A good reason to exclude Muslim Immigrants

[Emily]

I notice you don't dispute the claim

Because I'm not quite sure what the claim is (as I said, it's a single, vague example).

and don't think the Castros could have acted as they did without millions in Cuba

Whatever it is to which you're referring, maybe yes and maybe no. They certainly could have acted without the support of the majority of the Cuban people, being dictators for life. Witness North Korea, or any of the many other dictatorships throughout history.

and hundreds of millions around the world standing with them.

Who would that be? Wide-eyed college students without a lick of real-world experience? Michael Moore? The collapsed Soviet Union? People who like good cigars?

The Cuban counterexample is sufficient

No, it's not. One example (of whatever exactly it is) in all the history of all the world cannot counter a contention the veracity of which has been demonstrated over and over again throughout recorded history across the globe. In addition, the one example itself is limited to a 60 year blip in time, to essentially one ruling power, to a tiny island country, and to a people who share blood and heritage with other people (the Spanish) an ocean away and in may places elsewhere.

Shall I mention examples that prove my contention? Off the top of my head, we have Lebanon, Iraq and Iran and their Kurds and Baluchis and others, India and Pakistan and Bangladesh, Egypt and its Copts, Turkey and Armenia, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Thailand, ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia, Spain's Catalans, The Basques in Spain and France, Quebec, Portugal's Azores, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Chechnya now and for a long time, and the several once Soviet Republics, Israel's Arabs, Sudan. All that and more just post-WWI, without my doing any research. Then there's the rest of human history.

Syria would actually have been a better example of your contention. That, still a blip in time and a single ruling house, but at least it's collapse is being inflicted by capitalist interests.

Call it "selfish parochialism" if you wish; it is and remains human nature. I (as National Socialist philosophy) accept human nature and the power of Natural Law. They've always been more real than any world-wide worker's paradise. What you view as selfish parochialism I view as embrace of shared lineage, heritage, and destiny. It seems to me that my Nationalistic view respects the peoples of less-developed lands, their distinct bloodlines and cultures and potentials, while the globalist view condescends to those of non-White European heritage, as if they're only capable of taking from those who have and not of developing themselves.

preserved by capitalist interest

It is globalism that serves and is promoted by capitalist interests.

Unless you propose to have people in other countries uneducated and without medical care, the world will need to pay for their education and medical care no matter what country they live in. The only question is whether we do that efficiently by mobilizing the economic potential of the richest countries or not.

When the richest countries -- the White ones -- are dragged into chaos and bankruptcy by the so-called migrants and refugees, the trillions in aid they give will disappear. Long-term, this moral high ground you wish to stake collapses.
Let us also note that the wealthy non-White countries, like China and oil-rich Arab states for example, are not accepting a flood of people from elsewhere.

It is our responsibility as human beings to make sure people have lives that are better and not worse than they would be otherwise.

Bravo!

Countries are institutions created for this purpose

Bravo!

and a government that fails at it ... as the U.S. has by making the lives of billions around the world worse in a vain effort to make the lives of the small minority who are Americans better ... only betrays its illegitimacy.

Ah, but here we have it, don't we? It's less pro the huddled masses and the workers of the world and more anti USA. How about we make the USA -- and it's European allies/progenitors -- the best they can be so their stability and prosperity can aid the rest of the world? That would seem a much more effective approach to helping all human beings around the world rise -- and do so in their own homelands among their own people who share their language, history, heritage, culture, and race -- than devastating the great peoples and cultures that created stable and prosperous countries and institutions in the first place, which is what flooding them with people from less developed lands will inevitably do and is doing.

 

[EatTheRich]

Moslem love Hitler
Hitler had Moslems fighting for him.

Hitler did have a handful of Muslims fighting for him, along with far more Christians. There were also anti-Hitler Muslims. And of course anti-Muslim Hitler supporters such as the author of the article linked to in the top post.

 

[EatTheRich]

Because I'm not quite sure what the claim is (as I said, it's a single, vague example).

The claim that Cuba demonstrates nearly 60 years of a consistent internationalist foreign policy.


Whatever it is to which you're referring, maybe yes and maybe no. They certainly could have acted without the support of the majority of the Cuban people, being dictators for life. Witness North Korea, or any of the many other dictatorships throughout history.

Ignoring that the Castros were elected leaders in a constitutional republic, no dictator holds power without a class basis for that power. And the class basis in a revolutionary workers' state is majority rule.


Who would that be? Wide-eyed college students without a lick of real-world experience? Michael Moore? The collapsed Soviet Union? People who like good cigars?

Perhaps. Workers and farmers, mostly.

No, it's not. One example (of whatever exactly it is) in all the history of all the world cannot counter a contention the veracity of which has been demonstrated over and over again throughout recorded history across the globe. In addition, the one example itself is limited to a 60 year blip in time, to essentially one ruling power, to a tiny island country, and to a people who share blood and heritage with other people (the Spanish) an ocean away and in may places elsewhere.

A tiny island country that has done more to advance the welfare of humanity in 60 years than the U.S. has in 240.

Shall I mention examples that prove my contention? Off the top of my head, we have Lebanon, Iraq and Iran and their Kurds and Baluchis and others, India and Pakistan and Bangladesh, Egypt and its Copts, Turkey and Armenia, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Thailand, ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia, Spain's Catalans, The Basques in Spain and France, Quebec, Portugal's Azores, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Chechnya now and for a long time, and the several once Soviet Republics, Israel's Arabs, Sudan. All that and more just post-WWI, without my doing any research. Then there's the rest of human history.

The Kurds, Chechens, and Palestinians have wide popular support. Their fights against nationalist oppression are not contrary to but complementary to nationalism. The victory of the Palestinians does not mean defeat for the Jews ... it means victory for the Jewish majority (workers and farmers) via defeat of the Israeli ruling class that is the common enemy of the Jewish and Arab masses. The same is true for all the fights you mention.

Syria would actually have been a better example of your contention. That, still a blip in time and a single ruling house, but at least it's collapse is being inflicted by capitalist interests.

Syria is a multi-ethnic nation, not a supranational federation. Your idea of nationalism seems to involve a struggle between races. But without class antagonisms born of private property there is no objective basis for a struggle between races OR a struggle between national powers.

Call it "selfish parochialism" if you wish; it is and remains human nature. I (as National Socialist philosophy) accept human nature and the power of Natural Law. They've always been more real than any world-wide worker's paradise. What you view as selfish parochialism I view as embrace of shared lineage, heritage, and destiny. It seems to me that my Nationalistic view respects the peoples of less-developed lands, their distinct bloodlines and cultures and potentials, while the globalist view condescends to those of non-White European heritage, as if they're only capable of taking from those who have and not of developing themselves.

All humanity has a shared lineage, heritage, and destiny. The breakdown of clan, tribal, ethnic, religious, and national barriers that has been a constant of human history is not only the result of class struggle but also something deeply rooted in human nature.

It is globalism that serves and is promoted by capitalist interests.

Yes, on one hand the further progress of capitalism requires globalization; on the other hand, that very progress threatens to undermine the basis of capitalism, hence the capitalists' support for reactionaries who kick and scream against the consequences of their own system.

When the richest countries -- the White ones -- are dragged into chaos and bankruptcy by the so-called migrants and refugees, the trillions in aid they give will disappear. Long-term, this moral high ground you wish to stake collapses.
Let us also note that the wealthy non-White countries, like China and oil-rich Arab states for example, are not accepting a flood of people from elsewhere.

The aid they give is a small fraction of the surplus value they extract and damage they inflict on the global South. BTW Japan and China aren't majority-white and are among the richest countries in the world. Arabs are white, though ... aren't they? Don't some Arab states (Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain) have some of the highest immigration rates in the world? Oh, and wouldn't an end to global imperialism and the devastation it wreaks mean less need for refugee resettlement?


Bravo!


Bravo!

Gee, thanks.


Ah, but here we have it, don't we? It's less pro the huddled masses and the workers of the world and more anti USA. How about we make the USA -- and it's European allies/progenitors -- the best they can be so their stability and prosperity can aid the rest of the world? That would seem a much more effective approach to helping all human beings around the world rise -- and do so in their own homelands among their own people who share their language, history, heritage, culture, and race -- than devastating the great peoples and cultures that created stable and prosperous countries and institutions in the first place, which is what flooding them with people from less developed lands will inevitably do and is doing.

Well, consider these empires when they were at their peak ... when they ruled much of the world. How did the people of the Belgian Congo do then? Or Bengal? Or Ireland? The Philippines?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

From family to clan to tribe to people to state. This is the warp of civilization. Common origin, history, heritage, and destiny define a people. A land exists to hold its own people; a state to allow them to live their unique way of life. Those not members of the family, tribe, clan, people have no ties to the land and no proprietorship in the state.

What sense is there in the idea that citizenship in a nation -- created by a people of common origin, history, heritage, culture, language -- be handed to those who reside on its land, regardless of how they got there, regardless of who they are? A country is the home of its people. From time immemorial, this has been so; the country was the home of a particular people. The citizens were of the same race, culture, language -- of common blood & shared history. This is normal, natural, and reasonable.
Anything else is perverse.

A family needs a place to live, so it acquires a house. The house belongs to that family and to no one else. So it is with the extended family -- the nation; one family/nation owns the land. Strangers who arrive do not become co-owners of the land simply by dwelling there, do not & cannot become members of the family just by living among it. The land and nation are not theirs. They have or ought to have their own, where they belong (in every sense of the word).

It is the nature of man to feel closer to limited circles of people. This is the way it always was, the way it is, the way it will remain -- it's universal, biological, and inevitable. Just as family takes precedence over nation, so nation above world. My family, our house; my people, our land. No ruler, worker, or -ism ever changed that nor ever will in the long term. Internationalism is an illusion. The power of nationalism is greater than that of globalism. Race, heritage, and culture pull strong on the heart.

The Sioux Zoo

What country was here before Whites came to America? None. It was a chaos of small wandering tribes continually committing genocide on one another. They had no land, only temporary sites they'd soon abandon or have taken from them by other savages.

They did nothing with the land they wandered over, either. It naturally belonged to whoever would come and develop it, creating a true nation.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Libs lust for more MASSA's

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/female-child-slave-kept-in-texas-home-of-former-african-leaders-son-for-16-years-cops-say/ar-AAwqyKS?ocid=spartandhp

The Origin of Black-on-Black Crime

Every Southern slave not born in America had participated in slave hunts before he himself got captured.

We were originally told by the dominant race traitors that White slavers invaded Africa and captured all their slaves by themselves. Then the narrative changed to blaming a few African chiefs whose tribe members were never themselves sold into slavery.

But we can tell from the behavior of our American Africans today that such transfer of guilt is simply not true. And it also saved their lives. Before slavery, whoever was captured in the continuous intertribal genocide was immediately killed, never taken prisoner.

 

[Emily]

Well, consider these empires when they were at their peak ... when they ruled much of the world.

As I said, let's seek to make them the best they can be -- examples and helpers, not conquerors.

Arabs are white, though ... aren't they?

No.

Don't some Arab states (Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain) have some of the highest immigration rates in the world?

No. Migrant workers, mostly Arab, and business people following the money, yes. All legally.

wouldn't an end to global imperialism and the devastation it wreaks mean less need for refugee resettlement?

It would mean fewer refugees, yes. I dispute the need for resettlement outside.

All humanity has a shared lineage, heritage, and destiny.

If we go back to Adam and Eve, sure. But let's deal with the world post-Eden.

Syria is a multi-ethnic nation

Yes, and a blip in time, like Cuba.

Your idea of nationalism seems to involve a struggle between races.

At base, it's racial, yes. Not exclusively, though. Regardless, the struggling is what we'd like to end, replaced with mutual respect and cooperation, without ending the idea of ethnic homeland.

But without class antagonisms born of private property there is no objective basis for a struggle between races

"Objective basis" -- perhaps. We can't discount biology or emotion.

a struggle between national powers

Okay. Great. Let's do that, keeping the nations can's the struggle.

Their fights against nationalist oppression are not contrary to but complementary to nationalism.

I think that's what I said.

A tiny island country that has done more to advance the welfare of humanity in 60 years than the U.S. has in 240.

Please offer some evidence.

The claim that Cuba demonstrates nearly 60 years of a consistent internationalist foreign policy.

Yeah, got that. What's it mean?
Does Cuba have non-Cuban, non-Hispanic, non-Spanish-speaking "immigrants" flooding it illegally?

 

[JackDallas]

https://www.defendevropa.org/2017/migrants/inbreeding-pakistani-costing-billions/

The statistics out of the UK and Sweden are scary, they cost society a fortune.

This is a self-inflicted wound.

 

[EatTheRich]

As I said, let's seek to make them the best they can be -- examples and helpers, not conquerors.

That aspiration is incompatible with the private property system.

At base, it's racial, yes. Not exclusively, though. Regardless, the struggling is what we'd like to end, replaced with mutual respect and cooperation, without ending the idea of ethnic homeland.

The way to end the struggle and establish cooperation is by building a world without borders.

Okay. Great. Let's do that, keeping the nations can's the struggle.

Huh?

I think that's what I said.

What I meant to say was that the nationalism of the oppressed is complementary to internationalism.

Please offer some evidence.


Yeah, got that. What's it mean?
Does Cuba have non-Cuban, non-Hispanic, non-Spanish-speaking "immigrants" flooding it illegally?

No, they do not take in a lot of immigrants. But they do have thousands of doctors, teachers, and construction workers providing free aid all over the world, and an unprecedented budget for humanitarian aid.

Cuba brought down the apartheid regime, and helped spur the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the liberalization of socialist regimes in Eurasia. They helped stem the spread of polio and AIDS. They brought eyesight to hundreds of thousands who were blind, education to millions who were illiterate, disaster relief to tens of millions around the world, and the list goes on and on.

 

[Emily]

Okay. Great. Let's do that, keeping the nations can's the struggle.

Huh?

Sorry. I meant to type sans the struggle.

But they do have thousands of doctors, teachers, and construction workers providing free aid all over the world

Umm, so does the USA.

Cuba brought down the apartheid regime

That's horrible. Eternal shame upon them.
Also, I don't believe it. Any documentation?

helped spur the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the liberalization of socialist regimes in Eurasia. They helped stem the spread of polio and AIDS. They brought eyesight to hundreds of thousands who were blind, education to millions who were illiterate, disaster relief to tens of millions around the world, and the list goes on and on.

Any documentation?

The way to end the struggle and establish cooperation is by building a world without borders.

There's our fundamental disagreement.
"Good fences make for good neighbors" and like that. Maintaining cultural heritage is a self-evident good in my view.

What I meant to say was that the nationalism of the oppressed is complementary to internationalism.

Apologies, but that sounds like newspeak. Care to explain further?

 

[EatTheRich]

Sorry. I meant to type sans the struggle.

Autocorrect. Been there, done that. And your dream is utopian.

Umm, so does the USA.

To serve its own national interests, among them competing.

That's horrible. Eternal shame upon them.
Also, I don't believe it. Any documentation?

Eternal credit in the eyes of decent folks.

https://www.amazon.com/Conflicting-Missions-Havana-Washington-1959-1976/dp/0807854646

Any documentation?

https://www.amazon.com/Negroes-Guns-Robert-F-Williams/dp/1614274118/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525228481&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=negroes+with+guns&dpPl=1&dpID=51hg4GPv2pL&ref=plSrch

https://www.amazon.com/New-International-no-Guevara-Socialism/dp/0873486439/ref=mp_s_a_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525228581&sr=8-1-fkmr1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=defending+cuba+mary-alice+waters

https://www.google.com/search?q=operation+miracle+cuba&oq=operation+miracle+cuba&aqs=chrome..69i57.6020j0j4&client=ms-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/A-Lesson-for-the-US-Cubas-Response-to-Hurricanes-20170828-0025.html

http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2015-02-11/polio-a-scourge-eradicated-by-the-revolution

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/health/a-regimes-tight-grip-lessons-from-cuba-in-aids-control.html

There's our fundamental disagreement.
"Good fences make for good neighbors" and like that. Maintaining cultural heritage is a self-evident good in my view.

Why do you insist that cultural heritage can only be maintained via the state oppression of some nations by others? Or is it only the worst aspects of our cultural heritage that you actually wish to maintain?

Apologies, but that sounds like newspeak. Care to explain further?

Sure. By bringing down the oppressor nations (empires), the oppressed nations in asserting their national autonomy strike at the foundation of the nation-state, which is founded on violent state oppression.

 

[Emily]

And your dream is utopian.

Of course it is. So's yours. We both want a better world; that's what utopian dreams are for. How to achieve it -- aye, there's the rub.

To serve its own national interests

So ... The USA giving aid around the world is only to serve it's own interests, but Cuba giving aid is purely altruistic? A little biased, maybe? You've painted Cuba as The Holy Land because it's the only revolutionary Communist regime that's managed to survive until now.

Eternal credit in the eyes of decent folks.

Are you aware of what's going on in S. Africa right now? S. Africa is an excellent argument for separation and good fences.

Why do you insist that cultural heritage can only be maintained via the state oppression of some nations by others? Or is it only the worst aspects of our cultural heritage that you actually wish to maintain?

When have I insisted any such thing? I want the best of different peoples' cultures maintained. Free peoples living in their own lands. That doesn't seem a problem for you and yours unless the people are White.

Sure. By bringing down the oppressor nations (empires), the oppressed nations in asserting their national autonomy strike at the foundation of the nation-state, which is founded on violent state oppression.

So peoples wanting their own nation-states strikes at the foundation of the nation-state?
No.
Your goal here isn't to help "immigrants" or "migrants" find better lives in a new land. It's to have peoples with extant nation-states be overwhelmed with others not of their ethnic heritage to destroy the nation-states from within.
Revolution failed to create your version of utopia so you've turned to other means.

 

[EatTheRich]

Of course it is. So's yours. We both want a better world; that's what utopian dreams are for. How to achieve it -- aye, there's the rub.

No, your dream of a "better world" is rooted in fantasy, which is what makes it utopian. My practical efforts to create a better world are rooted in science.

So ... The USA giving aid around the world is only to serve it's own interests, but Cuba giving aid is purely altruistic? A little biased, maybe? You've painted Cuba as The Holy Land because it's the only revolutionary Communist regime that's managed to survive until now.

Altruism is pious hypocrisy. The U.S. doles out aid ... with an eyedropper ... to serve the interests of its ruling class ... Wall Street ... and Cuba provides aid ... generously ... to serve the interests of its ruling class ... workers. Cuba's credit as the only revolutionary workers' state is well-deserved.

Are you aware of what's going on in S. Africa right now? S. Africa is an excellent argument for separation and good fences.

Capitalism is causing some problems (poverty, crime, and environmental devastation) in S. Africa, which the right likes to blame on the end of apartheid. The real problem is that the bourgeois-democratic revolution against apartheid wasn't completed by a proletarian social revolution and so the social problems nascent under the old system are still there festering.

When have I insisted any such thing? I want the best of different peoples' cultures maintained. Free peoples living in their own lands. That doesn't seem a problem for you and yours unless the people are White.

Then surely you are for the fall of the U.S. and the other great empires that actively destroy cultural diversity with their imperialist foreign policies.

So peoples wanting their own nation-states strikes at the foundation of the nation-state?
No.

Sure. Look at what brought down the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Ottoman Empire ... or the replacement of the Russian Empire based on the exaltation of the Russian nationality with a Soviet Union that was theoretically an international alliance of equals.

Your goal here isn't to help "immigrants" or "migrants" find better lives in a new land. It's to have peoples with extant nation-states be overwhelmed with others not of their ethnic heritage to destroy the nation-states from within.
Revolution failed to create your version of utopia so you've turned to other means.

It's both. You can't advance one goal without the other. If the nation-state (unlike the Soviet Union made possible by the national advances of the subject nationalities) can exist only on the basis of racism, it deserves a quick, unmourned death.

 

[Emily]

No, your dream of a "better world" is rooted in fantasy, which is what makes it utopian. My practical efforts to create a better world are rooted in science.

My dream of a better world is rooted in Natural Law and faith in God. Your desire to destroy all that has made different peoples special and replace nationhood with a homogenized world Communist regime is contrary to science and history and, thus, will fail (one way or the other) as it always has.

Cuba's credit as the only revolutionary workers' state is well-deserved.

Fair enough. Yet it remains the only one, an unique case as previously noted, and a recent development yet to be proven over the long run. It's also an impoverished sh**hole.

Capitalism is causing some problems (poverty, crime, and environmental devastation) in S. Africa, which the right likes to blame on the end of apartheid. The real problem is that the bourgeois-democratic revolution against apartheid wasn't completed by a proletarian social revolution and so the social problems nascent under the old system are still there festering.

Keep telling yourself that. The real problem is blacks committing genocide.

Then surely you are for the fall of the U.S. and the other great empires that actively destroy cultural diversity with their imperialist foreign policies.

That doesn't happen. Capitalism destroys culture around the world by spreading corporate tentacles (local cafes replaced by Pizza Huts and so forth), but restrained capitalism isn't inherently evil. I'm for the fall of corporatism, financial hegemony, and Cultural Marxism.

You can't advance one goal without the other. If the nation-state (unlike the Soviet Union made possible by the national advances of the subject nationalities) can exist only on the basis of racism, it deserves a quick, unmourned death.

I went over this is an earlier post. Nation-states have always formed and existed on the basis of shared blood, history, heritage, and culture. You call it 'racism' because that's the standard go-to evil for Marxists and a tactic for your agenda of destruction.

 

[EatTheRich]

My dream of a better world is rooted in Natural Law and faith in God. Your desire to destroy all that has made different peoples special and replace nationhood with a homogenized world Communist regime is contrary to science and history and, thus, will fail (one way or the other) as it always has.

Faith in God means faith in unreason. Get back to me on science when you stop believing in fairy tales.

Fair enough. Yet it remains the only one, an unique case as previously noted, and a recent development yet to be proven over the long run. It's also an impoverished sh**hole.

Its people are a he'll of a lot better off than before the revolution. The whole world is. Anyway, science tells us that capitalism by its owner logic must give way to socialism (or collapse into barbarism). Cuba is alone now because it is the outpost of a new world in the making.

Keep telling yourself that. The real problem is blacks committing genocide.

Genocide?

That doesn't happen. Capitalism destroys culture around the world by spreading corporate tentacles (local cafes replaced by Pizza Huts and so forth), but restrained capitalism isn't inherently evil. I'm for the fall of corporatism, financial hegemony, and Cultural Marxism.

Unless you are referring to socialism, there's no such thing as "restrained capitalism." The only rule of capitalism is that everything is for sale. If buying and selling are restrained, it's not capitalism.

I went over this is an earlier post. Nation-states have always formed and existed on the basis of shared blood, history, heritage, and culture. You call it 'racism' because that's the standard go-to evil for Marxists and a tactic for your agenda of destruction.

When you say that immigrants with a shared history and culture (as part of the global history and culture we all share) can't be assimilated, it is evident that it is because of race.

 

[Emily]

Faith in God means faith in unreason. Get back to me on science when you stop believing in fairy tales.

Far afield from the topic and we probably have no basis for communication on this point, but you might want to read some stuff on modern cosmology.

Its people are a he'll of a lot better off than before the revolution.

Well, everyone who could afford to left when Castro turned a tourist paradise into a repressive dictatorship so, yeah, the poorer folks who were left are better off now.

science tells us that capitalism by its owner logic must give way to socialism (or collapse into barbarism)

Social science. And only a stream of socio-economic theory with no empirical data to support it.
Science -- physics & cosmology -- tells us that there's an intelligent creator force, with lots of empirical evidence to back it up. But ideological rigidity is usually blinding.

Cuba is alone now because it is the outpost of a new world in the making.

And you call my ideas Utopian fantasy?

Genocide?

Genocide. Educate yourself. It's easy to these days.

Unless you are referring to socialism, there's no such thing as "restrained capitalism." The only rule of capitalism is that everything is for sale. If buying and selling are restrained, it's not capitalism.

No, there can be a managed and regulated free market. The USA has one. Corporate ownership of the government subverts it. That's not inevitable and a huge part of what we need to fix here.

When you say that immigrants with a shared history and culture (as part of the global history and culture we all share) can't be assimilated, it is evident that it is because of race.

You're back to Eden. Here in the world now, race is real, and people value their ethnic heritage.

 

[EatTheRich]

Far afield from the topic and we probably have no basis for communication on this point, but you might want to read some stuff on modern cosmology.

Such as? I've read a bit and seen nothing to substantiate the claim of a supernatural force, which, after all, cannot in principle be proved by reference to nature.

Well, everyone who could afford to left when Castro turned a tourist paradise into a repressive dictatorship so, yeah, the poorer folks who were left are better off now.

The vast majority, then.

Social

science. And only a stream of socio-economic theory with no empirical data to support it.

The empirical data: confirmation of the theories in detail by the Russian revolution and it's degeneration, the world wars, the falling rate of profit, the long-term crisis of capitalism, and the revolutions in China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

Science -- physics & cosmology -- tells us that there's an intelligent creator force, with lots of empirical evidence to back it up.

Fantasy. Where is this evidence?

But ideological rigidity is usually blinding.


And you call my ideas Utopian fantasy?

Yup. When the Communist Manifesto was written there was no socialist state in the world's history, unions were illegal almost everywhere and had little power, and most of the world was under autocratic rule. Now the world has not been without a socialist citadel for more than 100 years, democracy is almost unchallenged, unions are powerful forces in almost every country ... secularism has grown ... the family is breaking down ... the capitalists' own representatives are turning against private property as with the planned economies of WWII ...

Genocide. Educate yourself. It's easy to these days.

This unsubstantiated claim is in poor taste coming from an avowed supporter of the genocidal regimes of Nazi Germany and white-ruled S. Africa.

No, there can be a managed and regulated free market. The USA has one. Corporate ownership of the government subverts it. That's not inevitable and a huge part of what we need to fix here.

Under capitalism, the "free market" can only be "managed and regulated" when corporations control the government. Otherwise, if the market can't buy the policies it wants, the market isn't free, is it?

Besides the fact that these "managed and regulated" markets directly pave the way for socialism by simplifying the task of seizing the means of production and undercutting the "competition" rationale for capitalism, they certainly do nothing to undermine the capital exports which drive modern developed economies and inevitably lead to imperialist foreign policies.

You're back to Eden. Here in the world now, race is real, and people value their ethnic heritage.

Race is a real arbitrary social construct used to divide people ... but fewer and fewer people are buying into it.

 

[Emily]

Such as? I've read a bit and seen nothing to substantiate the claim of a supernatural force, which, after all, cannot in principle be proved by reference to nature.

Where is this evidence?

Try the works of Gerard Schroeder. Well-rounded and written for the layman.

Russian revolution and it's degeneration, the world wars, the falling rate of profit, the long-term crisis of capitalism, and the revolutions in China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

You're changing the theory on the fly to accommodate the evidence. It's supposed to be the other way around.
Even if that weren't so, you're affirming my contention that human nature will out.

This unsubstantiated claim

Absolute and thoroughly documented fact. It's easy to find all the substantiation needed, if you're so inclined.

avowed supporter of the genocidal regimes of Nazi Germany

THAT'S the unsubstantiated claim. More accurately, the discredited claim.

white-ruled S. Africa

I never supported that. I don't support apartheid; rather, ethnic nationalism.

Under capitalism, the "free market" can only be "managed and regulated" when corporations control the government.

That would be corporatism. Things needn't be that way. Effective government acting in the interests of the people can regulate and manage a free economy for the greatest national benefit.

Otherwise, if the market can't buy the policies it wants, the market isn't free, is it?

Free enterprise and government oversight aren't mutually exclusive. Freedom isn't anarchy. I'm free to drive whenever and wherever I might want but it requires government certification of my fitness to do so and there are rules to follow that serve everyone's interests, including mine even though I might chafe at the speed limit when I'm running late. Same general idea.

Besides the fact that these "managed and regulated" markets directly pave the way for socialism by simplifying the task of seizing the means of production

It doesn't have to be that way. The National Socialist concept of "socialism" guides the economy for the benefit of the people without depriving individuals of the rewards of their singular efforts and without bureaucratic, collectivist control of every productive effort. It worked before. Communism hasn't.

inevitably lead to imperialist foreign policies.

It has but it's not inevitable.

Race is a real arbitrary social construct used to divide people

Race is a real biological fact. Obvious, scientific, affirmed, confirmed, unarguable, indisputable. Calling it an "arbitrary social construct" is a bald-faced falsehood being propagated for the sole purpose of devastating the White race to advance the Marxist agenda.

fewer and fewer people are buying into it.

In the USA, among your circles, perhaps.

 

[EatTheRich]

[QUOTE="Emily, post: 2120624, member: 22Schröder
the works of Gerard Schroeder. Well-rounded and written for the layman.[/QUOTE]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder
?

You're changing the theory on the fly to accommodate the evidence. It's supposed to be the other way around.
Even if that weren't so, you're affirming my contention that human nature will out.

No, theories are supposed to change to reflect the evidence. That's the difference between a theory and a dogma. What distinguishes Marxism from other philosophical positions is the lack of preconceptions.

Absolute and thoroughly documented fact. It's easy to find all the substantiation needed, if you're so inclined.

So you say. Where is it then?

THAT'S the unsubstantiated claim. More accurately, the discredited claim.

I beg your pardon? You describe yourself as an "NSDAP Kanzler" right here in your avatar, and defend Nazism in this very post.

I never supported that. I don't support apartheid; rather, ethnic nationalism.

You just attacked Cuba for its role in the anti-apartheid struggle. Anyway, what is the practical difference between the nationalism of the powerful nations and apartheid, unless of course you prefer the Nazi alternative of extermination?

That would be corporatism. Things needn't be that way. Effective government acting in the interests of the people can regulate and manage a free economy for the greatest national benefit.


Free enterprise and government oversight aren't mutually exclusive. Freedom isn't anarchy. I'm free to drive whenever and wherever I might want but it requires government certification of my fitness to do so and there are rules to follow that serve everyone's interests, including mine even though I might chafe at the speed limit when I'm running late. Same general idea.


It doesn't have to be that way. The National Socialist concept of "socialism" guides the economy for the benefit of the people without depriving individuals of the rewards of their singular efforts and without bureaucratic, collectivist control of every productive effort. It worked before. Communism hasn't.

Fascism (and "National Socialism" is a dishonest euphemism for Fascism) is corporatism by Mussolini's own description. At any rate, I don't dispute that government intervention is compatible with capitalism, only that it acts as a restraint on the ruling capitalist class rather than as a safeguard of their interests.

Nazism is all but synonymous with bureaucratic control and caused more harm to the general public than any other political phenomenon in history. Of course by positing a "national interest" for Germany that was counterposed to the interests of all other nations in Hitler's insane zero-sum game, it unavoidably defined "success" as the defeat of the international masses.

It has but it's not inevitable.

Theoretically, it is, according to the standard work on the subject, Lenin's ... and it is the standard work because it has received abundant empirical confirmation.

Race is a real biological fact. Obvious, scientific, affirmed, confirmed, unarguable, indisputable. Calling it an "arbitrary social construct" is a bald-faced falsehood being propagated for the sole purpose of devastating the White race to advance the Marxist agenda.

Biologists say otherwise. Anthropologists say otherwise.

In the USA, among your circles, perhaps.

Probably no one did more to discredit race-based politics than Adolf Hitler.

 

[Emily]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder
?

Schroeder
https://www.amazon.com/Gerald-L.-Schroeder/e/B000APV1XA/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1525571037&sr=8-2-ent

So you say. Where is it then?

Oh, for crying out loud! 45 seconds on Yahoo:
http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/12326-south-africa-facing-white-genocide-total-communist-takeover
https://www.rt.com/business/422319-south-africa-farmers-genocide/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/genocide-in-south-africa-now-thats-a-black-and-white-issue/
http://americanfreepress.net/70000-whites-murdered-in-modern-south-africa-obamas-african-legacy/
https://straightlinelogic.com/2018/03/25/kill-the-white-man-or-south-africas-white-genocide-by-justin-o-smith/
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/real-refugees-white-south-africans-facing-genocide/
https://redice.tv/news/white-genocide-continues-in-south-africa
https://iamamalaysian.com/2018/03/08/growing-crisis-coming-white-genocide-in-south-africa/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/26/fraser-anning-claims-that-south-african-farmers-are-at-risk-of-genocide
https://rebezi.com/2018/02/09/white-genocide-south-africa-real-3-year-old-girl-crucified-kitchen-table-raped/
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1193767

I beg your pardon? You describe yourself as an "NSDAP Kanzler" right here in your avatar, and defend Nazism in this very post.

Yeah, the forum labels people mayor and senator and such. Kanzler is German for Chancellor. Get it?
I'll defend National Socialism with my every breath. I've been open about my philosophy and affiliation since I joined the forum a few years ago; why do people continue to point it out as if it's a surprise new thing?

Anyway, what is the practical difference between the nationalism of the powerful nations and apartheid

Apartheid is a systemic policy of legal, political, and economic discrimination.
Nationalism is patriotic devotion to the culture and the interests of one's nation and believing that ethnic groups constitute distinct peoples deserving of political self-determination.

unless of course you prefer the Nazi alternative of extermination?

Thoroughly discredited, as noted.

"National Socialism" is a dishonest euphemism for Fascism

Not so at all. A NS government is authoritarian, but the similarity pretty much ends there. Under a fascist government, the people serve the state interest; in NS, the state serves the people's interests.

Nazism is all but synonymous with bureaucratic control and caused more harm to the general public than any other political phenomenon in history.

You need a history lesson.

Probably no one did more to discredit race-based politics than Adolf Hitler.

By his defeat only, yes, in Western Europe.

 

[Fast Eddy]

The middle east has historically been run by dictators that in reality have been very successful in running their countries, sure there were atrocities, but if you examine the alternative we are seeing today it's worse. Sadam Hussain ruled Iraq with an iron fist, but he kept the peace between the different religious sects to keep order. Omar Kadaffi basically did the same as has Hussain. The reason this is required is that the Muslim population is incapable of ruling themselves. they are an inbred population with a low IQ incapable of logically coming to the right conclusions. The Arab spring kicked off by Obama brought the house of cards down and we have the chaos we face today. Bush has his share of failure in this whole thing as well.
When the Arab spring started Egypt was falling into disorder as the Muslim factions started fighting amongst themselves, the only thing they understand. Thankfully, the military in Egypt is strong and took over power and restored order. The CIA took out Kadaffi and we have a new continued mess there, likewise, Syria teters and I believe the best for stability is to let Hussain rule with all his warts. Between the low IQ and militaristic Muslim factions that area is doomed to chaos unless dictatorial powers restore order.
A low IQ population is a severe problem as to how to rule, Democracy may not be the answer.