This is why I hate liberals

Unlike Serendipper, I don’t want to live in a classless society.
However, I would like to see the white working class, as opposed to the capitalist class, possess the majority of the wealth and resources in Canada and the US, by syndicating more mass production, and socializing more essential services and banks.
In my view, you can’t have a democracy without the majority possessing most of the wealth, because wealth purchases politicians.

@Mags

I agree, people shouldn’t be able to use racial slurs in public.
However, we should be allowed to criticize races in public, including whites, which of course isn’t the same as using racial slurs, but there’s a time and a place, only if the people you’re talking to want to hear it, or you’ve been given permission to demonstrate/protest.
Of course you shouldn’t be able to go up to a black, or white man and say blacks are like this or whites are like that. That is not feasible, no one would stand for it, and it would lead to brawls, and even riots.
However, in the privacy of our own home, or on our website, we should be able to say whatever we please.

Again, it’s not that I want to be oppressive or abusive, I don’t, it’s just that I don’t want to give other races special treatment.
I am not a libertarian, in that I don’t think I can go around freely insulting whomever I please without consequence.
That is not how human nature works.

Yes, we need to reduce immigration, and raising awareness of other races weaknesses will help us achieve that.

Agreed.

Right, I think it’s an excuse, at least in part.
The elite have an agenda, they want to create a globalist, transhumanist corporatocracy, and nationalism, among other things, stands in the way of it.
They can’t bring about this new world order if people aren’t ready to surrender their national sovereignty, sufficiency and completely open up their borders to the rest of the world.
Continuous mass immigration will lead to a one world government.

Comparing what went for populism a few years back, with all the focus on a mythically omnipotent Rothschild family and none on the day to day of accountable and leverageable politicians, and how nuanced and comprehensive it has become now, I see things moving in the right direction. The scapegoat no longer suffices, people are realizing that it is an evolutionary crossroads, something much bigger than a few clans conspiring. It is one type of people vs another, even though the majority of people that fights for that other is deceived, that capacity for being deceived makes them belong to that second type which we now seem to be seeing in some slipping action. Populism on the other hand is limited by the term that was given to it by the relativists. Populism really just means strong leadership. Not just popular values, but the sort of values that can be carried with integrity. It is probably good to refer to oneself as belonging to a politics of integrity, disqualifying the other in terms of its lack of integrity, rather than in terms of its elitism. Elitism isn’t bad per se, philosophy is a matter of a small elite, nationalist warrior hood is elitists, so its not good to have the enemy own that term. The antagonist is the politics of value-relativity, the protagonists carry the politics of value integrity. A question of the value of values. Do they have value? The natural human would never doubt it. Socrates, the first Globalist, started the presence that every value is equal and ultimately pointless.

@Mags

I agree, we should treat everyone irrespective of race and religion with respect, but that includes white people.
I’m sick of the one way racism.
Don’t be racist, except against whitey, they deserve it cause slavery, etcetera, as if whites invented slavery.
No we didn’t invent slavery, but we did more than any other race to outlaw it.
White people aren’t perfect, some of us can be hateful, some times, but so can every race, we shouldn’t be held to ridiculously high standards, and we shouldn’t show other races special treatment in our homeland.
And if we want to eliminate immigration so we can keep this country majority white, that’s okay too.
Or say Merry Christmas instead of happy holidays, etcetera, little things like that, this is our homeland.
It’s absolutely ludicrous we’ve gotten to the point where wishing people merry Christmas is a subversive act.

I don’t have a problem with Caribbean people, or any people, so long as they don’t have a problem with me.

Yea she’s probably middle eastern.

Sure…she’s free to express her view, but again, I don’t want my government giving minorities any kind of special treatment.

I have no idea who she is.

You know, people, I used to be a stinky liberal and I didn’t even know it. Then I started this thread. The kind conservative folks of this board showed me what a horrible person I was–trying to fix the world’s problems and all–so I abandoned all hope of reforming democracy and started hating liberals. I tried to be a good conservative for a good long while, but like a Christian homo trying to be straight, I guess I still “smelt” like a liberal to the conservatives, so I was never really accepted. Then I remembered why conservatives are such assholes, why liberals exist in the first place. So now I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place–hating all humanity (I guess)–both liberals and conservatives alike.

But that’s not fair, is it now? No, no, no, I don’t hate all humanity, just those who see fit to label themselves with an “ism”–if you’re polarized enough to call yourself a lefty or a righty, you crossed the point of no return. You are now fighting a cause for which reason will never do. Reason is only useful if you’ve got no qualms with the truth. But burden yourself with the yoke of a political agenda, and you serve only a half-truth. The other half–coming in loud and clear from the other side–you can blissfully ignore–or worse, putty it up with ad homs and straw men (like the bitch in the video). Why use reason when it only leads to a more balanced view? No why, Jose! You’re polarized!

I think Karpel is right. This belongs in rant. I’m not intelligent enough to have a sensical political thought. And I’m not invested enough to actually have a conversation with any of you.

Look at him settling into the saddle atop his high horse in condemnation of the considerate.

Yep, beating the ole lady will have to wait until the guests are fed and in bed.

You have a habit of delineating the world into good and bad: people who do X are good and people who do Y aren’t human and the presumption that you’re worthy to judge who is alive and dead makes you a monster ignorant of his own idol’s proclamation: Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster. :laughing:

I have no problem with people wanting to preserve their heritage and I encourage them to do so if they want, but also there is no problem if people want to intermarry. Just like I can’t impose egalitarianism on you, you cannot impose your genetic purity on me. Why can’t all-white families live next to all-brown families who live next to zebra families? You don’t have to share dna you know.

Some of those whites in that majority do not like the situation. It’s not like the brownies are sneaking in and quietly taking over like roach bugs, but some whites are inviting them in and letting them take over because that’s what they want or what they feel is right.

Populism is the division of “us” from “them”. Why would you do that if “us” is not better than “them”? So it’s a manifestation of arrogance. “We are better than you because we’re white, we’re smart, and we’re here first.” And it’s not a meritocracy because none of that is anything that you did; it’s all genetic and luck.

I don’t want to live in a classless society, but I think there should be a minimum standard of living… a minimum class. Poverty should be illegal. Beyond that, I don’t give a hoot how rich people get or whose throats they cut to get there. I’m not trying to undermine meritocracy or incentives to succeed nor rewards for success. I’m just saying the bottom rung shouldn’t be on the ground and the only reason it is on the ground is to enrich the rich in order to have disparity of wealth and power.

Why not? There goes rap music and all the Polish jokes. Pejoratives aren’t a problem and you guys are getting carried away imo. Calling someone names has intent and that will manifest in all sorts of ways to skirt the law. We need to address the underlying problem so that people will stop intending to hurt other people rather than banning the ways that intent can manifest.

I don’t believe that. Politics is a dualism: Do you assert moral absolutes or do you not? Do you believe adversity engenders prosperity or do you not? Are you an individualist or collectivist?

If you’re an individualist, what’s best for you? Is it better for you if the population is sick, poor, and stupid so that a few lucky souls can be unimaginably wealthy? Is it better for you to dodge buckets of feces flung from windows or if undeserving people have toilets? It boils down to making one’s own life miserable in order to punish those who don’t deserve because they didn’t earn. Is your own prosperity more important or is the punishment of the undeserving more important?

Start at 10:22 and it might fall into place for you:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU[/youtube]

In the video, the older kids didn’t get philanthropic, but realized what a camera means (realized being generous is another form of social comparison).

This:

Kind of contradicts this:

Are you in favor of moral absolutism or not?
Or are you only in favor of your moral absolutism?

And why can’t adversity say in some circumstances engender prosperity, and in others poverty, why does it have to be all or nothing?
A lot of political policies and positions need context.
And can’t you have too much, or too little of most things, if not all things?
I would say we ought to find the right amount of adversity, for the right person or people at the right place and time. Extreme adversity can break you, but extreme comfort can atrophy you.

This is what I get when I try to watch the video:

Or, is it that the whole the whole ‘this should belong to rant’ thing is just another case of a confusion , which produces the symptomatic collusiveness of the general feel of the mileau, of the seeming insoluability of living in a post modern world.

At one time all those nice bible thumping Southern sprawling hypocrites were solid Democrats. What made them turn 180 degrees to the right?

That is not a case of a hypothetical situation , and it certainly needs no rocket science to figure out: it is a case of the resilience of facto wrath against somebody, or someone who represents ancient dualities coming back as if from some bastion of power.

The 20 th century’s provocative , and social political revision, of creating new meanings out of diminished ones
by may be signaling the opportunities for closure in terms of compensation for educational and health care preference, as part of a general backlash.

The question of where this is going , in aiming further then simply further political success, has no substance as of now for a definitive conclusion to be drawn.

I’ve always wondered, Meno, whether this split between left and right is universal–that we see it across all political systems–or if it’s a myth we invented in the West that became real because we believed in it.

As I understand it, left means those who think it’s the government’s job to make life better for everyone. Right means those who think it’s the government’s job to ensure everyone’s freedom so that individuals can make their own lives better (or whatever they want to do with their lives).

Right means “stay out of my affairs”… but still, do your job in Washington… fight wars to preserve my freedom… uphold the law (as stipulated in the Constitution, don’t change it)… go ahead and collect tax if you have to. The right says that the government should be nothing more than a referee, not a baby sitter.

Left means “regulate everything I do”… keep everyone in line… make sure no one breaks the status quo as defined by today’s political correctness. We’re making a perfect world and everyone must fall in line. It’s not uncommon for lefties to be pitted against each other because while they agree on the point of making the world a perfect place, they’re often shocked to find they can’t agree on a common definition of “perfection”.

And don’t get me started on the leaches. 90% of self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives are just leaches. They don’t truly believe in, or understand, the principles underlying liberalism or conservatism. They only know which party is more likely to support their personal agenda. For example, it’s no shock that most right-wingers against gay marriage are uneducated religious fundamentalists; their homophobia has absolutely nothing to do with the principles of conservatism–of minimizing government and maximizing freedom–but because it’s God’s way. They’re motivated by their religious convictions, not their political convictions. They just leach off their political affiliations, whichever one seems most likely to support them, in order to force their hand on others.

Where was I going with this? Oh yes, myth or reality? Why are these the only two stances to take on government? There are plenty of other countries whose major political contentions revolve around religion–perhaps in India, left means Muslim and right mean Hindu (I mean, it doesn’t, I don’t think, but what if?)–and the struggle between more government intervention and less government intervention is seen as just a minor issue fought over by just a small handful of weirdos.

But what is the “symptomatic collusiveness of the general feel of the mileau”? I’m not sure I see you’re point.

There’s nothing like a bit of civil unrest to keep the masses busy with…

So winning attitudes all round… or my interpretation of it ^^^ , anyway.

Perhaps the failed Nationals and the minorities who feel failed should be given special treatment, to enable them to have a decent footing in life… at the very least.

I wonder if he did… when she mentioned prior mention of his suit. :astonished:

…and whilst waiting for the underlying problem to be addressed, the public continue to suffer at the end of someone’s abusive ramblings and rants? Or is the initial responsibility of the government, to protect the public… you obviously haven’t been on a tram in Croydon/seen the footage of what can occur on a tram in Croydon? :open_mouth:

But what is the “symptomatic collusiveness of the general feel of the mileau”? I’m not sure I see you’re point.

To collude is to make secret agreements, and in this present political milieu it reminds of behind the door type of bargaining, trading favors.

In business practice, this is not much of a eye-raiser, but in terms of commingling of political and business
interests, it is strictly a matter of potential criminal illegality.

The trend of late, at least from the 1960’s onward, for the legal system, generally, is to liberalize interpretation of the black-letter of the law, by using what they call policy consideration, so as to account for the changing public sentiments which have changed.

This is at the bottom of the Kavanough Supreme Court nomination fiascal, he is a presumed ultra conservative, and there are people in Congress, Republicans for the most part, who don’t care a bit about a Democratic take over, because they know, if there is an earth shaking issue between the parties, and it reaches the Supreme Court, the matter will be disposed favorable to the Republicans. This is a mileau, which cares more about interpretation then tacit, under lying agreement.

I think that’s the tactical workings of it.
But it’s a lot more to this tactic, it presumes a centered position, which folds back to an initial position of a middle , centrist ground, to which the reactionary republicans want to steer the U.S. back, which ostensibly would create a collusion between an internationally tacit agreement, looking like a present international consensus, and if it succeeds, the present administration can view this as a successfully presenting an Independent form of governance, which has changed the meaning and scope of Judicial and Executive governance.

Congress , sandwiched between the two, would be demeened to the role of a kind of institutionalized rubber stamp.

@Serendipper

To reiterate: wilderness sparsely populated by nomads, does not a country make.
If it’s not a country, it’s no man’s land, if it’s no man’s land, anybody can settle, and do as they please with it, including make their own country.

  1. A nomad can occupy land, but he can’t own land, because he hasn’t mixed his labor with it.
    Mixing land with labor is kind of how humans mark their territory.
    It’s a way of letting everyone know it’s yours, like putting your signature on it.
    You’re also investing something in the land, and you should be able to make a return on your investment, not someone else, even if you temporarily leave it.
    Property doesn’t make much sense without labor.
    If they can’t own land individually, they can’t own land collectively, so it’s up for grabs.

  2. Nomads without a government aren’t a collective capable of thinking and acting as a unit, therefore they can’t claim anything as a unit, including land, the way settlers with a government can.

People shouldn’t be punished for what their ancestors did.
If my ancestors murdered some of your ancestors, should I be murdered?
Or if my ancestors took something from your ancestors, should I return it to you?
After generations of it being in our possession, we’re far more familiar with and invested in it than you.

But brown people are still a minority, white people are the majority, so our happiness matters more, because there’s more of us.
All other things being equal, hundreds of millions of heads are better than millions, so our insight into and say in things matters more.
Our ancestors built this country for us, so we’re far more acquainted with and adapted to it, so again, our insight into and say in things matters more.
Also, our countries are kind of admittedly better than yours (that’s why you’re coming here), so you need us more than we need you.
White people are selling their countries short, if anything, minorities should go way, out of their way to accommodate us, not the other way round.

In that case, why defend and maintain yourself and your property at all?

If more men like Trump come to power, pretty soon it’ll be arrogant minorities and progressives who’ll be punished.

Genetics play a major role in determining human variability.
People with common genetics, are more likely to share other things in common, as well as care for one another.
Race is extended family, just as we often prioritize our families interests ahead of other families, we often prioritize our races interests ahead of other races, even unbeknownst to ourselves.
Or just as we prioritize our species over others, or other sentient mammals over unsentient unmammals.

Indigenous is a spectrum.
Whites have been here for many centuries now.
We may be a little less indigenous than so called ‘native Americans’ (Euramerican hybrids, mestizos), but we’re far more numerous than mestizos, and we’re far more numerous, and indigenous than Asian immigrants, so if anything, we should be entitled to more privileges over both mestizos, and Asian immigrants.

On the contrary, it’s a form of weakness to forbid yourself from verbally attacking people who verbally attack you, because we’re essentially saying your life and opinions matter more than ours.
I say either we can all verbally attack each others race, or none of us can.
That’s fairness, fairness is strength.

I’m not saying we should have laws against hate speech, necessarily, just if we’re to have any, they should protect whites just as much, at least, if not more.

A brown person is going to put brown peoples interests over my peoples.
I’d rather have a white person with from a working class background represent me.

I would like to see what I see as a fairer distribution of wealth.
That being said, if you can work, but won’t, you’re not entitled to room and board.
And if you can’t support kids yourself, than you shouldn’t bring them into this world.

Murdering, raping or stealing from a brown person is a crime to me, but a small business only hiring WASPs, because he feels more comfortable with WASPs, or a cop predominantly scoping out Mulatto and Latino neighborhoods, because they’re more likely to commit crime, is not a crime.

Yes but a lot of bad behavior committed by Mulattos and Latinos is probably due to their biology and culture, and they’re responsible for their culture.
You’re thinking it’s because we expect (or is it because they expect themselves to be bad?) them to be bad, but I’m thinking it’s probably mostly, or wholly because more of them are bad…which’s not to say all, most or even many of them are bad, just a larger small minority of them than the small minority of us.
I will say this in Mulatto and Latino peoples defense, Jews, whites and Asians may commit more white collar crimes than the them, but white collar crimes are so much more difficult to ascertain, of course.

Depends on the Asians, I don’t think white people commit more crimes than west Asian or south Asian immigrants, I would imagine west Asians and South Asian immigrants commit more crime.
As for east Asian immigrants, I’m not entirely sure about them, I heard white women for instance commit less crime than any other demographic.

However, whites are more inventive, for good and bad, than other races, for whatever combination of reasons, east Asians may score a little higher in iQ, overall (whites are better with linguistic iQ), but they’re not a very creative people.

Reducing race to color makes it sound superficial, it’s not.
Virtually every cell in my body has more in common with an Irishman or Italian than it does an African or Asian.

While we have come a long way sociotechnologically in some regards, and there is less work to be done to feed and take care of everyone, there’s still is work to be done, and there probably always will be.
I don’t see us progressing towards some sort of star trek communist utopia anytime soon, in fact I’m expecting the opposite.
With high sociotechnology, you take a few steps forward in the short term, and often a few steps back in the long (global warming, nuclear warfare, etcetera).

While I support what I see as a fairer distribution of wealth, and less frivolous productivity, so we can spare the environment, If we allow people who don’t work to prosper as much as people who do, they will pollute us with their inferiority, which will be a few steps back.

If you’re white, self hate can also be deeply indoctrinated, you may not know you harbor it, but you do.

There’s almost no difference between democrats and republicans.
Both are corporatists, globalists and imperialists.
Both are anti-white and anti-male.
At least Trump, who is not a traditional republican, isn’t anti-white and anti-male, and more of a pacifist and protectionist.
He’s also pro-gun, which’s of utmost importance in a democracy.

“Beating the old lady”? That is your idea of family love?
I can see what culture you’re definitely not part of.

Since there is no logic or reference to my own in your rambling so I only learned you think some one who prefers his woman over his guests is by inference a monster. A predictable enough socialist/muslim morality. You claim conservatism but you were always transparent as an invertebrate. Slither back under your rock.