al-Kufr
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    65
    Threads
    6
    Reputation
    249
    Rep Power
    9
    Likes (Given)
    191
    Likes (Received)
    34

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    What for me is very ironic is how the 1984 DoubleSpeak goes on.We have a super intolerant faction of society- the left- who hold up the banner of "tolerance".When we think of terrorism, we should think of leftists. We should not think of Muslims.The word terrorism originates from leftists- where the term "terrorism" originates is the French Revolution. The psychopath Robespierre was a theorist of terrorism. When someone mentions Al-Qaeda, oh that's so horrible. And I agree but- if we are against terrorism- why aren't people like Robespierre treated the same way as Al-Qaeda? Imagine if someone cited Al-Qaeda in a term paper. You'd be in all sorts of trouble. You cite Robespierre and you'd probably be celebrated, though.The leftism is a path that leads to terrorism. They want to perfect the world. They want to perfect the world and what ends up happening is they try to perfect the world through violence, forcing their lunacy on people.I am sitting in a classroom with a bunch of leftists and I just watched a "tolerant" leftist verbally abuse the class- even the teacher. When you have to resort to such abuse in order to "perfect" the world, it's just a relatively mild method of terrorism. That leftist stuff is dangerous.Many people- when they think Islam, they think terrorism. Whereas in actuality when we think of terrorism we should think of extreme leftists. It was the French Revolution where the word "terrorism" actually came from. It's easy to get caught up in their propaganda but as someone who is surrounded by leftists and is surrounded by them on a day-to-day basis, I see their hypocrisy every day. I just want to live my life, practice my religion and they want to force their lunacy and extremist ideology on people. I'm fed up with it. They have no idea how to mind their own business and co-exist with people.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by beleiver View Post
    Being a warrior for social justice is bad how?

    The whole SJW thing is a strawman to lead us down the path to Fascism that will remove many good things people struggled a long time to acheive.

    Milo is a profesional hate preahing liar who exells in what i call Orwellian double speak.

    When 'Liberal' ideology and 'social justice' is defeated, then we will know all about real thought police and good luck to openly practicing Islam then.
    I just experienced one of these "tolerant" leftists verbally abusing my classroom and teacher about half an hour ago. I have a right to be fed up with their extremism, hypocrisy, intolerance and cultural imperialism.

  20. #16
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,156
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    448
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    Quote Originally Posted by beleiver View Post
    Being a warrior for social justice is bad how?

    The whole SJW thing is a strawman to lead us down the path to Fascism that will remove many good things people struggled a long time to acheive.

    Milo is a profesional hate preahing liar who exells in what i call Orwellian double speak.

    When 'Liberal' ideology and 'social justice' is defeated, then we will know all about real thought police and good luck to openly practicing Islam then.
    I think we already have problems practicing Islam as of now under the Left/Liberal elite, UK anyway.

    I think you should give the book a try before you come to definite judgement, it isn't a rant and forced me to rethink a lot of issues, particularly on how the left and liberals gain influence and operate, for example how they ride on the back of minority issues not to help minorities but to gain power.

    And when they do gain power a lot of their social engineering projects cause more problems than they solve.

    The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

    Blurb

    Sowell presents a devastating critique of the mind-set behind the failed social policies of the past thirty years. Sowell sees what has happened during that time not as a series of isolated mistakes but as a logical consequence of a tainted vision whose defects have led to crises in education, crime, and family dynamics, and to other social pathologies. In this book, he describes how elites,the anointed,have replaced facts and rational thinking with rhetorical assertions, thereby altering the course of our social policy.


    Last edited by Junon; 04-02-2018 at 10:06 PM.
    | Likes AllahIsAl-Malik liked this post

  21. #17
    beleiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Jedi
    Posts
    224
    Threads
    7
    Reputation
    331
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    172
    Likes (Received)
    86

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    I am kind of shoked of the replies, leftist elite?
    They the UK are corporatists, its a corporate entity representing corporate intrests, has been for years..They want out and out overt corporate government for king and country, aka Fascism.

    When was there a leftist government or even a real liberal one in the UK? I was born there moved away in the 80s lived there for a while around ten years ago.
    when i left it was too fascist like for me in the 80s under thatcher, how and when did it go left?

    when has the global corporate elite ever supported a leftist regime?

    Corbyn is probarbly the closest thing UK has had for many decades of anything remotley to the left, and you think the UK elite like him?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Supprised also by a Muslim calling French revolutionaries terrorists as if there are not any better right wing examples?
    Doesnt Islam kind of support the idea of equality and the struggle against oppression?
    Isnt Islam about feeding the poor, caring for the sick and elederly, or does it agree with an elite aristocracy owning all the land at the expense of the poor?

    You know of French history and how the Land was taken, now that was terrorism?

    - - - Updated - - -

    And Thomas Sowell just googled him, wouldnt waste my time reading his stuff for the same reason i dont have a TV, I would likley end up loving my oppressors and hating the oppressed, that guy is a real pro by the looks of it..
    An economist that refuses to aknowlage the real hidden hand of the free market and ignores the evil of usery.

  22. #18
    Junon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3,156
    Threads
    315
    Reputation
    5900
    Rep Power
    66
    Likes (Given)
    448
    Likes (Received)
    506

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Salaam

    I used to think like this early on but as I grew older I began to change my views, then I read some of the dreaded 'right' wing perspectives, I was quite surprised, there not what I imagined them to be. Not to say I automatically agree with them but they are worth considering.



    First off I don't like the whole left/right paradigm. People are usually a mixture and I think its an outdated way of looking at the world.

    On Corbyn, yes he's old school genuine left, he actually has principals whether you agree with him or not, he was never meant to be in a position of power. Thats why the liberal/left elite hate him, they want the gravy train to be continue uninterrupted.

    And on the contrary many leftist/marxism/socialists (pick your favourite label) realised that many of their economic theories/predictions have failed, embraced capitalism as a means to achieve socialism (cultural leftism etc). This actually suited the globalists because they share common goals of destroying old/traditional societies, remaking them both in their own interests. In fact Marx praised capitalism for destroying traditional societies preparing the way for a socialist utopia.

    This book might be of interests, it challenged many of the standard tenets of leftist discourse (relationship between capitalism and imperialism etc). Caused quite a controversy but led many on the left to embrace capitalism as a means of achieving socialism. Worth a read.

    Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism Bill Warren

    Blurb

    Ever since the First World War, socialists have considered imperialism a calamity: responsible for militarism, economic stagnation, and assaults on democracy in the metropolitan countries, an impediment to economic and cultural development in the Third World. So widespread has this view become that it is shared, in its essentials, not only by Marxists but also by an entire school of liberal development economists. Bill Warren breaks with this traditional outlook, arguing that the theory of imperialism, one of Marxism's most influential concepts, is not only contradicted by the facts, but has diluted and distorted Marxism itself.

    In particular, Warren disputes the claim that "monopoly capitalism" represents the ultimate stage of senile capitalism and sets out to refute the notion that imperialism is a regressive force impeding or distorting economic development in the Third World. The book argues on the contrary that direct colonialism powerfully impelled social change in Asia and Africa, laying the foundation for a vibrant indigenous capitalism. Finally, it takes issue with the conventional view that postwar economic performance in the Third World has been disastrous, presenting a powerful empirical case that the gap between rich and poor countries is actually narrowing.

    Closely argued, clearly written, original and iconoclastic, Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism is a compelling challenge to one of the chief tenets of contemporary socialist politics.




    - - - Updated - - -

    Salaam

    Yes we all want to end poverty and build a better society, but how does one do that? By ranting and raving and shouting slogans, how are you going to achieve it? Its not straightforward, there are no quick fixes.

    And when reading about the French revolution its a complicated subject, we should get other perspectives, particularly from those who lost, they charge they just replaced one set of elites with another and many fought for the old order.

    Thomas Sowell is an interesting guy, I don't agree with him on everything but he makes clear and easy to understand arguments, give him a try before you dismiss him.
    Last edited by Junon; 04-04-2018 at 09:53 PM.
    | Likes AllahIsAl-Malik liked this post

  23. #19
    AllahIsAl-Malik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Dar al-Kufr
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    65
    Threads
    6
    Reputation
    249
    Rep Power
    9
    Likes (Given)
    191
    Likes (Received)
    34

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Thomas Sowell makes great arguments when it comes to many things.

    I believe that we should take a path of moderation and not bash "the right," "the right," "the right," over and over again.

    As far as what I said about the French Revolution... all I did was state facts.

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

    Terrorism

    Contents

    [hide]

    • 1Terminology

    • Origin in French Revolution[edit]

      Further information: France § History, History of France § Counter-revolution subdued (July 1793 – April 1794), and Jacobin § Girondins disbarred from National Convention
      The Latin verb terrere means: to frighten.[17] The English word 'terror', just like the French terreur, derives from that Latin word and means from of old: fright, alarm, anguish, (mortal) fear, panic.
      Oxford English Dictionary reportedly states that the word 'terrorist' (French: terroriste) was invented in the year 1794, during the French Revolution. The first meaning of the word 'terrorist' was then: adherent or supporter of the Jacobins.[18] Apparent from the context given in an article in the Guardian, the indication 'Jacobins' in that Oxford definition bears on the group around Maximilien Robespierre, also called 'Montagnards', that after 1794 were held responsible by some commentators for the repressive and violent government over France between June 1793 and July 1794, a period analogously labeled 'Reign of Terror' by commentators

      what is incredible is if you read the Wikipedia article- it is slanted towards defending "revolutionary" terror...

      however even the slanted Wikipedia article acknowledges terrorism's origins in the French Revolution....

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


      Reign of Terror


      The Reign of Terror, or The Terror (French: la Terreur), is the label given by some historians to a period during the French Revolution after the First French Republic was established.
      Several historians consider the "reign of terror" to have begun in 1793, placing the starting date at either 5 September,[1] June [2] or March (birth of the Revolutionary Tribunal), while some consider it to have begun in September 1792 (September Massacres), or even July 1789 (when the first beheadings by guillotine took place),[3] but there is a consensus that it ended with the fall of Robespierre in July 1794.[1][2]
      Between June 1793 and the end of July 1794, there were 16,594 official death sentences in France, of which 2,639 were in Paris.[2][4]
      Contents

      [hide]

      • 1Barère and Robespierre glorify "terror"

      and before we, like Wikipedia does (if you examine its articles), defend "revolutionary" terror-

      look at what was happening in the French Revolution

      Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution

      The dechristianization of France during the French Revolution is a conventional description of the results of a number of separate policies conducted by various governments of France between the start of the French Revolution in 1789 and the Concordat of 1801, forming the basis of the later and less radical laïcité policies. The goal of the campaign between 1793 and 1794 ranged from the public reclamation of the massive amounts of land, power, and money held by the Catholic Church in France to the termination of Catholic religious practice and of the religion itself.[1][2][3] There has been much scholarly debate over whether the movement was popularly motivated.[1]
      The French Revolution initially began with attacks on church corruption and the wealth of the higher clergy, an action with which even many Christians could identify, since the Roman Catholic church held a dominant role in pre-revolutionary France. During a two-year period known as the Reign of Terror, the episodes of anti-clericalism grew more violent than any in modern European history. The new revolutionary authorities suppressed the church; abolished the Catholic monarchy; nationalized church property; exiled 30,000 priests and killed hundreds more.[4] In October 1793 the Christian calendar was replaced with one reckoning from the date of the Revolution, and Festivals of Liberty, Reason and the Supreme Being were scheduled. New forms of moral religion emerged, including the deisticCult of the Supreme Being and the atheistic Cult of Reason,[5] with the revolutionary government briefly mandating observance of the former in April 1794.[6][7][8][9].[10]

      what kind of sickness leads people to murder priests???













  24. Report bad ads?
  25. #20
    beleiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Jedi
    Posts
    224
    Threads
    7
    Reputation
    331
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    172
    Likes (Received)
    86

    Re: Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

    Junon i am neither left nor right either, i have looked at the right arguments and find hypocracy at every turn same can be said for the left..But the distinctions are fuzzy.

    The right balance can be found in the Quran, its right wing as it supports the free markets but left wing as it demands the poor, sick and elderly are looked after..
    It respects the relegions and ways of life of others and there is no compulsin in it so it has a liberal side too.

    What i really like is it abides by the universal natural laws that no one can esacpe, that no modern day economist will talk of, it prohibits usery, it warns against hoarding, unused land can be used if the occupier brings life to that land and empty abandoned buildings can be occupied with no fear of God..I am sure there is a verse where it warns about monopolizing and i am certain there are several that warn against rich exploiting the poor with their wealth..
    In effect from what i understand it respects but limits property to what doesnt infringe basic human rights and adds a responsibilty to that property..That is the True hidden hand of the free market that the corporate elite refuse to aknowlage , basic human rights.

    And whats more it promotes sound money.

    My ideal philosphy would be free market capitalism, co-operative rather than corporate, but that takes hard work and dedication and a strong community able to think for them selves, the Quran also teaches how to acheive this.

    Now corporate is certainly right wing by and for the wealthy to exploit the worker..co-operative self ownership is left but right too, certainly works for conservatives and socialists alike, which i find totally compatable with Islam?

    I have found a great wealth of wisdom from reading the Quran but few people seem to notice or disscuss these points.

    - - - Updated - - -
    Last edited by beleiver; 04-03-2018 at 12:34 AM.


  26. Hide
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... Last
Hey there! Liberal World Order, R.I.P. Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Liberal World Order, R.I.P.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Frankie Boyle’s New World Order 2017
    By The Bearded One in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-13-2018, 10:10 PM
  2. The devils deception and the new world order
    By eesa the kiwi in forum Islamic Multimedia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-26-2016, 06:29 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-26-2012, 03:14 AM
  4. new world order?
    By Karl in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 01:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
create