Why do people see a threat from Nationalism? I really have no idea.

It's as though they don't like their own roots. One size fits all mentality.?
Funny a lot of the countries from which people immigrate to the US from seem to
whip their flags proudly through the air,
but yet I have never heard the term "brown Nationalist". Must just be me, right?
?
Whites are not allowed to have their own countries. Forced to diversify. It's pe
rfectly fine to have Arab, Hispanic,
Black national races... but if it's purely white it's considered "racist." Thank
the Jews for this shit storm.?
'threat of nationalism' vs being murdered by muslims... Armenian Genocide wasn't
about Armenians... it was about the
murdering of white Christians in their homeland...?
wow...when you put it that way that's a really good point...if whites started go
ing to all these other countries shouting
about diversity and that they had a right to be there and that the natives were
all racists i wonder what would happen...
its funny seems like an obvious statement but you never really think about it li
ke that..?
With so many different countries each with its own currency, government, laws, t
rade tariffs, financial systems etc. it
is not easy for the super wealthy elite to make a lot of money. So at first they
did away with trade tariffs with treaties
like NAFTA, the European Common Market etc. Then they did away separate currenci
es in Europe and replaced it with the
Euro. Then they reduced the powers of the individual governments and removed bor
ders between countries - the European
Union. They want the world to be divided into just a few countries instead of th
e 130+ now. That way, it is easier for
the super wealthy to grow even richer while we are reduced to the mental level o
f dumb cattle having lost all our
individual cultures, identities and all the things that make us human; reduced t
o mere mass consumers caring only about
Facebook likes or some such superficial garbage, eking out a living while being
continuously bombarded by lies and
propaganda from the media. We will be easier to fool and manipulate that way, me
re putty in their hands. Nationalism
puts the brakes on their goals. So the current media propaganda is "nationalism
is evil".?
Because those that hate nationalism are legit AIDS for cancerous globalism.?
Loving my country ? Evil?
(drav1dan)
loving your country = evil if your country is majority white and you are white.
Ask any globalist. Ask Goldman Sachs or
any big bank or media company. Ask your E.U. member of parliament if you are in
the E.U.?
(Jos Alejandro Ramrez)
It's because history. Fascisms were hardcore nationalists, and they think nation
alism caused the two world wars. Besides,
nationalism is almost always mass thinking, opposed to individuality.
(Karel de Kale)
drav1dan:Remarkable is the situation of the Jewish neo colonial state of Israel,
which is allowed to keep her homogeneity,
identity,security and colonial behavior.
So a vote for Macron will be a vote for the Rotschilds and Israel. It means Fren
ch troops wil have to fight for the
security of Israel not for he security of the French people. Besides it will bri
ng more attacks of Jihadis.?
(Joe Rogaine)
Jos Alejandro Ramrez How is nationalism "group think"? It allows for a diversity o
f individuals and binds them
through the love of their country. Nationalism ? Fascism. It's this simple.?
??? ?? ??????
It depends on what kind of nationalism it is. If it's oppressive and exclusive (
e.g. Nazi Germany) then it's a negative.
If it's about self-determination (e.g. not being controlled by EU) and maintaini
ng a culture, then it's probably a
positive (depends on the culture). The issue is that nationalists tend to have o
ther retarded views like empathizing
Christianity, race homogeneity and other ideologies that are vapid and only crea
te exclusiveness without promoting
anything good. Islam might be a shit religion, but so is pretty much any religio
n.
I think if you have a strong deontological basis for your politics, for example
libertarian, then it's not really
compatible with nationalism because your principles implies that humans are of e
qual worth and deserve the same liberty
and rights. A state is a construct we've created. I've noticed that people who a
re nationalists also tend to have a very
weak philosophical grounding. These are the same people who think that globalism
is a corporate conspiracy and not just
an unavoidable by-product of human development (e.g. the internet - its not avoi
dable and doesn't care if you
like it / hate it).
Nationalists also tend to be protectionist, which is, without a doubt, the most
retarded view in the entire science of
economics. It has as much supporting empirical evidence as astrology or feng shu
i. It's one thing to create advantages
for production in your own country, but it's another to be so ignorant that you
do it in spite of sheer common sense.
Like Trump advocating to move low-end production from China back to America, wit
hout understanding that the reason it's
in China is because China is not as developed as America (US produces high-end t
echnology like biomedical equipment, not
plastic toys. US would not benefit from going back to producing low-end crap).
Nationalism doesn't have to be bad, but usually the people who are nationalists
also hold other bad opinions. I've yet to
meet a sensible nationalist, even though I'm sure they exist?
(Josiah Laturnus)
Jos Alejandro Ramrez Nationalism brings a nation closer together by sharing a comm
on ground of taking pride of the
citizens. Globalism on the other hand is pure cancer that embraces Marxism in wh
ich makes you feel sorry for the things
you have never done to those that were never wrong.?
(Joe Rogaine)
The "group" is what nationalism is trying to get rid of. When people identify th
emselves as an ethnic group or religious
group and place that pride higher than the pride in their country you see the pr
oblems we have now in the world.
Nationalism is the common thread that brings together groups and makes them boun
d by the pride in their country.?
??? ?? ??????
Joe Rogaine Nationalism is always tied with culture because every nation has a c
ultural identity. You can say that it's
about the nation and not the culture, but people always have an idea of what tha
t nation entails (and it's the culture).
Even US fails on this?
??? ?? ??????
Josiah "Globalism on the other hand is pure cancer that embraces Marxism"
No. Globalism is a by-product of human development. Is the internet also Marxism
? Globalism, in terms of economics, has
nothing to do with Marxism or any other ideology.
When the world becomes more connected by information (internet) and travel then
it's obvious that this leads to a
globalized market. Has nothing to do with opinions.?
(Joe Rogaine)
It can be about nation and cultures.?
(Jos Alejandro Ramrez)
I'm not a native english speaker, so I apologize if I don't make much sense: in
the modern world we take pride of our
individuality, but that wasn't always the case, in fact it's quite new. During m
ost part of history, people take pride
not of their individuality, but of their belonging to a group. The group is prio
r to the individual (that's the
intellectual error of classic liberalism and libertarianism, they suppose that a
society is formed by a sum of
individuals with their own interests). The first states (city or national states
) born in the belief that you can
sacrifice the individual for the sake of a great organization of power, somethin
g more valuable than the individual.
The state institutions were created for the sacrifice of the masses, not their r
ule (to put a social contract and a
popular will for the origin of organized states is another intellectual error).
But the individual is a product of the development of the state, it appears spec
ially when the state organization is
decaying (the great example is ancient Greece), it's a precious luxury. National
ism, for his part, is a reactionary
ideology full of resentment that appears when there's a sense of loss of strengh
t. Then people think that they can stop
development and concentrate in their borders and live in peace and with progress
with their old values.
??? ?? ??????
Well said (and written). Agree with everything you said, except, of course; "The
group is prior to the individual (that's
the intellectual error of classic liberalism and libertarianism, they suppose th
at a society is formed by a sum of
individuals with their own interests)"
Can you elaborate on this? I'd say these individuals do have their own interests
, even if they are not shared (or in
conflict) with the state - and - it's these interests that motivates and enables
 the individuals to flourish and thus
benefit the state.??
(Jos Alejandro Ramrez)
In the economic field, for example, liberalism supposes that each individual has
a developed self-interest from the
beginning and that the economy grows when they work for their benefit and the de
sire to make earnings. Adam Smith
believed that, even prior to coin, the economy of societies was based on that un
iversal desire, although the mechanism
used was the "trueque" (I guess the word in english is "barter"?). But anthropol
ogists have never found a primitive
society with that model. All they find is a more sharing economy. That's because
the individual psychology took time to
appear, it's a late development, not a beggining. Those cultural differences can
explain a lot about why there are a lot
of troubles when inserting some populations into a modern society, it's necessar
y a development by special institutions
(even slavery can be such an institution, no matter it isn't moral).?
(drav1dan)
Karel de Kale: The U.S. and western countries are really just Israeli colonies.
They exist purely for the benefit of
Israel and are controlled by the ethnic Israelis who control the world financial
systems like Goldman Sachs, western
media, western universities, the judiciary and the government. These people are
as much a threat to the world as
islamic terrorists. Both are problems for which humanity will need to collective
ly find a lasting solution.?
(drav1dan)
?? ?? ??????: > If it's oppressive and exclusive (e.g. Nazi Germany)
If the excluded minority
1. exercised a disproportionate control over the majority by controlling the fin
ancial systems, media, judiciary,
education, government etc.
2. The excluded minority habitually produced horrible outcomes in the world like
Marxism, glorification of all forms of
perversions, moral degeneration of society, disintegration of the traditional fa
mily structures, religion and society of
the majority people
3. The minority has been doing this to other nations since the time of the ancie
nt Egyptians
4. the minority by and large knows no honorable, productive way of existence but
only parasitizing other nations
5. The excluded minority has a much greater allegiance to fellow members of that
minority group distributed world wide
and very little to the nations they lived in
then oppression is necessary and absolutely justified.?
(Jos Alejandro Ramrez)
drav1dan You always can find a guilty for your situation, but it's always a fals
e interpretation. Get rid of nobility,
capitalist exploiters, intellectual elites, powerful imperialists, nothing impro
ves, because life is exploitation itself,
needs to grow. Resentment is hate towards life... The irony is you don't seem to
know that moral interpretation (you use
it) and moral development is a jewish invention. Socrates and Plato became later
, and Plato seems to had jewish
influences... The poor people, the peasants, want power too, the feeling of powe
r, but their oppresion is vengeance,
a reaction, they don't have the right to impose it... Besides, the idea of a pow
er in the shades is ridiculous, a fantasy
of the impotent.?
??? ?? ??????
Jos
"All they find is a more sharing economy."
Are you sure you mean sharing economy? because sharing economy is the perfect ex
ample of what libertarianism values.
Airbnb, ber, etc. are modern examples of this and are applauded by libertarians.
Are you thinking of economies where
people survive entirely by sharing? I'd like to see some examples of this, becau
se I find it unlikely this was
representative of ancient societies. Just be clear that there's a difference bet
ween simple tribes and/or families
(low population) surviving together as a team (sharing their values) and actual
economy of trade/bartering. The former is
unlikely to occur in larger societies - even primitive ones. I don't think you s
hould extrapolate the workings of
tribes/families to actual, larger, communities.
"But anthropologists have never found a primitive society with that model."
Would like to know what exactly you refer to here, because bartering has been si
nce the earliest of history. What
defines a "society"? Is a group of 10 people a society??
??? ?? ??????
drav1dan
1. The people are who's choosing their leaders in a democracy. You can hate the
banking, financial system all you want -
but in the end they are entirely dependent on lands they live on. Hate your stup
id co-citizens that allows them to do it,
instead. Stop being a whiny self-victimizing little shit and start working on ch
anging things
2. Even if a jew wrote Das Kapital doesn't mean he single-handedly caused the ho
rrors of marxism. People have free will
and a brain to interpret. There's been far more lives saved by medicine and vacc
ines developed by jews. As for the rest;
citation needed. They are insults and not backed up in any way
3. Doing what. How does this differ from other nations at time?
4. Jews have immensely contributed to science and our development.
5. Not entirely true. Look at jews in US. This can be said about most ethnic gro
ups.
stop drinking the nazi koolaid m8. take a break from the_donald and chill?
(Jos Alejandro Ramrez)
I think primitive societies are those prior to organized states, generally tribe
s with a familiar structure (extended
families) and confederate between them to certain purposes (so the nuclear organ
ization has low numbers of members). I
know it isn't very intellectual but I found this in the entry of "barter" in wik
ipedia (it's funny I haven't read it
before, just read some articles about this issue): "Economists since Adam Smith,
looking at non-specific archaic societies
as examples, have used the inefficiency of barter to explain the emergence of mo
ney, the economy, and hence the
discipline of economics itself.[2] However, ethnographic studies have shown no p
resent or past society has used barter
without any other medium of exchange or measurement, nor have anthropologists fo
und evidence that money emerged from
barter, instead finding that gift-giving (credit extended on a personal basis wi
th an inter-personal balance maintained
over the long term) was the most usual means of exchange of goods and services.[
3]"
I'm not an expert in economics, I'm strongly influenced by Nietzsche's philosoph
y and Machiavelli. The thing is when I
read about barter it confirmed my belief that you can not take the man (or anyth
ing in nature) as a platonic ideal, the
same since its origins, as all philosophers tend to think. The homus economicus
(or the religious man, the artistic man,
etc.) has been developed in time. So there's not a sistematic philosophy that yo
u can universally apply to any society
for better.?
(drav1dan)
??? ?? ??????
You are are wrong on so many counts.
>The people are who's choosing their leaders in a democracy
Thanks for the laugh. Democracy is a sham. There is no point in choosing between
politicians who are all working for the
same entity. Elections are merely a way to fool people into thinking they have c
hoice and are in control.
> and start working on changing things
How? Writing letters to politicians? By holding protest marches? You are naive.
> Even if a jew wrote Das Kapital doesn't mean
It is not just writing a book. Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin, Trotsky & mos
t leaders of the early years of Soviet
terror were Jews. Look into these people.
> There's been far more lives saved by medicine and vaccines developed by jews.
The ability to develop vaccines is not unique to Jews. So even if all Jews were
to say, relocate to another galaxy,
humanity will still survive and progress. Humanity will probably fare better bec
ause the ability to parasitize other
peoples is indeed unique to Jews. A Salk and a Haffkine do not compensate for th
e Rothschilds, Blankfein and countless
others.
> Doing what. How does this differ from other nations
Read history. Read the old testament.
> Jews have immensely contributed to science and our development.
Not enough to compensate for the long term harm they do. People can very well do
without these contributions if it means
avoiding the long term harm that Jewish presence does among other nations.
> Not entirely true. Look at jews in US.
Exactly my point. Not just the US, but also all western countries except Russia
and those that are under Russian wings.
Western countries are largely run by Jewish interests to enhance the wealth and
power of Jews. Just look into the US
Federal Reserve and major financial institutions all over the world.
> stop drinking the nazi koolaid m8. take a break from the_donald and chill
Stop drinking the leftie liberal Manischewitz m8. Take a break from the main str
eam media and try to understand facts
however dystopian they may seem. BTW, Trump is really no different from any othe
r politician. See 'democracy' above.?
(drav1dan)
Jos Alejandro Ramrez:
>Resentment is hate towards life...
This is the usual philosophical nonsense. Things in our world have a cause. Harm
ful things have their causes. By removing
such causes the world becomes better. If we had gone by your philosophy we will
still be living in caves.
> moral development is a jewish invention
That is the biggest pile of BS ever uttered. Judaism may be the first culture th
at collected together thoughts on moral
development into a book, but moral development has existed in all cultures even
those that had no contact with Judaism or
even pre-dated it. There would be no human communities without a sense of morali
ty. It is not something unique to Jews.
> Besides, the idea of a power in the shades is ridiculous, a fantasy of the imp
otent.
Pie in the sky nonsense. There are people in the world who have power and exerci
se in a way it benefits them while
harming the overwhelming majority. Let us talk concrete facts. It is foolish if
put your head so high into the clouds
that your feet no longer touch the ground.?
??? ?? ??????
drav1dan
There is no point in choosing between politicians who are all working for the sa
me entity.
I agree democracy is shit, but not for the reason you say. It's more that people
are gullible than every single
politician being corrupt. Only the corrupt ones get elected because they know ho
w. Perhaps a technicality. Anyway, why
don't you just vote and advocate for a Nazi that hates jews? Shouldn't that solv
e it?
The ability to develop vaccines is not unique to Jews
No, it's not - and I didn't claim it was. There is, however, a disproportionate
amount of progress and invention from
Jewish scientists considering their small population. 22% of nobel prize winners
are jewish, yet they account for less
than 0.2% of the world population. Jews, unlike other religions, do have a bette
r relationship with science, work ethic,
and this is coupled with higher IQ (at least for Ashkenazi, which accounts for m
ost) explains some of it. A vast amount
of lives have been saved because of this. Take a look at the names on this list:
https://scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=258&Itemi
d=232 . The numbers doesn't have to be
accurate, but there's no disputing that people like Fritz Haber and Karl Landste
iner have saved an incredible amount of
lives with their inventions and discoveries.
ability to parasitize other peoples is indeed unique to Jews
Interesting claim. Looking forward to seeing your scientific empirical basis for
this. Was this, by chance, peer-reviewed
in the Journal of Kek? I'm guessing there is 0% parasitic behavior in Asia, cons
idering that there's almost no Jews,
right? As for communism, how come Stalin did the things he did? Was he a Jew, to
o?
Read history. Read the old testament
I'm impressed you didn't just ask me to "google it" like every other conspiracy
theorist, although this is just as lazy.
No, I won't "read history" or the steaming pile of shit that is the old testamen
t just to look for ways to build your
argument. This is your job
Just look into the US Federal Reserve and major financial institutions all over
the world
As I said, this is not an argument. You have to do this job yourself. I know the
re are Jews in the federal reserve.
Even after that entire post your comment still just boils down to statements wit
hout anything backing them up (other than
asking me to back them up, based on your pointers...). You are grossly overestim
ating the influence of Jews and you are
wrong in thinking there's any kind of coordination or Zionistic agenda here. The
re is no Jewish Conspiracy just because
Jews have been over-represented at business (for good historical reasons). Simp
ly correlating bad people with their
ethnicity does not mean that the ethnicity itself is a motivator for these actio
ns. The behavior and people you've shown
are paralleled all over the world.
I think the best response here is one made by yourself;
"That is the biggest pile of BS ever uttered. Judaism may be the first culture t
hat collected together thoughts on moral
development into a book, but moral development has existed in all cultures even
those that had no contact with Judaism or
even pre-dated it. There would be no human communities without a sense of morali
ty. It is not something unique to Jews."
Why don't you apply this logic to the "ability to be parasitic is unique to jews
"-claim??
(drav1dan)
??? ?? ??????
I can understand some of your vitriol as you are obviously Jewish (from your pro
file name).
> vote and advocate for a Nazi
I want nothing to do with Nazis. I certainly would not stand for the so called "
solution" that they may have arrived at
in the past. However I am open to exploring all reasonable theories that explain
the world even if they are considered
taboos with made up labels like "anti-semitism" or "islamophobia". And their the
ory does explain a lot of the seemingly
inexplicable things.
> 22% of nobel prize winners ... 0.2% of the world population.
You keep repeating the same argument. Nobody objects to any group getting a lot
of Nobel Prizes. It is the control of
world financial systems and through that, the control of world governments by on
e group that people resent.
> lives with their inventions and discoveries.
Again, that cannot be parlayed into an excuse for the disproportionate control o
ver world financial systems and
governments.
> Looking forward to seeing your scientific empirical basis for this
It is silly to expect one individual to dig up conclusive evidence for this. The
people who are smart enough to get 22%
of Nobel Prizes obviously will also be smart enough to cover up such evidence. S
o we are looking at "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standards.
> 0% parasitic behavior in Asia, considering ... no Jews
There is no one ethnic group in Asia that is spread worldwide (or even Asia wide
), holds a high degree of cohesion and
loyalty to their distributed group and also exercises immense influence and cont
rol over many governments and financial
systems. Not even the Chinese diaspora. I am not claiming they have greater mora
ls but they are just not in a position to
parasitize because of this.
> look for ways to build your argument. This is your job
It is not my job as I don't need you to be convinced; I gain nothing if I convin
ce you and it is futile anyway as you
are a Jew, so won't accept anything I say.
> You are grossly overestimating the influence of Jews
It is not that average Jew who has influence over nations. It is the Jewish elit
e, the Janet Yellens, the Christine
Lagardes, Lloys Blankfeins, Jared Kushners, Sumner Redstones, Rothschilds etc. T
he average Jew will naturally enjoy an
advantage in a system run by the Jewish elite, but nobody is bothered too much b
y that.?
(Jos Alejandro Ramrez)
drav1dan
1. You think progress is something the masses achieve by getting rid of their ex
ploitators (or evil). There's no evidence
of that. All the evidence suggests that progress is not achieved by avoiding har
mful things but by a desire of
appropiation and grow, and that requires always exploitation of the other in any
organism. Of course, I think the french
and the american revolution were hardly a progress, in many aspects backwards mo
vements.
2. Jewish were the first people that invented the moral interpretation, that mea
ns the notion that there is a moral order
in the universe in which bad things are punished and good things rewarded. All t
he good in ancient cultures included the
capacity of doing evil, that was very important (Zeus, for example, wasn't a mor
al god), but in the jewish case moral
developed to be an absolute good.
3. All power wants only his own grow, you can't find in history a benevolent pow
er. There's no moral progress in nature
or mankind. The only important thing is the growing in power, but many things th
at may seem a grow to the masses are in
fact the opposite, because they weakens the high goals and the flowering of a su
perior type of man (the Renaissance ideal
of man was superior to the specialized one of today).?
4. I admire the jews, just think that the moral interpretation is an error.?
??? ?? ??????H
I'm not Jewish. Not even close (I'm from Northern Europe). I use this name and p
rofile picture to trigger and troll, as
I've noticed there's a lot of antisemitism lurking around here. Usually I would
keep up the game, but you've been more
mannered and well-spoken than the rest, and, most importantly, you've triggered
my curiosity. I do, however, don't mind
Jews. I'm impressed with what they have achieved as a people and think the animo
sity against them is unfounded.
The point of emphasizing their scientific achievement is to show that they've be
en, without a doubt, a net positive
effect for society.
Again, that cannot be parlayed into an excuse for the disproportionate control o
ver world financial systems and
governments.
This, again, implies they 1) they will use it destructively 2) they will coordin
ate this. I don't see any evidence for
either
It is silly to expect one individual to dig up conclusive evidence for this. The
people who are smart enough to get 22%
of Nobel Prizes obviously will also be smart enough to cover up such evidence. S
o we are looking at "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standards.
Thus you've set up your case such that it almost can't fail in terms of evidence
. The claim is very controversial and
unlikely (that jews have any kind of genetic preference for this trait)
"It is not my job as I don't need you to be convinced; I gain nothing if I convi
nce you and it is futile anyway as you
are a Jew, so won't accept anything I say.
Well you kind of imply you've taken this job upon yourself as you've written the
se comments.
It is the Jewish elite, the Janet Yellens, the Christine Lagardes, Lloys Blankfe
ins, Jared Kushners, Sumner Redstones,
Rothschilds etc. The average Jew will naturally enjoy an advantage in a system r
un by the Jewish elite, but nobody is
bothered too much by that.
The influence of Rothschilds have been greatly exaggerated. I don't see how this
bias (I can definitely accept there can
be ethnic bias for most groups) will result in anything destructive. Even if the
y would prefer to work with other,
wealthy, Jews does not mean this comes at all costs or has negative consequences
(at the scale you're implying).
Politics usually come before ethnicity, even for Jews. Even wealthy and powerful
Jews have enemies between themselves.
As you could see from this election, having huge financial backing from rich and
powerful Jewish invidiuals (e.g. Soros)
does not in any way cement your victory. Neither are Christine Lagarde, Sumner R
edstone or Jared Kushner politically
aligned. You'd think your theory would expect us to see them working together. I
do not see any evidence of collusion,
and most importantly, I don't see any how they would achieve anything by themsel
ves (despite being in powerful positions)
or have a destructive agenda?
(Karel de Kale)
Mr.Zion: Was not Fritz Haber the inventor of the gas used in WWI, which killed a
mass of soldiers and inventor of the
Zyklon-B used in WWII?
??? ?? ??????
Zyklon-B was invented by Walter Heerdt (Haber's institute invented Zyklon A, dur
ing WW1). He did, however, defend
chemical warfare and Germans did, as you know, use chemical warfare in WW1.
unsure on whether Zyklon B is an actual derivative of Zyklon A or if the name is
just similar to hide the intent of the
gas. It definitely wouldn't have existed without him and he shares responsibilit
y for that.?
drav1dan
Jos Alejandro Ramrez:
> Jewish were the first .... bad things are punished and good things rewarded
All religions including polytheistic ones had a notion of divine beings who main
tained justice, even ones that pre-dated
Judaism. So you are completely wrong there. Read about ancient Egyptian and Baby
lonian, Sumerian etc. religions.
>...progress ... achieve by getting rid of ...exploitators...but by ... appropia
tion and grow...requires always
exploitation of the other in any organism
Your ideas are inconsistent. If an organism is exploited, it will try to free it
self or even destroy its exploiter. That
is natural. It is laughable to say that exploiting is natural and good but fight
ing exploiters is unnatural and bad.
> I think the french and the american revolution were hardly a progress, in many
aspects backwards movements.
Totally wrong! French revolution was badly managed and ended up right where it s
tarted - in a benevolent dictatorship
then monarchy. But it gave the world a lot of new ideas. So it was a small step
forward. American revolution was a major
step forward.
> the only important thing is the growing in power
That is a very short sighted and unrealistic world view. Anyway you grow in powe
r by defeating those who exploit you and
fellow men.?
??? ?? ??????:
I ... don't mind Jews...impressed with what they have achieved ... animosity aga
inst them is unfounded
You are just like I was a until some time back. Search in YouTube for a speaker
called Jared Taylor. He is even more
mild mannered than I am and speaks more nicely than I can. And he doesn't mentio
n Jews. I think it will be a really good
start in unraveling the tangled web that leads to the "beyond a reasonable doubt
" understanding. No, this is not some
lunatic omg-the-British-queen-is-a-shape-shifting-reptilian-alien nonsense.
Politics usually come before ethnicity, even for Jews.
I disagree. For the Jewish elite politics is just a way to advance their shared
ethnic goals. That is why they have a
controlling presence in both parties, conservative and liberal and push both par
ties more and more to the left.
Neither are ... Lagarde, . ... Redstone or ... Kushner politically aligned
So much the better for them. They can maintain a controlling influence in all in
stitutions, even ones with different
roles or ideologies yet can fool people into thinking like you do. I hope you ar
e not naive enough to think that people
act by their publicly stated beliefs, ideologies, intentions etc. These are all
just facades, regardless of Jews or
Gentiles.
I do not see any evidence of collusion
I think you may be a little out of touch. Trump has back pedalled on a lot of hi
s promises. He is being allowed to
deport illegal immigrants in the US for the moment, very likely because the elit
es want to pressure the Mexican
government to comply with some demands they have. Once they comply even the depo
rtations will end. We will know in about
a year.
or have a destructive agenda
Then explain why western countries are pressured to throw open all borders and l
et refugees flood in? Why the suppression
of all nationalism and the propaganda against it? Why push political correctness
, "alternative lifestyles", six million
new genders besides from male & female on societies and force the majority popul
ation to bend over backwards to pander
to these people? Why the suppression and even punishment of any speech that does
not comply with political correctness?
Before you answer you may want to listen to at least Jared Taylor. It is better
to also listen to a few other speakers
who present ideas outside the box of superficial but approved, Kosher ideas that
are relentlessly drummed into us.?
(Jos Alejandro Ramrez)
drav1dan
I'm gonna quote wikipedia again, in the entry for "History of ethics" (at least
popularization make some things easier):
"The epic poems that stand at the beginning of many world literatures, such as t
he Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh,
Homer's Iliad and the Icelandic Eddas, portray a set of values that suit the str
ong leader of a small tribe. Valour and
success are the principal qualities of a hero, and are generally not constrained
 by moral considerations. Revenge and
vendetta are appropriate activities for heroes. The gods that appear in such epi
cs are not defenders of moral values but
are capricious forces of nature, and are to be feared and propitiated.[2] More s
trictly ethical claims are found
occasionally in the literature of ancient civilizations that is aimed at lower c
lasses of society. The Sumerian Farmer's
Almanac and the Egyptian Instruction of Amenhotep both advise farmers to leave s
ome grain for poor gleaners, and promise
favours from the gods for doing so.[3] A number of ancient religions and ethical
thinkers also put forward some version
of the golden rule, at least in its negative version: do not do to others what y
ou do not want done to yourself.[4]"...
This last point can validate your argument, but I think in its origins it was on
ly valid between equals, individuals of
the same caste (however, I think that "democratization" is a normal process of e
nthropy in any society).
Of course resistance to exploitation is natural, and I think that it helps to ac
hieve "harmony" and "order", but it's
only a secondary force, a reaction, with only that you have not the right to rul
e, imagine if domesticated animals rebel
to humans.
I'm not gonna argue about the french and american revolutions, it's too long. I
will only say that I find american
culture very vulgar, specially with its treatment of arts as mere entertainment
(I know that there are isolated examples
of refinement, but in overall its effect over the world has been deplorable, and
technological advance is little
compensation).?
1. MacIntyre, Alistair (1998). A Short History of Ethics: A History of Moral Phi
losophy from the Homeric Age to the 20th Century. Routledge.
2. T. Cahill, The Gifts of the Jews (New York, 1998), ch. 1; A. W. H. Adkins, Me
rit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values (Oxford, 1960).
3. S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians (Chicago, 1963), 108.
4. J. Wattles, The Golden Rule (New York, 1996), ch. 1.
1. O'Sullivan, Arthur; Steven M. Sheffrin (2003). Economics: Principles in Actio
n. Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 243. ISBN 0-13-063085-3.
2. David Graeber (2011). Debt: the first 5,000 years. New York: Melville House.
pp. 21 41.
3. Caroline Humphrey (1985). "Barter and Economic Disintegration". Man. 20 (1):
49. doi:10.2307/2802221.
4. Humphrey, Carolyn and Stephen Hugh-Jones (ed.). Barter, Exchange and Value: A
n Anthropological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 3.
5. Graeber, David (2001). Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False C
oin of our Dreams. New York: Palgrave. p. 154.
6. Robert E. Wright and Vincenzo Quadrini. Money and Banking.Chapter 3, Section
1: Of Love, Money, and Transactional Efficiency Accessed June 29, 2012
7. Plattner, Stuart (1989). Plattner, Stuart, ed. Economic Anthropology. Stanfor
d, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 179.
8. M. Bloch, J. Parry (1989). Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge: Cam
bridge University Press. p. 10.
9. Polanyi, Karl (1957). Polanyi, Karl; et al., eds. Trade and Market in Early E
mpires. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. p. 14.
10. Harrison, John (1969). Quest for the New Moral World: Robert Owen and the Ow
enites in Britain and America. New York: Charles Scibners Sons. p. 72.
drav1dan
Jos Alejandro Ramrez:
in its origins it was only valid between equals, individuals of the same caste
You cannot infer the limit of its validity. Unless they state that the principle
is valid only among equals we can
consider it as a universal statement.
* imagine if domesticated animals rebel to humans*
Just because animals don't rebel does not mean humans should not rebel against e
xploiters. Just because animals poop
where they sleep doesn't mean we should poop in our bedrooms :)
american culture very vulgar, ... arts as mere entertaiment (... effect over the
world ... deplorable, and technological
advance is little compensation)
American culture is much less pretentious and much more oriented towards practic
al ideas compared to most other cultures.
So American culture appears vulgar to people from cultures that are pretentious,
affected and a bit snobbish.?
??? ?? ??????
Then explain why western countries are pressured to throw open all borders and l
et refugees flood in? [...] suppression
of all nationalism and the propaganda against it?
Because most western countries have progressive/liberal governments and inhabita
nts. We barely have any Jews where I live
and this is the mentality because people are liberal. This has absolutely nothin
g to do with Jews. Everything else
(genders, diversity, immigrants, alternative lifestyles, political correctness)
you describe is part of modern
liberalism and is motivated by that. Nationalism conflicts with this view. Many
people are liberals because they
consider it virtous.
* very likely because the elites want to pressure the Mexican government to comp
ly with some demands they have.*
This is only very likely, to you, because you have the viewpoints you do and ass
ign that meaning to them. Illegals have
been deported during all presidents.
What I keep seeing is that everything is attributed to the "Jewish elite" withou
t any concrete evidence tying them to it.
You could easily make the same cognitive distortions with any other powerful gro
up if you wanted.
If there is anything you want me to read/watch from Jared Taylor please show to
something specific. Seems like he has a
lot of stuff. I'll check it out when you do.?
(Jos Alejandro Ramrez)
drav1dan
Wow! Universal statement? Not even only between countrymen? Then the religious la
w should have prohibited slavery and
war in ancient cultures... I don't think so... It's more logical to suppose a gr
adual expansion of the law, and since all
ancient cultures were divided by castes, we have to suppose that the rule doesn'
t affect this inequality system and found
it just.
So a world without human exploitation must be a better world (that sounds to me
like marxism), good luck!
Yeah, classical cultures were more pretentious, affected and snobbish because th
ey were not oriented to practical ideas
(and not idolized celebrities like the Kardashians). That sounds to me very pret
entious.?
This was a good discussion, I think by now we are all a little bored. Just to cl
arify my general point of view: I don't
want to return to classical cultures, that's impossible and pointless (although
I think they were great cultures and
american culture hardly fits in the same category). On the contrary with classic
al world, I don't see much space for the
power of the state in today's world, and I think you can't separate nationalism
and power of the state. I think
americans are naive in that. I believe morality is only a means in the growing o
f a power organization and not an
absolute ideal.?
(drav1dan)
??? ?? ??????
we barely have any Jews where I live
That is naive. This is not the 19th century. The financial systems of most weste
rn countries are closely interlinked.
Control over that is sufficient, there is no need for a large local presence.
is part of modern liberalism
Who is at the forefront of imposing liberalism on western countries? The media a
nd the education system. Who controls
these? The Jews.
Illegals have been deported during all presidents.
You live in a fantasy world. The deportation policy is being enforced much more
stringently now than ever before. Just
for the time being, of course, it will not last.
same ... with any other powerful group
No other group wields as much power worldwide as the Jews.
without any concrete evidence
There is enough circumstantial evidence of Jewish guilt but you are either a Jew
yourself or you have bought into the
propaganda and ridiculously keep demanding something like a certified official c
onfession from each and every Jew in the
world. That is just ludicrous.
he has a lot of stuff. I'll check it out when you do
I have already seen most of his videos. Evidence of how the world is run does no
t get submitted to your high and august
presence for your kind perusal and your learned and wise pronouncements on the v
alidity of it. You are not a judge in a
high court and I am not a prosecutor. It is something each person needs to pursu
e for himself if he no longer wishes to
live with his head buried in the dirt of propaganda and lies. However, assuming
you are not a Jew, you seem to enjoy
living in utter ignorance constantly demanding "concrete evidence" that a world
outside of this dirt exists, which you
cannot see unless you are willing to pull your head at least a little out of the
sand.?