Right-Wing Discussion Thread

[Jochistan]

That depends on the culture, I guess.

How so?

Depends if the cultures homogonizing share a common history and culture. Or desire to.

Even then, giving up all of your culture would not be necessary. Only the one getting in the way of unification in a political entity.

[Conscentia]

How so?

Depends if the cultures homogonizing share a common history and culture. Or desire to.

Even then, giving up all of your culture would not be necessary. Only the one getting in the way of unification in a political entity.

If populations share a common culture already, then their culture is already homogenous - it wouldn't be homogenising. Did you even read what you wrote?
Additionally, all humans have a common history - if go back far enough. Or arguably forward enough, thanks to globalisation.

Advocates of multiculturalism do not advocate the preservation of cultural practices that interfere with political unity - they call for cultures to change so that they can co-exist under a single political entity.

[Jochistan]

Depends if the cultures homogonizing share a common history and culture. Or desire to.

Even then, giving up all of your culture would not be necessary. Only the one getting in the way of unification in a political entity.

If populations share a common culture already, then their culture is already homogenous - it wouldn't be homogenising. Did you even read what you wrote?

But by common culture, I mean by extention.

[Conscentia]

If populations share a common culture already, then their culture is already homogenous - it wouldn't be homogenising. Did you even read what you wrote?

But by common culture, I mean by extention.

I have no idea what 'common culture by extension' is supposed to mean.

You don't have any response to the rest of my post?

[Jochistan]

.

Advocates of multiculturalism do not advocate the preservation of cultural practices that interfere with political unity - they call for cultures to change so that they can co-exist under a single political entity.

They fail utterly at perceiving cultural practices that interfere with political unity.

And some people shockingly enough don't want to live under a coercively socially liberal global power.

[Jochistan]

But by common culture, I mean by extention.

I have no idea what 'common culture by extension' is supposed to mean.

Exactly what it says.

[Conscentia]

.
Advocates of multiculturalism do not advocate the preservation of cultural practices that interfere with political unity - they call for cultures to change so that they can co-exist under a single political entity.

They fail utterly at perceiving cultural practices that interfere with political unity.

That seems to be a disagreement of methodology, not intention.

And some people shockingly enough don't want to live under a coercively socially liberal global power.

That's a disagreement with the political entity, not with multiculturalism itself.

I have no idea what 'common culture by extension' is supposed to mean.

Exactly what it says.

I have no idea what you think it says.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

No it's fucking not. Anarcho-Capitalism is the complete opposite, no rules, total freedom.

That's what pruss just described, yes.

A total lack of rules with abundant negative "freedom" would indeed be horrific, but "anarcho" capitalism does have plenty of arbitrary rules that simply potentiate the evil of the system.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Then we deport the ones who don't deserve it.

Now we're talking!

It doesn't actually happen though. For some people rules are rules. For some people rules are just suggestions.

A certain standard/guideline/rule being backed by the state's stern glare and given a title lends it no real credibility. A more's ethics, morality, logic or goodness, is in no way reflected by its legal status.

[The Liberated Territories]

Now we're talking!

It doesn't actually happen though. For some people rules are rules. For some people rules are just suggestions.

A certain standard/guideline/rule being backed by the state's stern glare and given a title lends it no real credibility. A more's ethics, morality, logic or goodness, is in no way reflected by its legal status.

And then you beg the question, how would a stateless society be more ethical, moral, or whatever, than a state?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

A certain standard/guideline/rule being backed by the state's stern glare and given a title lends it no real credibility. A more's ethics, morality, logic or goodness, is in no way reflected by its legal status.

And then you beg the question, how would a stateless society be more ethical, moral, or whatever, than a state?

No such question is begged. That's irrelevant. I am only saying that his traditionalist good-ol-boy "point," about how "for some people rules are rules," is stupid and meaningless. Rules are rules regardless, we just don't give a shit, nor should we.

[The East Marches]

Depends if the cultures homogonizing share a common history and culture. Or desire to.

Even then, giving up all of your culture would not be necessary. Only the one getting in the way of unification in a political entity.

If populations share a common culture already, then their culture is already homogenous - it wouldn't be homogenising. Did you even read what you wrote?
Additionally, all humans have a common history - if go back far enough. Or arguably forward enough, thanks to globalisation.

Advocates of multiculturalism do not advocate the preservation of cultural practices that interfere with political unity - they call for cultures to change so that they can co-exist under a single political entity.

If that was true, then why do they pursue their current course of action? God forbid you criticize another's cultural practices if they are brown. I've actually had these people tell me "its ok Indians scalped people and enslaved settlers". Cut me a break, the advocates of multiculturalism are some the most delusional I've ever met. They treat "PoC" like children who can do no wrong.

[Jochistan]

If populations share a common culture already, then their culture is already homogenous - it wouldn't be homogenising. Did you even read what you wrote?
Additionally, all humans have a common history - if go back far enough. Or arguably forward enough, thanks to globalisation.

Advocates of multiculturalism do not advocate the preservation of cultural practices that interfere with political unity - they call for cultures to change so that they can co-exist under a single political entity.

If that was true, then why do they pursue their current course of action? God forbid you criticize another's cultural practices if they are brown. I've actually had these people tell me "its ok Indians scalped people and enslaved settlers". Cut me a break, the advocates of multiculturalism are some the most delusional I've ever met. They treat "PoC" like children who can do no wrong.

Well, as the Indians were fighting actual genocide and expansionism...them fighting back in such a way wasn't unjustified. They got it particularly rough. Although the slavery and rapes towards civilians aren't worth defending. On either side.
Still, "white people" today shouldn't be blamed for what some settlers did.

And I already know someone is going to compare it to the migration into Europe.
And although I'm honestly pretty opposed to that myself, I don't think expansionism, forcing off of lands and genocide is what I would use to describe the immigration.
Just unchecked immigration and some pepperings of riots, crime and abuse from some of them and whining from some others that needs to be cracked down on.

[The East Marches]

If that was true, then why do they pursue their current course of action? God forbid you criticize another's cultural practices if they are brown. I've actually had these people tell me "its ok Indians scalped people and enslaved settlers". Cut me a break, the advocates of multiculturalism are some the most delusional I've ever met. They treat "PoC" like children who can do no wrong.

Well, as the Indians were fighting actual genocide and expansionism...them fighting back in such a way wasn't unjustified.
Still, "white people" today shouldn't be blamed for what some settlers did.

And I already know someone is going to compare it to the migration into Europe.
And although I'm honestly pretty opposed to that myself, I don't think expansionism, forcing off of lands and genocide is what I would use to describe the immigration.
Just unchecked immigration and some pepperings of riots, crime and abuse from some of them and whining from some others that meeds to be cracked down on.

I was trying to make the point that our dear friends who believe in multiculturalism don't believe brown people have agency. As a half-native, what we did was barbarous. You can't justify enslaving people by one race and then feel guilty for having done it yourselves. It's hypocritical and further shows their belief in the "noble savage" theory.

We lost by the way, because we visited the same atrocities upon each other because it was our way of life. That topic however, irrelevant.

The situation is not totally comparable to Europe. I was trying again to make the point that those who preach multiculturalism have hilarious double standards and think people saints who are clearly not.

[Kautharr]

He can have his viewpoint where he lives. But if multiculturalism gets to him that much it might be a bad idea to continue living in a country where most people want to have multiculturalism and immigration.

From what I understand, "Multiculturalism" means lack of integration encouraged and everyone being allowed to keep every aspect of their culture when they go to another culture.

That's unacceptable. Anywhere in the world.

for once i agree with you

[Jochistan]

From what I understand, "Multiculturalism" means lack of integration encouraged and everyone being allowed to keep every aspect of their culture when they go to another culture.

That's unacceptable. Anywhere in the world.

for once i agree with you

I still think multiple ethnic and religious background is fine with an appropriate amount of integration and unity. So don't get too ahead of yourself.

[The Kievan People]

That doesn't mean that each culture gets to live by its own rules, or that each non-English culture get's its own ghetto

That's exactly what it means in practice.

[The Kievan People]

You're definately included in the group I describe. So it is aimed in your direction.

Well you are an accessory to islamization. So the feeling is mutual!

With nationalism, some reactionary thought and other right wing ideologies, race seperatist ultranationalists, much like SJWs and Salafis with Islam, have ruined all credibility for a well thought out, moderate nationalist, Traditionalist or other similarly inclined movement.

And it seems like such movements can be made room for with the snuffing of ultranats.

Credibility? With who? People who would never agree?

Successful nationalist, socially conservative politicians don't have much trouble pulling in 30-40% of the vote in most western countries. Outside this slice there really isn't a lot of growth room, the vast majority of the remaining ~60% are people committed to different values. The true swing vote probably isn't much more than ~10% of the electorate. And that seems to have a large number of what one professor of mine aptly described as "bullshit conscious voters", people who swing on nonsensical/inscrutable things like the quality of a candidates handshake or wearing blue jeans in Iowa.

The left and right continue to exist, in spite of the endless ideological contortions and infighting because they are essentially different groups of people. They do not overlap much. And they are essentially fixed groups. Whether you are right or left the real main political task is not to convert people to your views, it is to activate those who are inclined to support you.

Well it is true some ideas are not acceptable in mainstream society or politics all evidence suggests the boundary which sets what is "beyond the pale" is completely arbitrary and it can make massive movements in any ideological direction. And it can be moved by will alone.

[Great Kauthar]

I am just tagging here so I have this for future reference. If anyone could give me another topic for the poll that would be g r e a t!

[Zoice]

That doesn't mean that each culture gets to live by its own rules, or that each non-English culture get's its own ghetto

That's exactly what it means in practice.

That's how it is in practice because no earnest attempt at integration can be made while right wingers are there trying to ruin it. They sabotage it, and then point at the failure as evidence that it never would have worked anyway.

[Jochistan]

You're definately included in the group I describe. So it is aimed in your direction.

Well you are an accessory to islamization. So the feeling is mutual!

With nationalism, some reactionary thought and other right wing ideologies, race seperatist ultranationalists, much like SJWs and Salafis with Islam, have ruined all credibility for a well thought out, moderate nationalist, Traditionalist or other similarly inclined movement.

And it seems like such movements can be made room for with the snuffing of ultranats.

Credibility? With who? People who would never agree?

Successful nationalist, socially conservative politicians don't have much trouble pulling in 30-40% of the vote in most western countries. Outside this slice there really isn't a lot of growth room, the vast majority of the remaining ~60% are people committed to different values. The true swing vote probably isn't much more than ~10% of the electorate. And that seems to have a large number of what one professor of mine aptly described as "bullshit conscious voters", people who swing on nonsensical/inscrutable things like the quality of a candidates handshake or wearing blue jeans in Iowa.

The left and right continue to exist, in spite of the endless ideological contortions and infighting because they are essentially different groups of people. They do not overlap much. And they are essentially fixed groups. Whether you are right or left the real main political task is not to convert people to your views, it is to activate those who are inclined to support you.

Well it is true some ideas are not acceptable in mainstream society or politics all evidence suggests the boundary which sets what is "beyond the pale" is completely arbitrary and it can make massive movements in any ideological direction. And it can be moved by will alone.

Credibility with people who understand a language other than violence.

Maybe so. One of the annoying things about the modern world is its way of constant flux in goals and ideals. In the last century early on, militant attitudes about race supremacy now seen as abnormal (and seen as abnormal in the golden ages of certain civilizations of the past) were widespread. Now they're unacceptable. And what is in the norm (practically) is extreme social liberalism. Something that had reared its head in some modern societies, but were plunged under pretty quick. Now the "old modernity is coming back" and the liberal one is becoming more and more extreme. Theres no telling what could be the norm next.

But what should happen is a staying to a consistent model forsaking both of those extremes.

Then again, scarily enough, that flux might be the only realistic option in a changing environment. If that's the case, then lines should still be clearly drawn in Modern "progress" to prevent subhumanity.

[The East Marches]

That's exactly what it means in practice.

That's how it is in practice because no earnest attempt at integration can be made while right wingers are there trying to ruin it. They sabotage it, and then point at the failure as evidence that it never would have worked anyway.

My favorite excuse from the Left. The old Stalinist charge of "wrecking".

[Great Kauthar]

That's exactly what it means in practice.

That's how it is in practice because no earnest attempt at integration can be made while right wingers are there trying to ruin it. They sabotage it, and then point at the failure as evidence that it never would have worked anyway.

lol

[Dinake]

You're definately included in the group I describe. So it is aimed in your direction.

Well you are an accessory to islamization. So the feeling is mutual!

I'm islamophobic as all get out, but I don't see why that means we shouldn't be polite.

I am just tagging here so I have this for future reference. If anyone could give me another topic for the poll that would be g r e a t!

Perhaps preferred right wing economic system, as was suggested a few pages back? Options could be:
Third position
Capitalism(Austrian school)
Capitalism(neoliberal)
Distributism/Georgism
Feudalism
Mercantilist capitalism
Ordoliberalism or other moderate position
National Syndicalism
and some others.

[Zoice]

That's how it is in practice because no earnest attempt at integration can be made while right wingers are there trying to ruin it. They sabotage it, and then point at the failure as evidence that it never would have worked anyway.

My favorite excuse from the Left. The old Stalinist charge of "wrecking".

Right, because integration is easy when you have underfunded ghettos and an environment of bigotry against you.