|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| These must be very frightening times for you, but you do not really need as much Lebensraum as you think. Have you ever considered that you may be, just totally, wrong? It's a liberating thing, try it, seriously. I suggest it to anyone who is too sure of themselves and their ideology. |
What you must understand, Leon, is that I viewed the world from your lens for a very long time. I’m all too aware of both sides here. We are enculturated into that mode of thinking, and most have very little choice in the matter since it is presented to us in terms of moral obligations and historical correctness. However, it is the side *I* am on that *you* know very little of, since you have been socialized into thinking people who speak like me are the enemy. But it is not as frightening as you may think, because knowing both sides allows you to see ten steps ahead, to know where all of this is going, more or less. Having said all that, I can assure you, this the side the truth is on. |
I tend to think of people who think in terms of sides as pretty short-sighted. I would probably find what you assume to be my 'lens' pretty funny to be honest. Your last sentence is wrong, by the way, that is not the way truth works. Truth is aggressively anti-partisan, and given enough time shows all ideologues what fools they are. I probably do know more about your 'side' than you assume, but can't say for sure because you are oddly coy about it. 'Im an anti-liberal' (tongue in cheek of course) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| These must be very frightening times for you, but you do not really need as much Lebensraum as you think. Have you ever considered that you may be, just totally, wrong? It's a liberating thing, try it, seriously. I suggest it to anyone who is too sure of themselves and their ideology. |
What you must understand, Leon, is that I viewed the world from your lens for a very long time. I’m all too aware of both sides here. We are enculturated into that mode of thinking, and most have very little choice in the matter since it is presented to us in terms of moral obligations and historical correctness. However, it is the side *I* am on that *you* know very little of, since you have been socialized into thinking people who speak like me are the enemy. But it is not as frightening as you may think, because knowing both sides allows you to see ten steps ahead, to know where all of this is going, more or less. Having said all that, I can assure you, this the side the truth is on. |
I tend to think of people who think in terms of sides as pretty short-sighted. I would probably find what you assume to be my 'lens' pretty funny to be honest. Your last sentence is wrong, by the way, that is not the way truth works. Truth is aggressively anti-partisan, and given enough time shows all ideologues what fools they are. I probably do know more about your 'side' than you assume, but can't say for sure because you are oddly coy about it. 'Im an anti-liberal' (tongue in cheek of course) |
Nature is a system of dualities and this particular one is generally sufficient to get the main points across. You can frame it however you want, Leon, but don’t expect me to be impressed when you throw up your arms and claim to be above it all. Though on the topic of oversimplification, I find your explanation of how truth works to be just that. We are social herd animals that play a game of probabilities that is strongly prejudiced by emotions; we can construct industries based on lies and falsities, and deceive ourselves until the end as long as the payoff is beneficial to us individually. Otherwise, I’m not being coy and think I’ve made it quite clear where I stand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| The post-world war(s) historical narrative we’re taught throughout our lives is largely inaccurate. The “Right” is the natural state of a homogeneous society, one that protects its values, culture, and breeding spaces. The “Left,” in the modern sense, is an outside force that corrupts that culture and undermines the native population. But since leftism functions as a utopian ideology, it is able to brainwash many of weaker native citizens against their own interests. |
I read an article somewhere recently that stated that smaller groups of humans are dominated by the betas (for lack of a better term), and they suppress the stronger of the individuals in a 'democratic' manner (for lack of a better term). Once societies begin to scale, it provides stronger and more ambitious individuals the room to dominate the weaker in their society.
So, since egalitarianism was once the predominant social arrangement of hunter-gatherers and tribes of about 150, does that make it more natural and preferable?
(massive tongue in cheek here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coltronator
Joined: 04 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nah I am pretty sure everything is a slat circle, we have done it before and will do it again...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| The post-world war(s) historical narrative we’re taught throughout our lives is largely inaccurate. The “Right” is the natural state of a homogeneous society, one that protects its values, culture, and breeding spaces. The “Left,” in the modern sense, is an outside force that corrupts that culture and undermines the native population. But since leftism functions as a utopian ideology, it is able to brainwash many of weaker native citizens against their own interests. |
I read an article somewhere recently that stated that smaller groups of humans are dominated by the betas (for lack of a better term), and they suppress the stronger of the individuals in a 'democratic' manner (for lack of a better term). Once societies begin to scale, it provides stronger and more ambitious individuals the room to dominate the weaker in their society.
So, since egalitarianism was once the predominant social arrangement of hunter-gatherers and tribes of about 150, does that make it more natural and preferable?
(massive tongue in cheek here) |
Not sure. But my initial inclination is to tell you that all-encompassing sociology-based explanations of human relations will paint you a crooked picture.
Europeans evolved to be more egalitarian and high-trust because relying on others was crucial for surviving long winters. Early/Indo Europeans also developed a tripartite system that distinguished between the classes of warriors, spiritual leaders, and commoners/farmers - a democratically-minded arrangement which existed for who knows how long before Pagan cultures were demolished and put under the sword of Christendom and the original sin guilt-trip brought into the west by a certain desert tribe.
That all (especially Northern) European countries were relatively safe and homogeneous until recently probably suggests that they have been like that, at least at the ground level, for a long time (though Peter Frost has written about how harsh measures against violent criminal behavior at various points in time, mainly during the Middle Ages, may have eliminated most of the violent genes from the pool).
Regardless, people in high-trust, morality-based societies self-police each other and generally come down hard on those who violate the commons (or speak heretically against the fashionable ideology), and the strong militaristic element is still very present and invokable (though, again, usually for the benefit of a certain desert tribe). Europeans are also the least kin-based and most individualistic of any people on earth, which explains the ideologically universalist tendencies and makes naivete with regard to the poor huddled masses of outsiders easily exploitable.
Bottom line and to tie it back to “far right” fascism: “egalitarianism” is a two-way street predominantly limited to Europeans and East Asians, though the latter are much more clan/kin oriented. Once it’s realized by Europeans in masse that these new 85 IQ arrivals have little interest in reciprocating, as it’s not in their nature, and just want more free stuff, that’s when it’ll start getting fashy again. It’s already begun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
you that all-encompassing sociology-based explanations of human relations will paint you a crooked picture.
|
That, is true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coltronator
Joined: 04 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ...... Homogeneous? Europe? So you basically only see Germany/Italy and to the west when you say that and ignore central and eastern Europe with that statement right? if you'd like to make the statement that western and northern Europe are mostly homogeneous you may have a point. (Though people in Spain and the Sami in the north might have words with you) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Coltronator wrote: |
| if you'd like to make the statement that western and northern Europe are mostly homogeneous |
| I wrote: |
| all (especially Northern) European countries were relatively […] homogeneous until recently |
On your next attempt, address me directly using proper grammar and punctuation, try to make a more coherent statement, and be sure to note the time frame in question so you don't waste my time and make yourself look foolish.
Yes, a few Balkan nations are a bit mongrelized, there are pockets from previous Muslim invasions, leftovers from earlier empires, and natural drift, etc. but the admixture is negligible/blurred and mostly limited to the Balkans, S. Italy, and S. Spain. Having been to every European country apart from Moldova, I know much more about this stuff than you do and advise you to work on the basics before giving that next attempt a whirl. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coltronator
Joined: 04 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine are all far from homogeneous. Also no matter what you reply with, the way you write is quite vile and you could make your socio-political points without denigrating whole groups of people. So I am done actively participating in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
That’s probably a wise decision on your part, but for the record:
Hungary (non-Balkan country): Ethnic groups: Hungarian 92.3%, Roma 1.9%, other or unknown 5.8%
Romania (Balkan country): Ethnic groups: Romanian 83.4%, Hungarian 6.1%, Roma 3.1%
Bulgaria (Balkan country): Ethnic groups: Bulgarian 76.9%, Turkish 8%, Roma 4.4%, other 0.7% (including Russian, Armenian, and Vlach), other (unknown) 10% (2011 est.)
Ukraine (Ukraine?): Ukrainian 77.8%, Russian 17.3% (Genetic twins on E/W empire holdover divide, in other words: 95%)
Is 77-95%:
A) Relatively homogeneous
B) Far from homogeneous
Or,
C) I should have said Bosnia (Balkan country) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| These must be very frightening times for you, but you do not really need as much Lebensraum as you think. Have you ever considered that you may be, just totally, wrong? It's a liberating thing, try it, seriously. I suggest it to anyone who is too sure of themselves and their ideology. |
What you must understand, Leon, is that I viewed the world from your lens for a very long time. I’m all too aware of both sides here. We are enculturated into that mode of thinking, and most have very little choice in the matter since it is presented to us in terms of moral obligations and historical correctness. However, it is the side *I* am on that *you* know very little of, since you have been socialized into thinking people who speak like me are the enemy. But it is not as frightening as you may think, because knowing both sides allows you to see ten steps ahead, to know where all of this is going, more or less. Having said all that, I can assure you, this the side the truth is on. |
I tend to think of people who think in terms of sides as pretty short-sighted. I would probably find what you assume to be my 'lens' pretty funny to be honest. Your last sentence is wrong, by the way, that is not the way truth works. Truth is aggressively anti-partisan, and given enough time shows all ideologues what fools they are. I probably do know more about your 'side' than you assume, but can't say for sure because you are oddly coy about it. 'Im an anti-liberal' (tongue in cheek of course) |
Nature is a system of dualities and this particular one is generally sufficient to get the main points across. You can frame it however you want, Leon, but don’t expect me to be impressed when you throw up your arms and claim to be above it all. Though on the topic of oversimplification, I find your explanation of how truth works to be just that. We are social herd animals that play a game of probabilities that is strongly prejudiced by emotions; we can construct industries based on lies and falsities, and deceive ourselves until the end as long as the payoff is beneficial to us individually. Otherwise, I’m not being coy and think I’ve made it quite clear where I stand. |
Which is basically that we would be better off with stronger identification of our core racial group, and not allow immigration (or just small amounts of...) from other racial groups? This is your base proposal behind all your references to history and group dynamics, no? Or I'm I missing anything?
Also, what duality, and what side do you imagine I am on, and that you are on the opposite side? Liberal v. anti-liberal? Why not try being straight forward, are you embarrassed to label yourself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To the first part and for the most part, yeah. I wouldn’t phrase it that way myself but that’s more or less the point. Forced mass-scale immigration into the west since the 1965 immigration act and multiculturalism as state policy for all intents and purposes is a top down attack on native peoples and has negatively impacted this country in ways that are irreversible. And the notion that immigration is beneficial is a massive lie. What’s happening in Europe is more recent, but this was all planned, that’s well-documented and there is a reason it’s only happening in the west.
You seem like a reasonable guy, Leon, I have nothing against you and have responded to you respectfully because of that. You seem open minded though it appears you favor many leftist doctrines. But, yes, this is a heavily censored site and I have to frame my responses in a certain way, unfortunately, though I still think I’ve made my positions as clear as possible. However, not embarrassed whatsoever. I have enormous respect for the European race, it’s comparative ingenuity, and its unique genotypic and phenotypic makeup; as well as a strong antipathy for the forces that are attempting to destroy its homelands by bringing in millions of outsiders, attacking those who disagree with this policy, and so on.
In our lifetimes, whites could be 30% of the US population, maybe even less given fertility rates and degree of legal and illegal immigration. I don’t want to raise my children in that environment and it would be a tragedy that may lead to the eradication and ultimate blending out of European’s unique qualities. It should be stopped and reversed immediately. You can’t understand these subjects without understanding race, but the left has distorted the concept and importance of race monumentally over the past 50+ years through propaganda and brainwashing. But all races have a right to self-determination, and in the coming years it will be our duty to reestablish that, protect Europe, and perhaps breakup the US to establish a new ethno state for our people. Lot more can be said, but I’m really tired at the moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
😕-Breaking up the United States...
...by political and social design leading to disastrous consequences, or, an actual, all out war..involving multiple agents, whether one faction is fighting for the continuation of the U.S., another trying to break off, or a hard line totalitarian response that rests asside foreign influence...or, or both American citezens and a good number of illegals actually realize that the traditional principle(s) of freedom...and an all out civil war takes place between the rebels and the functioning government.
Many themes.
Either way, Anericans and their guns...
(minus the social engineering, lack of responsibility, the collapse of the traditional family, alarming number of citizens on prescribed drugs for behavior...the dark side of the force surrounds the status-quo and the very ideas of liberty and liberalism haven been altered and used against its citizenry)
Things may not go quietly and rightfully so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a recent article by Adam (((Winkler))) in WaPo celebrating Whites' looming minority status in America, which will subsequently decrease the influence of the NRA and facilitate federal gun legislation.
| Quote: |
| Polls show that whites tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a significant margin (57 percent to 40 percent). Yet whites, who comprise 63 percent of the population today, won’t be in the majority for long. Racial minorities are soon to be a majority, and they are the nation’s strongest supporters of strict gun laws. |
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would say that manipulation of human geography and social engineering are two appropriate categories for that.
Interesting article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
