Southern starts by saying that ‘people’ were attacked in the streets while the ‘whole town’ was devastated. Molyneux then invites Southern to tell if she was targeted by attackers, adding that people just standing and shooting photos were attacked. It seems that the targeting and attack was this: Southern wore an ‘Identitarian’ shirt (but she was not aware of what she was wearing…) and went out to watch the march of protesters; one single person, probably because he saw the shirt, yelled (in German) at her. Then a ‘mainstream media’ journalist working for Die Zeit (which then turned out to be false) took a picture and signaled her presence in Hamburg to the antifa via twitter. Since then she was actually tracked and had to hide. Moreover, one guy who unfortunately appeared next to her in a photo, was attacked. He stood kneeled on the ground his hands up imploring “I am not a Nazi, I am not a Nazi…” while, Southern says, “these people were hitting him and beating him”. A video clip of this should be available on heavy.com, I searched the site to no avail. I found this instead. It is reasonable to believe it contains the footage Southern refers to. That scene does not fit Southern’s description. One may say it shows intimidation, possibly threatening, but not beating and hitting as she said.
While the tweets exist (some are shown, I could not read them, also because they are in German), the footage Southern shows to support the claim of an active threat is not conclusive, you just see a backyard. And if she was constantly tracked, that becomes even quite mysterious, seeing that others were indeed attacked (and that seems to be the only documented instance of people attacked while shooting photos).
Now, that has to be absolutely clear: I am not attempting in the slightest to defend trackers and aggressors. There is one Sören Kohlhuber who is seemingly at the beginning of the chain of tweets: sue him. Frankly, it would be strange if they have not done it yet.
Having said that, in my view the scale of all this has been deliberately exaggerated, possibly also to show that the whole antifa complex is a criminal ‘leftist mob’. All ‘mainstream media’ sources stated violent confrontations involved about 10-15% of protesters, not all of them.
I think there’s a little abuse of the word ‘instinct’. If that is just a mere rethorical figure, then do as you like, but a natural istinct to "freedom from government and ‘big brother’ " must have remained latent for thousand and thousand of years, as there were no such things for a long time. The first forms of government probably took place with the Agricultural Revolution, roughly 12’000 years before 0 AD, while the sapiens were already roaming the planet long before then. And even with the Agricultural Revolution, I do not see a lot of exertion of this natural instinct… Then it seemed to me that you previously referred to an “artificial-socially constructed fear and sycophantism” in the case of conformism.
Anyway, how come we are infested by leftist governments and the Socialist and Communist parties are only seldom part of them? What is your definition of ‘tyrannical’? because that sounds kind of unconstitutional in most countries. It is indeed surprising to learn that all Western governments are such. Save at least the U.K., they are bravely brexiting, fiercely opposing to the “the stalling tactics the neolib and neocon globalists are using to try and prevent it”.
OK, if tolerance is “you leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone”, it may be as you say. I still think that it is however a convention, and conditioning, not a “natural libertarian bent”. The theory of the “long winters”, with which I suppose you are acquainted (Molyneux is), postulates that no one was left alone. The division of labour, which has been existing on a massive scale since the said Agricultural Revolution, does not really allow that. In the present, the overwhelming majority of us has a constant necessary exhange with other people. That too does not really allow leaving and being left alone.
I guess it implies that whoever oppose to the sacrifice “to the postmodern [god] of Tolerance” are the truth bearers.
Considering what you said above, about the “natural libertarian bent”, I suspect that the postmodern tolerance is something else. What exactly?
As I see it they are fading, not to yield to the invaders, but to their own… Well, it can be many things, probably all of them: consumerism, the dissolution of the traditional family, nihilism, boredom… It can be just the natural course of things. A herd too domesticated and with no shepherds (though I see that some research for them is going on). Or maybe not. It might become the end of a civilization, but not necessarily. “What does not kill me, makes me stronger”. It seems that this is what you are devoting your energy to in the end, believing that identitarianism, or something like that, is the way to fix it. Yes, I think it is self-defeating. Everything that it is totally backwards ends that way.
But would that be the only way? Considering that even the identitarians appear to be a multi-national community that tends to act globally, some doubts may rise, unless you are implying that the whole West is one nation. Surely, about the dissemination of knowledge, there Identitarians have a problem in my view. Until now I have seen them disseminating only conspiracy theories and flawed economics.
How the U.S, or Canada, or Australia are possible then? Russia is still multinational. I guess Putin is OK, is he?, so… it’s just because of him that it works?
If that is all you can retain of what I wrote, yes.
You can manage this thing, and resist this ‘conquest’ (which is not such). Australia, Canada, even UK and Germany, do that, with a mainly opportunistic attitude, but who cares, “beggars can’t be chosers”. Yet you can’t unmake it. We can discuss as long as we like about the philosophy of the nation, yet the fact is that these nations are dying . This is also the clarification requested, it’s not all of it, but I don’t want to get into more general views.
(By the way, their Middle Ages were a lot better than ours).
No.
There may be, and there should be, a separation of competences (possibly according to the infamous “principle of subsidiarity”). As for the rest, it is exactly what the US got rid of in order to become… the US.
And that applies also at how the EU is faring now.
I still see a difference between a “a standard of perfection that cannot exist”, and being no longer able to the execution of its office.
I don’t get the initial remark. Age is indeed the problem, and not excluvely for the economy.
I don’t know this study, I’d like to consult it. Anyway, I confess I am not surprised that the GDP per capita stays the same, or improves, for a while. There can be adjustment in productivity, and automatization is indeed doing that, and you can deny retirement until a very advanced age. However, that is just kicking the can. Eventually these people will need replacement. If there is not a sufficient stock of active population, there will be a contraction of the economy.
You can have a look at this if you wish.
I don’t discern the difference “between proper thinking and improper thinking” by decreeing what is ‘spirit’, wisdom and depth, personality and gravitas. I would ascribe those characteristics to what finds an echo in my most intimate thoughts, and I don’t want to get personal (“our deepest insights must - and should - appear as follies…”).
Ah, the old quote Hamilton trick, how tried and true.
Sorry man, but I can’t be bothered to respond to you. Maybe some other time, but it’s clear to me you have a vested interest in shutting down your mind, you seem like a typical academic, well used to rhetorics tricks and cherry picking and selective doubt, anything to avoid using language to actually… know something. At least to know something beyond the sphere of the accepted status quo (which concept I believe you rejected, right?)
Another dirty trick is equating the EU with the US federalist system, when in fact the various European countries are nothing analogous to the various American states. I actually have some great text on this issue and the economics of Europe and America with regard to “federalism”, if I ever feel motivated to respond properly to you I’ll post it.
But yeah, my loathing for academic dull newspeak and sycophantism far outweighs my desire to write a legitimate response here. I realize that’s unfair of me, so maybe I’ll bother writing one at a later time. But to be honest, I spent a good hour writing the last response to you, and you basically breezed by most of my points without so much as a glance toward the actual content there. Quoting Hamilton, and only Hamilton, is simply dishonest, that’s cheap NPR stuff. Making false equivalence between the EU and the US is also cheap anti-intellectualism. So no offense but I think I’ll take a pass for now.
All EU countries are typically ruled or co-ruled by Socialist parties.They don’t always carry the term, but their policies are invariably relentlessly top down regulative of peoples morals and money.
This is precisely why Europe has turned into an intellectual ghost world. There is only “Care”, which means prevention of freedom.
Italy and France are typically robustly Communist. Holland has been ruled by the proudly Socialist PvdA since after WWII. All of Scandinavia is Socialist, isn’t it?
Germany has the most Socialist policies of all, and of course it is where Socialism first took hold.
Switzerland has Socialism, so does Austria. People live off Welfare there even if they can get work because it is so easy to get the welfare. Natives as well as immigrants.
Which country in Europe is not socialist? Arguably, England has some non socialist tendencies, for the rest we d have to look at Monaco, of which I don’t know the laws, and Liechtenstein and Andorra.
As far as political thought goes, as long as this hasn’t been understood, nothing else ever will be.
I can assure anyone that no first order European population will be able at this point to produce consensus among its populace as to what the nation is and as to whether it still really exists - much less if it should exist.
Most Europeans will say no to state borders if asked, simply out of fear of what they’ve been told they are, if they would even think about wanting state borders. Fascism is utterly total there. People have no more heart to speak, but even, they have no more heart to think, to cognize, even to be aware of each other.
Its a dead zone. This is what Socialism is, always ends up in: the end of all human virtue, which basically means the end of human sentience.
Put a European next to a monkey and surely the monkey will usually be the more spiritually active one.
So fuck Europeans. Fuck Joker and his testicular cancer as well. Fuck his cancerous wife, too.
Basically the communist cancerindusrytestdummies that Joker and his family are along with all these socialists and pill poppers, are already beyond the end of the west. Obvioisly they are quite… dead.
I no longer worry. There isnt anything to lose. if Joker dies of his cancer, or if Joker dies in the streets, or if his girfriend dies of cancer or through gangrape, its all just western postculture.
If these self-crawling pee-poo-puss jokes stay alive that is even crueler, both to them and to the west. There really isnt much for the west to survive for, looking at these “people”. They are forms of walking death, arent they?
To call Joker a cancerform is a bit unfair to people with cancer, not all cancer is as sick as Joker, of course. Its not like all cancerpatients “have Joker”. That would suck.
I get your whole act now, you’re the first generation of a conservative multiracial form of civic nationalism. Please note, I’m not a national socialist. I do support ethnic and cultural identity however.
I’ve already stated that every race-culture, including European and American, has a right to take pride in itself for what is actually good about itself, and that this doesn’t imply hatred of other races-cultures than one’s own. “Civic nationalism” is simply the default position we already have in the west, whereas “ethnic nationalism” is a tribal throwback to pre-western society, something Hitler tried and failed to achieve.
History doesn’t generally take kindly to going backwards.
And the stupidity of ethic nationalism doesn’t means that race doesn’t play a role in culture and society, in “civic nationalism” of the west, of course race plays a role. If you overly disturb and alter the racial makeup of any society then it will change drastically in response, which is why relatively low immigration rates are manageable but relatively high ones such as are happening in western and Northern Europe right now are not manageable. It has to do with how in group preference and a commonality of culture between people forms a backbone for the structure and strength of any society.
So you’re not a Nazi? I don’t believe you, but I can see why you would want to disavow it, since the position is indefensible.
So in group preference isn’t based on ethnicity? Ethnic pride is good but not ethnic nationalism? What about ethnic pride/nationalism without any “hate” or resentment towards others, is that good then?
He’s apart of the new conservative civic nationalist group, in their eyes it’s ok to have ethnic and cultural pride just whatever you do don’t demand your own ethnic cultural independent sovereign territory.
I’m not part of any group, and civic nationalism isn’t a new idea anyway, it’s the idea that the United States was founded on. All men created equal, all under the same law. Not that hard of a concept really.
If you want to found your society instead on tribal racialism then you’re moving away from equality of law, because ethnicity supersedes law. It had to for ethnic nationalism to work, which is why everywhere else in the world that has governments and societies based primarily on ethnic groupings is going to be a failed state.
Ethnic identity is important, and it is important not to invite the whole third world into your first world country. If we were to invite the whole of the intelligent, educated, sane third world into the west that wouldn’t be problematic in the least, so that tells you something about how the real priorities are. The issues with mass immigration are more about medievalism, poverty and stupidity of the people coming here, and not about their “ethnicity”.
And it’s also about religion, because to take the case of the Muslim third world coming into the west, Islam isn’t an “ethnicity” but is an ideology. Taking in a bunch of poor medieval Christian Africans would also be a bad idea, they might not declare jihad and suicide bomb us but they will certainly burn ‘witches’ and engage in slavery and rape and other barbaric practices of medieval societies that take 2000 year old religious texts literally.
Literalism is the real problem. And because Islam never has a Reformation, and also because the globalists have deliberately radicalized and destroyed the Middle East, Islam is far more entrenched in barbaric medievalism than is Christianity, although as I said there still exist barbaric medieval Christians too, just that they represent a smaller percentage of overall Christianity than the radical literalists in Islam represent of overall Islam. Imam Tawhidi claims that most Muslims in the world are medieval literalists.
Then on top of that (there are multiple layers here, which is why simplistic linear and lazy thinkers won’t understand any of this and will instead default to the ideological stupidity of things like “ethnic nationalism” aka Nazism) you have the fact that the west is culturally rooted in Christianity. So if you import enough non-Christians then you’re fucking with that cultural foundation. But educated and more secular Muslims and Christians have far more in common with each other and can get along in the west just fine, it’s just that as I said in Islam those people represent a very small percentage of overall Muslims in the world.
The issue is multifaceted. Not exactly something that your “nice guy national socialism” is capable of grasping.
Or to use the words of the globalist in self-denial:
Or this lovely flailing -
Ethnic identity is important, except it is not, it’s about IQ, I mean it’s not IQ, it’s muh shared values…and so on…
What’s really going on here is that Void is justifying the hoodwinked clan’s idiosyncrasies.
Homosexuality → good
Mixing races → good
Value the narcissist → good
Accept my vyleness → good
‘Secular’ Islam babes → good
Have to say that this reminds me of middle-aged catladies cheering for Muslim immigration to get laid and paid for by the state for adopting a Middle-Eastern boytoy.
As I said, the situation is multifaceted and far too complex for simple ideological thinkers (e.g. ethnic nationalists aka Nazis) to grasp.
When you attempt to see the world through such a small mental lens, as you clearly possess, things simply appear as “opposites”, such as you elaborate as your perspective above. A black and white ideology able to reduce all differences into binary categories so that your feeble mind is able to actually form some (pathetically small and warped) relationship amongst the various aspects, is the only idea you are capable of having.
Thanks for voluntarily presenting yourself as a case study in pathological stupidity. How nice that I didn’t even have to ask.
If you’re a great representation of the alternative right versus the traditional old right I don’t see why the liberals are bitching, you’re practically controlled opposition for them.
Quite telling how you can’t counter a single one of my points on this subject, and neither can your Nazi friends. And also quite funny you think I’m “alt right”.
