Socialism failed again
Постови: 77
Посвећено од стране: 129 users
Venezuela is another victim of socialism.
Tried to stay out but i guess this fallacy must be addressed (like third time by now). No Russians did not dominate the Soviet Union, in fact Russians were oppressed and underrepresented if you dig deeper. It was Chauvinism to mention Great Russia and History, Russians were allowed to settle Turkic Steppe, but in return minorities were granted space in Russia, which holds way more resources and fertile land. Orthodox Christianity, which is part of Russian identity, was banned, while Catholicism and Islam were granted rights, new cathedrals and mosques popped up everywhere, and churches occasionally with great deal of delay, underfunding and negligence by the beaurocracy. Russian language at school was reduced from 4 to 2 lessons per week, while minority languages were added from 1 to 3 lessons per week in some parts of the country. Soviet Government had (un)equal representation of its constituencies, like Russia and Estonia having same number of representatives in the chamber, despite Russia have 17 million km^2/150 million people vs Estonia 75,000^2/1 million people. Russia was 1, minorities were 14, which mean USSR was dominated by non-Russians. And on top of that, after Malorussia and Turkestan were taken from Russia in 1917-1936 and renamed to Ukraine and Kazakhstan (600,000+2,700,000 km^2), they made remaining Russia into Federation, spliting on 22 republics, with their own constitution, language, borders, parliament, institutions on native language like media(printed and television) and schools-universities. I won't even address RAND corporation 'analysis' from 1980 of Russians banning minorities in the Red Army from higher ranks, or US annual listing of 'Captive Nations', which exclude Russia, but includes 'Cossackia', thing that is just a a proposed term and nothing else.
---- If a game is around long enough, people will find the most efficient way to play it and start playing it like robots
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Let me rephrase: Slavs dominated it.
And generally segregated. My point remains: despite it's many, many crippling flaws, there has been a better outcome for Eastern Europe than Western Europe in terms of racial and cultural homogeneity. Post-Soviet statistics also show the damage Liberalism has done to Eastern Europe, especially Russia.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
That's better. Because not all Slavs are Russians.
Hmm, this is actually interesting point of view. I like it. Gives a totally different picture now:  The only mistake is that some reservations are bigger than India, and hold more valuable resources, making the life easier to locals, not vice-versa.
This is true, and i already said this years ago. Eastern Europe was closed for decades, thus freezing the culture and mentality of the people, the economy was also much different, all leading to better long term survivability, despite having shortcomings.
Also true, despite Russia having better chances to restore itself, due to simple power and size, unlike other Eastern European nations like Poland, Romania and Hungary, which lack power to stay sovereign in the face of powerhouse like Germany, and soon Turkey (in Europe, no including wider picture). ie; if Poland tries to ban homosexuals, abortion and divorce, forces like EU, OECD, USA, Berlin, London, Paris, UN and other numerous NGOs will simply pressure Sejm to change the decision, through various means - threats, blackmail, credit cuts, membership fees, extortion like import prices. Russia doesn't have to worry about this because there are no mechanisms strong enough to put pressure, and thus Russia can get away with enacting independent laws. China as well. The other country i can think of, is North Korea, but no other can withstand the NWO pressure, as proven by government 'regime' changes in the recent history.
---- If a game is around long enough, people will find the most efficient way to play it and start playing it like robots
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
The principle culture tends to survive no matter the pressure. It can be crippled but return in different ways overtime. If the people are entirely replaced, the culture dies and never returns. You know this, we all know this. Despite decades of interracial propaganda, historical revisionism and white-guilt indoctrination within every strata of institutional power; the public remains staunchly socially conservative and intraracial in its preference for relationship partners. Values tend to stem from family and while the collective can be moderately manipulated, there remains a rejection of liberal thought. The only variable that prevents public expression of these values is fear and economic pressure. A communist government can't erase who we are, but a liberal one is quite happy to simply replace us.
Progressivism is the inevitable conclusion of Classical Liberalism. There is no argument against that when we have 40+ countries that have followed an identical path.
90% of the public opposes this philosophy. It is entirely top-down and outright rejected by the public but the democratic system doesn't allow for alternatives. As it currently stands, this prevailing philosophy will lead to ethnic and cultural conflict. England is dead, it's flag holds little meaning and its state institutions are utterly corrupted to its very core. The people remain and it is they who matter. England isn't a flag, it is its people. We can change our flag, our monarchy, our system of government and philosophy but we will remain English.
And why is there no unifying variable despite decades of patriot propaganda? Why is there a lack of assimilation between groups that have lived among one another for centuries? The ethnic divide is the REASON for the cultural divide.
And they never have and never will. The papers I believe you are citing consistently show a rejection and accompanying 'white flight' but ignore why this flight occurs. There is no positive outcome to forced mingling of these ethnic groups. There is ALWAYS a decline in quality of life. Why should they be forced to line among people they don't want to even if it did have a positive outcome? They don't consider it positive and that is all that matters.
The unifying variable is race. It has always been race. It is the foundation of cohesion and its built into our DNA. How many more studies need to be conducted to show how our innate tribalism is to our identity and outlook? Racial tribalism is encoded into the cells we are made of and these cells actively seek to protect their continuation.
They absolutely are. They are the criteria and legal framework used to undermine the foundation of the nation: Race. The 1st amendment never defended obscenity and today it does. It took centuries to allow gay marriage. No words changed within the constitution but those who interpreted it made different decision using legalese to defend their newfound justification for gay marriage. What wasn't allowed before is suddenly defended by the same document. The Constitution is a 'living document' which has been manipulated and subverted time and time again by philosophical power groups. Had the Founding Fathers seen the consequences of their 'Living Document', they would have torn it up.
These are direct products of Liberalism.
You mean the forced intermingling of ethnic groups? Why do people who condemn the Sykes-Pico agreement also claim that multi-ethnic society is better or can be socially engineered into a success? Pick one option, you don't get to pick both.
One is the product of the other and there is no denying this.
I never claimed extreme harm wasn't done. That isn't the point. The point was simple: These communist nations remain culturally and racially homogeneous while Liberal nations do not. Race is more important than wealth and individualism.
Compared to the West? It absolutely is. All trends show Chinese dominance overtime. Their rejection of democracy and liberalism is a strength, not a weakness.
Western Civilisation isn't wealth creation or atomised individualism. It has a distinct overtly racial character. Without Europeans, it simply doesn't exist. Any African nation can adopt the constitution but they would not suddenly become 'Western'.
A 'true European' puts the European people before some pathetic philosophy clearly killing us from within.
No. That sadly isn't true. Americans have a far greater appreciation for their history than the English do. Institutions may subvert this through a Liberal and Marxist lense, but the average American has a deeper respect and knowledge of where they come from than we do. This is likely due to America being a younger nation with more to prove. Our comfort in our long history has allowed us to relax and lose it.
Parliament is incapable and unwilling to address the deep chasm of problems. Democracy does not allow for such changes to occur.
Upper Middle-class Thatcher-lite politics? No thanks. At least current UKIP is more working-class orientated but I voted Corbyn in the general and will reluctantly do so again. Woke capital deserves to be stripped of its influence and power. A corrupt but fanatical Tankie doesn't care how many rainbow flags you fly, he's taking it all. The class of capital deserves this and they reap what they sow.
The era of heroes will come much faster when the institutions fail. Radical politics of all stripes are the catalyst to this. Corbyn with absolute power would reject modern leftism. Any Marxist government with absolute power will reject it as counter-revolutionary.
I specifically stated 'social civil war' but by all intents and purposes, it would be subversively racial due to the ethnic divides on politics. There is a clear escalation of violence between political factions with no signs of deescalation. The outcome of violent politics is inevitable, especially as conditions worsen.
No congressman will agree to this and it would require a majority of them to even enact it.
The rot is already baked into the cake. It can't be undone. All solutions require a near totalitarian structure to enforce.
Wrong. The Communist tyrant always closes the borders. This action alone would maintain ethnic survival.
It rarely differs that much and the examples of this are littered throughout the 20th century. The only White nations that succumbed to ethnic replacement were Liberal ones.
Singular examples are not evidence. You know EXACTLY what I am talking about and I described it accurately. China does not have anywhere near the level of rape gang crime as Western Europe. There are no roaming thriving gangs of foreign groups molesting native girls and then defended by the state when the native public protests. It simply isn't true. You do not see events like Cologne in Shanghai. You do not see the same levels of sexual assault in London trains compared to trains in Beijing.
It's almost as if there's a connection.
And what happens to those labelled as racists? It's not the word that has power but the consequences that come with it, and which system enforces such insane standards? Western Liberalism.
Norway isn't in the EU. It isn't the EU doing this. These policies existed and were implemented long before the creation of the EU. It is Liberalism. All systems socially engineer and censor, Liberalism is simply more subtle about it while hypocritically proclaiming it doesn't do these things. German Liberalism is FAR more censorious than Fascist Germany ever was. The number of books banned by the Fascists numbered around a thousand while modern Liberal Germany bans tens of thousands. You Liberals argue like communists crying your 'no true scotsman' fallacy whenever liberal states enact policies you claim to be illiberal. You ignore the direct consequences of your philosophy that we CONSISTENTLY see throughout all liberal democracies. You have no examples of your dream liberal society because all liberal societies followed a near identical direction. Admit that your theories don't hold up to the human condition. They do not hold up to reality.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
njab Профил је обрисан |
|
Pot... meet kettle:
Also:
There was a clear discussion on philosophy and geo-politics, and the best rebuttal you have is to call it 'autistic'? Cringe. This forum is trapped in 2016 and it clearly needs some fresh 2019 takes.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
njab Профил је обрисан |
|
It's much deeper than that. Autocracy of one kind or another is generally inevitable. The Liberal Democratic system is deeply autocratic while feigning an illusion of public 'choice' and 'self-determination'. The same political parties tend to dominate for generations while following a trend of progressive liberal capitalism despite a near super-majority opposition to radical progressive social policies and austerity economics. True power is not held in the hands of the public but in the hands of those who can manipulate the public. Finance, Media and Academia dictate public mood/focus as well as the power to shame and ostracise dissenters. Media itself is dictated by Finance and both of these institutions are run by networks owned by singular corporate entities which drive specific narratives, talking points and overton window vernacular. Academia drives progressive thought and also promotes Marxist economics. Due to the power of Finance, the Marxist economics tend to stay in academia but drives upper/ middle-class youth towards pushing progressivism. Dissent from the paradigm is near impossible and overtime, dissent becomes more difficult. Our speech is now limited, our communities undermined, our familles broken apart and we all mostly live in a state of apathy. Voter turnout continues to trend to lowering numbers. Distrust in institutions is at all time highs yet their malicious actions and lies grow without any worry of accountability or reaction. The trend of neo-liberalism manoeuvres the 'left' to focus on progressive social policy but ignoring their socialistic economic drives, while the 'right' is pushed toward free-market economics, low corporate taxes while ignoring their socially conservative principles. The entire system is riddled and dominated by a Zionist lobby which is driven by a strong primal Judaic identitarianism that seeks to undermine European ethnocentrism and lobby support for foreign policies which are in Israeli interests. Ultimately, all public policy whether it is economic, social or foreign is dictated by an extremely small minority of fanatics. Only 4% of the public identifies with radical progressive ideals, only 12% support pre-emptive war with Iran and a near 99% opposition to so-called conservative austerity policies. For instance, Israel is the most 'disliked' nation in UK polling but is described as Britain's 'Greatest Ally' by its politicians. Since the 1950's, immigration has been opposed by 60-90% supermajority's depending on the questions asked and yet immigration increases year on year. Despite such overwhelming opposition by the body politic, the system continues on regardless. Public preference is entirely at opposite ends with government policy. Polling across Europe and even America shows a distinct preference for social conservatism and varying degrees of economic socialism. Yet few parties represent this and those that do are either banned, oppressed or receive a minuscule amount of votes due to limited finance and threats of violence to public rallies by communist footsoldiers manipulated by big finance. Dissenters are punished with extreme prejudice, but the liberal system has the nerve to claim it is free and open. My philosophy is founded on the principle of biological reality; Tribe matters. The neo-liberal system which proliferates atomised individualism continues to be permeated with a primal tribalism regardless of policy. Different rules apply based on race, gender, sexuality and religion. Regardless of policy, identity and collective power rules the world and always will. If adherents of Judaic identity adopted atomised individualism, they would not have anywhere near the influence they have. The same goes for all groups of any variety. The only group that is told to abandon this collectivistic group interest are white, christian, heterosexual males. Any evidence of sympathy towards this model results in extreme ostracisation; loss of employment, loss of social relations, loss of income, loss of social media access and a growing concern being a loss of bank accounts. The latter is a new development which not only unpersons a dissenter, but deprives them of any ability to even claim unemployment benefit. Without a bank account, you can't do anything anywhere. In some countries, incarceration is a big risk to dissenters. While antifa can happily throw piss, milkshakes, fists, crowbars and bike locks without little punishment; those that defend themselves from their violence face harsh court battles to prove self-defense. While antifa that commit these crimes seem to have bottomless funds in court battles (given by lucrative wealthy donors), opposition get their gofundme's cancelled and their bank accounts suspended. The goal is create a chilling effect and scare dissenters into silence and obscurity. The Liberal Democratic system - coupled with growing technological marvels - is the perfect public control mechanism for a global elite. Despots of previous eras could only dream of what the Liberal system is capable of. The autocrats of the past generally had to capitulate to public demand to maintain power. The modern elite isn't even known to the public. 90% of UK political financing is unknown with only 10% being transparent. True power is a complete shadow with a puppeted public face. Autocracy is blunt power, you can see it, you can hear it, you can touch it and you will feel it. It is tangible and therefore fallible. It can be held to account which has been consistently shown over the centuries with the fall of empires, governments, hierarchies and revolutions. The mercantile global elite is an untouchable, immaterial, and the public is under the illusion that their choices are their own. One of the worst messages of Liberalism promoted was the lie that we are not varying groups of collectives and networks. The percentage of genuinely self-aware peoples is incredibly low, and even the most truly individualised people are still incapable of overcoming their innate tribal, biological, hormonal impulses which shape their worldview. We are very social creatures after all and we go with the herd whether we want to or not. I would rather be led by a Shepard who may occasionally shave my wool than by an invisible pack of wolves who plans on eating the herd and I.
The question would be what is individualism and are we all capable of it? There are varying degrees of it which depend on that persons intelligence. Only those of higher intelligence can truly gain self-awareness and it is these people who rule a tribe. As I said, even those who have their own voice and can self-analyse are still victim of their impulses and drives. No one is a true individual and we are all products of our environment and genetics. It's not a pleasant thought but it is part of our lived reality. Ironically, the philosophy of individualism is actually used as a form of control. A person who perceives they have a choice is far less likely to dissent. A person who falsely believes they are responsible for their own choices is far less likely to lay blame on the shadowy networks that pull the levers of a machine which dictate their lives. Individualism itself is also a very European concept. That's not to imply other groups aren't capable of it but it's very clear why this philosophy developed in Europe and nowhere else. It will always exist within the European mindset and it has its benefits, but it must be controlled and limited. It must serve a purpose and aid the tribe and not inhibit it. Therefore certain liberties must be opposed and the negative aspects of our impulses must be coerced for the greater good. I remember a phrase that put it simply: "Under autocracy, you can be ruled by Marcus Aurelius and the rare Nero, but under democracy, you are always ruled by Nero." (I likely completely messed up the quote and possibly the names as I'm not the best on Roman history but I think message is fairly clear)
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
What do you prefer: DPRK-style Great Britain, or current United Kingdom? In 2019.
---- If a game is around long enough, people will find the most efficient way to play it and start playing it like robots
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Neither, but if I were forced to, I'd pick 'Juche' in a heart beat.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Islam Is the Solution the west Needs!
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
That's how bad situation is in the UK currently?
---- If a game is around long enough, people will find the most efficient way to play it and start playing it like robots
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Deleted User 70012 Профил је обрисан |
You should just come to America and get culturally enriched with freedom, the UK is a shithole.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
In reality the United States is more dangerous and shithole than any European country.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Before Great Migration of 2015, Europe was way safer than United States, but now, after 2015 migration, maybe EU reached US level.
---- If a game is around long enough, people will find the most efficient way to play it and start playing it like robots
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
