If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Individuals who MORALLY CONDEMN discrimination, the ability of human beings to VALUE and act in accordance with values, are the most IMMORAL people in the entire world. The essence of MORALITY itself is the ability to value - morality presupposing values. Those that CONDEMN value based discrimination condemn morality as a concept by denying its very antecedent, they REJECT life itself and the ability of human beings to make choices - not to mention logic and reason - out of NIHILISM.
Those that CONDEMN discrimination are the SCOURGE of humanity - the most IMMORAL people in the entire world. The ability of human beings to value and discriminate amongst non-values and values is what seperates human beings from animals. There is no principle that is more MORAL than discrimination. If human beings could not discriminate amongst courses of action it would be IMPOSSIBLE to maintain human life. Likewise the essence of nationality is just that - discrimination. A nation is distinguished from other nations by what it is not. In other words, those who CONDEMN discrimination side with DEATH over LIFE, with DECAY over PROGRESS, with IMMORALITY over MORALITY.
I am a white male. When I walk down the street every day I DISCRIMINATE amongst females I see in accordance with my value based preferences. Is that immoral?
Is it immoral for a man to love his wife more than any other woman because it is discriminatory?
Is it immoral for a man in a desert to be able to make a choice between a sand dune and an oasis because it is discriminatory?
Is it immoral for a man to say 2 + 2 = 4 because it is discriminatory amongst a range of possible responses?
LOL!
Read your philosophy books again.
You stated the following. . .
How can you be so blinkered and so convinced that you're right when you're being so discriminatory and closed-minded?
Where you MORALLY CONDEMN discrimination. . .
There's a point in civilised politics beyond which you do not go, and I think you are doing so.
Going so far as to equate anti-discrimination with “civilized politics”
Anyone else slightly shocked?
Which you found to be “shocking.”
There is NOTHING immoral whatsoever about the concept of discrimination. Morality by its very nature is discriminatory and by rejecting discrimination you REJECT morality. Your tirade against discrimination and morality is shocking. Without the ability to discriminate amongst values human life would cease to exist. Civilization would cease to exist and only the savagery of animals would grace the face of the earth. .
Morality presupposes values, a standard of value. A value is defined in opposition to what it is not and thus is discriminatory. Discrimination is the ONLY thing that makes morality even possible, it is in fact one of its antecedents. By condemning discrimination you CONDEMN morality.
:rolleyes:
There is NO “free speech” in the UK.
The only reason “tolerance” is promoted is because there are so many factions with little in common it becomes necessary. The more factions in a society the more government has to step all over individual liberty in order to hold society together. We have the same sort of “tolerance” industry over in the United States, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, run by the child molester, telemarketer, and wife beater Morris Dees who has defrauded the public of millions of dollars. Such individuals - such degenerates - are a modern day mafia.
ROFL a democracy is a “form of government.” Those who REJECT the concept of the people, which government presupposes anyway, in favour of a political principle which is only a consequent are out of their mind.
That desert island will end up being a much more prosperous nation than the shithole found in South Africa and Rhodesia today.
A much better alternative than living under the third world savagery that prevails in Rhodesia and South Africa today.
New Brittannia would be preferable to Great Britainstan.
We already have one Rainbow Nation disaster in South Africa today. Perhaps cosmopolitan egalitarians like yourself should be deported there to live in utopian savagery.
Indeed, and that is entirely 100% irrelevent to the fact that a nation is primarily a cultural idea and that no such nation known as "South Africa" ever existed there prior to the European arrival. A person is not always a citizen either. If I traveled to the UK, as a foreign citizen, I cannot vote in British elections. I am not a member of that polity - of that nation. Simply residing in an area for some reason or another IS NOT an automatic guarantee to sufferage.
Once again you continue to ignore the ENORMOUS difference between a person and citizen of a polity. No nation known as "South Africa" ever existed prior to the European arrival there. South Africa in fact is a national idea of white europeans who colonized the area so South Africa is hardly was hardly a "black nation" at all.
No nation called "South Africa" ever arose in that area during the black residency there. That is about as ridiculous as calling the Indian aboriginies in America the "Native Americans." It is simply FALSE and ignores entirely specifically what a nation is in the first place - a cultural idea of a specific people. South Africa, like America, was the creation of white Europeans. No nation called "United States of America" ever existed in the new world amongst the hunter gather tribes of North America, the majority of whom did not even have the slightest clue as to each others own existence.
Anonymous authority.
There were already huge populations of Germans and Scots Irish in America prior to the Revolutionary War.
Once again you IGNORE entirely the composition of the colonial population which was in large part German and Scot-Irish.
Demonstrate to me that it isnt.
Yes, I am well aware of the demographic deterioration of the British population, no doubt a symptom of a dying population and instability of the current culture in that country.
"that country" Why, do you not live in Britain?
British industries ARE going to die unless the demographic decline is reversed and the hedonism of the degernate culture that dominates in Britain today is erradicated. Britain will become more and more of a totalitarian society, a third world country of wealthy old people surrounded by teaming impoverished third world immigrants. That is a prescription if there ever was one for disaster.
British industries wont die, their international competiveness will increase. There is no "degenerate culture", that is merely a buzz-term.
How will Britain become more totalitarian by enriching its ethnic foundations?
Answer - it wont.
It is impossible - not to mention illogical - to prove a negative, to provide positive existence of non-existence. You have asserted that is “quite easy” to immigrate to India. The burden of proof is on he who asserts a positive, and thus, it is incumbant upon you to *prove* your allegations or have them dismissed as arbitrary.
I am not a resident of the UK.
Yes I have heard the Germans make the same argument about “skilled workers” only to see unemployment in Germany skyrocket and immigrants go on welfare.
There is a system of shared values in Britain that are causing its population to age and deteriorate. That culture is degenerate. It is only temporary - which pleases me - it is unsustainable.
It is very simple. The more “diversity” there is in your society the more factions there are. As your economy continues to degenerate such factions will compete more and more for scarcer resources. In the name of “tolerance” and “anti-racism” the government will increasingly trample on individual liberty in order to hold society together. In fact, this is already happening. In the UK you can actually be prosecuted now under European law for “racist” comments. For “hate speech” - a citizen can be thrown in PRISON. That is a clear usurption by the government of individual liberty, made necessary by the incoherence of your own population. With each passing year the UK becomes even more of an Orwellian despotic police state.
Just one recent example. . . .
That's irrelevant. The area which is now called South Africa was first settled by blacks.
So you concede that few white Americans can trace their ancestry directly to Britain.
Your debating skills are very circular in nature. 40 million white Americans can trace their ancestry to Ireland. Few white Americans are truly of British descent.
Could Heydrich please explain me what happened with Rome as he said on his earlier posts?
He says inmigration amongst cultural/ethnically close populations causes no harm (Celtic, Germanic, even Roman impact upon the British isles) yet that very same incidence upon Rome makes her crumble. Do you sustain that Rome was filled with non-white inmigrants?
This is a question of politics not morality. Politics is activity in relation to power. The answer is the land belongs to he who has the will and the power to establish his sovereignty over it.
No.
Rome is the perfect example of an empire that ignored its own borders while pursuing imperialism abroad.
I did not say that at all. Nice straw man. What has changed in America, just like it changed in Rome, is the attitude towards immigration.
The principal reason Rome fell was because of its own arrogance, the belief that the Goths would simply recognize the *obvious* superiority of Roman culture and assimilate. Rome failed to take seriously the possibility that this may not be the case. Just like America it traded in the melting pot for the tossed salad - two totally different ideas entirely.
If you scan through my previous posts you will recognize that I stated I would be absolutely opposed to ethnic European immigrants migrating to the UK if they decided to bring their own culture with them. The difference between ethnicities and racial divisions is one of degree of the ability to assimilate such populations (to lose distinctiveness). Negroes will ALWAYS remain an obvious distinct minority and will ALWAYS be self conscious of this fact. So will the vast majority of other nonwhites because they are more distinct from the white population at large. I have NEVER discounted ethnic division. I have ABSOLUTELY maintained however that is obviously of a much lesser degree and is therefore a false analogy.
Which is absolutely 100% totally irrelevent. Once again you IGNORE entirely what a nation is - a cultural idea of a population. There was NEVER any South Africa prior to the European arrival there. The native South Africans are white Europeans. The area was sparsely inhabited for the most part by Africans who had slaughtered the Khosians of Central Africa for centuries driving them into areas inhospitable to their agriculture.
Your argument is based on the FALSE assumption that the colonial population was simply British, and therefore, those Americans of Irish and German descent are all descendents of immigrants who came later in American history. That is not the case. There were substantial populations of Germans and Scot-Irish in the colonial population who as the original American population grew predominantly by natural increase.
Obviously that is the case. What is not the case however is that the majority of these Americans trace their ancestry to post-colonial Irish immigrants. The original American population was never simply British, and thus your statistic does not represent in anyway whatsoever the descendents of the colonial era.
I do agree completely with you on the "Will & Power" to claim anything as the basic premise to land ownership.
Lets see, you claimed that Rome did fall due to outside influx of allien population. Now you qualify that by saying that any impact upon a host population is harmful, even when from the same racial background.
So, when did Rome´s policy become harmful to herself? With the expansion into the Italian penisnula already? By the anexation of the Etruscans, the southern Italian Greek colonies? All those moves changed in fact Rome´s own culture.
So, where does the "harm" begin in your eyes? With the barbaric, yet racialy similar Goths, or with the conquest of Egypt or Carthage?
Maybe my grasp of the English language is not too good, yet I have the impression that you seem to imply that Rome fell to racial micegenation with non-white inmigrants/slaves.
For then the whole harm of the barbarian invasions, if you are just looking for a harmful influence, is that they did not become romanized enought (or at all).
Agreed.
I said Rome fell because of the Romans themselves. The same is true of the Americans today. America will fall because of Americans themselves.
My argument is that diversity is in no way whatsoever a strength - but a curse upon nations. Faction is not something to be celebrated - it is a source of national weakness. There is more than enough ethnic and religious division in places like the British Isles and the Balkans to last a lifetime. To inject populations from even more divergent and radical backgrounds - to encourage them to accent their differences - especially as these populations compete more and more for scarcer resources is nothing less than madness. It is a bad public policy. There is a difference between a "Melting Pot" and a "Tossed Salad."
Rome's policy became harmful to itself when the Romans began to lose their own sense of identity - just like Americans and other Europeans have today. This was about the time when the Stoics were preaching world citizenship and globalization before the last Dark Age.
This was before the Greek/Latin schism. The Romans may have conquered the Greeks but they never absorbed them.
Rome fell precisely because of the degeneracy of Roman culture and the assertion of other identities with the Roman Empire - faction.
Harm begins when a source of faction is absorbed within the national body. Indifference to such sores is not a wise policy.
That is not my argument at all. My argument is that Rome fell because of Romans and America will fall because of Americans.
The Romans lost their own sense of identity over the ages - the sense of identity which maintained their civilization. They also became extremely hedonistic and arrogant - full of their own superiority. They let an alien population within their boundries which remained distinctive. They became more and more reliant on such populations as time went by - as labourers and soldiers. These populations however were not absorbed as populations had been in previous ages. They maintained a strong sense of their own identity and ultimately that identity prevailed and Rome ceased to exist.
Let me try again....
Ok, sure enough the underlying reason of Rome´s decay comes from their own degeneracy...No problems here..lets move on.
As a secondary effect to this degeneracy we see the lack of will to absorve the conquered nations correctly. Now, I understand that you mean that.
1- Total absobtion of racialy similar subjects will cause minimal harm if they adapt culturally to the new masters.
Now, when does the Roman will end? Every conquest brought them in contact with new people, from whom sometimes they learned and sometimes copied things. We can safely asume that every conquest made the Romans different from what they were before. The Etruscans basically made what we understand under classic republicans (law, Toga, architecture, etc..) The Celts in North Italy gave them the chainmail, the Greek colonies in south Italy put them in contact with Greek Philosophy way before the Romans even thought about taking over Greece. The various wars with Carthage made them a maritime nation, the conquest of Hispania made them true colonial masters.
All this before we can even begin to think about Empire and centuries before we can talk about Roman downward spiral.
When did they begin to fail? With te conquest of the East? Anatolia? Egypt?
And how does this all equal to the modern US? Are you talking about the loss of identity in the so called States? by non-white inmigration brought by the degenerate US system?
Can we say also that most European "nations" have experienced one time or another being taken over by a different culture, be it through the sword or population wise.
You do seem to like the Classic English concept yet it would never have existed in the first place if the Celts would not have been subjugated by the Romans, and then by Anglos and Saxons, and they by the Normands, etc...You do like the end result of that melting pot (since we talk about more or less racially similar groups) but you do not like the product of Rome..why? Because something went wrong with the "melting pot" and it became a "tossed salad"?
Thanx.
Absolutely.
I view a nation to be similar to a living organism. Over the course of its history it can catch infections which are not apparent at first only later to begin to display period symptoms of sickness. It takes an extended period of time for HIV to morph into full blown AIDS for example.
My argument is a political one - that faction is a source of weakness in a polity. It is difficult for a nation to absorb alien material of any character as it stands, especially when it behaves in a manner similar to the UK or the USA where it ACTUALLY renounces such a policy of assimilation. In prior history, the USA and the UK had a specific national identity and these nations tenaciously held to this ideal. Newcomers were FORCED to assimilate (to lose distinctiveness) and highly distinct groups were excluded entirely. The difference between white Europeans and other races in the context of immigration is that whereas Irish in America for example melted into simply the “white” population that is IMPOSSIBLE for groups like Negroes. In the hundreds of years Negroes have resided in America they have always been distinct and have always remained *conscious* of their own distinctiveness, the us vs. them mentality. This distinctiveness is a source of division within the political organism, a source of faction, an Achilles Heal so to speak. It is unwise to actually PROMOTE such divisiveness, to encourage sickness within a polity. In many cases such faction can lead to the death of nations or the creation of new ones.
The Stoics did an absolutely remarkable job of weakening the Roman character and diluting it to the point where it was meaningless. It was an extended gradual process.
Every conquest brought with it the burden of absorbing populations with divergent identities. Every conquest that was not total was a sore. Eventually these sores wore down the health of the empire, occasionally festering into eruptions of rebellion (sickness within the political organism). The Roman Empire was in itself always artificial for the most part.
The closer populations were not as divergent as the Germans and Goths in the North, the Greeks in the East, not to mention the Britons who to an extent always resisted.
The conquest of the Greeks put them in control of a population with its own HIGHLY established identity. Carthage was virtually annihilated. The conquest of the Celts was never total.
One of the *primary* reasons the Roman Empire fell was because its conquests were artificial - especially in the case of the division of the empire between Byzantium and Rome which was one of the primary reasons the Western Empire was overrun. In many cases, the Greeks in particular, the conquest was always artificial. It was simply a matter of time before the Greek identity reasserted itself.
All of the above.
Because like the Romans, the Americans send tens of thousands of troops to the far corners of their empire yet have neglected their OWN border which will be their downfall. Whereas the Romans ignored the Danube to their own peril the Americans have ignored the Rio Grande. Just like the Romans - and even the British - throughout their history the Americans have made many conquests that were never total, which remain sources of faction and division within. America’s disease manifests itself in its foreign and domestic policy, which reflects its own incoherent population. The national character of the Americans is rapidly dissolving.
E Pluribus Unum somewhere in the past 50 years became E Unum Pluribus.
Absolutely. We are now Theodore Roosevelt’s entanglement of “quarreling nationalities.”
Which is ABSOLUTELY 100% different to the sort of café au lait attitude that persists today where the CONQUERER has actually renounced its own identity, where the conquerer has lost the will to enforce that identity, going so far as to actually encourage from the standpoint of public policy faction and dual loyalties.
There never would have been a Great Britain if the ancient English did not encourage every other ethnicity in the British Isles to assert its own identity, going so far as to welcome the importation of alien identities and subsidizing the demographic explosion of such populations.
We are talking about racially similar groups whose barriers are primarily cultural melting into a new national identity. This is different from the case of the following:
1. Instead of encouraging unity, which should be public policy in a healthy state, going so far as to actually promote the dissolution of the national population by promoting alternative and in many cases competitive ethnic and racial loyalities. That is 100% the opposite the melting pot idea.
2. Promoting the importation of aliens from radically divergent racial and cultural backgrounds who will always remain distinct and aware of their own distinctiveness, which are more divergent than even the already pre-existing ethnic divisions which have been in their own right a constant source of faction.
The Roman Empire is both similar and different to the case of America. The Roman Empire was largely an artificial construction where the Romans conquered other peoples with established national identities and ruled over them until their political will and military power degenerated to the point where they could no longer maintain order. In the case of America, a virgin continent was largely colonized by European immigrants who were forced to assimilate into a new national identity (to lose their distinctiveness). The most divergent elements, nonwhites, were held in check. It would have been impossible for America to even come into its present existence if from the beginning it had pursued such a foolish and suicidal policy of “diversity.” If Germans came to America and remained Germans, if French came to America and remained French, if Irish came to America and spoke Gaelic and remained Irish we would have seen the American experiment fail as a repeat of the Balkans. The history of this continent would have repeated the bloodbaths of the Europeans.
Gradually overtime America did come to conquer or import alien populations who retained their own distinctiveness. Throughout all of American history there has been no greater source of division and bitter struggle. In the 20th Century the American national identity began to break down. A grotesque sort of racial federalism began to take hold in the 1960s. Whereas in previous ages the “true American” had been either the “white anglo saxon protestant” or the “judeo-christian white European” after the 1960s the “true American” became anything. William Lind writes extensively about this in his book The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution.
America is a nation that has gone through 4 separate identities.
1. Colonial America (1603-1776) - Ends with American Revolution.
2. Anglo America (1783-1865) - Ends with the Conclusion of the War Between the States
3. Euro America (1877-1962) - Ends in the Cultural Revolution
4. Multicultural America (1970-Present)
The latest America - a grotesque sort of racial federalism - is the most unstable of all. It will end in the dissolution of the United States similar to the breakup of the former Soviet Union.