Board 8 > Nationalist politics topic 6: Why we are better

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tom Bombadil posted...

I agree I guess, but I feel like it's an easy trap to be so consumed with "prioritising your own people" that you never get around to the "care about anyone else" part. Based on your posts here and elsewhere, it seems to be a trap you've fallen into, along with a decent chunk of the church.

How is it a "trap"? There's a world of a difference between being able to help one person and choosing to help someone from your own country over a foreigner, and "screw everyone else" as you initially said. Why should I help the foreigner over my compatriot?

Tom Bombadil posted...

I will add more examples of "love your enemies" tho:
-Paul was seeking to eradicate Christianity before God brought him over to become one of the greatest apostles
-That time that Paul could've escaped prison really easily but instead stayed and converted the jailer
-Telling Peter to put away his sword when he tried to cut Jesus out of the arrest, then healing the wound he inflicted on the bad guy

The top two prove Paul's virtue. The third one proves Jesus would not let His path be changed.

"Love your enemies" does not mean "do not resist those who want to destroy you, just lie down and die." It means to try to be a bigger person - and even if you literally love your enemies, that does not mean you must hate yourself and your own. Clearly, if you're a rational person, you won't and should not love your enemies more than you love your family and people.

Tom Bombadil posted...

Maybe, although you're putting words in my mouth. Never called Jesus a pacifist, but there are certainly also examples of Him showing kindness or love or at least mercy to His enemies, and having His followers do the same. More than the one time with the Temple, although it certainly evens out if you look at all the war and stuff in the OT.

Yes, that is certainly true. Christianity is about love and a faith-based, i.e. positive outlook in life. But I don't think the point is to reject any and all conflict, even self-defence.

Tom Bombadil posted...

Only thing I disagree with here kinda sorta is that you reach Heaven by accepting Christ's gift of salvation, not by works. You're gonna falter in the struggle. You're human.

Of course as a mere man, you will sin. But as long as you make effort to stay on the right path through your life, you're getting closer to salvation. Obviously, we can't just say "we will all inevitably sin anyway, so why even try to limit it, lol."

Tom Bombadil posted...

By treating the root problem of separation from Christ. Even if you can somehow reduce degeneracy (I'm assuming your "degeneracy" is interchangable with my "sin") by screaming on social media, you still have a buncha people out there that need salvation, and will still need salvation no matter what particular sin you talk them out of. I'd rather see a "degenerate" who has come to Christ and is trying than somebody who is still unsaved but hey they're doing what we want them to do with their genitals

Yes, I respect your position. To me, salvation of other individuals is not the be-all, end-all, I am more concerned with society and the bigger picture. Therefore, if one conflicts with the other, I might choose the opposite from you. What purpose is there in more Christians in the short term if, in the long term, society itself crumbles, e.g. if Islam eventually takes over Western Europe?

In short, the celebration and propagation of sin erodes culture and society, erodes the very humanity of humans, the spark that separates people from everything else. Putting a stop to that is of utmost importance.
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

On top of that, I think it's probably more effective to try to display a good example of Christ to the unbeliever than to tell them all the reasons they suck. I will admit that I am probably not as active evangelically as I should be, but it's my approach to at least try to plant some seeds and nurture relationships that could bear fruit later. There's a pretty big (and more frequently accurate than I'd like) stereotype of (American) Christianity as racist and homophobic and arrogant and generally hateful. If I can present an alternative narrative to the rest of the world, I think they'll be more likely to come around later, and if not, at least I've made the world a bit better. Maybe I'm too soft, but I'd rather err on the side of being too soft than too hard.

Yes, personal example is very important. Why do you care if US Christians are "homophobic," when homosexuality is a sin? They should be, if they follow the teachings. I don't care about "racism," either. Today, that word's lost all meaning - even simply preferring one's own race, without an ounce of hatred for the others, is called "racism." Therefore, since it tries to condemn the most normal and trivial of human thoughts and emotions, it no longer means anything.

It's good that you try to be a positive example - you're that kind of person, too, it fits you. But do not be afraid to take positions that some people will not like, especially in matters of faith. One cannot live a life of virtue without attracting the distaste of some of the other people coming into contact with him. It is inevitable. People are different, and nobody will be liked by everybody else. Especially nobody that likes to think and form his own opinion.

Tom Bombadil posted...

bonus question: What's the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism? My entire exposure to it has been A) you, and B) an old manager telling everybody we were weird because we celebrated Easter on the wrong day, so I don't actually know where you're coming from theologically.

I'll need to look more into Protestantism before I can give you a good answer.
---

I'm guessing your wedding day was the full Church Shebang?
---

So basically, refusing entry to refugees is purely self-defense, because people of another culture merely existing within your state harms your family?
---

Vlado posted...

There's a world of a difference between being able to help one person and choosing to help someone from your own country over a foreigner, and "screw everyone else" as you initially said.

Sure, but the latter is how every post you've made on the subject reads to me and probably most of B8, whether or not that's your intent. Don't adopt, don't intermingle, don't accept immigrants, the muslims all want to kill us and run the world into the ground, anybody who tolerates any of the above is an evil puppy-kicking globalist.

Vlado posted...

It means to try to be a bigger person - and even if you literally love your enemies, that does not mean you must hate yourself and your own. Clearly, if you're a rational person, you won't and should not love your enemies more than you love your family and people.

Sure.

Vlado posted...

Christianity is about love and a faith-based, i.e. positive outlook in life. But I don't think the point is to reject any and all conflict, even self-defence.

Sure.

Vlado posted...

Of course as a mere man, you will sin. But as long as you make effort to stay on the right path through your life, you're getting closer to salvation. Obviously, we can't just say "we will all inevitably sin anyway, so why even try to limit it, lol."

Sure.

Vlado posted...

To me, salvation of other individuals is not the be-all, end-all, I am more concerned with society and the bigger picture. Therefore, if one conflicts with the other, I might choose the opposite from you.

That's where we're gonna get stuck then. Saving people from Hell trumps saving them from a crumbling society, in my mind. I also don't see non-Christianity AS MUCH as a threat to "society" as you do (something Japan something) but that's another debate and not one I'm super interested in having atm.

Vlado posted...

Why do you care if US Christians are "homophobic," when homosexuality is a sin?

man you're gonna make me put on my bad guy hat after all that

You can think that what somebody is doing is wrong without treating them as sub-human or trying to force them to stop. I will admit when pressed that I don't think homosexuality is what God wants from us, but I think there are much more important hills to be dying on than what non-believers are doing in the bedroom. Again, that'll tie back to the part where I care more about somebody's state of salvation than whatever their particular sins are. Gender and sexuality stuff especially I don't see any harm in (I assume you'll disagree with me here) outside of the spiritual realm, so that's not a belief I am interested in forcing on outsiders, compared with stuff like "rape is bad". It's not even really something I'm gonna get too worked up about within the church, as again I'd rather err on the side of being too soft in the pursuit of the greater good than get too wrapped up in negativity. My cousin's lesbian. I'm lazy. Plenty of Christians are adulterous, or dishonest, or hateful, or not honoring the Sabbath, or murderers, or jaywalkers. I am not somehow magically better than any of them just because I have issues the church arbitrarily cares less about. If Jesus wasn't above associating with and ministering to sinners, we probably shouldn't be either.

I think the church in general tends to get so wrapped up in fighting particular issues that they forget to show love and hope and Christ to the outside world. Sexuality and gender is the big one right now. I'd take loving the sinner over hating the sin even if I was more fired up about the party line on that point
---

Vlado posted...

To me, salvation of other individuals is not the be-all, end-all, I am more concerned with society and the bigger picture.

Tom Bombadil posted...

Saving people from Hell trumps saving them from a crumbling society, in my mind.

As an outsider to your faith, it seems odd to me that a Christian would consider life on Earth to be the bigger picture.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

it seems odd to me that a Christian would consider life on Earth to be the bigger picture.

stop making my points better than I do!!
---

oh another bonus question: I think at some point you drew a distinction between people who are misguided and people who are actively trying to hurt you. Where do you draw that line? It's not a distinction that I really draw- I am pretty sure most people are doing what they think is right to some extent by some metric. If there's some Muslim out there trying to kill me, it's probably because he thinks that's what God wants and it's a good and proper thing to do...hence he'd fit both categories. I'd argue that every human fits the "misguided" category, which does probably qualify me as a globalist I guess
---

I think this line is very telling in that regard

Vlado posted...

What purpose is there in more Christians in the short term if, in the long term, society itself crumbles, e.g. if Islam eventually takes over Western Europe?

Muslims are not currently trying to conquer Europe in any sort of military assault, so I can only conclude that he views an influx of Muslims into the general populace to be a takeover attempt.

And if he frames it that way, then denying them is self-defense.

The problem IMO is seeing them as a threat inherently because of their religion.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Muslims are not currently trying to conquer Europe in any sort of military assault, so I can only conclude that he views an influx of Muslims into the general populace to be a takeover attempt.

this IS a narrative I've heard once in a while, usually followed by "we gotta out-breed 'em!"
---

Which of course totally ignores the fact that in a free society, children born to parents of any faith are not required to follow that faith, and often dont.

Making religion and ethnicity interchangeable seems awful dangerous
---

i feel like this is a subject often broached in fiction- how 'evil' should one become in order to prevent a perceived 'bigger evil'?

like.... how many people should one be willing to torture in order to prevent another person from potentially torturing? how many core tenants of your religion are you willing to turn your back on in order to preserve said religion? i put a lot of caveats in here because, in the end, being shitty never actually cures the shittiness.

it just moves it around the plate, like the potatoes and green beans a child doesn't want to eat
---

(And of course it seems to me like those same outbreeding people tend to vote against any social safety nets that provide further support to families with children in need, but thats another issue.)
---

banananor posted...

i feel like this is a subject often broached in fiction- how 'evil' should one become in order to prevent a perceived 'bigger evil'?

like.... how many people should one be willing to torture in order to prevent another person from potentially torturing? how many core tenants of your religion are you willing to turn your back on in order to preserve said religion? i put a lot of caveats in here because, in the end, being shitty never actually cures the shittiness.

it just moves it around the plate, like the potatoes and green beans a child doesn't want to eat

I could refer you to some thought experiments involving trolleys <_<

EDIT: Also this is the entire narrative of Daredevil Season 2
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I think this line is very telling in that regard

Vlado posted...

What purpose is there in more Christians in the short term if, in the long term, society itself crumbles, e.g. if Islam eventually takes over Western Europe?

Muslims are not currently trying to conquer Europe in any sort of military assault, so I can only conclude that he views an influx of Muslims into the general populace to be a takeover attempt.

And if he frames it that way, then denying them is self-defense.

The problem IMO is seeing them as a threat inherently because of their religion.

vlado is totally one of those diversity = white genocide guys
---

Fun Fact: Cultures have no inherent right to persist

If a culture is dying out in a natural, nonviolent way, its important to preserve the memory and legacy of it, but its not important to treat it like an endangered species that needs to repopulate
---

banananor posted...

i feel like this is a subject often broached in fiction- how 'evil' should one become in order to prevent a perceived 'bigger evil'?

like.... how many people should one be willing to torture in order to prevent another person from potentially torturing? how many core tenants of your religion are you willing to turn your back on in order to preserve said religion? i put a lot of caveats in here because, in the end, being shitty never actually cures the shittiness.

it just moves it around the plate, like the potatoes and green beans a child doesn't want to eat

The answer's generally 'none'. A moral man does not go out of his way to be shitty. Jack Bauer is not a good man, for example, because torturing someone to make em talk is never acceptable. If you gotta kill someone in self-defense, that's not immoral, but it's still sad and regrettable cause it means you couldn't calm them down without fighting and so on.

And on a different note...

32If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

This might be the single biggest dunk I've ever seen and it's all using 'don't hate those who hate you' moral lessons. Charles Barkley would be proud.
---

Jesus was known for his dunking ability
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Jesus was known for his dunking ability

Much more interesting than anything Vlado could possibly say, have this timeless classic:

http://www.complex.com/sports/2015/09/could-jesus-ball
---

Vlado: my culture needs to defend itself from all other cultures because all other cultures seek to destroy my culture. My culture, on the other hand, is the one exception to the rule, as we don't seek to destroy other cultures.

Okay
---

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+5%3A8&version=KJV
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

Saving people from Hell trumps saving them from a crumbling society, in my mind.

Saving the crumbling society, i.e. mankind's future, takes priority for me.

Tom Bombadil posted...

You can think that what somebody is doing is wrong without treating them as sub-human or trying to force them to stop.

That's not my intention. They should be encouraged back onto God's path, sure, but not forced. That said, it's normal to treat virtuous people better than non-virtuous people. Respect is earned, etc.

Tom Bombadil posted...

Gender and sexuality stuff especially I don't see any harm in (I assume you'll disagree with me here)

Yes, I will. Today, all the propaganda about those contributes greatly to societal decay. That said, the people themselves are hardly the main culprits. Others (globalists) use them for their purposes (societal decay).

Jakyl25 posted...

As an outsider to your faith, it seems odd to me that a Christian would consider life on Earth to be the bigger picture.

Not merely "life on Earth." I am not talking about today, nor about myself. I am talking about the future of mankind, about the grandchildren of my grandchildren's grandchildren and beyond.

If Christians are wiped out, who will teach people about God and about life worth living?

Tom Bombadil posted...

oh another bonus question: I think at some point you drew a distinction between people who are misguided and people who are actively trying to hurt you. Where do you draw that line? It's not a distinction that I really draw- I am pretty sure most people are doing what they think is right to some extent by some metric. If there's some Muslim out there trying to kill me, it's probably because he thinks that's what God wants and it's a good and proper thing to do...hence he'd fit both categories. I'd argue that every human fits the "misguided" category, which does probably qualify me as a globalist I guess

Most importantly, Muslims' God is not our God. This is important to understand and keep in mind. Even if Christ is a positive figure in their religion, they deny Christ as God's son, which means they deny our God. (As we know, God is Christ is the Holy Ghost.)

Muslims want to conquer Europe and that much is in plain sight. Their religion teaches them to conquer. Understand me well, I do not say this because I hate them. I understand and respect their desire. But we will fight (figuratively, and physically, if it comes to that), and we will not go down. At most they'll take (parts of) Western Europe because some Western European nations have become very weak.

This is mostly a war for the minds of Europeans. If Christian values can be reawakened in them, maybe even Western Europe will have a future... If not, it's up to us Central and Eastern Europeans to get them out of the mess.

But I digress. To address your question, I do not consider any individual my enemy unless their actions compel me to. I do consider certain ideologies as dangerous to my country, Christianity and European civilisation. Are the people fighting for those ideologies my enemies? Hm. Many of them are simply misguided, and we need to try to show them the light (as futile as it often seems). Only those who do it out of malice towards us can be called "enemies."
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Muslims are not currently trying to conquer Europe in any sort of military assault, so I can only conclude that he views an influx of Muslims into the general populace to be a takeover attempt.

And if he frames it that way, then denying them is self-defense.

The problem IMO is seeing them as a threat inherently because of their religion.

Not quite the case. It's not their religion alone. It's their culture as a whole. It's the fact that they're outsiders and they can never be us. An individual or a family could possibly assimilate. Large groups will not. Again, this is not out of hatred, it's not even really criticism. It's who they are, and they want to remain who they are. That is respectable, we want the same thing.

Therefore, the best, most peaceful solution is that we each keep to our own countries.

Tom Bombadil posted...

this IS a narrative I've heard once in a while, usually followed by "we gotta out-breed 'em!"

Is more children a bad thing to wish for?

banananor posted...

i feel like this is a subject often broached in fiction- how 'evil' should one become in order to prevent a perceived 'bigger evil'?

like.... how many people should one be willing to torture in order to prevent another person from potentially torturing? how many core tenants of your religion are you willing to turn your back on in order to preserve said religion? i put a lot of caveats in here because, in the end, being shitty never actually cures the shittiness.

it just moves it around the plate, like the potatoes and green beans a child doesn't want to eat

Nationalism is an ideology of peace. :)

Jakyl25 posted...

Fun Fact: Cultures have no inherent right to persist

If a culture is dying out in a natural, nonviolent way, its important to preserve the memory and legacy of it, but its not important to treat it like an endangered species that needs to repopulate

You don't understand what "violence" means.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

- UN, before it became a tool of globalists (http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html)

Note the bold. How is propaganda of sexual deviance, adultery, abortion, women aggressively pushed towards careers over family anything else but "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." I am positive that this propaganda is also "deliberate" and "calculated." You can argue that it's aimed at everyone, not just a particular group. So? If a pesticide drug also kills some non-dangerous bugs as a side effect, is it not pesticide then? The propaganda is primarily focused on European/Western countries, and statistics show quite clearly that it's mostly European people (and a few others like the Japanese) who suffer from this.
---

Musk starts an interesting project about measuring the integrity of journalists... SJWs and other "liberals" jump on him for some reason. Think they're afraid it'll make their already failing media lose even more credibility? :)
https://www.rt.com/usa/427596-musk-pravda-news-check/

Italy have picked their PM, btw. Giuseppe Conte. Let's see what the anti-EU coalition can achieve.
https://www.rt.com/news/427573-italy-pm-euroskeptic-coalition/
---

Vlado posted...

How is propaganda of sexual deviance, adultery, abortion, women aggressively pushed towards careers over family anything else but "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." I am positive that this propaganda is also "deliberate" and "calculated."

OMG you actually are trying to support the idea of white genocide!!! LMAO

Its not imposing measures because no one is forcing anyone to do it. We as progressives just want the playing field to be level so that people can choose the life they want instead of being forced into gender roles.

Also I have no idea how you equate sexual deviance and adultery with an attempt to lower birth rates. Seems to me like that would result in MORE pregnancies if anything.
---

Vlado posted...

Musk starts an interesting project about measuring the integrity of journalists... SJWs and other "liberals" jump on him for some reason. Think they're afraid it'll make their already failing media lose even more credibility? :)
https://www.rt.com/usa/427596-musk-pravda-news-check/

Someone should tell him DeepFreeze already exists
---

Thanks for the articles. Haven't finished the third one yet but it looks like we are moooostly on the same page theologically, just you're between us and the Catholics on the works/grace spectrum. I see works more as a symptom and a natural consequence of your relationship with Christ, not your primary objective. I would probably call salvation a "one-time event" too I guess, but it's also a state of being afterwards, from which it naturally flows that you will strive for good works.

Vlado posted...

That said, it's normal to treat virtuous people better than non-virtuous people. Respect is earned, etc.

I guess, but I'm not sure it's right. I'm also not sure where to put the line between "virtuous" and "non-virtuous." All have sinned, none is righteous, and all that good Romans Road stuff.

Vlado posted...

Others (globalists) use them for their purposes (societal decay).

What do you propose is the globalists' motivation for trying to bring about decay? Is this the motive at every level, or has the leadership of this movement duped everybody?

Vlado posted...

If Christians are wiped out, who will teach people about God and about life worth living?

A) Christianity has been in worse circumstances (say, most of the Bible) than even the most pessimistic view of the modern day, and survived just fine.
B) I don't think God will allow the faith to be wiped out, nor do I think Him incapable of reviving it if it is.

Vlado posted...

Most importantly, Muslims' God is not our God. [snip]

Muslims want to conquer Europe and that much is in plain sight. [snip]

Sure on the first point. Not sold on the second. There obviously are some out there who have it out for us, but I also have Muslim friends I'm pretty sure aren't plotting to kill me and stuff my wife in a burqa. I don't know Islam well enough to know which side is the outlier, but I'm neither a fan of the far right narrative that there's a massive movement to burn Europe, nor the far left that they are all perfect angels who can do no wrong. I suspect it winds up about the same as Christianity- most are decent folks and there are some radical nutjobs. I read the Qur'an to try to formulate my own opinion, and came away with much the same impression I would've gotten from reading the Bible as an outsider- there's stuff about respecting Christianity and Judaism, and stuff about putting enemies to the sword, and I could see either being used to push a narrative. We've got that too.

Vlado posted...

Therefore, the best, most peaceful solution is that we each keep to our own countries.

Okay but what happens when their own country is a massive dumpster fire for one reason or another? Does this principle trump that of charity and compassion?

Vlado posted...

Is more children a bad thing to wish for?

Nah

Jakyl25 posted...

Also I have no idea how you equate sexual deviance and adultery with an attempt to lower birth rates. Seems to me like that would result in MORE pregnancies if anything.

to be fair abortion and women in the work force probably makes that a net loss of birth rate still
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

to be fair abortion and women in the work force probably makes that a net loss of birth rate still

Yeah I get that. I was just singling out the illogical ones.
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

Not sold on the second. There obviously are some out there who have it out for us, but I also have Muslim friends I'm pretty sure aren't plotting to kill me and stuff my wife in a burqa. I don't know Islam well enough to know which side is the outlier, but I'm neither a fan of the far right narrative that there's a massive movement to burn Europe, nor the far left that they are all perfect angels who can do no wrong.

As someone on the far left, I dont think anyone is claiming that. We just want them not to be prejudged as dangerous because of their religion.

And even the Islamist terrorist groups arent trying to conquer us. They want to conquer their region, and our militaries stand in the way, so they attack us to incite bigotry towards Muslims. They then in turn use that as recruitment tools to fight us in the Middle East.
---

Also I heavily dislike the idea that respect is earned. I try to live by a philosophy that respect is given to everyone, but it can be lost.
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

I guess, but I'm not sure it's right. I'm also not sure where to put the line between "virtuous" and "non-virtuous." All have sinned, none is righteous, and all that good Romans Road stuff.

I think it's right. If you do good, it's just that you're rewarded with good treatment from others, too.

Tom Bombadil posted...

What do you propose is the globalists' motivation for trying to bring about decay? Is this the motive at every level, or has the leadership of this movement duped everybody?

For one, it's not a particularly homogenous movement with clear leaders. You've got big banks and corporations with origins around the world (most happen to be American, but not all), striving towards diminishing humanity so that they can solidify and expand their control even further. In essence, it is unlimited lust for power. The more degenerate people become, the less they think for themselves, the easier it is to control and manipulate them. The less intelligent people breed, the fewer people difficult to control there will be in the future. Etc., etc., etc.

Eventually, we need to destroy the banking system in order to achieve freedom for mankind. But there are numerous steps on the way there. Again, the battle is mostly in people's minds, and more and more people are waking up, which is a good sign.

Tom Bombadil posted...

Sure on the first point. Not sold on the second. There obviously are some out there who have it out for us, but I also have Muslim friends I'm pretty sure aren't plotting to kill me and stuff my wife in a burqa. I don't know Islam well enough to know which side is the outlier, but I'm neither a fan of the far right narrative that there's a massive movement to burn Europe, nor the far left that they are all perfect angels who can do no wrong. I suspect it winds up about the same as Christianity- most are decent folks and there are some radical nutjobs. I read the Qur'an to try to formulate my own opinion, and came away with much the same impression I would've gotten from reading the Bible as an outsider- there's stuff about respecting Christianity and Judaism, and stuff about putting enemies to the sword, and I could see either being used to push a narrative. We've got that too.

Certainly, most people are not radicals. As for silent support, however... VERY different picture from Christians.

https://myibd.investors.com/image/WEBmusl0213_1K.jpg.cms

Tom Bombadil posted...

Okay but what happens when their own country is a massive dumpster fire for one reason or another? Does this principle trump that of charity and compassion?

They have a duty to fight for their country. And even if they choose to flee, instead, they should head to a safe Muslim country. Ideally, Western countries should stay out of Middle Eastern affairs and not contribute to these situations in the first place. That would be the best possible help we could give these people.

Tom Bombadil posted...

to be fair abortion and women in the work force probably makes that a net loss of birth rate still

Sexual deviance and adultery erode morality, indirectly reducing birth rates, too. At the very least, when you fuck around, less potential partners will want you for a husband/wife to raise children with. I know I would stay very far away from such a woman.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

As someone on the far left, I dont think anyone is claiming that. We just want them not to be prejudged as dangerous because of their religion.

And even the Islamist terrorist groups arent trying to conquer us. They want to conquer their region, and our militaries stand in the way, so they attack us to incite bigotry towards Muslims. They then in turn use that as recruitment tools to fight us in the Middle East.

Terror's goal is exactly as the name suggests - to sow terror in our hearts and gnaw at our will to live. Just a front of the war on European culture.

Jakyl25 posted...

Also I heavily dislike the idea that respect is earned. I try to live by a philosophy that respect is given to everyone, but it can be lost.

That could work in a high-trust society, I suppose. :)

Establishment media shitting their pants over Italy's new government:
https://www.rt.com/news/427528-media-scare-stories-italy/
---

Vlado posted...

I know I would stay very far away from such a woman.

Did you ask your wife how many people she had been with before you married her?
---

You should consider me your enemy vlado. Your ridiculous posts in this topic series have inspired me to aspire to become the emperor of globalism.
---

Vlado posted...

I think it must have been an exciting age of adventure. Of course, I don't like that many natives were killed. But one must keep in mind that "Might makes right" is the only truly valid law in the universe. That said, obviously Europeans didn't handle matters very intelligently, if we look at how those ages have eventually led to the current situation.

Vlado posted...

They're Chinese then. If I went to live in Japan with my wife, I wouldn't magically become Japanese, my children wouldn't be Japanese. We'd be Bulgarians living in Japan.

So then it doesn't matter if they hold Japanese citizenship and birth certificates, possibly never been to Bulgaria, have no citizenship there, and are raised within a Japanese culture - due to their ethnic origin, they would never be Japanese, they would be only Bulgarian. Am I understanding that right?

A follow up question is this: Would you say that white people born in the United States are Europeans living in the United States, or are they Americans?

I'm legitimately curious about this. I can't tell you how many times I've had a person with more European ancestry than me ask me where I'm "really from" (they didn't accept the US, they wanted my ancestry from many generations ago despite that also partially being the US) and I ask them the same thing and they tell me they're just American. They won't accept my questions on if they're British or German or French or whatever. I want to know what you think.

And for what I think: I feel it doesn't really matter. All that matters for being American (or being part of any other country) is whether or not you're a citizen.

Vlado posted...

It's not "limiting yourself," it's thinking of the future, and of your eventual children. Children whose parents are of different ethnicities face psychological issues, lack of sense of belonging. It's not a good thing for a child, nor an adult. The more distant the ethnicities are, the harsher the child's situation. Think of the children. :)

I think the fact that some people say that we can't have races or ethnicities mixing gives them more psychological issues than the simple fact they are mixed race.
---

Zachnorn posted...

So then it doesn't matter if they hold Japanese citizenship and birth certificates, possibly never been to Bulgaria, have no citizenship there, and are raised within a Japanese culture - due to their ethnic origin, they would never be Japanese, they would be only Bulgarian. Am I understanding that right?

Yes. If my grandchildren's children, etc. mixed exclusively with Japanese, eventually they'd be assimilated and Bulgarian genes would be so watered down, they'd essentially become Japanese. But not the first 2-3 generations.

Zachnorn posted...

A follow up question is this: Would you say that white people born in the United States are Europeans living in the United States, or are they Americans?

Both. US is a different case from Japan in that it was colonised by Europeans (initially English), and only a handful of the natives remain. 240 years are a short, short time in the big picture.

Zachnorn posted...

I'm legitimately curious about this. I can't tell you how many times I've had a person with more European ancestry than me ask me where I'm "really from" (they didn't accept the US, they wanted my ancestry from many generations ago despite that also partially being the US) and I ask them the same thing and they tell me they're just American. They won't accept my questions on if they're British or German or French or whatever. I want to know what you think.

Really? Odd. Why wouldn't they answer the same question they wanted you to? Because your native American genes show? I think the answer lies somewhere in the American education system and the attempt to establish an American nationality and allegiance... As I said, 240 years are a short time. It's much easier for Europeans and their many centuries (in Bulgaria's case, millenia) of history to feel attached to their peoples. WW2 propaganda managed to somewhat solidify the American national belonging, but it's been slowly been eroded since. Today, Trump and his supporters are trying hard to cement the American nationality and America as a nation state, not just a rootless, soulless globalist HQ that it was becoming. It's a difficult task, and all the division we're seeing shows it. Some people don't understand that without a nation state, they're nothing. They literally believe globalist propaganda, and cannot see the big picture.

Zachnorn posted...

And for what I think: I feel it doesn't really matter. All that matters for being American (or being part of any other country) is whether or not you're a citizen.

It's much easier for it to appear this way if you're American, isn't it. :) We've got a few black football/soccer players who were given Bulgarian citizenship for one reason or another... Did they become Bulgarian, were they treated as Bulgarian? No. Did they even want to be Bulgarian? No, they just needed the passport so that it's easier for them to play football in Europe due to EU regulations. A couple of them even played for the national team for a few matches, I thought that was stupid. National teams are not clubs, they ought to have only people from that nation represent them. (No national football union save from a few seems to care about that anymore, but that's another story. Money/winning is more important to them. -_-)

Try going to Japan (or another homogenous country) some day and you'll see what it means to be a foreigner. Even if you got a citizenship (an extremely difficult procedure in Japan, for good reason), it wouldn't amount to all that much in society. You'll still be treated as a foreigner - as you should be. A piece of paper does not magically make you Japanese. People will appreciate you trying to assimilate, of course. They'll be polite (Japanese almost always are). But they won't accept you as one of their own.
---

Zachnorn posted...

I think the fact that some people say that we can't have races or ethnicities mixing gives them more psychological issues than the simple fact they are mixed race.

Nah. It's the most natural instinct. But I understand we can't really reach an agreement here, due to our different backgrounds.

The guy who was urging us to go to war with Russia a few months ago now accused of sexual harassment... lmfao hollywood
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/05/24/morgan-freeman-accused-sexual-harassment-and-inappropriate-behavior/640696002/
---

Vlado posted...

Bulgarian genes

can you elaborate on what this means, exactly
---

The guy who was urging us to go to war with Russia

when did Morgan Freeman urge Bulgaria to go to war with Russia?
---

Vlado posted...

US is a different case from Japan in that it was colonised by Europeans (initially English),

American history lesson: The American Revolution was fought by English colonists, but the actual land mass that constitutes modern American was initially colonized by France and Spain as well.

We purchased a huge chunk of our country from France.

https://dvd.ambrosevideo.com/resources/documents/113.jpg
---

Kenri posted...

Vlado posted...

Bulgarian genes

can you elaborate on what this means, exactly

lmfao

You got all of Putins Russian genes, while I got all the flawed, BULGARIAN genes!
---

When I think about vlado, I picture him as looking like somewhere between the actor who plays Gollum and... actual Gollum.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

When I think about vlado, I picture him as looking like somewhere between the actor who plays Gollum and... actual Gollum.

Interesting. I picture Rolf Gruber from Sound of Music.
---

I kind of picture him as a computer virus turned sentient
---

I'm kind of curious: what should America do when immigrant children show up at the border with no parents and relatives, some who are all the way from Honduras?
---

Hey Vlado what's your stance on T-shirts with nipple windows?
---

gmun-chama posted...

Kenri posted...

Vlado posted...

Bulgarian genes

can you elaborate on what this means, exactly

lmfao

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gene?s=t

Jakyl25 posted...

Vlado posted...

US is a different case from Japan in that it was colonised by Europeans (initially English),

American history lesson: The American Revolution was fought by English colonists, but the actual land mass that constitutes modern American was initially colonized by France and Spain as well.

We purchased a huge chunk of our country from France.

https://dvd.ambrosevideo.com/resources/documents/113.jpg

Your point? Founding fathers were English.

TheRock1525 posted...

I'm kind of curious: what should America do when immigrant children show up at the border with no parents and relatives, some who are all the way from Honduras?

Send them back.

Research says people are happier in homogenous small towns than "diversity"-rich metropolises... Oh wow, you don't say!?
https://bit.ly/2Lum2rA
---

Vlado posted...

Your point? Founding fathers were English.

My point was that the US was mostly not initially colonized by the English
---

Vlado posted...

Send them back.

To who? They're children. They might not even know where "back" is.
---