White Supremacy discussion thread

[Dejado Atras]

Well, what was I supposed to say in your book? I was giving an example of what many white supremacists call "white".

But they asked for an actual meaningful definition of the properties that make someone "white". A list with examples is just arbitrary.

Well, all I can offer are the typical variants. To some it’s just white skin, Caucasian facial features (arched noses, thin lips, high narrow cheekbones), lighter hair colors preferred etcetera.

Then you have the whole trope of blonde hair, blue eyes, very fair skin. The Germanic/Nord look.

And then you have some that will settle with anyone European as long as they aren’t too dark.

Those are some of the ones I’m familiar with. You have various ideas of “whiteness” among white supremacists just as you do methods. You have the isolationist “displace the minorities” types and then the radical gas chamber and firing squad ones. While one white supremacist will tolerate or even “accept” an Italian or Spaniard for example another white supremacist would call them an ape/lesser human.

[Cisairse]

Don't they? I mean, isn't that their entire schitck?

They attach a whole host of attributes to "whiteness," which certainly requires metaphysical beliefs about race and whatnot.

Of course there is no justifiable defense of a metaphysical system which incorporates objective traits of a consciousness (or group consciousness), which is why the supremacist argument fails. They believe not only in great races, but they also believe in great man. No such "great man theory" can ever succeed at accurately describing the world.

the failure of white supremacist ideology is due to a "transformation problem" of the input-output values of a given racial value matrix, simply: assigned metaphysical hierarchies plugged into a system of arranged values of certain "positive" qualities in a matrix doesn't equal out on both sides of the equation.

if white supremacists were able to equalize the equation, through some 3rd condition (like a passing of time which distributes values into a matrix in a way that could accommodate the plugged in metaphysical hierarchies), maybe i could consider their arguments. however, it becomes useless after a certain point because the racial "transformation problem" is not just an empirical demonstration of values, but reflects a simpler argument:

the apriori ideas of race white supremacists have don't align with reality in such a way that they could be considered justified true belief, or in any other case, logically correct.

That is exactly true. One can imagine a situation wherein supremacists gain control of institutions and attempt to bend these institutions to their own design, they find themselves wrestling with this very idea. The hierarchies of metaphysical category they create in their minds to justify their beliefs are not a direct model of physical reality. The contradictions inherent within the supremacist mindset thus will always lead to the destruction of their own worldview.

Of course, once they have power, they won't give it up. They'll try endlessly and tirelessly to shape these institutions into vessels of merging the physical with their flawed metaphysics. It's difficult for me to imagine what methods they would arrive at for bringing these categories into the real world. Perhaps a re-emergence of the 'drop in the bucket' theory? Aye, but that would not serve them well, as most supremacists aren't really purebred themselves. Perhaps a value system? Assign each person a ticket or voucher based on their dominant race, maybe. Anything to help them cope with the fact that they're so obviously out of touch with reality.

Lucky us, we'll never have to deal with any of this, because every supremacist movement explodes to infighting as soon as they smell actual opportunities for power.

[Kowani]

okay that's...not a thing that happens...at all
like, the conspiracy mongering of "the truth is being suppressed" makes no sense when you consider how academia works
there are, in fact, choices of where to publish and work

No one is claiming the truth is being suppressed, at least yet, that is you creating a strawman.

no
what you are doing is implying that any study into the matter that does not find what you want it to-proof of some jewish conspiracy to advance "jewish interests" in university admissions can only do so as the result of that suppression
if this was not your intention, then bringing up the fact that most ivy-league schools have jews in positions of power as a supposed conflict of interest is pointless

Again, you seem to have forgotten that both me and Fahran were in agreement that no study has been done yet on the subject.

this is irrelevant to the point

What you are attacking, however, was me pointing out the very real conflict of interest that a university running a study on its self to see how its admission policies are effected vis-a-vis Jewish students and interests would be.

i mean yeah you made it up

Unlike you, I do realize that University Deans wield tremendous influence, both formally and informally in terms of things like tenure, budgets and the like which could effect how such a study would be conducted or, even, done in the first place. Likewise, there is also the question of self-sabotage inherent in such a thing;

...question
do you know how research grants are allocated

faculty researchers would have a vested interest in maintaing the prestige of their institutions as well as financial incentives given said institutions are their employer.

ah yeah i'm sure the tenured professors will be shaking in their boots at publishing something unpopular

a comment on a rhetorical technique is not, in fact, a comment on the validity of the statement
that you seem to have held the latter impression the entire time is not really my problem

If it's not your problem, why are you responding? If you are not debating the merits of the points but commenting on rhetorical technique, is an admission you are not actually able to argue the points made, rather that you can just nitpick on semantics. That's an indirect concession to my argument for one, but it also rather just says how much of a fraud you are because you aren't operating in anything approaching good faith.

yeah that's not what that means
(nor is it what "semantics" means, for that matter)

[Yankeedomland]

the failure of white supremacist ideology is due to a "transformation problem" of the input-output values of a given racial value matrix, simply: assigned metaphysical hierarchies plugged into a system of arranged values of certain "positive" qualities in a matrix doesn't equal out on both sides of the equation.

if white supremacists were able to equalize the equation, through some 3rd condition (like a passing of time which distributes values into a matrix in a way that could accommodate the plugged in metaphysical hierarchies), maybe i could consider their arguments. however, it becomes useless after a certain point because the racial "transformation problem" is not just an empirical demonstration of values, but reflects a simpler argument:

the apriori ideas of race white supremacists have don't align with reality in such a way that they could be considered justified true belief, or in any other case, logically correct.

That is exactly true. One can imagine a situation wherein supremacists gain control of institutions and attempt to bend these institutions to their own design, they find themselves wrestling with this very idea. The hierarchies of metaphysical category they create in their minds to justify their beliefs are not a direct model of physical reality. The contradictions inherent within the supremacist mindset thus will always lead to the destruction of their own worldview.

Of course, once they have power, they won't give it up. They'll try endlessly and tirelessly to shape these institutions into vessels of merging the physical with their flawed metaphysics. It's difficult for me to imagine what methods they would arrive at for bringing these categories into the real world. Perhaps a re-emergence of the 'drop in the bucket' theory? Aye, but that would not serve them well, as most supremacists aren't really purebred themselves. Perhaps a value system? Assign each person a ticket or voucher based on their dominant race, maybe. Anything to help them cope with the fact that they're so obviously out of touch with reality.

Lucky us, we'll never have to deal with any of this, because every supremacist movement explodes to infighting as soon as they smell actual opportunities for power.

a system of racial vouchers is both the dream and nightmare of the white supremacist. on one hand, he dreams of having an easily categorizable system of race, simply organize a filter, plug in your tags, and you could get an auto-generated value matrix of the racial values of a given population of voucher-holders, which you can break down into the details of the voucher, like the physical qualities of voucher-holder (race? skull measurements?), and then reorganize again to find those most qualified for your ethnostate.

in many other ways its a nightmare. the voucher system shows easily how ridiculous such an idea is: the complexity of every matrix would show the impossibility of organizing it into the metaphysical racial hierarchies/categories held by the white supremacist. Sure, the white supremacist, could simplify it, but this would only create strife, because no two white supremacists hold the same opinions about who is white or not. There are many neonazis who believe polish people and most slavs dont actually count as aryan, and there are those who reject latinos or otherwise iberian people. it would make organizing the ethnostate impossible.

because of the incoherence of racial categories and metaphysical hierarchies, any proposed system based on racial qualification, no matter how it is organized, would fail one way or another. the example of vouchers demonstrates this simply

[Cisairse]

That is exactly true. One can imagine a situation wherein supremacists gain control of institutions and attempt to bend these institutions to their own design, they find themselves wrestling with this very idea. The hierarchies of metaphysical category they create in their minds to justify their beliefs are not a direct model of physical reality. The contradictions inherent within the supremacist mindset thus will always lead to the destruction of their own worldview.

Of course, once they have power, they won't give it up. They'll try endlessly and tirelessly to shape these institutions into vessels of merging the physical with their flawed metaphysics. It's difficult for me to imagine what methods they would arrive at for bringing these categories into the real world. Perhaps a re-emergence of the 'drop in the bucket' theory? Aye, but that would not serve them well, as most supremacists aren't really purebred themselves. Perhaps a value system? Assign each person a ticket or voucher based on their dominant race, maybe. Anything to help them cope with the fact that they're so obviously out of touch with reality.

Lucky us, we'll never have to deal with any of this, because every supremacist movement explodes to infighting as soon as they smell actual opportunities for power.

a system of racial vouchers is both the dream and nightmare of the white supremacist. on one hand, he dreams of having an easily categorizable system of race, simply organize a filter, plug in your tags, and you could get an auto-generated value matrix of the racial values of a given population of voucher-holders, which you can break down into the details of the voucher, like the physical qualities of voucher-holder (race? skull measurements?), and then reorganize again to find those most qualified for your ethnostate.

in many other ways its a nightmare. the voucher system shows easily how ridiculous such an idea is: the complexity of every matrix would show the impossibility of organizing it into the metaphysical racial hierarchies/categories held by the white supremacist. Sure, the white supremacist, could simplify it, but this would only create strife, because no two white supremacists hold the same opinions about who is white or not. There are many neonazis who believe polish people and most slavs dont actually count as aryan, and there are those who reject latinos or otherwise iberian people. it would make organizing the ethnostate impossible.

because of the incoherence of racial categories and metaphysical hierarchies, any proposed system based on racial qualification, no matter how it is organized, would fail one way or another. the example of vouchers demonstrates this simply

Indeed!

[Dejado Atras]

Honestly modern nazis aren’t even looking good when they try it. In the 1930’s and 40’s they wore crisp suits and uniforms and gave compelling speeches and knew how to rile a mob and appeal to an anxious crowd/person. Masters of manipulation.

These days they’re tattoo riddled bikers and trailer trash with bad teeth that can’t even compile a half knitted together defense for their rhetoric. They commit half-baked robberies of other “schemes” and scream over the internet.

[New Kvenland]

Honestly modern nazis aren’t even looking good when they try it. In the 1930’s and 40’s they wore crisp suits and uniforms and gave compelling speeches and knew how to rile a mob and appeal to an anxious crowd/person. Masters of manipulation.

These days they’re tattoo riddled bikers and trailer trash with bad teeth that can’t even compile a half knitted together defense for their rhetoric. They commit half-baked robberies of other “schemes” and scream over the internet.

They weren't any better 80 years ago, the environment they emerged in (which ours is growing worringly similar to) just made it easier for them. They still wrote rambling screeds and fought people in the streets and murdered uninvolved civilians. Their rhetoric wasn't any better, read some old German magazines or speeches and you'll see it's barely any different now. It's Nazi propaganda that they were efficient and orderly and crisp, based on a few clips from military parades -- the story on the ground sounds a lot more like the modern far right.

(Not calling you a Nazi or anything, just kinda tired of this trope)

[Dejado Atras]

Honestly modern nazis aren’t even looking good when they try it. In the 1930’s and 40’s they wore crisp suits and uniforms and gave compelling speeches and knew how to rile a mob and appeal to an anxious crowd/person. Masters of manipulation.

These days they’re tattoo riddled bikers and trailer trash with bad teeth that can’t even compile a half knitted together defense for their rhetoric. They commit half-baked robberies of other “schemes” and scream over the internet.

They weren't any better 80 years ago, the environment they emerged in (which ours is growing worringly similar to) just made it easier for them. They still wrote rambling screeds and fought people in the streets and murdered uninvolved civilians. Their rhetoric wasn't any better, read some old German magazines or speeches and you'll see it's barely any different now. It's Nazi propaganda that they were efficient and orderly and crisp, based on a few clips from military parades -- the story on the ground sounds a lot more like the modern far right.

(Not calling you a Nazi or anything, just kinda tired of this trope)

I’m more so speaking whimsically, thank you.

Besides, there’s a lot of tropes on both modern social-political spectrums I’m tired of. Though honestly more so on the left.

[New Kvenland]

They weren't any better 80 years ago, the environment they emerged in (which ours is growing worringly similar to) just made it easier for them. They still wrote rambling screeds and fought people in the streets and murdered uninvolved civilians. Their rhetoric wasn't any better, read some old German magazines or speeches and you'll see it's barely any different now. It's Nazi propaganda that they were efficient and orderly and crisp, based on a few clips from military parades -- the story on the ground sounds a lot more like the modern far right.

(Not calling you a Nazi or anything, just kinda tired of this trope)

I’m more so speaking whimsically, thank you.

Besides, there’s a lot of tropes on both modern social-political spectrums I’m tired of. Though honestly more so on the left.

Even so, it's not a great idea to give Nazis any praise. It's the same ideology then that it is now, give them (then) an inch and they'll (now) take a mile, and probably line that mile with fascist propaganda. Hope I don't sound scolding, it's just good to remember how dangerous they are even still.

Speaking of, no, no one should be allowed to express white supremacist views. Not that it should be illegal, we as people just shouldn't tolerate it. It's an ideology that calls for murder and expulsion based on skin tone, it's vile to express as a joke an unforgiveable to express seriously. It doesn't deserve "discussion," it deserves icy silence at best.

[Dejado Atras]

I’m more so speaking whimsically, thank you.

Besides, there’s a lot of tropes on both modern social-political spectrums I’m tired of. Though honestly more so on the left.

Even so, it's not a great idea to give Nazis any praise. It's the same ideology then that it is now, give them (then) an inch and they'll (now) take a mile, and probably line that mile with fascist propaganda. Hope I don't sound scolding, it's just good to remember how dangerous they are even still.

Speaking of, no, no one should be allowed to express white supremacist views. Not that it should be illegal, we as people just shouldn't tolerate it. It's an ideology that calls for murder and expulsion based on skin tone, it's vile to express as a joke an unforgiveable to express seriously. It doesn't deserve "discussion," it deserves icy silence at best.

To be fair any ideology or collectivist group or... well, almost anyone, will take a mile of you offer an inch. Humanity is hard to satisfy after all.

Call me vile then. I’ve made worse jokes/quips unapologetically. As for suppressing white supremacy speech, the poll is against you I’m afraid. Regardless of the morality or immorality of speech/rhetoric in a free speech country people will express what they feel or believe. I believe ANTIFA was initially intended to oppose hate speech on a societal level so check in with them I guess...

[Odreria]

I’m more so speaking whimsically, thank you.

Besides, there’s a lot of tropes on both modern social-political spectrums I’m tired of. Though honestly more so on the left.

Even so, it's not a great idea to give Nazis any praise. It's the same ideology then that it is now, give them (then) an inch and they'll (now) take a mile, and probably line that mile with fascist propaganda. Hope I don't sound scolding, it's just good to remember how dangerous they are even still.

Speaking of, no, no one should be allowed to express white supremacist views. Not that it should be illegal, we as people just shouldn't tolerate it. It's an ideology that calls for murder and expulsion based on skin tone, it's vile to express as a joke an unforgiveable to express seriously. It doesn't deserve "discussion," it deserves icy silence at best.

Saying that the nazis had cool uniforms doesn't cause a fascist state to appear. Which, I don't even like their uniforms but yeah.

[New Kvenland]

Even so, it's not a great idea to give Nazis any praise. It's the same ideology then that it is now, give them (then) an inch and they'll (now) take a mile, and probably line that mile with fascist propaganda. Hope I don't sound scolding, it's just good to remember how dangerous they are even still.

Speaking of, no, no one should be allowed to express white supremacist views. Not that it should be illegal, we as people just shouldn't tolerate it. It's an ideology that calls for murder and expulsion based on skin tone, it's vile to express as a joke an unforgiveable to express seriously. It doesn't deserve "discussion," it deserves icy silence at best.

Saying that the nazis had cool uniforms doesn't cause a fascist state to appear. Which, I don't even like their uniforms but yeah.

Saying Nazis has cool uniforms leads to having a partially positive view of the Nazis -- not half positive, not even a quarter positive, maybe only 1% positive. That makes you more likely to see them in a flattering light over time, because sure, their views are evil, but they looked good believing them, right? And they had some cool weapons too. And it's not like the Brits and Americans and Soviets were perfect, either, none of them were really the good guys. And I got to reading some articles about them, and they're actually a lot different than I had believed and speak a lot to our modern situation. And hey, I just lost my job and I'm angry and the system's clearly rigged, those articles had some interesting explanations for that...

See how it goes? Give Nazis an inch and they'll take a life. It's fine to learn about them, you just have to always contextualize it within the evilness of their ideology. Everything they did was tarred by their ideology, none of it was good. Their are other cool uniforms you can look at from less inherently destructive sources.

Even so, it's not a great idea to give Nazis any praise. It's the same ideology then that it is now, give them (then) an inch and they'll (now) take a mile, and probably line that mile with fascist propaganda. Hope I don't sound scolding, it's just good to remember how dangerous they are even still.

Speaking of, no, no one should be allowed to express white supremacist views. Not that it should be illegal, we as people just shouldn't tolerate it. It's an ideology that calls for murder and expulsion based on skin tone, it's vile to express as a joke an unforgiveable to express seriously. It doesn't deserve "discussion," it deserves icy silence at best.

To be fair any ideology or collectivist group or... well, almost anyone, will take a mile of you offer an inch. Humanity is hard to satisfy after all.

Call me vile then. I’ve made worse jokes/quips unapologetically. As for suppressing white supremacy speech, the poll is against you I’m afraid. Regardless of the morality or immorality of speech/rhetoric in a free speech country people will express what they feel or believe. I believe ANTIFA was initially intended to oppose hate speech on a societal level so check in with them I guess...

poll's wrong

people can express whatever they want, and i can express exactly how I feel in response, no? nice try with the lefty derailing by the way

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Since we’re now talking about Jews and anti Semitism, I’d like to throw something into the pot as well.
While I REALLY dislike modern Jewish culture, I don’t do so out of hatred of them as an ethnicity. Rather, I dislike them for always putting Israel before their Motherland, and having a very large and influential lobby in most of western governments.
I have no problem with a person being Jewish, even religious Jewish as long as he values my country and works hard for its people.

Zionism then, if I'm correct.

I'm curious as to how you (and others) feel about other people's and groups who put other thing's over their home country and it's laws and society in general.

Yes, I am antizionostic of you could say so.

Because my country’s society is white. Laws? Since when was white supremacy outlawed, pal?

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Since we’re now talking about Jews and anti Semitism, I’d like to throw something into the pot as well.
While I REALLY dislike modern Jewish culture, I don’t do so out of hatred of them as an ethnicity. Rather, I dislike them for always putting Israel before their Motherland, and having a very large and influential lobby in most of western governments.
I have no problem with a person being Jewish, even religious Jewish as long as he values my country and works hard for its people.

Can we drop the double loyalty canard?

Why should I drop it? I’ve studied in a Jewish school and know them from the insides. Double loyalty is really a thing.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

I love how this thread is basically 5 white supremacist dudes desperately defending our ideology lol

[Dejado Atras]

Saying that the nazis had cool uniforms doesn't cause a fascist state to appear. Which, I don't even like their uniforms but yeah.

Saying Nazis has cool uniforms leads to having a partially positive view of the Nazis -- not half positive, not even a quarter positive, maybe only 1% positive. That makes you more likely to see them in a flattering light over time, because sure, their views are evil, but they looked good believing them, right? And they had some cool weapons too. And it's not like the Brits and Americans and Soviets were perfect, either, none of them were really the good guys. And I got to reading some articles about them, and they're actually a lot different than I had believed and speak a lot to our modern situation. And hey, I just lost my job and I'm angry and the system's clearly rigged, those articles had some interesting explanations for that...

See how it goes? Give Nazis an inch and they'll take a life. It's fine to learn about them, you just have to always contextualize it within the evilness of their ideology. Everything they did was tarred by their ideology, none of it was good. Their are other cool uniforms you can look at from less inherently destructive sources.

To be fair any ideology or collectivist group or... well, almost anyone, will take a mile of you offer an inch. Humanity is hard to satisfy after all.

Call me vile then. I’ve made worse jokes/quips unapologetically. As for suppressing white supremacy speech, the poll is against you I’m afraid. Regardless of the morality or immorality of speech/rhetoric in a free speech country people will express what they feel or believe. I believe ANTIFA was initially intended to oppose hate speech on a societal level so check in with them I guess...

poll's wrong

people can express whatever they want, and i can express exactly how I feel in response, no? nice try with the lefty derailing by the way

I wasn’t really trying to derail TBH I was just making a side point really that I wasn’t even expecting to be factored into a response.

And yes, you do have that freedom. A freedom your exercising now.

[True Refuge]

Mr. O’Conor construes the relationship between master and slave, which is a relationship of violence and does not exist without violence, as a result of the different abilities and qualities of different human types. Abilities, which exist independently of the relationship between master and slave, are given by nature and generate this relationship in the first place. One human type is strong, but in O’Connor’s view a little lazy, because by their very nature they are not meant to work for other people – from which it follows, if taken seriously, that the “negro” possesses the intelligence which the apologist for slavery denies. The racist, however, wants to have researched negro biology as a mixture of physical ability and mental deficiency – strong on the one hand, unwilling to work on the other. Even here the racist confesses that, because this is the case, only one conclusion follows from this negro nature: that the muscle-bound black, as long as he does not want to work, bums around until he no longer enjoys it – and that’s that. The postulate that this natural strength of the negro must not be left unused under any circumstances, but that it must be made accessible “to society” does not come from nature, not even from racist natural history, but from the society of that time. Physical strength – by the way, apart from pigmentation – is indeed just a capability; it does not follow from this that it must be used, nor how.

The other human type is designed to complement the negro. He compensates for the negro’s alleged defect by forcing him to work. But it is extremely puzzling how this “master,” who has been given the deficient negro by “nature,” is supposed to accomplish this. The human type intended to rule is characterized only by the “brains for governing” and by the parallel “ability,” but it is completely inexplicable how the means to force other people to work for themselves should arise from, of all things, the brains of those qualified to govern. Because ultimately the racist has explicitly denied that the physically stronger man has the intellectual capacity for the crazy “insight” that it is simply natural for him to do slave labor. So if one takes the racist nature-fiction seriously for a second, the following idyll arises: the two described human types are hanging around – and no relation between them follows from this and does not guarantee slavery. One type is strong and unwilling to work, the other type is intelligent and has a gift for ruling. And every time the smart ones try to force the strong, unwilling ones to work, they have to get them into a muzzle – unfortunately, the unwilling are at the same time the strong. What bad luck!

It is immediately noticeable that the intellectual standards of racists are modest; on the other hand, it is clear that these did not affect the practice of turning negroes into slaves, because slavery was not the result of an accidental scientific investigation of the negro – but the other way around. The introduction of capitalism in the New World – whether in the colonies of the Caribbean or in the USA – had led to an enormous upswing in the world market for slaves because there were too few free wage laborers available and because guest workers as well as illegal immigrants were not invented until many years later. There was a shortage of labor, white immigrants could afford to be picky, the natives did not want to do it or died like flies; the expansion of capital invested in plantations and mines was not going to be allowed to fail because of a labor shortage, so slaves were imported (see in addition Marx’s comments on “The Modern Theory of Colonization” in Capital Vol. 1, p. 931). Capital is not at all dogmatically fixed on free wage labor, it also takes slaves or prisoners of war or concentration camp prisoners, as is well known. Historically, the wage laborer won out not because of respect for his nature or human rights, but because of his superior efficiency compared to that of the slave (see in addition Marx’s note on the difference between slave labor and wage labor in Capital Vol. 1, p. 303-4, footnote).

What then does the racism, in the strict sense, consist of in the above account? The defender of slavery does not want to “argue” simply and truthfully for the interest and benefit of the slave owners and the society of that time – rather, he wants to represent the violent treatment and compulsion to work for the benefit of others as a fact that corresponds to the peculiarities of those forced to do it. They are designed by nature in such a way that it is precisely slavery that does them justice. Of course, the contradiction is that what the negroes supposedly are of their own accord must first be brought about by using a great deal of violence against them. Violence, says the expert on the nature of the negroes, is perfectly ok, because if they are slaves by nature, they should be treated as such. The racist does not even want to do without the fiction of a higher harmony between slaves and slavemasters that is concealed to lowly reason, because the slaves are also forced by the masters to, among other things, provide “for themselves,” and the slave masters deserve a “fair compensation” for the problems and stress that the slaves cause with their recalcitrance. The negro must be forced to his good fortune, says the racist, and therefore the coercion against him is actually in his own interest. This is the racist ideology as spread by the priests, professors, and other educated people of the time. The basis of this ideology was the political and economic conditions of the time, in which people were brutally sorted into the socially useful function of slaves.

http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/racism.htm

Case closed.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

White supremacists should be able to speak freely and raise funds for their despicable cause, but they mustn't be permitted in any liberal democracy to run for public office or form a political party along divisive racial or religious lines. Communism, fascism, Islamism, and other incompatible, illiberal, anti-democratic ideologies and policy platforms should be grounds for automatic disqualification.

In an ideal world, the American Nazi Party would be forcibly de-registered and banned while the KKK and other far-right terror cells would be dissolved and their members arrested on terrorism charges.

In an ideal democracy, So-called "Antifa", the Communist Party of the USA, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the United Malays National Organization, Parti Islam se-Malaysia, the Chinese Communist Party, the "Democratic" Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, the "Liberal" Party of Hong Kong, the British National Party, Golden Dawn, the Myanmar military, the Thai military and monarchy, and other hateful, intolerant, authoritarian, extremist groups whose stated goals contradict the fundamental principles of liberal democracy and/or whose existence and actions directly threaten the democratic order and the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens would all be outlawed on the spot.

[Salus Maior]

White supremacists should be able to speak freely and raise funds for their despicable cause, but they mustn't be permitted in any liberal democracy to run for public office or form a political party along divisive racial or religious lines. Communism, fascism, Islamism, and other incompatible, illiberal, anti-democratic ideologies and policy platforms should be grounds for automatic disqualification.

In an ideal world, the American Nazi Party would be forcibly de-registered and banned while the KKK and other far-right terror cells would be dissolved and their members arrested on terrorism charges.

In an ideal democracy, So-called "Antifa", the Communist Party of the USA, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the United Malays National Organization, Parti Islam se-Malaysia, the Chinese Communist Party, the "Democratic" Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, the "Liberal" Party of Hong Kong, the British National Party, Golden Dawn, the Myanmar military, the Thai military and monarchy, and other hateful, intolerant, authoritarian, extremist groups whose stated goals contradict the fundamental principles of liberal democracy and/or whose existence and actions directly threaten the democratic order and the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens would all be outlawed on the spot.

If it’s ‘ideal’ for such parties not to exist why don’t we just cut them off from funding and free speech?

[Greater Cesnica]

White supremacists should be able to speak freely and raise funds for their despicable cause, but they mustn't be permitted in any liberal democracy to run for public office or form a political party along divisive racial or religious lines. Communism, fascism, Islamism, and other incompatible, illiberal, anti-democratic ideologies and policy platforms should be grounds for automatic disqualification.

In an ideal world, the American Nazi Party would be forcibly de-registered and banned while the KKK and other far-right terror cells would be dissolved and their members arrested on terrorism charges.

In an ideal democracy, So-called "Antifa", the Communist Party of the USA, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the United Malays National Organization, Parti Islam se-Malaysia, the Chinese Communist Party, the "Democratic" Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, the "Liberal" Party of Hong Kong, the British National Party, Golden Dawn, the Myanmar military, the Thai military and monarchy, and other hateful, intolerant, authoritarian, extremist groups whose stated goals contradict the fundamental principles of liberal democracy and/or whose existence and actions directly threaten the democratic order and the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens would all be outlawed on the spot.

Slippery slope. Do you trust the State to outlaw one thing and not turn and outlaw something else that you didn't envision would end up on the chopping block?

[Salus Maior]

White supremacists should be able to speak freely and raise funds for their despicable cause, but they mustn't be permitted in any liberal democracy to run for public office or form a political party along divisive racial or religious lines. Communism, fascism, Islamism, and other incompatible, illiberal, anti-democratic ideologies and policy platforms should be grounds for automatic disqualification.

In an ideal world, the American Nazi Party would be forcibly de-registered and banned while the KKK and other far-right terror cells would be dissolved and their members arrested on terrorism charges.

In an ideal democracy, So-called "Antifa", the Communist Party of the USA, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the United Malays National Organization, Parti Islam se-Malaysia, the Chinese Communist Party, the "Democratic" Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, the "Liberal" Party of Hong Kong, the British National Party, Golden Dawn, the Myanmar military, the Thai military and monarchy, and other hateful, intolerant, authoritarian, extremist groups whose stated goals contradict the fundamental principles of liberal democracy and/or whose existence and actions directly threaten the democratic order and the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens would all be outlawed on the spot.

Slippery slope. Do you trust the State to outlaw one thing and not turn and outlaw something else that you didn't envision would end up on the chopping block?

By that logic the state shouldn’t regulate law at all. Which is silly.

[Greater Cesnica]

Slippery slope. Do you trust the State to outlaw one thing and not turn and outlaw something else that you didn't envision would end up on the chopping block?

By that logic the state shouldn’t regulate law at all. Which is silly.

Take Twitter deplatforming. Right after all those far-right pages got suspended, many popular leftist accounts also got suspended. The government has acted in a similar manner. Anti-[x] laws have always been turned onto the left.

[Salus Maior]

By that logic the state shouldn’t regulate law at all. Which is silly.

Take Twitter deplatforming. Right after all those far-right pages got suspended, many popular leftist accounts also got suspended. The government has acted in a similar manner. Anti-[x] laws have always been turned onto the left.

Ok, so?

Twitter isn’t the government. That also isn’t an answer to my statement

[The Reformed American Republic]

By that logic the state shouldn’t regulate law at all. Which is silly.

I have to agree with you here. There should be strict limits who should be disqualified from running for office though.

[Greater Cesnica]

Nousa, do you regard this supposed Jewish control over aspects of society to be negative?