An issue which I don't feel is fairly represented here is liberal progressivism as a natural reaction to all types of religious conservatism in the West. Islam is not the only enemy of freedom and equality. Thanks to a recent post by Spam, we know that 48% of Europe is atheist, as compared to 16.1% in the US. If the conservative right in this country operated without opposition, abortion would not be legal and gays would be jailed or shipped off to "correction camps." I view Islam as a far greater immediate threat to our freedom and safety, but Christianity has been making things terrible for women and any but the most pious for far longer. Christianity in the West is no less androcentric than Islam, and Islam as an 'invader' doesn't make it worse ethically than an entrenched religion. The basic idea of this video is to admonish Islamic sympathizers, which is a worthy endeavor. To demonize champions of tolerance and equality simply because they've drifted to one side or the other in a society which is so polarized is equally worthy of admonishment. It is still not easy, in the US to be a woman or to be gay or to be a minority, and while I am none of these things, I am sensitive enough to the nuances of this culture to feel overwhelmed. Is the murder of an abortion doctor less tyrannical than the burqa? Perhaps it represents tyranny on a technically smaller scale, but it tyranny of the same degree. The fact is most of the progressive liberals that I know are violently opposed to religious oppression of any variety and Islam is considered a great offender. I move in pretty "progressive" circles, and I have never, NEVER, heard a defense of Islam either as a culture or a religion as a subject for debate among my peers. That is what defines progressives in my opinion, the sometimes flawed, rarely expeditive, but persistent defense of individual freedoms as defined by curtailing forces. I don't often disagree with you W_W but t he assertion that progressives as a group impose their morals is just not correct. That for me is the opposite of how I would define a progressive person, that definition being a person who staunchly defends the personal rights and freedoms of an individual to live their life as they wish up to but not beyond the point where that lifestyle impedes the personal rights and freedoms of another. You are right in that most people believe that what they are doing is morally right and justified. Often, it requires serious meditation to determine the true heading of one's moral compass, and ignoring the forces and influences that would bend you and use you. To live a person needs conviction, and that conviction should always be based on subjective experience. Only by comparing your subjective experience to the objective good of others can you validate your actions with true moral imperatives. Otherwise you simply work for what you want, and can not claim to be altruist. Injustice reigns still in most of the world, not just places where Islam is 'invading,' and people are fighting it in those places. The world stood by for the Rwandan genocide, and many people had no idea until somebody made a for-profit movie about it. To condemn an entire movement for not being perfect is unjust. I'll take the progressive movement, however imperfect, before I will the conservative, because in the US conservative means Christianity. I see Christianity and Islam as interchangeable and Christianity is already here. What is the alternative to gedoogcultuur, if not righteous activism?

"Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and promote the elimination of the state."

Anarchism is a radical left ideology that used to be more synonomous with libertarianism in the 70s before right wing libertarians became prevelant (which is a far cry from classical anarchist philosophies).

As for your collectivist comment, I always thought collectivism was about stressing community and interdependence over the individual. While anarchism has been portrayed as a highly individualistic political philosophy (and some philosophies are within that broad term of anarchism) most anarchists (at least today, and I suspect in the 60s and 70s as well) believe strongly in the idea of the commune that relies on the cooperation of its cohabitants and not on a government founded on professional politicians. Anarchists for the overwhelming majority ARE collectivists.

And as for your comment that you "do know that anarchy doesn't last very long" it should be said that the word "anarchy" has paradoxically been widely rejected by modern anarchists as it has come to widely been understood as chaos and violence. And anyone who has any legitimate knowlegde of anarchism beyond government and media propagated lies knows that this is not the end goal of an anarchist revolution. Anarchist communes have proven sturdy and self-efficient but usually fall due to that nation's goverment and military taking over and re-installing their power (see the peasants' anarchist movement that happened during the Spanish Civil War).

So there's my Anarchist rant, just thought I'd clear up some stuff since you said your knowledge in this field was limited :)

Republicans say they like small government, but they also want a large, world-policing army which is basically big government in terms of foreign policy. Democrats say they want individual rights but want to take away your guns.