Quote: (06-27-2016 04:18 PM)kaotic Wrote:
Quote: (06-27-2016 04:13 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:
Quote: (06-27-2016 03:16 PM)kaotic Wrote:
You can't be pissed about nationalists and nazis on one end and flag burners/stompers on the other.
You also can't be pissed about nationalists but not be pissed about all nationalists. That doesn't happen, though. Either something is amoral or it isn't. As it stands, Black, Latino, and Jewish nationalism are encouraged.
There is a reason for that and it has nothing to do with historical precedent, fairness, justice, or morality.
You're right, it's true, if minorities have their nationalism, it's only right whites do as well. Which is why I'm non chalant about this and not "triggered"
Obviously in this world it will never happen.
However, this might be an internal battle of me not wanting to support nazis, but supporting their right to speak.
My gut tells me this is a bit unsettling, however logic tells me it's only fair.
The antifas was a given, so was their violence.
That's fair. But using the language "nazi" is using the language of the far left. It's essentially taking an aggressive position against a fair environment. These guys were not goose-stepping nor taking German Shepherds through the ghetto.
If you were an internationalist/gloablist, I wouldn't hold that language against you as long as you called Black, Latino, Asian, and Jewish nationalists Nazis as well.
If you aren't an internationalist/globalist, respectfully, you may want to consider making your peace with some more neutral language.
Consider that most people have been programmed with this language bias. Take your average WaPo article railing on about "Whites" and "White privilege", substitute every use of the word "White" with "Jewish", and you'd have a situation that is as bad or worse than 1933 Germany. In fact, an informative experiment would be to do just that and see how people react.
To think it will lead to anything but increasing violence and persecution against this group is ahistorical.
It's all population competition. That's the nature of politics. There are no groups that are doing anything solely for the world's interest even thought hey say that they are. Only their own. When you read these people characterized as "Nazis", you are reading institutionalized population competition against non-Jewish white people for the benefit of specific groups.
The only remaining question is whether a person is prepared to see everything through neutral glasses, or whether any language or other biases will remain even after they are aware of any concept bias. The biases come either out of being oblivious to the nature of the world (most white liberals who are globalists) or out of calculated self-interest (most minority liberals who are also closet racial nationalists).
The question is also whether or not it is just for minorities, in any land, to rule over the majority. There is no historical reference for any type of even-handed sharing of power. Majorities and minorities both have to be considered as motivated to keep control. So, again, the essence is what is fair and just? Should Arabs have privilege and thus rule over Jews in Israel? Should Whites rule over Mexicans in Mexico and Blacks in Nigeria? Should minorities rule over Europeans in Europe and America? Should Whites rule over native Hawaiians in Hawaii? Should Jews rule over anyone outside of Israel? Should the Chinese rule over anyone outside of China in the Eastern Hemisphere?
An ideal world could be considered to be one in which there is no more national interest, but the reality is that no one behind the scenes is aiming for this except when it comes to ruled-over groups. There is always a ruling group, and there will continue to be so. There could not be a lasting elimination of nationalism even if we magically started from that point one day, merely due to the effect of geographical distance on culture and political alliances. A nationalist group will always arise, cultivate power, and eventually be in charge. That's the nature of resource competition. The last remaining question is who anyone wants that to be, and where, and whether or not they will either unwittingly or wittingly support someone's else's ascent to power through liberal politics.
Personally, I see the future as being one of culturally determined nation-states policed against war and undue economic aggression by a world government that would be equivalent to a UN. But its reach would be more limited in depth-of-scope than it is today, but it would cover the entire world . They would drop the multiculturalism as unworkable, but also prohibit inter-cultural war.
But we can't have that until the various nations adopt a live-and-let-live philosophy, including allowing American Europeans, who have largely lost their native cultures to only now identify as "white", also have political self-determination. If they want to live with minorities, and the minorities will have them, that's fine too. However, I think that they will find that most minorities will also see them as a political threat and will largely reject multiculturalism as well when given the choice. We'll get no-where as long as certain groups perceive unfair treatment and persecution. The world might even be surprised at the global reciprocation should that occur.
I suspect that one or more groups are still angling for full control of wealth and governments, and that's why we continue to treat groups differently and with hostility. But, as you can tell by the media, it isn't white people.
![[Image: 2b78f2e25f06ed43f7dfe89c0ae9b1bf.jpg]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2b/78/f2/2b78f2e25f06ed43f7dfe89c0ae9b1bf.jpg)
![[Image: M198.gif]](http://gentis.ru/img/y/M198.gif)
