Racism vs Nationalism - a question for Korimyr

[NEUROSPORT]

Racism is the mental defective's version of nationalism.

i disagree. i would like to see you argue exactly how or why nationalism is superior to racism.

my own view is that Racism is preferable to Nationalism.

because when you are racist you are on your own side. but when you're a nationalist you are on the side of your government who is in fact your biggest enemy. in other words a racist is his own best friend while a nationalist is his own worst enemy.

how are you going to argue that a person is mentally defective if he would rather act in his own interests than against them ?

you might also explain what history has to say about this. who were better served - Germans with their nationalism or Americans with their racism ?

after the Germans lost the war German women were raped over and over and over by Russian soldiers. meanwhile in America white men were raping black women who were their slaves.

so what is preferable in your view Korimyr - to rape or to get raped ?

 

[the makeout hobo]

Oh god, this should be interesting. Don't be too rough on him Korimyr

 

[Arch Enemy]

I'm not the rat, but i'll bite.

i disagree. i would like to see you argue exactly how or why nationalism is superior to racism.

my own view is that Racism is preferable to Nationalism.

because when you are racist you are on your own side. but when you're a nationalist you are on the side of your government who is in fact your biggest enemy. in other words a racist is his own best friend while a nationalist is his own worst enemy.

There is more empirical evidence for the coalescing of Nations than of Races. There is no Race (as siblings are going to differ in their genetics), there is only the unsubstantiated notion that people with different skin color are different.

Nations, on the other hand, are learned. Nationalism is built from a cultural foundation where the self-centered differences, amongst people, are overlapped by the similarities. If we cannot agree on everything, at least the things we can agree on we can work towards.

You cannot build a fair society without forms of overlapping similarities.

If you prefer to keep your racist paradigm, and allow the overlapping of societies, then you will see what has happened in the American South over the past 50 years-- Nationalism is replacing Racism-- it's the only logical conclusion for people of different, perceived, ethnicity to work together.

how are you going to argue that a person is mentally defective if he would rather act in his own interests than against them ?

I don't think it is a matter of self-interest it is a matter of what is more realistically going to benefit you. Believing that you, who are 98% the way to a chimpanzee, hold vast differences in race than your neighbor is illogical and absolutely backwards.

you might also explain what history has to say about this. who were better served - Germans with their nationalism or Americans with their racism ?

There is no American Race. There is no German race.
Adolf Hilter was interested in the fiction that came out of his relative time in history called the "Aryan race". It, like many other fictional racist tales,was a complete work of fiction. Hitler was not wanting to build a nation, as much as he was wanting to believe that there was this fantastical race that can be replicated.

after the Germans lost the war German women were raped over and over and over by Russian soldiers. meanwhile in America white men were raping black women who were their slaves.

... uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

so what is preferable in your view Korimyr - to rape or to get raped ?

I don't see how you can deduce that Nationalism is to getting raped, as Racism is to raping.

Your logic is unheard of.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

because when you are racist you are on your own side. but when you're a nationalist you are on the side of your government who is in fact your biggest enemy.

First and foremost, I reject the gigantic dogmatic assumption that your entire argument is based upon. The government is only your greatest enemy if you fancy yourself some sort of rebel-- and there are only two possible outcomes of rebellion: the rebel overthrows the government and institutes a new one, or the far more likely event, the rebel gets crushed like the insignificant insect he is.

You seem to have an awful lot of free time for someone who is being hunted down by the government and is going to be crushed at any time. Or, perhaps, the government isn't your enemy at all-- this is more dogmatic garbage that you tout but don't actually do anything about.

in other words a racist is his own best friend while a nationalist is his own worst enemy.

how are you going to argue that a person is mentally defective if he would rather act in his own interests than against them ?

Racism isn't about how one treats one's own interests. It's how they decide how to treat other people's interests. Racism tells me to support a German or a Pole over my next door neighbor. How is that in my best interests? How is it in my interests to support a white foreigner over my Hispanic cousins?

you might also explain what history has to say about this. who were better served - Germans with their nationalism or Americans with their racism ?

The side that won. Worth noting that part of the American victory was the first use of integrated platoons-- and that part of the German defeat was massive depopulation and the loss of almost their entire scientific class due to its racist policies.

after the Germans lost the war German women were raped over and over and over by Russian soldiers. meanwhile in America white men were raping black women who were their slaves.

You're talking about two different wars almost a century apart. And most people would have you believe that Germans and Russians are of the same race-- so much for trusting in the goodness of your fellow white man, huh? What happened to Germany is what happens to every nation that allows itself to be ruled by foreigners.

so what is preferable in your view Korimyr - to rape or to get raped ?

To rape. But that's what those damned dirty foreigners are for-- and I'm only too happy to share a fresh one with my black American brothers. :roll:

 

[Arch Enemy]

First and foremost, I reject the gigantic dogmatic assumption that your entire argument is based upon. The government is only your greatest enemy if you fancy yourself some sort of rebel-- and there are only two possible outcomes of rebellion: the rebel overthrows the government and institutes a new one, or the far more likely event, the rebel gets crushed like the insignificant insect he is.

It's funny how disconnected from their own political philosophers anarchists are. Even Murray Bookchin in "Radicalizing Democracy" realizes that a violent rebellion against the State is implausible

So now I realize that we have to elicit the libertarian dimension out of these revolutions, because I do not believe that the bourgeoisie existing now could ever make a Spanish revolution possible again. It wouldn't last six hours. Forget about four days. They'll come out with bazookas and missiles; they'll come out with their Green Berets, their radar and their bombers and wipe out everything in just a matter of days, just as they did in Chile, with not even that sophisticated an army. They could have settled the Vietnam war with hydrogen bombs if they had wanted to, if they were not concerned with public opinion or domestic opinion

The only real way, as Aronowitz would say, to have any sort of logistical effect on the system is mass apathy (he calls it "decursive terrorism").

 

[NEUROSPORT]

sorry for the delay. i was previously not in the mood to reply.

First and foremost, I reject the gigantic dogmatic assumption that your entire argument is based upon. The government is only your greatest enemy if you fancy yourself some sort of rebel-- and there are only two possible outcomes of rebellion: the rebel overthrows the government and institutes a new one, or the far more likely event, the rebel gets crushed like the insignificant insect he is.

You seem to have an awful lot of free time for someone who is being hunted down by the government and is going to be crushed at any time. Or, perhaps, the government isn't your enemy at all-- this is more dogmatic garbage that you tout but don't actually do anything about.

not true. knowing your enemies isn't the same as pledging to fight them till the last drop of blood. for example Microsoft is number 1 enemy of Google. Google spends billions of dollars to undermine the dominance of Microsoft in key areas. But they don't "attack" Microsoft in any way, not even in the way that Mac commercials attack PC.

it is also not true that the government can either perish or persist. this is again your black & white thinking. you choose to think in black and white because it feels better to feel certain about conclusions however that's just what it is - a feeling. in actuality you are wrong.

the government is a dynamic soup of goals, ideas, mechanisms, powers, strategies etc. if there is not enough salt in the soup you don't dispose of it and start anew - you add salt. you can add water or you can boil some off as needed, etc.

Racism isn't about how one treats one's own interests. It's how they decide how to treat other people's interests. Racism tells me to support a German or a Pole over my next door neighbor. How is that in my best interests? How is it in my interests to support a white foreigner over my Hispanic cousins?

mexicans are only your next door neighbors because you weren't racist enough to send them back to mexico when they walked over the border.

and why wouldn't you support a German or a Pole ? why would you not support any person in our civilization ? because in your mind you are already entertaining the fantasy of going to war with them. life is too boring and you want war. it is fine to have that desire - it is not fine to confuse desire for reason.

The side that won. Worth noting that part of the American victory was the first use of integrated platoons-- and that part of the German defeat was massive depopulation and the loss of almost their entire scientific class due to its racist policies.

ultimately the side with more money wins - simple as that. we didn't need blacks to win - stop reading state funded history textbooks.

it wasn't wise of Germans to go against the Jews who were their scientists but in this Hitler wasn't driven by racism but a desire to find an enemy. Jews were simply an easily identifiable and small fraction of population easy to represent as an enemy.

somebody who is a true racist like myself would recognize Jews a superior master race and ELEVATE them in society rather than put them down.

You're talking about two different wars almost a century apart. And most people would have you believe that Germans and Russians are of the same race-- so much for trusting in the goodness of your fellow white man, huh?

i never EVER advocated trusting ANYBODY. you should not trust your government, your parents, Al Gore's climatologists, Bush's neocons - ANYBODY. EVER. you must question everything if you want to call yourself an intellectual or a scientist.

What happened to Germany is what happens to every nation that allows itself to be ruled by foreigners.

what happened to Germany is what happens to every nation which begins to trust their government.

To rape. But that's what those damned dirty foreigners are for

raping foreigners is fine. so long as you know why you're doing it and not asking your government for the reasons. want to rape some Iraqi women ? go to Iraq and rape them - i have no problem with that. what i have a problem with is the government telling you that you went there to liberate them and you actually believing that as you rape them.

and I'm only too happy to share a fresh one with my black American brothers. :roll:

i don't have a huge problem with blacks. even though they are unintelligent and violent at least their population is relatively constant in size. the mexicans on the other hand even though they are hard working and for the most part deserve what little they enjoy in our nation the problem is their infestation is not contained. it may seem like it's not a problem now but it soon will be.

fact of the matter is that all of the countries in the world that are well off are either predominantly:

1 - white
2 - jewish
3 - asian

that's because those are the 3 races who have the highest average IQ.

countries predominantly black and latino are screwed with their average IQs of 80 and 85 respectively.

in order to ensure prosperity the infestation of this nation by low-IQ races must be CONTAINED. this is a very real and serious problem that WILL destroy our nation if something else ( like our national debt or NWO ) doesn't destroy it first.

but the first step in any solution is recognizing that you have a problem. and that's where the disease known as political correctness comes in.

 

[NEUROSPORT]

what we need is to isolate the primitive races to latin america and africa where they belong.

we need to get the **** out of those continents with our military and political presence and just give them the freedom to live the best way they can.

let them have their coal, their oil and diamonds, their fruit plantations - let them choke on all that ****. **** them.

just as long as they can't come here and we keep the 1st world for the people who built it.

i would support a program which paid any Negroe willing to move to Africa $ 200 G to sign a paper saying he will never come back.

as far as illegal Mexicans - they have no right to be here so they can be given a simpler choice - get the **** out or be shot in the face.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

the government is a dynamic soup of goals, ideas, mechanisms, powers, strategies etc. if there is not enough salt in the soup you don't dispose of it and start anew - you add salt. you can add water or you can boil some off as needed, etc.

If government is your greatest enemy-- if it is your enemy at all-- then it isn't a matter of your soup being too salty for your tastes. If the government is your enemy, then the soup is toxic and must be disposed of before someone gets sick.

mexicans are only your next door neighbors because you weren't racist enough to send them back to mexico when they walked over the border.

You seem to forget that many of the Mexicans who were my neighbors never crossed the border-- the border crossed them when we annexed their land. And I don't have any problem with living next door to Mexicans as long as they speak English and don't fly foreign flags.

and why wouldn't you support a German or a Pole ? why would you not support any person in our civilization ?

Because they are not Americans. They are not a part of the civilization I belong to. African- and Mexican- Americans might be foreign to me-- and will be, as long as we insist on the distinction-- but they are not as foreign to me as Germans and Poles.

because in your mind you are already entertaining the fantasy of going to war with them. life is too boring and you want war. it is fine to have that desire - it is not fine to confuse desire for reason.

And you want to have war inside our borders, against our own citizens, because you take issue with the lands their ancestors hailed from. No nation can win a civil war.

somebody who is a true racist like myself would recognize Jews a superior master race and ELEVATE them in society rather than put them down.

Even above yourself? That is the problem with attempting to have an objective society; you start to forget that everything that matters is subjective, especially your own self-interest.

i never EVER advocated trusting ANYBODY. you should not trust your government, your parents, Al Gore's climatologists, Bush's neocons - ANYBODY. EVER. you must question everything if you want to call yourself an intellectual or a scientist.

Question, yes. Suspect and label your enemy? That is not intellectualism or science, that's nothing more than paranoia. Paranoia is a symptom of mental illness, that can and should be treated.

what happened to Germany is what happens to every nation which begins to trust their government.

Nonsense. Nations which do not trust their governments fall into a pattern of despair and apathy, dooming themselves to governments of inefficiency and corruption. I don't believe it's coincidence that the highest standard of living is enjoyed by the people whose governments have the lowest measurable levels of corruption-- which is strongly correlated with those nations which have the strictest transparency laws.

Nations, like the tribes and clans that form them, are built upon trust or else they are doomed to failure.

what i have a problem with is the government telling you that you went there to liberate them and you actually believing that as you rape them.

Most people are stupid and they require someone with a firm hand and a clear vision to guide them. It isn't the government's fault that people are stupid, and it certainly isn't the government's fault that the people elect leaders who exploit their stupidity.

Nations get the government they deserve. Ours is paying the price for the complacency that comes with a century and a half of fighting all of its wars overseas. We are paying the price now for half a century of coddling the weak and the deviant.

the mexicans on the other hand even though they are hard working and for the most part deserve what little they enjoy in our nation the problem is their infestation is not contained. it may seem like it's not a problem now but it soon will be.

I don't agree with your language, but I agree with the concept. The thing is, this is a national concern, not a racial one-- on a racial level, Hispanics aren't a unique grouping, but a union of several different races united by a common language. I'm frequently mistaken for Hispanic; it would take very little for me to able to successfully claim that I was, if I weren't opposed to the notion of dividing my nation up into little ethnic pockets.

fact of the matter is that all of the countries in the world that are well off are either predominantly:

Take another look. All of the countries in the world that are well off, with the exception of China, were allies of the United States during the Cold War. China benefited from being an ally of the Soviet Union without actually becoming a part of it-- and thus not sharing in its collapse.

countries predominantly black and latino are screwed with their average IQs of 80 and 85 respectively.

If you get numbers that tell you that half or more than half of any particular demographic is mentally retarded-- which is what your numbers suggest-- do you assume that half of the demographic really is mentally retarded, or that something is wrong with the instrument you're using to measure them?

I know of studies that indicate that the average IQ of a Sub-Saharan African is around 65. For reference, that's approximately the same IQ of the majority of apes who've been trained in sign language. Human civilization would not be possible if those numbers were accurate, thus I must conclude that the numbers are flawed.

 

[NEUROSPORT]

If government is your greatest enemy-- if it is your enemy at all-- then it isn't a matter of your soup being too salty for your tastes. If the government is your enemy, then the soup is toxic and must be disposed of before someone gets sick.

not necessarily. in space astronauts drink their own piss ... after it passes through a reverse osmosis machine that purifies it into clean water.

You seem to forget that many of the Mexicans who were my neighbors never crossed the border-- the border crossed them when we annexed their land. And I don't have any problem with living next door to Mexicans as long as they speak English and don't fly foreign flags.

right. so 160 years wasn't enough time for them to learn to speak English. you're just proving my point about IQ :rofl ( just kidding ).

well like i said, illegals leave or get shot like dogs. and legal ones are offered a choice where they will get all of their welfare benefits for the next 10 years up-front if they sign a document promising to leave and never come back. if they come back they get shot. their kids get sent to Mexico.

Because they are not Americans. They are not a part of the civilization I belong to. African- and Mexican- Americans might be foreign to me-- and will be, as long as we insist on the distinction-- but they are not as foreign to me as Germans and Poles.

i would feel safer alone in Berlin than i feel in Black or Mexican neighborhoods in New York. one time in spanish harlem i saw about 10 police cars chasing about 50 ethnic folks who were on foot. the ethnic folks were all fist fighting each other in the middle of the street while the cops tried to club both sides over their heads. i felt like i was somewhere in Somalia. i was there visiting a white girl who was a college student and couldn't afford to live in any other part of manhattan.

crap. i gotta run. i'll finish responding later.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

not necessarily. in space astronauts drink their own piss ... after it passes through a reverse osmosis machine that purifies it into clean water.

What does this even mean? You've strained your own metaphor beyond its breaking point.

The point remains. You call our government our "greatest enemy", but it seems clear to me that neither you nor the government are putting any effort whatsoever into destroying the other. The government may have some laws you don't like, and you may be using the power of the soapbox and the ballot box to convince the government to change, but you're not an enemy of the State and you're not acting according to your stated beliefs.

well like i said, illegals leave or get shot like dogs.

I can agree with this as long as Canadians are exempted. Otherwise, I have no moral objection to shooting people who come or stay in this country illegally. In most cases, we'd be better served by detaining them until their consulate requests that we release the illegals into their custody.

and legal ones are offered a choice where they will get all of their welfare benefits for the next 10 years up-front if they sign a document promising to leave and never come back.

Why the Hell would we do this? They had their chance to leave back then. They chose to stay-- and contrary to what you are implying, those families speak English. Most of them aren't on Welfare. The only thing that keeps me from calling them "good American citizens" is that many of them still hold loyalties to Mexico, up to and including flying the Mexican flag at rallies.

Bribing them to leave would still be massively expensive and more or less ineffective-- if they'd wanted to live in Mexico, they'd have left decades ago.

 

[NEUROSPORT]

And you want to have war inside our borders, against our own citizens, because you take issue with the lands their ancestors hailed from. No nation can win a civil war.

no, i am against all wars - including civil war. in fact i believe Lincoln is one of the worst presidents in US history because he chose to fight it.

Even above yourself? That is the problem with attempting to have an objective society; you start to forget that everything that matters is subjective, especially your own self-interest.

well, i am part Jewish so i wouldn't really be putting Jews much higher than myself. but for example in Silicon Valley Japanese Americans on average make about 5% more than whites and i am FINE with that. Japanese are better with electronics than white people - i ACCEPT IT.

and i am fine with sharing my nation with them.

i am studying Japanese language in fact.

Question, yes. Suspect and label your enemy? That is not intellectualism or science, that's nothing more than paranoia. Paranoia is a symptom of mental illness, that can and should be treated.

paranoia is merely the state opposite of being drunk. take some modafinil and you will know what paranoia feels like. modafinil probably adds 20 points to your IQ while you're on it. then if you want to take paranoia off - drink half a liter of vodka. your IQ will drop to nothing and your paranoia will be gone.

paranoia is good for you if you can handle it.

Nonsense. Nations which do not trust their governments fall into a pattern of despair and apathy, dooming themselves to governments of inefficiency and corruption. I don't believe it's coincidence that the highest standard of living is enjoyed by the people whose governments have the lowest measurable levels of corruption-- which is strongly correlated with those nations which have the strictest transparency laws.

i don't get it. strict transparency laws mean ZERO trust - or just the right amount.

Nations, like the tribes and clans that form them, are built upon trust or else they are doomed to failure.

how can you back this statement up ? our dollar currency was built on trust and look how well it is doing. when dollar was taken off the gold standard an ounce of gold was $35. that was less than 40 years ago. now its $1200. dollar lost approximately 95% of its value because we TRUSTED that it would keep its value.

Most people are stupid and they require someone with a firm hand and a clear vision to guide them.

thats what the government wants you to believe. in actuality free market plus a robust constitution is all the guidance that is needed.

It isn't the government's fault that people are stupid, and it certainly isn't the government's fault that the people elect leaders who exploit their stupidity.

no it isn't. it's peoples fault that the government officials aren't being publicly hanged.

Nations get the government they deserve.

of course.

Ours is paying the price for the complacency that comes with a century and a half of fighting all of its wars overseas. We are paying the price now for half a century of coddling the weak and the deviant.

we ARE paying the price for complacency. this complacency though is a result of decades of "good" economy. virtually all the people who have seen the great depression are dead already - that's where the complacency was from.

events such as the great depression have a way of repeating themselves as soon as the memory of the last one is gone.

I don't agree with your language, but I agree with the concept. The thing is, this is a national concern, not a racial one-- on a racial level, Hispanics aren't a unique grouping, but a union of several different races united by a common language. I'm frequently mistaken for Hispanic; it would take very little for me to able to successfully claim that I was, if I weren't opposed to the notion of dividing my nation up into little ethnic pockets.

no dividing. expel who you legally can. give incentive to leave to those who aren't doing particularly great here. cut all ties to puerto rico. stop enforcing "equality" of the unequals.

look at the countries that are beating the **** out of us industrially - Germany and Japan. Germany is 91.5% Germans while Japan is 98.5% Japanese.

and look at how great sub saharan africa is doing.

NUFF SAID !

Take another look. All of the countries in the world that are well off, with the exception of China, were allies of the United States during the Cold War. China benefited from being an ally of the Soviet Union without actually becoming a part of it-- and thus not sharing in its collapse.

that means JACK ****. the two most productive industrial nations today - Germany and Japan were our ENEMIES during WW2.

Germany is a tiny country compared to USA yet it is the BIGGER exporter. the only thing USA exports is dollars - which means we are importing debt.

If you get numbers that tell you that half or more than half of any particular demographic is mentally retarded-- which is what your numbers suggest-- do you assume that half of the demographic really is mentally retarded, or that something is wrong with the instrument you're using to measure them?

from my experience living in Brooklyn for 14 years half of black people being retarded sounds about right.

I know of studies that indicate that the average IQ of a Sub-Saharan African is around 65. For reference, that's approximately the same IQ of the majority of apes who've been trained in sign language. Human civilization would not be possible if those numbers were accurate, thus I must conclude that the numbers are flawed.

i don't know about 65 but there isn't much in the way of civilization in sub saharan africa.

 

[NEUROSPORT]

What does this even mean? You've strained your own metaphor beyond its breaking point.

point is if you can turn piss into pure drinking water then you can turn the government into something acceptable as well.

The point remains. You call our government our "greatest enemy", but it seems clear to me that neither you nor the government are putting any effort whatsoever into destroying the other. The government may have some laws you don't like, and you may be using the power of the soapbox and the ballot box to convince the government to change, but you're not an enemy of the State and you're not acting according to your stated beliefs.

you have mentioned the cold war. then you must understand that there are ways of fighting a war which don't involve fighting. the pen is mightier than a sword. the war is for the minds of the people.

Why the Hell would we do this? They had their chance to leave back then. They chose to stay-- and contrary to what you are implying, those families speak English.

i was joking about 160 years to learn english. i meant that most mexicans walked over the border rather than had the border walk over them - otherwise they would know English by now.

Most of them aren't on Welfare. The only thing that keeps me from calling them "good American citizens" is that many of them still hold loyalties to Mexico, up to and including flying the Mexican flag at rallies.

most Mexicans can't generate enough income to pay enough taxes to cover their own medical expenses should they be entitled to the same standards of medical care as citizens. in other words either all programs like medicare and medicaid must be abandoned or all the mexicans must be sent back to mexico. or we have to accept that our health care standards will be that of Mexico.

you can't have the standard of living of Germany or Japan with the standard of population of Mexico. it's a simple as that. if you love diversity and believe that all people are created equal - go live in sub saharan africa for a couple months and see how you like it there.

Bribing them to leave would still be massively expensive and more or less ineffective-- if they'd wanted to live in Mexico, they'd have left decades ago.

of course they don't want to live in mexico but for a big enough sum of money they may do it. it will be expensive but it's a better option than turning into another mexico.

for the $$$ that the government spent to bail out the banks and buy up clunkers they could have sent a lot of folks back where they belong. we ran up about $2 trillion of debt in the last year or so. if we used that money to send mexicans to mexico and blacks to africa at $200,000 a piece we could have gotten rid of 10 million of them. this is IN ADDITION to the illegals that would be shipped out free of charge.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

well, i am part Jewish so i wouldn't really be putting Jews much higher than myself. but for example in Silicon Valley Japanese Americans on average make about 5% more than whites and i am FINE with that. Japanese are better with electronics than white people - i ACCEPT IT.

and i am fine with sharing my nation with them.

That is the problem. You are still looking in terms of race instead of in terms of culture. I am happy to share my nation with people who have Japanese blood, and people who have Japanese heritage, but I do not wish to share my nation with people who do not share in our American culture. If they wish to remain Japanese, they should remain in Japan.

Which is precisely how I feel about Mexicans. Or Germans, or Poles, or Russians, or the Swiss. It's how I feel about every people on this Earth except the American and Canadian people.

paranoia is merely the state opposite of being drunk. ... paranoia is good for you if you can handle it.

This is simplistic and frankly more than a little stupid. I know what paranoia feels like because I suffer from it, and it has nothing to do with either intelligence or sobriety.

i don't get it. strict transparency laws mean ZERO trust - or just the right amount.

Not at all. Transparency laws are a sign of a government that trusts its people, and an assurance that in turn the people can trust the government.

how can you back this statement up ? our dollar currency was built on trust and look how well it is doing.

That's because you can't base a currency on something insubstantial and expect it to keep value. Trust is all well and good, but you can't mint it.

thats what the government wants you to believe. in actuality free market plus a robust constitution is all the guidance that is needed.

Times like this, you make me wonder if we're even living under the same government. Our government was built on the same kind of liberal rubbish you're spouting, and it's the belief that people are fit to govern themselves and don't require guidance that has allowed them to grow so degenerate as they have in recent decades. And it's the "free market" that allows corporate interests to buy government-- rendering the free market obsolete-- in the first place.

A country either has strict regulation or it has corruption. You live under tyranny either way, so why not choose the tyranny that better serves your interests, if you're not brainwashed by liberals into believing that "enlightened" self-interest is an adequate substitute for one's duty to society?

no it isn't. it's peoples fault that the government officials aren't being publicly hanged.

What exactly do you hope to accomplish with childish rhetoric like this? Even if you got your wish, do you think that we would suddenly have the government you want, or would the people just elect another group of people to do the exact same thing? We keep electing the same kind of government every year because that's the kind of government the people want.

The only thing you are accomplishing by your opposition to the government is opting out of any opportunity to use it to your advantage.

look at the countries that are beating the **** out of us industrially - Germany and Japan. Germany is 91.5% Germans while Japan is 98.5% Japanese.

So is your contention that they're doing better than we are because they're "pure", or because they are specifically German and Japanese? I would argue it's the latter-- but that their Germanity and their Japanesity have nothing to do with their bloodlines and everything to do with how they are educated and raised to belong in society.

You'll also note that both Germany and Japan reject your idealized "free market" in favor of strict governmental regulation of corporate interests.

that means JACK ****. the two most productive industrial nations today - Germany and Japan were our ENEMIES during WW2.

And our strongest allies thereafter, under the Marshall Plan.

i don't know about 65 but there isn't much in the way of civilization in sub saharan africa.

Ever been there? I suspect you haven't, and that you're speaking from conjecture. Or you're confusing your opinion that you don't like the civilization there for the fact-- however mistaken-- that there is no civilization there.

point is if you can turn piss into pure drinking water then you can turn the government into something acceptable as well.

Then your problem isn't with "government" in principle, it's with the specific form and of government that we have-- which means your declaration that government is your worst enemy is likewise much more specific. That makes your hyperbole all the more ridiculous.

If you agree that government can be turned into something acceptable, then you should be attempting to do that instead of railing blindly against it.

most Mexicans can't generate enough income to pay enough taxes to cover their own medical expenses should they be entitled to the same standards of medical care as citizens.

Neither do most Americans. Our healthcare system is broken.

if you love diversity and believe that all people are created equal - go live in sub saharan africa for a couple months and see how you like it there.

Have a care and remember who you're speaking to. I don't reject racism because I believe all people are created equal, I reject racism because the notion of race itself is primitive superstition-- there is more divergence within races than across them, and you are mistaking cultural influences for biological ones.

 

[spud_meister]

what we need is to isolate the primitive races to latin america and africa where they belong.

we need to get the **** out of those continents with our military and political presence and just give them the freedom to live the best way they can.

let them have their coal, their oil and diamonds, their fruit plantations - let them choke on all that ****. **** them.

just as long as they can't come here and we keep the 1st world for the people who built it.

i would support a program which paid any Negroe willing to move to Africa $ 200 G to sign a paper saying he will never come back.

as far as illegal Mexicans - they have no right to be here so they can be given a simpler choice - get the **** out or be shot in the face.

so according to your argument you should get rid of roughly 20% of american population, cut off a great deal of its trade, hand america back to britain, and enact racial violence, arent you a ****ing genius

and what about native americans and inuit?

 

[NEUROSPORT]

That is the problem. You are still looking in terms of race instead of in terms of culture.

culture is unique to race as much as it is unique to location.

japanese work hard both in Japan and in US. meanwhile blacks don't work either in America or Africa.

you can't convince a panda or a pelican to look at spreadsheets until it's eyes bleed. you can only do this to a Japanese person.

This is simplistic and frankly more than a little stupid. I know what paranoia feels like because I suffer from it, and it has nothing to do with either intelligence or sobriety.

are you telling me that you can recall an instance of being paranoid and drunk at the same time ?

Not at all. Transparency laws are a sign of a government that trusts its people, and an assurance that in turn the people can trust the government.

rationalizations are irrelevant. point is functioning government can only exist in an environment of accountability. our government is not being held accountable for its actions. when Obama said that he will not prosecute Bush for his crimes at that point anybody with a brain should have realized that there will be NO change.

That's because you can't base a currency on something insubstantial and expect it to keep value. Trust is all well and good, but you can't mint it.

and you can't do much else with trust either. trust must be earned. i have earned the trust of my friends and family by not lying to them for ~30 years. when the government can go without lying for 30 seconds i will consider trusting it.

Times like this, you make me wonder if we're even living under the same government. Our government was built on the same kind of liberal rubbish you're spouting,

everything i have been saying up until this point is the exact opposite of what liberals stand for. liberals stand for government and apes.

Libertarian != Liberal

and it's the belief that people are fit to govern themselves and don't require guidance that has allowed them to grow so degenerate as they have in recent decades.

i never suggested the people should govern themselves. giving the power to the people vs the government is the false choice that the government presents us with on purpose. they know that we know that we don't want to and cannot govern ourselves so they claim that they are the only other option - but this is simply not the case.

the power must lie with the constitution, and this constitution must be extremely difficult to amend. amendments must require something like unanimous vote by congress plus 90% majority direct vote by the public.

And it's the "free market" that allows corporate interests to buy government-- rendering the free market obsolete-- in the first place.

i am also not against regulation. i am FOR regulation. what i am against is CENTRAL PLANNING. the market must be FREE to organize itself to maximize profits within the framework of regulations that protect the consumer and the environment etc.

A country either has strict regulation or it has corruption.

or both, as is the case in 90% of all countries.

You live under tyranny either way, so why not choose the tyranny that better serves your interests

because the meaning of tyranny is that it doesn't serve your interests.

if you're not brainwashed by liberals into believing that "enlightened" self-interest is an adequate substitute for one's duty to society?

all human action is based on self-interest. this doesn't mean that an individual is free to violate the rules of his society defined by the constitution. individual has no "obligation" to society but society has "jurisdiction" over an individual.

this means your government has no right to order you to pay taxes. but if you dump your toxic waste into is river it has the right to cut off your balls and make you eat them.

 

[NEUROSPORT]

What exactly do you hope to accomplish with childish rhetoric like this?

what would be accomplished with instituting some sort of accountability in the government is that officials would be less inclined to commit crimes.

We keep electing the same kind of government every year because that's the kind of government the people want.

no. we keep electing the same kind of government because once the government is elected they back peddle on all their promises. for example Obama promised to end the war and lower taxes but he is doing the opposite. if Bush got hanged for HIS lies about WMDs then Obama would think twice before lying the same way.

maybe you saw my thread where i advocate selecting presidents by a random toss of dice. the point is that its not who is in office - it's how that person is being held accountable for his actions that matters.

So is your contention that they're doing better than we are because they're "pure", or because they are specifically German and Japanese?

i don't care for purity. their success is due to their not being burdened with primitive races. you can put japanese, germans and jews into the same company and they will do just fine. you build a company either out of blacks or mexicans or both and it will fail.

I would argue it's the latter-- but that their Germanity and their Japanesity have nothing to do with their bloodlines and everything to do with how they are educated and raised to belong in society.

i already responded to this. yes the reason for the success is their work culture. but what enabled that work culture is their genetics. Japanese are genetically predisposed to self-sacrifice. first it was the Samurai, then the Kamikaze and now it's the guys who work themselves to death. Blacks are genetically predisposed to playing with their balls.

You'll also note that both Germany and Japan reject your idealized "free market" in favor of strict governmental regulation of corporate interests.

as i said regulation is fine. so long as it is not central planning.

And our strongest allies thereafter, under the Marshall Plan.

so why didn't we become allies with zimbabwe instead ? after all zimbabwe never attacked us. we never nuked zimbabwe.

Ever been there? I suspect you haven't, and that you're speaking from conjecture. Or you're confusing your opinion that you don't like the civilization there for the fact-- however mistaken-- that there is no civilization there.

well, ants also have civilization. but fact remains that sub saharan africa is the most backwards part of the planet and the only reason for that is because it is populated by blacks.

Then your problem isn't with "government" in principle, it's with the specific form and of government that we have ... If you agree that government can be turned into something acceptable, then you should be attempting to do that instead of railing blindly against it.

and what makes you think that this is not what i am doing ?

Have a care and remember who you're speaking to. I don't reject racism because I believe all people are created equal, I reject racism because the notion of race itself is primitive superstition-- there is more divergence within races than across them, and you are mistaking cultural influences for biological ones.

it is not about whether you like the notion of race or not. it's whether race is something that can be ACTED ON to produce RESULTS. the answer is YES.

the other question is - would such an action destroy society in the process ? the answer is NO.

please note that i don't advocate apartheid or segregation or denial of any rights to blacks or latinos who are already citizens. what i am advocating is to seal our borders against immigration from parts of the world which are backwards due to their genetic makeup. we need to stop systematically importing genetic disease that is all.

if you want to filter immigration on individual level by means of color blind IQ tests - that is perfectly fine with me as well. the result will be 80% the same.

the reason race-based filtering is superior is because for every mexican you let into the country today he is likely to eventually import a couple dozen family relatives over the course of the next hundred years or so who will have on average an IQ of 85 regardless of how smart the first mexican was.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I do want to ask, Neurosport, about your "sub-saharan blacks are primitives", what about great historical African empires? You had the Songhai empire in the 15th century with their great center of learning at Timbuktu. You had the Mali empire along the Niger river that lasted for hundreds of years. There was the Axumite empire in what's now Ethiopia which was a famous trading empire and ally of the Byzantines. To say nothing of the Zulus, which gave the British quite a run for their money, for being so technologically behind. How did all these mighty empires happen if Africans are so stupid?

 

[NEUROSPORT]

I do want to ask, Neurosport, about your "sub-saharan blacks are primitives", what about great historical African empires? You had the Songhai empire in the 15th century with their great center of learning at Timbuktu. You had the Mali empire along the Niger river that lasted for hundreds of years. There was the Axumite empire in what's now Ethiopia which was a famous trading empire and ally of the Byzantines. To say nothing of the Zulus, which gave the British quite a run for their money, for being so technologically behind. How did all these mighty empires happen if Africans are so stupid?

what does an empire have to do with anything ? do you think americans are smarter than japanese because we have an empire and they don't ?

 

[jallman]

i disagree. i would like to see you argue exactly how or why nationalism is superior to racism.

my own view is that Racism is preferable to Nationalism.

because when you are racist you are on your own side. but when you're a nationalist you are on the side of your government who is in fact your biggest enemy. in other words a racist is his own best friend while a nationalist is his own worst enemy.

how are you going to argue that a person is mentally defective if he would rather act in his own interests than against them ?

you might also explain what history has to say about this. who were better served - Germans with their nationalism or Americans with their racism ?

after the Germans lost the war German women were raped over and over and over by Russian soldiers. meanwhile in America white men were raping black women who were their slaves.

so what is preferable in your view Korimyr - to rape or to get raped ?

 

[the makeout hobo]

what does an empire have to do with anything ? do you think americans are smarter than japanese because we have an empire and they don't ?

My point is that there have been several large and sophisticated empires in subsaharan africa, which would contradict your points.