(12-23-2015 07:32 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  5) Claiming Kings with nukes would immediately start nuking each other and throwing around biological and chemical weapons is the same gibberish argument as clueless gun-control advocates make -- that people with guns will just spontaneously start shooting each other. Mutually-assured destruction applies equally to monarchs, probably even more strongly, because even if the king himself avoids death, his personal kingdom will be ruined.

European history would seem to support this point: the development of Total War was in fact concurrent with the development of large-scale democracy. Though first theorized under the late Bourbon period, most notably by the Comte de Guibert, such a vision of near-apocalyptic national struggle was only put into deliberate practice during the most radical phase of the French Revolution, and then refined by Napoleon.

During the preceding period, monarchical governments had to a striking extent striven to conduct Kabinettskriege or "war between princes", basically wars limited to a small scope and often conducted without targeting the common people. This was in response to the horrors of the 30 Years War, when crowned heads started considering that mass plunder and slaughter might not be the best way to settle international disputes. The disruption of monarchism and the rise of democratic governments (usually alongside "good vs evil" ideological paradigms) essentially rendered this warfare obsolete in favor of greater brutality and bloodletting.

(12-23-2015 12:00 PM)marty Wrote:  I think something like what Libertas described could work quite well. The problem is basically every adult was given the right to vote, how can this be taken back?

Just how liberals shoved all this degeneracy on us over the course of the last 30 years. The boiling frog style ... slowly amp up the temperature without anyone noticing.

You could start with buying out academia and have them release "several groundbreaking studies" that show people with lower IQ are more prone to fall for far right propaganda and radicalism. Insulting right wingers and confirming liberals' self-delusional intelligence at the same time? The mainstream media will love it!!

Then you propose a bill that would mandate an IQ test inorder to vote that would prevent people with lower intelligence who are more prone to radical un-American views like Islamophobia and bigotry from voting. The bill will pass with little opposition except from angels like Ron/Rand Paul. By preventing anyone with an IQ under 85 from voting under the guise of "preventing violent right wing radicalism" you remove a huge part of the liberal voting base. A big chunk of republicans too but still in favor of conservatives.

This will shift the voting trends towards more conservative values. Now you can dial it up a notch.

Grease some academics and people in the media to forward new " brain scan studies" that show the average 22 year old today is as mature as the average 16 year old in 1975. A media fiasco of debate featuring pundits scaremongering about how people in their early-mid twenties are no longer responsible like they used to be. Once the populace is properly lubed up you slip in a bill proposing the voting age to be raised to 25.

Voting demographics shift to conservatives even further.

You can follow the same strategy over time to remove voting rights from people on welfare, people with jobs receiving more government aid than they pay in taxes and finally (& most importantly) single women with no children.

It will take decades. But if the media can convince the sheep that homosexuality is cool, transgenders are heroic and letting in a million goatfuckers is the right thing to do ... the opposite is possible too. Possibly even easier since it aligns more with human nature.

The key however is to control the media and academia. I doubt Cohen and Shapiro will let that happen without a fight but they're not invincible.

Or instead of using IQ which is a terrible metric for intelligence anyway simply bar anyone accepting state funds from voting. State funds include welfare and student loans.

Get off welfare? You vote. Pay off your fed backed student loans? You vote.

Easiest way to win is to starve the beast.

(12-21-2015 02:40 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  China is a house of cards.

So too is the US, so too is Europe. Capitalism, unhindered by wise leadership, specializes in the building of houses of cards. In fact, it'll offer you a great subprime mortgage on any number of them.

Subprime mortgages aren't an example of capitalism. That was government malfeasance combined with natural human Greed.

Trying to equate China's economy to the USA's is disingenuous and false. China's economy will collapse if they lose the USA as an export partner.

Quote:

Quote:As for the weak and pious - It is better to be pious and weak than strong and impious. The pious will last the test of time long enough to become strong and pious.

The pious survive, while those who are merely strong all up like Ozymandias.

It's quite difficult to stand in the magnificent space of the Hagia Sophia, now a former mosque turned museum, in the city that was once called Constantinople, and believe that.

Considering the Hagia Sophia was built on the skulls of millions of Christians by the evil, power-obsessed insane king Justinian the Great to please his slut whore wife, you've proven my point perfectly. God will discard places that are holy in name only but are actually disgusting symbols of vice and evil who destroy themselves through corruption.

When examining history to see how Christianity has creates the best civilizations and enriches the lives of its members, you have to actually look at the people who lived as Christians are supposed to. Many have been false imposters; such as many Byzantine Kings, Catholic Popes, etc.

Quote:

Quote:My point to Dreambig was that Japan would not be able to afford the same standards of living if they had to pay for their own military. So using Japan as an example of prosperity is a misleading example.

As for why they do not have a Military, that is because a Christian nation conquered them in self-defense and did not want them to have a military. I think the Japanese have changed tremendously since WW2 (no longer with primitive Emperor God worship) and I wouldn't be surprised to see America relax on Japan soon.

First, Japan has a military already...they call it part of the police force, but it's a fictitious legal qualification...it's a military with everything that makes a military. We even have forum members here who've done military exercises with their military.

Japan's military isn't close to America's. I seriously doubt their standard of living would be the same if they had to pay what America pays.

Quote:That aside, no one denies that a bigger military would cost something, but their standard of living would still far outstrip most of the world...including the very pious Christian populations of Latin America and Africa (which are easily more earnest in their religious convictions than almost all of Europe and many parts of the US).

These countries, should their populations stay Christian, will be much happier and prosperous compared to their neighbors.

Will they surpass Japan? It's irrelevant because my claim was not that Christianity will make every culture and people equal or better than all non-Christian cultures, but that they will surpass those who are already comparable to them in the long run. And in the truly, truly long run (thousands of years) should a culture remain Christian against one that is not, I would fully expect them to surpass all others as all historical evidence indicates.

Quote:More pressingly, it would still see far fewer (if any) pockets of deep poverty and lawlessness that one sees in many areas of the US.

It should also be mentioned that Japan was rebuilt by the Christian USA. Following the Christian command to give "mercy, not judgement," instead of eradicating the Japanese population in 1946 they rebuilt Japan with mercy, removed their primitive Emperor worship, and now Japan is 100x more prosperous than it ever had been throughout history.

So really, using Japan just proves the Christian thesis all the more.

Quote:

Quote:Simply false. It seems you have read more Nietzche than the actual Bible. Let me break the news to you: Nietzsche's characterization of Christianity with "slave morality" is 100% bullshit contradicted by many, many, many passages within the good book.

Matthew 10:34:

Quote:Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

If Christ wanted us to be like slaves then why did he come to bring war?

I did not cite Nietzsche, instead I pointed out that the Bible does take a tone that borders on pacifism. A few passages should be sufficient to illustrate this:

Matthew 5:39

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:9

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God

If Christ wanted to bring war, why would he bless those who stop war? If Christ wanted to bring war, why would he say to turn the other cheek?

It is an obvious and irreconcilable contradiction, which does more to highlight the inconsistent contents of the Bible (compiled and edited by human institutions, often motivated more by politics than by faith, over the centuries) than anything else.

Those aren't contradictions, you're just quoting things out of context. There's are actually very few contradictions within the Bible - the vast majority of confusions are the result of selective reading or translation errors.

But to answer your quotes directly - the turning of the cheek is referring to a person handling their own problems. It does not mean you should turn the other cheek when your neighbor is being threatened. St. Paul wrote, "Loving is protecting," so in context we know that it's sometimes good to be a pacifist when dealing with aggressors against yourself, but it is never good to be a pacifist when there is aggression against your neighbors.

Peace is not merely the absence of war. If you're living under slavery conditions, you are not living in peace. To bring peace sometimes means using violence, hence Jesus's call for the sword and not peace. But Jesus also said that God desires mercy and not judgement, which logically means that Christians must be strong, and ready to impose righteousness on the land, but the point of doing so is not to dominate others.

Quote:More importantly, the New Testament constantly stresses the importance of meekness. The Sermon on the Mount is awash in it, as already seen. You yourself pointed it out in Corinthians:

For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Hardly an homage to the virtue of strength, it is a eulogy to the "virtue" of weakness. This does not constitute a critique, I make no claim other than the observation of what it is.

I already explained last post (quoted below) how weakness is a form of strength because it lasts the test of time. And lasting the test of time is really the only measurement of strength. The Christian lesson is not to be deceived by appearances; the ones who appear strong are actually weak and vice versa.

Quote:

Quote:Notice, the point about being weak is to please God and therefore be strong, because nothing is stronger than God. So the Christian man, while apparently weak, is actually the strongest because he has God behind him.

This interpretation, while still something of a logical leap, seems to be quite an explanation for the approach that's ripped Christendom apart on many occasions.

Once a religion views itself the only one with God behind it, and is then unable to perceive other traditions and rituals as anything but false (and therefore a threat), it gives itself the ability to create hell in this world in the name of paradise in the next. The brutality leveled against the pagans, then the Arians, then the Waldensians, then the Albigensians, then the Protestants by the Catholics and the Catholics by the Protestants, then the Quakers (several of whom were hanged in the "city on the hill" of Puritan Boston in 1660 simply for being Quaker)...and so on and so on...proves this.

No different than the types of purges many civilizations have waged on each other. That they used Christianity as an excuse matters little, they could have used any other label they just chose a popular one to mask their evil intentions.

Quote:It comes from a monotheist predilection to seek supremacy. These wars and persecutions were not some Baroque oddity but rather a committed pattern of violence, conflict and upheaval based on religious orthodoxy. Even the 100 Years War, which started over dynastic squabbles, turned into a holy conflict when the French claimant to the crown found its champion in Joan of Arc, who claimed that God himself wanted the English out of France.

The holy stuff is just dressing on the cake, don't kid yourself there would have been much more killing without Christianity as evidenced by the fact that our historical record only exists because of Christianity. This logically implies that before Christ people were slaughtering each other so much no history ever survived. The destruction of the Library of Alexandria probably deleted the knowledge of dozens of civilizations forever. And moreover, the worst wars and atrocities have been in the "secular" 20th century.

Quote:

Quote:Elaborating further, we can understand the values of Christ to build strong communities and nations over time by not exalting any one member of the community over another. Hence, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," which unlike the Romans or pagans, prevents needless conflict and civil war.

Thus, the man who is weak but pious is doing much more for his community than the man who is strong, selfish, and impious, and ultimately sacrifices his community for his own gain.

There is no slavery here; men called for Christ are allowed to come voluntarily, promote kindness among their neighbors and not obsessed with being the "strongest," which is a laughable ideal because God is stronger than everyone put together.

Only when you account for the superior neighborliness of the Japanese, and the unprecedented peace of the "heathen" Pax Romana, and the infighting typical of Christian Europe...can you attempt such sweeping conclusions.

Sure. The Japanese were not neighborly before the Christian USA conquered and reformed them. Rome's peace was solid, but still ended horribly because their civilization was not build on the rock of God but instead the sane of conquest and plunder.

Also, please note, Christianity is not saying one must be meek like St. Paul. You can still be strong yet follow Christian ideals. The point being made is that it is better to be weak and pious than strong and impious. But someone who is both strong and pious is going to be the best.

Quote:Secondly, it is precisely the "turn the cheek" Christian ethos that has allowed Europe to fall to its knees in the face of millions of smartphone-wielding, sob-story peddling migrants. The pagan legions of Rome would have never for an instant countenanced such fecklessness: to violate Roman territory was an affront to the gods.

I know many people think this but they do not know their Bible. The sin Europe is committing en masse comes straight from the Sermon on the Mount, right after Jesus tells us that we will be judged in equal proportion to how we judge others,

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

It is obvious that opening the floodgates to the worst of the 3rd world is casting pearls before swine, and now the dogs will trample the Europeans underfoot and rend them.

There is a balance, according to the words of Christ, between being too harsh with judgements and not applying them at all.

Quote:By the way, despite this, I feel that Christianity is an important civilizational basis for the west, and that it should be strengthened in the west...but we should still be forthright about what it is and the tendencies it often encourages.

The problem isn't what the Bible says. The problem is that most people are Biblically illiterate and don't even know what the Bible says. The misconceptions you've displayed here are far too common even among "educated" people. Everyone talks about the Bible but no one reads it.

Quote:

Quote:The vast, vast majority of wars within Christendom were over political allegiances, instability, and ambition.

I don't disagree, but they were also fueled by religious conviction and no history of the conflicts can be complete without giving faith a central role. The Reformation and Counterreformation were not idle tokens of religiosity, they involved a great deal of zealotry not only as their raison d'etre but also as a constant source of motivation for their followers.

There is no Shinto equivalent for the 30 Years War. Do you take this as a sign of primitiveness?

But the 30 years war was huge and involved many countries. The 30 years war is comparable to many of the wars between Japan and Korea/China.

Also, Japan had over 100 years of warfare just within their borders and it was horrific.

http://www.amazon.com/War-Japan-1467-161...uckgo-d-20

"In 1467 the Onin War ushered in a period of unrivalled conflict and rivalry in Japan that came to be called the Age of Warring States or Sengoku Jidai. In this book Stephen Turnbull offers a masterly exposition of the Sengoku Jidai, detailing the factors that led to Japan's disintegration into warring states after more than a century of peace; the years of fighting that followed; and the period of gradual fusion when the daimyo (great names) strove to reunite Japan under a new Shogun. Peace returned to Japan with the end of the Osaka War in 1615, but only at the end of the most violent, turbulent and cruel period in Japanese history."

Again, I've never studied Japanese history in great detail but I already knew before googling that Japan had horrible horrible wars. How did I know? Because human nature is fundamentally the same everywhere. And Christianity has proven itself as the best working solution to human nature, and create the best humans anyone could be, who successively become better people over the generations.

Quote:

Quote:The facts of the matter, however, were that the wars within Christendom never lead to the establishment of an absolute God Emperor dictator like it did in Japan (although the Pope came close, but the people revolted with Protestantism). So it is easy to see how Japan was rendered inferior due to the lack of God.

Japanese history disproves your notion, for the emperors were all but powerless figures during the Sengoku Era (the civil war) and the resulting Tokugawa Shogunate...which means almost 4 centuries in which your thesis of a "God Emperor dictator" simply didn't exist. It was paradoxically modernization along the lines of European government that brought the imperial family into its position of acting (rather than symbolic) head of state.

Whether or not the Emperor had power in Japan at all times as a religious figure is beside the point. The point I am making is that the lack of Christian teachings rendered Japanese society inferior to the point of socially crippling wars or Emperor gods.

Quote:

Quote:Again, simply untrue. Those wars in Japan, without even having read the history of half of them myself, were obviously between men who were claiming their divine right as ruler of Japan. Just like it was in China. Perhaps it did not have as many as China, but given that Christian nations rarely fought each other over religion except during the reformation, I can't see how any other conclusion can be arrived at that Japan was impoverished by their lack of strong faith which caused them to ultimately self-destruct in insane wars of aggression during the 20th century.

They didn't claim to be ruler of Japan, they claimed power in the name of the emperor, whom they wished to use (and then did use) as a puppet. Further, Shinto orthodoxy wasn't particularly among their arguments as to why they deserved power.

Very similar to the European warring kings who would use the pope as a puppet.

Quote:It was, of course, during precisely this period that the Franciscans were destroying Shinto shrines and attempting to eradicate all non-Catholic religious existence on the islands (Theodosius rides again, if you will). It cannot be considered a mere coincidence that Shinto and Buddhism had been able to coexist without such serious disturbances for centuries...yet Christianity's arrival inevitably brought holy intolerance. It should also be noted that Immanuel Kant saw the subsequent ejection of Catholicism from Japan as a wise action, since he appreciated the extent to which Christianity threatened the social order of that country.

Don't confuse the Catholics with Christians. They are a special breed of Christians, and the ones within the higher orders of the Catholic Church were often deranged people and not representative of your typical Christian during that time.

Quote:Yet you claim that the most intolerant religion (by some distance), the one least capable of carrying itself in a civil manner, was the civilized one and the others not. Strange.

What measure are you using? Because history has shown the Japanese to be far more barbaric than their Christian counterparts, and it wasn't until the Atom bomb reset their society have they become part of the civilized world.

Quote:Finally, the fact that you point to a feudal civil war and a modern transcontinental war about 350 years later means your arguments lose their coherence. If Japan was, as you say, fated by its "primitive religion" to tear itself apart endlessly, why the hundreds of years of internal tranquil?

It was not just their religion. My point is that Christianity has proven itself the best for all types and races of people in the world, and the reason Christian nations rise to dominance is because the religion itself improves the average person moreso than any other religion or state ever has.

You have brought up Japan as a counter-example, and it is clear that place was a basket case for huge portions of it's history and regardless of whether or not they had a state religion. Conversely, since the Christian USA nuked the shit out of them, they have turned into one of the world's most prosperous societies. How is Japan supposed to be a counter-example? It supports the Christian thesis entirely.

Quote:On the other hand, the development that most halted the European wars of religion (which, as I've already shown, were not at all limited to the Reformation) was secularization...because peace between competing Christian sects demands the introduction of a new ideological basis, since the doctrine itself has little basis for it.

The "Wars of Religion" were mostly just the wars of the Catholic Church, and secularization has proven itself to be a disaster for the Western World with far worse wars and conflicts coming out of the secular era than ever before. WW1, Communism, and WW2 just for starters.

Quote:

Quote:Those men weren't charging in for the name of their King god, they did it for their neighbor, for glory, or for their country. Secular, not religious.

Not so. The Church of England was extraordinarily active in painting the conflict as a holy one, in which Englishmen supposedly had to fight in order to save Christian civilization from "German barbarism". Likewise, Irish Catholics charged across no man's land to save the honor of fellow Catholic Belgium, and Russians fell on the eastern front to save the honor of fellow Orthodox Serbia.

Just because some felt it was religious does not indicate that most felt that way. The vast majority of those fighting were doing to prove "their country is the best," through killing and slaughter - which is not Christian at all. The Church of England is/was a state run bullshit Church, by the way. Cannot be trusted to represent Christian interests at all.

Quote:Peter Hitchens, one of the most articulate Christian voices in modern times, has spoken and written extensively on how Christian authorities betrayed their congregations in misleading them about supposed Christian justifications for the war; he's also noted the long-term effect it had in the collapse of Christianity throughout the western world since.

Perhaps this was a major cause of Christianity's collapse in Europe, but this did not happen in the USA. Regardless, the man you've linked to is someone on my side - when Christian principles and morals are followed everyone prospers; when people deviate - especially from those who claim to be representatives of God - from these teachings things fall apart and go to hell.

Quote:

Quote:The men who charged battle lines in the name of Christ really only happened during Constantine the Great, the wars against Islam (1st Crusade and a few of Russia's wars included), and America's Manifest destiny.

No True Scotsman Christian Warrior.

There is no book of what being a scotsman is. But there is a book of what being a Christian is. So the no true scotsman fallacy does not apply here.

Also, I know there is a lot of room for interpretation within the Bible and much of it can be unclear. However, there is a set of Christian morals which are fundamental to the doctrine and universal to 90% of churches worldwide, no matter their denomination. And when large numbers of people adhere to these morals, even imperfectly, the trend of civilizational advance and improvement is unmistakable.

One of the main prizes of the famous, most-important of the year Spanish bingo-lottery, has just been won by... a Senegalese migrant, who arrived a few years ago on a clandestine boat, illegally of course, and who kept breaking all migratory and labor laws of Spain, for years.

And after that, they tell us "crime doesn't pay"! I mean... this illegal-migrant Senegalese just won 400.000 euros (440.000 dollars).

Hard-working, legal European men have to work 20 or 30 years before saving this kind of money to their bank account, and this law-breaking unwelcome migrant (who came illegally to a high-unemployment rate country) wins such a huge amount of money in two minutes.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/1...os-lot.php

It'll become legendary in Africa, this story, so more and more migrants will come. All year long, they hear about African soccer players who make millions, drive Ferraris and fuck blonde women, and now, they'll also read about this Senegalese cousin winning the Spanish lottery. More incentive, more dream for them about the good European life!

Ok, back from work and again not much time:

I'm not in my early twenties. I'm not a programmer. I don't even work at a desk. I was simply at a loss of words thinking about your ludicrous statement.

I don't have an unwavering trust in democracy. It's in the first sentence of my post I think. I very much like the idea of a single ruler.

To straight up assume that "I have no idea what I'm talking about" really doesn't strengthen any of your points. It just seems you're a little hurt because of a "snarky" gif.

Well, snarky gifs is what you get when you're sporting a Japanese flag and casually explain how maybe Germans like me should be ruled by inbred rich kids because the country is "theirs"; quote Wikipedia.

Unlike most of you here I have actually met German royalty and had to deal with them on a daily basis. I can't think of a worse character to hand this country over to.

Maybe that golden boy from your original post is way different and such a good leader. But I really doubt that and I wouldn't wager an entire country to find out. I like the idea of speaking to a person before giving him power over me.

Then you put up a list of reasons why monarchs are such great people, but at the end of the day you just made all of that up. To look after one's kids and to look after one's country aren't even remotely related, but to you that seems an obvious plus point. You're assuming things just because they sound sensible. It doesn't work that way though.
You make some straw man argument about me having said that kings would nuke each other (I didn't)
You attack my ideas of how an election could work, yet that isn't relevant to the question whether monarchs are a good idea

Then you say something about Jeezibel but I don't know what that is.

Well.

Unlike others who enjoyed your post to me it doesn't carry a lot of substance, so I don't see further need to discuss.

It's 00:30 on the 24th now which means it's Christmas and I will not ruin my holiday spirit with political discussions.

Take care everyone. Merry Christmas.

LE50 raises several good points.

There have been many horrible monarchs in history, often doing tremendous damage to the country (the saxon kings of poland come to mind, and of course one must mention Louis XVI who was in many ways the cause of the French Revolution).

Moreover there have been "weak" monarchs, who were largely inconsequential compared to their advisors (one thinks of Bismark or Richelieu), so it is clear there is not necessarily any guarantee even that the monarch will be in charge, rendering any argument about the virtue or motivation of the monarch inconsequential.

Indeed we see England, which had a series of "weak" kings have the monarchy completely stripped of any real power in even the legal sense.

Suppose we were to argue that a monarch which comes to power is a posteriori competent. Then he will not be subject to the above considerations. But one will still remember Thucydides, who observed that it is a general rule that in three generations the strength of the monarch loses its vigor.

Therefore there is no reason to believe that a centralized monarchy would be managed any better than the current system. Indeed considering how popular SJW-ism is, we might well have a king who brings immigrants in by the handful. One thinks of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg (who, admittedly, is not a strong monarch... but the man relenquished the title "by the grace of god" upon taking up the throne so certainly he is not a traditionalist).

The reasoning behind neo-ractionaries is in general sloppy and lacks rigor or even experimental confirmation. Good for daydreaming, nothing more.

EDIT: ‘Soon there will be no more Luxembourg’ http://www.politico.eu/article/luxembour...-refugees/

(12-23-2015 04:13 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Or instead of using IQ which is a terrible metric for intelligence anyway simply bar anyone accepting state funds from voting. State funds include welfare and student loans.

Get off welfare? You vote. Pay off your fed backed student loans? You vote.

Easiest way to win is to starve the beast.

Absolutely. If a person doesn't have ANY skin in the damn game, why do they get the make the rules?

It will be Starship Troopers. You want to be a citizen, with real rights, you need to serve in the Army and protect your country.

Samseau, if you don't know anything about Japanese history/culture maybe it's time to stop posting the sweeping generalisations? You show some extreme confirmation bias and, frankly, ignorance.

I'm not going to respond to your full post, but the concept that Japan was inherently barbaric and an inferior civilisation before US invasion doesn't stand up to any objective comparison. The Nazis were far worse on every level and had a firmly Christian base of support.

Nobody was talking about standard of living. Japan could build a decent military with ease (and already have a self-defence force). The point being made is that Japan has a harmonious, peaceful and well-managed society despite its general atheism. Lack of immigration is part of it.

(12-24-2015 12:32 AM)dreambig Wrote:  Samseau, if you don't know anything about Japanese history/culture maybe it's time to stop posting the sweeping generalisations? You show some extreme confirmation bias and, frankly, ignorance.

I'm not going to respond to your full post, but the concept that Japan was inherently barbaric and an inferior civilisation before US invasion doesn't stand up to any objective comparison. The Nazis were far worse on every level and had a firmly Christian base of support.

Nobody was talking about standard of living. Japan could build a decent military with ease (and already have a self-defence force). The point being made is that Japan has a harmonious, peaceful and well-managed society despite its general atheism. Lack of immigration is part of it.

Lol no they weren't. Your infamous Churchill was the genocidal maniac of WW2 only out done by Stalin. Looking at European Holocaust laws and the UK's integral role in WW2, you likely believe a sappy version of history that lionizing the UK's stance against the Third Reich. Really most of what you've been told is drummed up nonsense to make your country look better. Nazi Germany didn't start war with the British empire, they did.

Now I'm not saying you're wrong about Japan as well, but look at your own confirmation bias before you sling labels.

(12-24-2015 01:24 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 12:32 AM)dreambig Wrote:  Samseau, if you don't know anything about Japanese history/culture maybe it's time to stop posting the sweeping generalisations? You show some extreme confirmation bias and, frankly, ignorance.

I'm not going to respond to your full post, but the concept that Japan was inherently barbaric and an inferior civilisation before US invasion doesn't stand up to any objective comparison. The Nazis were far worse on every level and had a firmly Christian base of support.

Nobody was talking about standard of living. Japan could build a decent military with ease (and already have a self-defence force). The point being made is that Japan has a harmonious, peaceful and well-managed society despite its general atheism. Lack of immigration is part of it.

Lol no they weren't. Your infamous Churchill was the genocidal maniac of WW2 only out done by Stalin. Looking at European Holocaust laws and the UK's integral role in WW2, you likely believe a sappy version of history that lionizing the UK's stance against the Third Reich. Really most of what you've been told is drummed up nonsense to make your country look better. Nazi Germany didn't start war with the British empire, they did.

Now I'm not saying you're wrong about Japan as well, but look at your own confirmation bias before you sling labels.

This is just a stupid post. You are making yourself look like a very stupid person when you deny the Holocaust and claim Churchill was genocidal.

Nazi Germany is the one who declared war on Poland, what alternate universe are you living in?

I'm not really sure I follow much of what Tony said, but Nazi treatment of the Jews, Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs (to name just a few) far outstrips anything that the Japanese did to the Chinese or Allied forces. People want to believe that the Japanese were "the worst", but that's just buying into western propaganda. Talk about blue pill. I've already disproved this notion before on the forum and this probably isn't the right thread in any case. Yes they did some evil shit but the Nazis took the cake. That's not even a debate.

Edit: double post.

(12-24-2015 03:21 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 03:04 AM)dreambig Wrote:  I'm not really sure I follow much of what Tony said, but Nazi treatment of the Jews, Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs (to name just a few) far outstrips anything that the Japanese did to the Chinese or Allied forces. People want to believe that the Japanese were "the worst", but that's just buying into western propaganda. Talk about blue pill. I've already disproved this notion before on the forum and this probably isn't the right thread in any case. Yes they did some evil shit but the Nazis took the cake. That's not even a debate.

Yes, the Germans did some bad things to the Russians,Poles, Jews etc during WWII. However, these bad things were not done gratuitously. There were in almost every case a logical albeit ruthless response to the reality of the world at the time. The Japanese on the other hand engaged in barbarity for the sake of self fulfilling pleasure. That is far different and in my opinion at least far worse.

Logical?

It's amazing how far people will go to apologise for the Nazis. Your argument about the Japanese has nothing to do with the facts.

Edit: ^^I had meant to edit the post above yours to expand my original response but somehow created a new one (this one) by mistake.

(12-24-2015 03:21 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  [quote='dreambig' pid='1177095' dateline='1450944285']
I'm not really sure I follow much of what Tony said, but Nazi treatment of the Jews, Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs (to name just a few) far outstrips anything that the Japanese did to the Chinese or Allied forces. People want to believe that the Japanese were "the worst", but that's just buying into western propaganda. Talk about blue pill. I've already disproved this notion before on the forum and this probably isn't the right thread in any case. Yes they did some evil shit but the Nazis took the cake. That's not even a debate.

Yes, the Germans did some bad things to the Russians,Poles, Jews etc during WWII.

Today, thanks to ceaseless propaganda, we all believe the Nazis rose to power fueled by Germans' empty fears, hate, and the search for "scapegoats," as if Bolshevism did not exist and had not just eradicated 20m+ eastern Europeans and set its sights on Western Europe. With that said, did the Nazis behave admirably, especially during the end days of the war when it was obvious their time was up? Of course not. But their excesiveness should not blind us to the fact that it was an excessive reaction rather than cruelty for the sake of cruelty.


The Japanese on the other hand engaged in barbarity for no other reason than that they enjoyed it. In my mind, that is far worse.

Real talk. The main reasons why Japan was so demonised in the postwar West were:

1. They were Asian and therefore not allowed to commit genocide or have an empire
2. They hurt "our guys". I.e dared to torture and kill British and American POWs. Nobody in the West gave a shit about Nanking.

The Nazis systematically wiped out Jews, gays, gypsies and Soviet POWs while mostly sparing the Allied POWs who they regarded as their equals. I suspect that this fact played a large role in postwar attitudes in the West. If roles had been reversed then Brits and Americans would probably have never bought German products for generations.

Some of you need to open your eyes and question the dubious beliefs you inherited.

(12-24-2015 03:49 AM)dreambig Wrote:  Real talk. The main reasons why Japan was so demonised in the postwar West were:

1. They were Asian and therefore not allowed to commit genocide or have an empire
2. They hurt "our guys". I.e dared to torture and kill British and American POWs. Nobody in the West gave a shit about Nanking.

The Nazis systematically wiped out Jews, gays, gypsies and Soviet POWs while mostly sparing the Allied POWs who they regarded as their equals. I suspect that this fact played a large role in postwar attitudes in the West. If roles had been reversed then Brits and Americans would probably have never bought German products for generations.

Some of you need to open your eyes and question the dubious beliefs you inherited.

The Japanese Empire was demonized and deservedly so. It was tyrannical, chauvinist, repressive and aggressive towards its neighbors.

This idea that Japanese were victims of racism is just projection. They were racists aggressors that viewed their neighbors, particularly the Chinese, as lesser peoples. The Japanese viewed themselves as a Master race that had the right to rule over all of Asia.

You are just bitter that they tried to play the game of being an Imperial power, and failed miserably at it. Don't hate on the Americans and British for the Japanese overplaying their hand and getting their asses handed to them.

Obviously the Allies cared about the Chinese. One of the main reasons for the American embargo was the continued Japanese occupation of China.

So you need to get your story straight. You can't on one hand say the evil Whites hated the Japs for no reason then on the other hand say they didn't care about the Chinese, this makes no sense.

Also, no one has been more demonized than the Germans. If anything, in American public schools we are taught how evil we were for interning Japanese and dropping two atom bombs. And btw they tell us how we were such evil goyim for not declaring war on Germany earlier to stop the Holocaust. So it is the German people, not just the Nazi regime, that is demonized to this day. And it is only White people that are demonized for trying to assert their racial interests, for being nationalists, not the Japanese or any other Asian group. Our system in the West today is anti-white, not anti-Asian.

I tried to write a long, reasoned response to the posts regarding my points, but the spam filter ate it somehow. It's too late in the evening to do that again so I'll just provide the links.

Normally I like to be more polite and argue in good faith, but Dreambigs investment in the mainstream narrative is obvious. I won't convince this guy otherwise, so this is more in my defense of not becoming the resident Hitler

-the memes of German weirdness, occult practices, experimentation, atrocities and regressive character is wideness propagandized or outright false
-you are propagandized to believe this daily
-"Hitler only had one testicle" mysteriously showing up as the top trend across US search engines a few days ago wasn't by chance.
-Russia and Japan had the highest civilian kill counts in WW2
-Communism has the highest kill count in history.
-Japan massacred prisoners of all nationalities and practiced scorched earth tactics on the civilian population of China.

Dreambig and new guy, sorry but you're still wrong.


The Nazi funding and support of Zionism to Palestine before and during WW2. The history is of Nazi-Jewish relations is more complex than it is given credit for.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html

The mass rapes by USSR soldiers in Germany. Soviet soldiers raped and killed civilians in all territories they took or regained. Stalin didn't believe in prisoners of warm just traitors of the USSR so they all went to gulags.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...gnore.html


FINAL EDIT!
*When I said Churchill was a genocidal maniac only lost to Stalin, I was wrong...only because of forgot to include Hirohito.
Backing up my commentary on Churchill, bother to watch that documentary "Hellstorm" I posted a few pages back. Eisenhower and Churchill were vicious prejudice against the Germans and committed open atrocities against them. A genuine attempt was made to ethnically cleanse or at least destroy Germany by a few men.

(12-24-2015 03:32 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 03:21 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Yes, the Germans did some bad things to the Russians,Poles, Jews etc during WWII. However, these bad things were not done gratuitously. There were in almost every case a logical albeit ruthless response to the reality of the world at the time. The Japanese on the other hand engaged in barbarity for the sake of self fulfilling pleasure. That is far different and in my opinion at least far worse.

Logical?

It's amazing how far people will go to apologise for the Nazis. Your argument about the Japanese has nothing to do with the facts.

Logical?

It's amazing how far people will go to apologise for the Japanese. Your argument about the Nazis has nothing to do with the facts.

Guys, can you please move this discussion on which system of governance is better and who did what in WW2 to another thread? This is supposed to be for news on migrants and pushback.

Fair enough but just to end on this. Of course there were Soviet atrocities, and they are often not talked about because a certain group controls our media and education system, and that group also controlled the soviet Union. They particularly don't mention how many of the Germans were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe after the war, and how millions died. But we also must remember Nazi Germany collaborated with this evil power and had no problem dividing Eastern Europe with them. Hitler could have cared less about "anti-communism" or defending the White race at large, all he cared about was a Germanic Empire. Hitler exterminated millions of Jews and others and wanted to ethnically cleanse Eastern Europe and the USSR of many of its Slavic inhabitants. To try and say Churchill was genocidal, and more genocidal than Hitler is simply wrong as a matter of history.

Sorry, I will end it there. But this seems to be a problem. Whenever European Nationalism, or standing to preserve Western Civilization is brought up, a certain cancerous regime from the 30s is always brought into the mix to delegitimize the idea that we even have a right to exist. So when I see people trying to defend this particular regime, this evil regime, I just see them playing into the hands of the enemy. We need to get out of the past and stop fetishizing a government that was not good for the interests of Western Civilization and look towards the future.

(12-24-2015 04:40 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 03:32 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 03:21 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Yes, the Germans did some bad things to the Russians,Poles, Jews etc during WWII. However, these bad things were not done gratuitously. There were in almost every case a logical albeit ruthless response to the reality of the world at the time. The Japanese on the other hand engaged in barbarity for the sake of self fulfilling pleasure. That is far different and in my opinion at least far worse.

Logical?

It's amazing how far people will go to apologise for the Nazis. Your argument about the Japanese has nothing to do with the facts.

Logical?

It's amazing how far people will go to apologise for the Japanese. Your argument about the Nazis has nothing to do with the facts.

I'm in no way making apologies for the Japanese. I'm white British with no stake in that argument. I'm just sick of seeing guys spouting off BS about a country they know nothing about while sucking Nazi dick.

My argument is firmly based upon facts. Namely, the deaths of millions of Soviet POWs under the Nazis. Without even bringing the Holocaust into things, Nazi crimes against humanity far outweighed anything that the Japanese did. But no, the Japanese were worse man! Those damn savages...

Fast Eddie suggested that it's all about feelings and whether the Japanese enjoyed killing or not, while calling Nazi war crimes "logical". That's just such a silly argument that I treated it with the ridicule it deserved.

(12-24-2015 05:27 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 04:40 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 03:32 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 03:21 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Yes, the Germans did some bad things to the Russians,Poles, Jews etc during WWII. However, these bad things were not done gratuitously. There were in almost every case a logical albeit ruthless response to the reality of the world at the time. The Japanese on the other hand engaged in barbarity for the sake of self fulfilling pleasure. That is far different and in my opinion at least far worse.

Logical?

It's amazing how far people will go to apologise for the Nazis. Your argument about the Japanese has nothing to do with the facts.

Logical?

It's amazing how far people will go to apologise for the Japanese. Your argument about the Nazis has nothing to do with the facts.

I'm in no way making apologies for the Japanese. I'm white British with no stake in that argument. I'm just sick of seeing guys spouting off BS about a country they know nothing about while sucking Nazi dick.

My argument is firmly based upon facts. Namely, the deaths of millions of Soviet POWs under the Nazis. Without even bringing the Holocaust into things, Nazi crimes against humanity far outweighed anything that the Japanese did. But no, the Japanese were worse man! Those damn savages...

Fast Eddie suggested that it's all about feelings and whether the Japanese enjoyed killing or not, while calling Nazi war crimes "logical". That's just such a silly argument that I treated it with the ridicule it deserved.

I agree with HCE that it's time to abandon this train of thought as it's at best tangential to the thread, but please stop mischaracterizing my argument. If you feel it's wrong, so be it, but realize that simply calling it "silly" and "treating it with ridicule" does not actually disprove it.

Peace.

^^ Feelings-based arguments are what the feminists and leftist rely on. The onus is on you to prove your arguments, not on me to disprove anything (impossible in any case).

But I agree. Let's get back to the migrants.

(12-24-2015 06:00 AM)dreambig Wrote:  ^^ Feelings-based arguments are what the feminists and leftist rely on. The onus is on you to prove your arguments, not on me to disprove anything (impossible in any case).

But I agree. Let's get back to the migrants.

Yeah, nice one. Let's end it now, right after you not so subtly accused me of acting like a feminist and a leftist. You serious with that? lol.

So back to it:

I did not make a feelings based argument. You can claim it all you want, and you can claim the Moon for the Queen of England while you're at it. I made a distinction, based on historical facts, between atrocities committed as a reaction to the enemy's actions and atrocities committed from sheer brutality and for no other reason. That's a "feelings based argument" in your mind? No bro, it's not. It's a logical argument, and it's recognized under criminal law. It's why there are different degrees of murder. Killing someone because he raped your daughter is considered a lesser crime than killing someone for no reason whatsoever.

And what's this BS about the onus being on me? We both made arguments of an identical nature: My argument is that the Japanese were worse, yours that the Germans were. There is no onus on anyone, neither of us is asking the other to prove a negative. I haven't a clue what you're on about mate.