New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Suicide of Europe

EatTheRich

President
For starters. . .

as I've said before. . .

for example. . .

for starters. . .

por exemplo. . .

The US is not a democracy. The Founders hated democracy and were very public about it but realized it was the method We the People have to extend "self-governance" to the level of government. But they so despised democracy that they restricted it to one half of one branch--contained it if you will.

The Presidency to them was an autocracy. The SCOTUS was an oligarchy (appointed by the president) as well as the senate (appointed by the state legislators). The three branches were meant to compete against each other and trip each other up leaving We the People alone as much as possible.

The very idea that our "democracy" is supposed to be We the People telling our government what to do for us is a rewritten piece of history brought to you by the Progs of the early 20th century. It's a lie. Just like the lie of George Washington cutting down his father's cherry tree.

I mean, how many times do you have to be told this before you get it?

Guess what, we don’t have to do things a certain way just because special interests more than 200 years ago wanted it that way.
 

EatTheRich

President
False.


False. People used to be required to pass a medical exam, have a means of support, have sponsorship, etc.

It needs to be changed.

Syncretism isn't the same as replacement. American culture has value and should be preserved, not destroyed and buried in an avalanche of people with no desire or even incentive to integrate or by those who wish it's death and replacement with that of their nation of origin.

Enter the 21st century. Actually, the 20th. Actually, the 19th. Or maybe the 18th,


The denunciation is rhetoric for political gain. The cheering was/is the truth.


All they've got in answer is the Crusades, which ended looooong ago, and US adventurism in the Middle East, which isn't about imposing religion and isn't Christian.


Read the Hadith. The interpretation of both "religious differences" and "live peacefully with them" vary. The command to dominate and impose Islamic rule doesn't, though there are modern liberal Muslims who advocate peaceful means to that end.

False. Read the Bible.
Passing a medical exam, having a means of support, and having sponsorship (all but the first of which were seldom required before the 1920s) would be insufficient today. Christians were quite recently killing Muslims for being Muslim in Central African Republic, not long before that in Syria and Lebanon.

Death of unbelievers commanded in the Bible: Deuteronomy 17.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Passing a medical exam, having a means of support, and having sponsorship (all but the first of which were seldom required before the 1920s) would be insufficient today. Christians were quite recently killing Muslims for being Muslim in Central African Republic, not long before that in Syria and Lebanon.

Death of unbelievers commanded in the Bible: Deuteronomy 17.
it's 2018, not 1920
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
All they've got in answer is the Crusades, which ended looooong ago, and US adventurism in the Middle East, which isn't about imposing religion and isn't Christian.
Even that’s a lame answer since the Crusades were nothing but a response to. . .wait for it. . .Muslim jihad!
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
Guess what, we don’t have to do things a certain way just because special interests more than 200 years ago wanted it that way.
I musta missed the meeting where we all decided to commit suicide via democracy like the ancient Greeks.
 

Spamature

President
For starters. . .

as I've said before. . .

for example. . .

for starters. . .

por exemplo. . .

The US is not a democracy. The Founders hated democracy and were very public about it but realized it was the method We the People have to extend "self-governance" to the level of government. But they so despised democracy that they restricted it to one half of one branch--contained it if you will.

The Presidency to them was an autocracy. The SCOTUS was an oligarchy (appointed by the president) as well as the senate (appointed by the state legislators). The three branches were meant to compete against each other and trip each other up leaving We the People alone as much as possible.

The very idea that our "democracy" is supposed to be We the People telling our government what to do for us is a rewritten piece of history brought to you by the Progs of the early 20th century. It's a lie. Just like the lie of George Washington cutting down his father's cherry tree.

I mean, how many times do you have to be told this before you get it?

You are conflating Democracy with our govt. And you're positing our govt wrongly.

Two things a true autocrat would need is the ability to tax and declare war. Neither of which our original governing document bestows on the POTUS. Also since it is amendable so the intent of the originators is irrelevant. Now you seem to be trying to use your offshoot opinions to deviate from my central questions about your thoughts on the subject. So in we can I would like to get back to it. Because I haven't asked the most important questions yet.

The West in general and America in particular has itself created the one of the most culturally invasive "legally" living creature on Earth, the corporation. If anything has define Western culture's, power and influence, it's this globe spanning legal entity. Culturally they are the most relentless invaders that have ever existed.

Do you consider allowing Western corporations into a region as cultural suicide ?
How is their influence on other cultures less impactful than refugees ?
 
Last edited:

Spamature

President
False.


False. People used to be required to pass a medical exam, have a means of support, have sponsorship, etc.

It needs to be changed.

Syncretism isn't the same as replacement. American culture has value and should be preserved, not destroyed and buried in an avalanche of people with no desire or even incentive to integrate or by those who wish it's death and replacement with that of their nation of origin.

Enter the 21st century. Actually, the 20th. Actually, the 19th. Or maybe the 18th,


The denunciation is rhetoric for political gain. The cheering was/is the truth.


All they've got in answer is the Crusades, which ended looooong ago, and US adventurism in the Middle East, which isn't about imposing religion and isn't Christian.


Read the Hadith. The interpretation of both "religious differences" and "live peacefully with them" vary. The command to dominate and impose Islamic rule doesn't, though there are modern liberal Muslims who advocate peaceful means to that end.

False. Read the Bible.
Maybe deep in their hearts the trees dreamed they would be axes too someday. Like those who vote for the agendas of the 0.01%. Instead most will just end up being fuel for the fires of the axe head forges.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Passing a medical exam, having a means of support, and having sponsorship (all but the first of which were seldom required before the 1920s) would be insufficient today.
Insufficient for what?

Christians were quite recently killing Muslims for being Muslim in Central African Republic, not long before that in Syria and Lebanon.
And vice versa.

Also... Africans. IE blacks.

Don't believe the news you hear re: Syria. It's been targeted by our overlords and the propaganda machine is in full gear.

Lebanon was a Christian nation; the Muslims there are deported Palestinian Arabs from Jordan. IE, foreign invaders.

Death of unbelievers commanded in the Bible: Deuteronomy 17.
No, it's not. Deut. 17 mandates capital punishment after trial specifically for Israelites who publicly defied the central tenet of the national religion via cultic idolatrous worship. That would be roughly equivalent today to an Israeli court sentencing an Israeli Jew to death for worshiping Baal by slaughtering a goat on an altar and sodomizing a prostitute as it was consumed on a Jerusalem street. It's not at all equivalent to a Muslim private citizen beating a woman to death for being a Christian in London.

The West in general and America in particular has itself created the one of the most culturally invasive "legally" living creature on Earth, the corporation. If anything has define Western culture's, power and influence, it's this globe spanning legal entity. Culturally they are the most relentless invaders that have ever existed.

Do you consider allowing foreign corporation into a region as cultural suicide ?
How is their influence on other cultures less impactful than refugees ?
All you say about the West's spreading corporatist culture is true.

However, there's a big difference between that and the impact of "refugees" on a culture:

For one thing, the goal of a corporation spreading around the globe is to make money. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. A negative impact on an indigenous culture is a negative consequence but not the intent.
Second, the native people have the option of not supporting the Western corporation -- not buying it's product, service, etc. The peoples of Europe have no similar option once "refugees" are admitted.
Third, if the native culture is strong and the people want it preserved, a foreign corporate presence can be integrated into the prevailing culture. While that may be true of cultures with the controlled admittance of immigrants, simple demography makes overwhelming and devastating a native culture inevitable with a flood of foreign "refugees."
 

Spamature

President
All you say about the West's spreading corporatist culture is true.

However, there's a big difference between that and the impact of "refugees" on a culture:

For one thing, the goal of a corporation spreading around the globe is to make money. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. A negative impact on an indigenous culture is a negative consequence but not the intent.
Yes it is. They are trying to make new customers. If that means tearing down and reshaping a culture ? Then that is what market research and marketing and advertising is for. They are corporate tools for reshaping culture into a commodity rather than a way of life.


Second, the native people have the option of not supporting the Western corporation -- not buying it's product, service, etc. The peoples of Europe have no similar option once "refugees" are admitted.
Ha ! Tell that to the military industrial complex, or the Banana Republic at the barrel of a gun in South America, or any other indigenous culture that gets CRUSH by corporate power.

Third, if the native culture is strong and the people want it preserved, a foreign corporate presence can be integrated into the prevailing culture. While that may be true of cultures with the controlled admittance of immigrants, simple demography makes overwhelming and devastating a native culture inevitable with a flood of foreign "refugees."
If a culture is strong it will shape the people regardless of origin. The US has a very robust culture. By the 3rd generation if any speak any other language and most follow the popular culture, corporate customs we have been shaped to adhere to. It all gets ground up and added to the mix.

Maybe the problem is that Europe is too rigid and brittle to survive.
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
You are conflating Democracy with our govt. And you're positing our govt wrongly.
Said Connie McFlater who wrote:
So you are against one of the bedrock foundations of Western Culture ? How is that different than the supposed suicidal mindset bemoaned in the video ?
I conflate nothing. I wrote:
No. I hate democracy.
Look, clean up your act. We’ll discuss your more self important questions when you align them to the truth.
 

Spamature

President
Said Connie McFlater who wrote:


I conflate nothing. I wrote:


Look, clean up your act. We’ll discuss your more self important questions when you align them to the truth.
I'm done with that for now. I asked you another question.

Do you consider allowing Western corporations into a region as cultural suicide ?
How is their influence on other cultures less impactful than refugees ?


You were and are free to respond to them. So please go ahead as we move forward.
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
I'm done with that for now.
I'm not.

If two people cannot agree on the definitions of terms, they can't have a debate. You're definitions, and in fact, your understandings of terms are all effed up.

It would be pointless to answer any questions until you clean up your act. It would be like answering noise with noise. Clean up your act.

I asked you another question.
If you give a damn about your questions, you'll take the 2 minutes to clean up your act.
 

Spamature

President
I'm not.

If two people cannot agree on the definitions of terms, they can't have a debate. You're definitions, and in fact, your understandings of terms are all effed up.

It would be pointless to answer any questions until you clean up your act. It would be like answering noise with noise. Clean up your act.



If you give a damn about your questions, you'll take the 2 minutes to clean up your act.
We aren't debating Democracy, nor is this thread about Democracy. Now you want to turn tail and run from the subject at hand. Now if you want say Democracy is not part of the foundation that shaped Western Culture then I assume you will present the governmental system that did. Otherwise, let's move we should move on to my questions.

So how about you either answer the questions about the spreading of corporatism or name what kind of government shaped the Western Culture we have to today.
 

EatTheRich

President
Insufficient for what?
To immigrate legally

And vice versa.

Also... Africans. IE blacks.

In CAR the “anti-Balaka” Christians were clearly the aggressors, same with the pro-Assad Christians in Syria and Falangists in Lebanon.

What does their race have to do with it?


Don't believe the news you hear re: Syria. It's been targeted by our overlords and the propaganda machine is in full gear.

I would urge you to be discriminating in your sources and understand what spin they are putting on the news.

Lebanon was a Christian nation; the Muslims there are deported Palestinian Arabs from Jordan. IE, foreign invaders.

Lebanon has long been a multi-confessional country. When it became independent, it included a complex power-sharing arrangement among Christians, Shi’ites, and Sunnis. It had a Christian majority at the time; now it has a Muslim majority, largely because of large-scale, preferentially Christian immigration to the U.S. (since Muslims couldn’t have the same opportunities here that Christians could). When the civil war broke out, Christians were privileged and Muslims discriminated against when it came to voting and the leverage over government that allowed. Today, Christians still dominate the most valuable ports while much of the country is under Hizballah’s sway ... the poisonous fruit of triumphalist politics.


No, it's not. Deut. 17 mandates capital punishment after trial specifically for Israelites who publicly defied the central tenet of the national religion via cultic idolatrous worship. That would be roughly equivalent today to an Israeli court sentencing an Israeli Jew to death for worshiping Baal by slaughtering a goat on an altar and sodomizing a prostitute as it was consumed on a Jerusalem street. It's not at all equivalent to a Muslim private citizen beating a woman to death for being a Christian in London.

No difference at all.

All you say about the West's spreading corporatist culture is true.

However, there's a big difference between that and the impact of "refugees" on a culture:

For one thing, the goal of a corporation spreading around the globe is to make money. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. A negative impact on an indigenous culture is a negative consequence but not the intent.
Second, the native people have the option of not supporting the Western corporation -- not buying it's product, service, etc. The peoples of Europe have no similar option once "refugees" are admitted.

The refugees’ goal is to make money or, more laudably, to escape violence. And no one is forced to hire them.
Third, if the native culture is strong and the people want it preserved, a foreign corporate presence can be integrated into the prevailing culture. While that may be true of cultures with the controlled admittance of immigrants, simple demography makes overwhelming and devastating a native culture inevitable with a flood of foreign "refugees."

Corporations have done more to break down traditional cultures than cultural diffusion has done. If a culture is superior to another, it will win out in a free competition regardless of numerical strength.
 

EatTheRich

President
I musta missed the meeting where we all decided to commit suicide via democracy like the ancient Greeks.
Democracy (even limited by slavery as in Ancient Greece) led the Greeks to producing the largest proportion of geniuses in the shortest time of perhaps anywhere in history, conquering the mightiest empire in the world, and leaving a bigger impact on future generations than any contemporary culture.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Maybe the problem is that Europe is too rigid and brittle to survive.
That's an intriguing thought. What you're describing as perhaps rigidity and brittleness, I see as clinging to a proud heritage that deserves to survive, despite the efforts of outsiders to kill it. The world in general views, correctly, Americans as having little respect for traditional norms. Like the corporatism against which we both stand, that aspect of Americanism can be destructive, especially when exported. Europe handled non-European immigrants just fine until the current overwhelming flood that's killing it. The thread title is 'the suicide of Europe' but it's not actually suicide; the peoples of Europe aren't killing themselves. They're being murdered. It's genocide by demographics and neither rigidity nor flexibility are sufficient defenses.

In CAR the “anti-Balaka” Christians were clearly the aggressors, same with the pro-Assad Christians in Syria and Falangists in Lebanon.
That it was pro-Assad Christians doing violence against anti-Assad Muslims tell us in itself that they weren't the initial aggressors and that the violence wasn't motivated by religion.
The Phalangists want a Lebanese Lebanon. The aggressors are the Arab Muslims.

What does their race have to do with it?
Negroes act like negroes, Arabs act like Arabs, Whites act like Whites.

No difference at all.
You see what you choose to see. It's not there. Those who once used Scripture to justify slavery did what you're doing now, taking isolated pieces out of context and using them to justify what they already wanted to believe. An Israelite court sentencing an Israelite to death for willfully and publicly breaking the nation's law (there was no separation of Church & State -- religious law was civil law) is an entirely different thing than a Muslim individual killing a non-Muslim for not being a Muslim or for dressing in a way that violates the customs of a subset of Muslims and such. Christian Scriptures don't call on believers to kill non-believers. That's plain and obvious in multiple places and Deut. 17 doesn't conflict with them at all. This is not so of Muslim scripture according to how may Muslims understand them.

If a culture is superior to another, it will win out in a free competition regardless of numerical strength.
It would be nice if that were so but it just isn't. Too much of an invasive culture too quickly will overwhelm that of the host; it's a demographic inevitability. Human culture is superior to cockroach culture but a large enough number of cockroaches will overwhelm and drive the humans from their home (no, I'm not calling immigrants cockroaches; it's just an analogy). Kalergi knew it, Marxists know it.

Democracy (even limited by slavery as in Ancient Greece) led the Greeks to producing the largest proportion of geniuses in the shortest time of perhaps anywhere in history, conquering the mightiest empire in the world, and leaving a bigger impact on future generations than any contemporary culture.
I'm surprised at your European ethnocentrism. :p
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
Democracy (even limited by slavery as in Ancient Greece) led the Greeks to producing the largest proportion of geniuses in the shortest time of perhaps anywhere in history, conquering the mightiest empire in the world, and leaving a bigger impact on future generations than any contemporary culture.
Then they all democratically voted in a tyrant and brought it to a crashing halt.
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
We aren't debating Democracy, nor is this thread about Democracy. Now you want to turn tail and run from the subject at hand. Now if you want say Democracy is not part of the foundation that shaped Western Culture then I assume you will present the governmental system that did. Otherwise, let's move we should move on to my questions.

So how about you either answer the questions about the spreading of corporatism or name what kind of government shaped the Western Culture we have to today.
We're done.

Your argument is a heap of slop and you want me to comment on it.

It's a heap of slop. Never mind that diamond you say is at the bottom of it all. I'll believe it when you clean up your slop and I can see it.
 

Spamature

President
That's an intriguing thought. What you're describing as perhaps rigidity and brittleness, I see as clinging to a proud heritage that deserves to survive, despite the efforts of outsiders to kill it. The world in general views, correctly, Americans as having little respect for traditional norms. Like the corporatism against which we both stand, that aspect of Americanism can be destructive, especially when exported. Europe handled non-European immigrants just fine until the current overwhelming flood that's killing it. The thread title is 'the suicide of Europe' but it's not actually suicide; the peoples of Europe aren't killing themselves. They're being murdered. It's genocide by demographics and neither rigidity nor flexibility are sufficient defenses.
Maybe taking in refugees isn't the solution. Maybe fixing what the West broke in those regions is. I often look at the places these people are escaping from and as how many of them design and manufacture the weapons of war that are devastating these regions. It looks like glaring hypocrisy when set side by side with the complaints about refugees entering the West. You send one in and it is certain that you will eventually have the other streaming out.
 
Top