Post: #1

Countercurrents published a three part series that examined a leaked document put out by the American ambassador to France. It shows that America is using multiculturalism as a weapon to weaken nations and bring them to heel of globalist interests.

Quote:Ultimately the goal of globalism is not to promote the survival of ethnic cultures and identities, but rather to submerge them into one big melting pot of global consumerism, to uproot every individual from an identity and heritage and replace that with the global shopping mall, and the “global village.” Therefore multiculturalism should be viewed as the antithesis of what it is understood as being.

[...]

the best way to solve France’s ethnic conflicts and to assure that France does not re-emerge again to confront US/globalist interests, is to dialectically create a new cultural synthesis where there is neither a French culture nor an Islamic culture, but under the banner of “human rights” and “equality,” a globalist youth-based culture nurtured by Hollywood, MTV, cyberspace, MacDonald’s and Pepsi.

Part 1: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/03/...ct-part-1/

Quote:It means that the Pepsi/MTV generation of Americans will be formulating new definitions of French culture and writing new pages of French history to accord with globalist agendas. Towards this end: “. . . we will continue and intensify our work with French museums and educators to reform the history curriculum taught in French schools.”

[...]

We will build on existing youth networks in France, and create new ones in cyberspace, connecting France’s future leaders to each other in a forum whose values we help to shape — values of inclusion, mutual respect, and open dialogue.

[...]

Rivkin states that the 1,000 American English language teachers employed at French schools will be provided with the propaganda materials necessary to inculcate the desired ideals into their French pupils: “We will also provide tools for teaching tolerance to the network of over 1,000 American university students who teach English in French schools every year.”

Part 2: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/03/...ct-part-2/

Quote:Barnet and Muller cite A. W. Clausen when he headed the Bank of America, as stating that national, cultural, and racial differences create “marketing problems,” lamenting that there is “no such thing as a uniform, global market.”[16] Harry Heltzer, Chief Executive Officer of 3M stated that global corporations are a “powerful voice for world peace because their allegiance is not to any nation, tongue, race, or creed but to one of the finer aspirations of mankind, that the people of the world may be united in common economic purpose.”[17]

These “finer aspirations of mankind,” known in other quarters as greed, avarice, and Mammon-worship, have despoiled the earth, caused global economic imbalance, and operate on usury that was in better times regarded as a sin. These “finer aspirations,” by corporate reckoning, have caused more wars than any “xenophobic” dictator, usually in the name of “world peace,” and “democracy.”

Part 3: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/03/...ct-part-3/

The USA is doing what Russia did to us in the 1960's, as told by Yuri Bezmenov:





The folly of the US elite is to think that their subversion tactics won't eventually lead to a collapse where their own heads get put on the chopping block.

Post: #2

Post: #3

Will the elites ever be on the chopping block?

Pacifying the global mass of sheep through Facebook/Tinder/video games/porn aside, in the event of a collapse:

1) Will they "divide and conquer" by creating fictitious groups of people to fight each other instead of them, say like how the British created or encouraged the Hutus and the Tutsis, as I understand?

2) Will they merely be replaced by other elites?

Just my thoughts, thinking that we live in a world where the power structure is similar to that in the world of Game of Thrones.

Post: #4

If this theory is true, that USA is paranoid with destroying any competitors and multiculturalism was used to destroy foreign developed countries like Euopean ones then this could mean that now when Europe is close to being overtaken by muslim immigrants, USA can afford to shut down multiculturalism and take a more conservative stance by switching form a liberal puppet master like Obama to a conservative one like Trump?

I really hope that USA liberal leaders are just greedy and incompetent and that Trump is a real smart and benevolent figure. But if this conspiracy thoery of USA being plotting the misery of everyone else is true than Trump coud just be another puppet used to separate the USA from the rest of the world which is flooded with muslim barbarians.

Post: #5

The theory is true.

It isn't that the US wants to destroy competitors, it wants to make sure no one has too much power.

This thread /thread-51949.html featuring a video about the EU, how it was set up, why it was set up, and also deals with the US and EU influence in the fake revolution, or putsch in Ukraine, and Syria are cited as examples of the US interfering with other nations.

Post: #6

The only place in the world where I know where other people are familiar with the work of Yuri Bezmenov.

Post: #7

I am not American but today I demanded to eat American food at my school cafeteria, refusing to eat Indian or ME food. All the workers looked up to me as a savior who finally says what they feel.

Post: #8

I've never understood the terminology of conspiracy theorists or people talking about such subjects, because as Bezmenov discusses [indirectly] the idea is confusion and social destabilization, for which language and terms become corrupted and it's difficult to even get ideas across without "charged" terms.

Some that post on this thread refer to "puppets". This presupposes that there are certain, tangible people pulling the string of the "puppets". My idea as a skeptic has always been the most simple (and logically the correct one), and that is, "People with money and power do things to acquire more money and power." This explanation has always been the best fit, because it succinctly explains what's going on and then realizes that the rest is just collateral damage.

Bezmenov, like anyone when forced to make certain, specific predictions (among other things) couldn't account for the Soviet crash of 1991 and thus, his suggestions aren't perfect. His detractors will try to discredit him with this. But that's not the point of this video or the interview.

His analysis is remarkable, but that's just because it's so obviously true. I've been to Cuba (over 10 years ago) and when I've told this to people (stereotypically Canadian or idiot American liberals) who believe all sorts of lies ("It's a great country!") about that island, it fits EXACTLY with what Bezmenov said, and what reporters do. Uncanny.

Post: #9

(11-26-2015 02:30 AM)262 Wrote:  Will the elites ever be on the chopping block?

Some of them definitely will be. They're competing against each other basically, the average sheeple are just a means to that end.

Of course the consequence of that won't ever be a world without elites, but a new, more effective elite class.

Post: #10

The truth is that both empires were putting efforts in propaganda back then with the same goal. Pop culture was more seductive then ideas of communism and that’s why USA won. The first round at least.

I remember when France was imposing fines for use of foreign words and expressions on national TV. Word “market” was banned in a favor of “bazaar”. Why word of Turkish origin better then word of English origin - who knows. But the bottom line is that in order to preserve own culture you have to put a lot of efforts and a lot of sacrifices. The pop culture speaks on language understandable to everyone with no efforts. Do whatever you want, challenge you parents because you are more progressive, etc …
Pepsi, bubblegum, jeans, cigarette Camel, westerns, etc. They are more symbols of freedom then consumer products. That’s why commies were trying to ban them in SU. Eventually they failed.

But make no mistakes, pop culture destroys America also.

We were fighting Taliban that punishes people for drinking and in the end got our own version of taliban punishing people for smoking; fighting a cold war with SU with its PC we got political correctness here in USA. America lost a lot of its own character for the last 50 years and I’m not sure if we have anything else to fight for in this collision with the East.

Conservatives? Give me one example of conservative values that makes sense to conserve in its present form? There is nothing left.
Freedoms? Give me one freedom or any aspect of civilian life at all that is not regulated by authorities from imperial capital.

Roman Republic was destroyed by unlimited executive power while parliament was busy with politics and when barbarians came nobody had any interest to defend the empire. And when I look at a whole evolution of US …

Colony (of London)
Independent states
Confederation
USA
National state
Empire
Colony (of Washington)

So, we have a full circle here. So, I’m not sure who destroyed whom.

Post: #11

The Roman Republic was not destroyed --- it was moved. And it lasted for over 1000 years longer. It is truly one of the most biased and distorted historical facts ever assembled by "The West" whatever that means.

Knowing that, the solution is just that --- moving it. Yes, the place you move it from will be up for grabs, just like "Rome" was when the real Romans (Constantine)... left. And they flourished.

Post: #12

I'm not sure if the article in the OP can be taken seriously...

France has ALWAYS been a multiculturalist "paradise". American blacks fled to Paris in droves during the 1920s because they were treated like human beings there.

America didn't force France to take in all the Arabs and Mahgrebis from their empire after WWII. The same with the Brits.

The fact is a bunch of left wing tards took over the continent and decided they wanted everybody to sing "Kumbaya" by the campfire.

Let's not blame America for everything, shall we?

Post: #13

Modern art was CIA 'weapon'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...78808.html

Post: #14

~To play devil's advocate~

Eventually, don't you think the world has to move towards a global order? I'm not talking some NWO evil conspiracy bullshit but a world in which humans don't fight amongst each other over things like religion, nationality, (insert whatever thing people can come up with to fight each other over) but are united as one?

This is what I used to think in high school and early college. Trust me, I don't like the effects of mass consumerism, erosion of traditional values, and all that, but I still think that humanity has to be united otherwise we will just be stuck in cycles of fighting each other. Obviously it's a very idealistic goal but if we want to be flying around in spaceships and hovercars we will inevitably have to redirect our resources towards working together vs. fighting each other. How that will happen in a good way is yet to be discovered (maybe hostile aliens come at us and we unite to fight, who knows)

Post: #15

@whiteknightrises, I get what you're saying. But in reality, humanity will always be fragmented. There won't be a banner under which we all can unite. We'll always be divided by colour of skin, religion and whatnot. It's biology.
Look man, I'm brown and I'd love to bring my skills and go to a white majority country. It's something I want to do before I die. But the reality is those countries don't really need me. I don't know how far the pendulum will swing back since this multiculti bs has been pushed upon the people for far too long. I don't know how the US will be after Trump becomes president. But I still support him because I only see Truth vs Falsehoods.
I still hope we can meet up someday though man, and you can be that tall white guy that opens groups of girls and introduces me to them.

Post: #16

(05-12-2016 08:37 AM)cubanlinx Wrote:  @whiteknightrises, I get what you're saying. But in reality, humanity will always be fragmented. There won't be a banner under which we all can unite. We'll always be divided by colour of skin, religion and whatnot. It's biology.

I hope it's not biology to be divided! Though we can never know the true origins of humanity, if we really "all came from Africa" at one point, we may have been united Also, nations have been formed by uniting disparate peoples throughout history. It's not like any of the modern nation-states today have been around since the dawn of humanity. Before Italy, there were Sicilians and whatever other many groups there are in Italy. Before Korea, there were 3 kingdoms. And even before the Sicilians and 3 Korean kingdoms, the people in those entities were divided, too. So, I remain hopeful...

Ethnic culture is merely an idea we have made over time... Korean culture was probably nothing like it is now before the Joseon dynasty (~late 1300s) when strong Confucian principles were introduced like respecting elders with various rituals, strong social hierarchy, etc. Same goes for religion - Christianity did not exist until Christ and it wasn't until Christ came along that people identified with it. All this shit changes. The fact that people cling to these labels though shows that people actually do want to ~belong~ to something bigger than themselves IMO. As much as I would hate to see the idea of Korean culture and identity disappear it is likely inevitable as evidenced by ancient peoples like the Romans->Italians, Huns->Hungarians?, Goths->Swedes/Spaniards?, Gauls->French?, etc. As you can see, identity is fluid

Also, I'm short and Asian but down to mack

Post: #17

(05-12-2016 08:13 AM)whiteknightrises Wrote:  ~To play devil's advocate~

Eventually, don't you think the world has to move towards a global order? I'm not talking some NWO evil conspiracy bullshit but a world in which humans don't fight amongst each other over things like religion, nationality, (insert whatever thing people can come up with to fight each other over) but are united as one?

Here is a primary maxim for life for you to live by: whatever you touch you are somewhat reduced to.

There is too much human dross on the planet for civilization to survive if we are all forced to become "one", make everyone "equal", and distribute resources accordingly.

Quote:This is what I used to think in high school and early college. Trust me, I don't like the effects of mass consumerism, erosion of traditional values, and all that, but I still think that humanity has to be united otherwise we will just be stuck in cycles of fighting each other. Obviously it's a very idealistic goal but if we want to be flying around in spaceships and hovercars we will inevitably have to redirect our resources towards working together vs. fighting each other. How that will happen in a good way is yet to be discovered (maybe hostile aliens come at us and we unite to fight, who knows)

I see a larger world police, denationalized of course and wholly respecting national boundaries but preventing international war, being a reasonable solution. It may very well be that this police, in the far distant future (perhaps 1000 years or more), is an AI.

I'm unsure as to how the progress of technology is dependent on the development status of Turkmenistan. I'm thinking that you managed to conflate the future with Utopia. It's okay. A lot of people do it.

"Redirecting resources toward working together" is almost always code for "give your financial resources, institutions, and privileges to people other than you so that you are reduced and they are elevated".

Most things, like culture and traditional values, that divide people are qualitative in nature in terms of their difference from the "other". You will rarely if ever get the "other" to meet the quality; at least in a timeframe and resource ratio that anyone is comfortable with. You can only reduce quality. Thus, what you are proposing is to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator in order to eliminate differences. When those differences lead to unequal outcomes and resources, it is seen as divisive. Division leads to conflict. So, you can either have your utopia or civilization. A lot of the discussion in these forums addresses this larger political subtext, and sides with the latter.

Quote: Though we can never know the true origins of humanity, if we really "all came from Africa" at one point, we may have been united

We all also once came from the sea, but I'm not going stop eating fish anytime soon.

Quote:Also, nations have been formed by uniting disparate peoples throughout history.

"Disparate" is a completely relative term. I'm "disparate" from my cousin but in actuality we are pretty close compared to everyone else that I meet. Disparate is a matter of degree, and that degree is all the difference. When something is too different, it is unreasonable to expect to integrate it into the Borg.

Quote:Ethnic culture is merely an idea we have made over time...

So says this guy:

Quote:All this shit changes.

We might also be able to change you or your progeny into talking aardvarks in the future. Or how about androgynous hermaphrodites? After all, this division of the sexes is causing conflict. Are you game?

The probability and benefit of change is also relative. Change is not de facto inevitable nor good.

I'm starting to agree with Eric Veogelin that utopianism, or "immanentizing the eschaton", is the major political problem on this planet.

Post: #18

Blowback: Operation Ascot

It's difficult to find references and the one or two websites that had some info on the matter have long since gone down the memory hole, but:

Quote:"Charles De Gaulle undertook covert operations in Quebec using nationalist and separatist movements in Quebec, under the rubric of "Assistance et Cooperation Technique" or "Operation Ascot." Jacques Foccart dispatched SDECE agents to Quebec to develop and foment the growth of separatist movements."

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_France)

Basically, the French Quebec separatist movement was created and stoked by DeGaulle to raise some shit in the Americans' back yard, as a retort to CIA activities in France. A few people who went on to become prominent in Quebec politics (Louise Beaudoin for one) actually spent time in France back in the glory days where everyone was sharing training resources (e.g. PLO, IRA and Red Brigades training together).

Post: #19

(05-12-2016 12:30 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  I'm unsure as to how the progress of technology is dependent on the development status of Turkmenistan. I'm thinking that you managed to conflate the future with Utopia. It's okay. A lot of people do it.



"Redirecting resources toward working together" is almost always code for "give your financial resources, institutions, and privileges to people other than you so that you are reduced and they are elevated".

Not a socialist. Saying if there is some "banner" people can unite under hopefully that would result in more resources in cooperation vs. competition. The closest thing to this today is the US and "liberal democracy" and NATO, etc. Obviously there are many faults to this system but the liberal world order provided by the US over the past half century+ has stopped any major conflict from occurring and allowed many countries to focus on their own prosperity vs. security - primary example being the country I am living in, South Korea.

Most things, like culture and traditional values, that divide people are qualitative in nature in terms of their difference from the "other". You will rarely if ever get the "other" to meet the quality; at least in a timeframe and resource ratio that anyone is comfortable with. You can only reduce quality. Thus, what you are proposing is to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator in order to eliminate differences. When those differences lead to unequal outcomes and resources, it is seen as divisive. Division leads to conflict. So, you can either have your utopia or civilization. A lot of the discussion in these forums addresses this larger political subtext, and sides with the latter.

Yes, this is the problem - timeframe. Global unity is something that would not happen in one lifetime (maybe never). Conflict would also probably result

"Disparate" is a completely relative term. I'm "disparate" from my cousin but in actuality we are pretty close compared to everyone else that I meet. Disparate is a matter of degree, and that degree is all the difference. When something is too different, it is unreasonable to expect to integrate it into the Borg.

Same thing - integration or unity is not something that would happen quickly. People would be against it because they are scared of the "other." Can even be seen in a country like the US which is not even 250 years old, has no real culture or history (compared to most other countries with thousands of years of history). Yet it has happened... many times. Almost all modern nation-states are the result of consolidating different peoples. To argue otherwise is arguing against facts.

Quote:Ethnic culture is merely an idea we have made over time...

So says this guy:



Again, not a communist/socialist.

Quote:All this shit changes.

We might also be able to change you or your progeny into talking aardvarks in the future. Or how about androgynous hermaphrodites? After all, this division of the sexes is causing conflict. Are you game?

The probability and benefit of change is also relative. Change is not de facto inevitable nor good.

I'm starting to agree with Eric Veogelin that utopianism, or "immanentizing the eschaton", is the major political problem on this planet.

Lol stop coming at me with your agenda. Manosphere / hard right is just as stupid as crazy leftists. Keyboard warriors

I'm not a socialist. I'm just somewhat of an idealist that would like for humanity to be one in the future - a vision similar to what can be seen in the game "Mass Effect." Like imagine the UN or some other similar entity actually had power. We still run our internal affairs as countries/the various divisions within but have another layer on top of that - world government (minus the crazy evil conspiracy theory shit). Probably not plausible though, at least for a very long time time.

But proof that unity and change is inevitable:

I am Korean-American so a Korean that is part of the "United" States of America.
Before that, my ancestors were Korean.
Before they were Korean, they were Chinese/probably Mongolian/descended directly from Genghis Khan (the Chinese part directly documented in my family tree. Genghis Khan lineage highly probable due to my family being descended from a high-level diplomat at the time with the Chinese name of Kublai Khan's dynasty).
Before that, they were probably part of some Mongol tribe that got absorbed by Genghis Khan's tribe.
Before that, probably some hunter-gatherers that formed that Mongol tribe absorbed by Genghis Khan.

Etc...

Same could probably said for any white American - probably a large % of this forum - but replace the Asian ethnicities with thing like German, Bavarian, etc.

Post: #20

(05-12-2016 09:13 PM)whiteknightrises Wrote:  I'm not a socialist. I'm just somewhat of an idealist that would like for humanity to be one in the future - a vision similar to what can be seen in the game "Mass Effect." Like imagine the UN or some other similar entity actually had power. We still run our internal affairs as countries/the various divisions within but have another layer on top of that - world government (minus the crazy evil conspiracy theory shit). Probably not plausible though, at least for a very long time time.

So you want the UN to have worldwide power. Exactly what do you know about the UN?

Quote:But proof that unity and change is inevitable:

Of course change is inevitable, but saying that something is inevitable and showing it to be beneficial or desirable are two completely different (and often contradictory) arguments. It's easy to prove this: all buildings inevitably fall apart...does that mean we shouldn't make structural repairs, because your logic tells us it doesn't matter if a building falls down next year or next century? No, because having a building that stands for 1000 years is better than having one that stands for 10, and anyone who can't tell the difference isn't thinking straight.

The entire project of civilization is the maintenance of something that is ultimately temporary. Everything man creates has a life span...but it is the attempt to improve and lengthen that life span, despite the challenges of nature and time, that divides the great from the complacent. "Change is inevitable" isn't an argument for one course of action or another, it's just navel-gazing slop.

Post: #21

Quote:

(05-12-2016 09:13 PM)whiteknightrises Wrote:  [quote='hydrogonian' pid='1299890' dateline='1463074202']

I'm unsure as to how the progress of technology is dependent on the development status of Turkmenistan. I'm thinking that you managed to conflate the future with Utopia. It's okay. A lot of people do it.

Emoticons aren't responses in themselves.

Here's an idea: If you think that somehow the progress in Central Asia or Africa affects you, then go there and help them progress.

You won't because you don't want to go there and give them your resources of time and money.
You don't want to mix with them.
You don't want to show them how to be modern.
You don't want your wealth, in terms of your time, money, culture, what they might take from you and your people against your and their will (perhaps your lives), to be distributed to them.

You want "America" to do it. you want Europeans to do it. Your utopianism is code for "watch the European lap dogs civilize the world at their expense". "America" is not your cultural dumping ground or Universal club that anyone can claim membership to (while living in Korea as a Korean National). It is not the manifestation of your idealism nor an "idea". It is made up of living human beings, with lives, that you are offering to sacrifice, in terms of culture, political environment, and resources for your utopian idealism.

It's a major problem.

Better yet, invite them to Korea and teach them to be Korean. That should be relatively easy, no? It will certainly be noble. After all, anyone can be Korean, correct? They can be Korean like you can be "American" and claim American nationality.

My statement is that what is occurring in Cameroon (to use another example of a place that you might like to "share resources" with) does not affect whether or not people in Belgium will have "flying cars" in the future. In other words, you're cause and effect assertion is misconstrued.

Quote:"Redirecting resources toward working together" is almost always code for "give your financial resources, institutions, and privileges to people other than you so that you are reduced and they are elevated".

Not a socialist. Saying if there is some "banner" people can unite under hopefully that would result in more resources in cooperation vs. competition.

Who said socialist? I posted a picture of a communist. Trotskiyst communism, as opposed to socialism, attempted to eradicate social ties (that split people socially in-between tribes) in order to herald in a new "banner" of international economic class based cohesion.

Your ideas throughout your post, from speaking about the inevitability of cultural replacement / decline, to resource sharing, to wanting to unify everyone in the world is a mirror of sociopolitical communism.

Quote:The closest thing to this today is the US and "liberal democracy" and NATO, etc. Obviously there are many faults to this system but the liberal world order provided by the US over the past half century+ has stopped any major conflict from occurring and allowed many countries to focus on their own prosperity vs. security - primary example being the country I am living in, South Korea.

All generalizations in terms of any ultimate benefit. And what has been the price in bodies and prosperity for nations other than your own? Just because your people got into the worst family feud known to modern man, and we helped you to leverage you against China, North Korea, and Russia, doesn't make our hand up your collective asses the savior of mankind. I'm glad that you enjoy the benefits of us saving you from your worse half, though. I might too.

Quote:"Disparate" is a completely relative term. I'm "disparate" from my cousin but in actuality we are pretty close compared to everyone else that I meet. Disparate is a matter of degree, and that degree is all the difference. When something is too different, it is unreasonable to expect to integrate it into the Borg.

Same thing - integration or unity is not something that would happen quickly. People would be against it because they are scared of the "other."

Ah, yes, we're scared. The favorite line of the far Left when they want to sidestep what the Right actually says so that it need not be addressed. For you, our "fear" is merely not wanting to acquiesce to your worldview or political demands. In reality, it is not fear. It is smart avoidance the way someone avoids poison. Is someone scared if they don't drink poison?

Quickly or slowly, it destroys what it absorbs. I know what is in store. I live it every day. In Korea (where I have also lived) you do not. You live in a hermetic bubble of homogeneous "unity" and think that it will be the same or similar once you are unified with the rest of the world. I can tell you that it will not, and not in a good way.

But, again, be a leader. Let Koreans show us to the future. We have millions of extra refugees that we can donate to the cause, almost immediately. It'll be like gaining a new, extended family and it won't cause any issues; long or short term. They'll be Korean, just like you, in two generations. Or is Korea too "different" for it to work? I know, I know, you want us to do it.

Quote: Can even be seen in a country like the US which is not even 250 years old, has no real culture or history (compared to most other countries with thousands of years of history). Yet it has happened... many times. Almost all modern nation-states are the result of consolidating different peoples. To argue otherwise is arguing against facts.

And do you think that living in the USA is better or worse for people isolated from their culture and history? I reject your implied standard of the social environment of the USA being an improvement.

Again, you are comparing as analogous what occurred between close cousins of tribes that formed nation states, and what you are proposing for the world. As I carefully explained in my last response, it is not analogous.

Quote:[quote]Ethnic culture is merely an idea we have made over time...

So says this guy:



Again, not a communist/socialist.

Well you state that, and I want to believe you if only because you seem to believe it, but the facts are that your sociopolitical views closely mirror those of Trotskyist communism.

Quote:Lol stop coming at me with your agenda. Manosphere / hard right is just as stupid as crazy leftists. Keyboard warriors

You mean in response to your post on your agenda? Did you really just ask someone to "stop" in a political discussion that you chimed in on with, for this forum, a contrarian view?

I'll make a deal with you: type "Uncle" and I'll stop.

Quote:I'm not a socialist. I'm just somewhat of an idealist that would like for humanity to be one in the future - a vision similar to what can be seen in the game "Mass Effect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton

I'm being kind by leaving my response limited to this link. My recommendation is to read the link, and then read the books of the author who coined the phrase. Agree or not, it'll introduce you to a new level of political and historical discourse.

Quote:But proof that unity and change is inevitable:

I am Korean-American so a Korean that is part of the "United" States of America.
Before that, my ancestors were Korean.
Before they were Korean, they were Chinese/probably Mongolian/descended directly from Genghis Khan (the Chinese part directly documented in my family tree. Genghis Khan lineage highly probable due to my family being descended from a high-level diplomat at the time with the Chinese name of Kublai Khan's dynasty).
Before that, they were probably part of some Mongol tribe that got absorbed by Genghis Khan's tribe.
Before that, probably some hunter-gatherers that formed that Mongol tribe absorbed by Genghis Khan.

Etc...

I'm unsure of that being proof of anything, and besides it seems like a lot of guesswork rooted in pre-historical and pre-modern migration patterns. Luckily, today, we can plant land mines should Ghengis Khan ever again resurrect the Mongol Horde.

Quote:Same could probably said for any white American - probably a large % of this forum - but replace the Asian ethnicities with thing like German, Bavarian, etc.

Again, I reject your rhetorical tactic of making me assume that the U.S.A. sociopolitical culture is an improvement in order to accept your further point. In Europe, these tribes largely keep their cultural heritages and, beyond that, they are largely close cousins. Again, degree of difference is essential.

You know that no Swede, for instance, will ever truly be Korean. No Turk is German. No Brit will ever be Chinese. Neither will be their children.

Beyond that, your utopianism is a failed political concept even before it is attempted with its terrible, unrefundable cost. Geography, as well as talent differences, assure that people will always split into tribes, even after your grand dissolution, to gain political advantage for access to greater resources. It's the most ancient of human impulses. You'd have to destroy meaningful social interaction completely to stop it (which is actually what communists attempt to do). Eventually, the unopposed group will take power.

So, what's the point if it only means allowing easier access to control for select remaining or later formed groups?

What's the point of forcing social dissolution if it is only going to come together in a more primitive manner later?

Why not preserve what we have built first, culturally and in every other measure, and worry about the rest at the appropriate time when they are ready to develop equivalently in their territories on their own?

I'll tell you why. Because it isn't really about "unity". It's about destruction of the socially rooted political and economic power of select nations.

Someone, or many groups, benefit from this. Your video-game inspired utopianism has you being their unwitting stormtrooper.

Post: #22

(05-12-2016 10:43 PM)Saga Wrote:  So you want the UN to have worldwide power. Exactly what do you know about the UN?

I meant any "global entity" - like a global parliament or something. Not saying the UN specifically - I think it is dumb as well. Just would like to see some kind of global-scale organization

Quote:But proof that unity and change is inevitable:

[quote]Of course change is inevitable, but saying that something is inevitable and showing it to be beneficial or desirable are two completely different (and often contradictory) arguments. It's easy to prove this: all buildings inevitably fall apart...does that mean we shouldn't make structural repairs, because your logic tells us it doesn't matter if a building falls down next year or next century? No, because having a building that stands for 1000 years is better than having one that stands for 10, and anyone who can't tell the difference isn't thinking straight.

[/quote]

I would rather see something global/universal that would last longer than regional/local empires fighting each other. But I guess both are ultimately unsustainable as prosperity breeds comfort which breeds laziness and corruption then decline and downfall. Though I'd like to think someone could come up with something more sustainable

(05-13-2016 12:08 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Quote:[quote='whiteknightrises' pid='1300280' dateline='1463105597']
[quote='hydrogonian' pid='1299890' dateline='1463074202']

I'm unsure as to how the progress of technology is dependent on the development status of Turkmenistan. I'm thinking that you managed to conflate the future with Utopia. It's okay. A lot of people do it.

Emoticons aren't responses in themselves.

Here's an idea: If you think that somehow the progress in Central Asia or Africa affects you, then go there and help them progress.

You won't because you don't want to go there and give them your resources of time and money.
You don't want to mix with them.
You don't want to show them how to be modern.
You don't want your wealth, in terms of your time, money, culture, what they might take from you and your people against your and their will (perhaps your lives), to be distributed to them.

You want "America" to do it. you want Europeans to do it. Your utopianism is code for "watch the European lap dogs civilize the world at their expense". "America" is not your cultural dumping ground or Universal club that anyone can claim membership to (while living in Korea as a Korean National). It is not the manifestation of your idealism nor an "idea". It is made up of living human beings, with lives, that you are offering to sacrifice, in terms of culture, political environment, and resources for your utopian idealism.

It's a major problem.

Better yet, invite them to Korea and teach them to be Korean. That should be relatively easy, no? It will certainly be noble. After all, anyone can be Korean, correct? They can be Korean like you can be "American" and claim American nationality.

My statement is that what is occurring in Cameroon (to use another example of a place that you might like to "share resources" with) does not affect whether or not people in Belgium will have "flying cars" in the future. In other words, you're cause and effect assertion is misconstrued.

...? LOL. That is quite the extrapolation from "Obviously it's a very idealistic goal but if we want to be flying around in spaceships and hovercars we will inevitably have to redirect our resources towards working together vs. fighting each other." Get your head out of your ass; nowhere did I say anything about using my country's money to finance random 3rd world shitholes. There are plenty of problems to fix at home. As an example of working together vs. fighting each other: instead of Saudi Arabia and Iran funding opposing sides in a Yemeni proxy war, coming together and promoting broader prosperity at home and throughout the Middle East. But obviously, things are complicated and that wouldn't be an easy feat

Quote:Your ideas throughout your post, from speaking about the inevitability of cultural replacement / decline, to resource sharing, to wanting to unify everyone in the world is a mirror of sociopolitical communism.

Don't know enough about sociopolitical communism and its views to comment but sure minus resource "sharing" which carries the connotation of rent-seeking to me

Quote:The closest thing to this today is the US and "liberal democracy" and NATO, etc. Obviously there are many faults to this system but the liberal world order provided by the US over the past half century+ has stopped any major conflict from occurring and allowed many countries to focus on their own prosperity vs. security - primary example being the country I am living in, South Korea.

Quote:All generalizations in terms of any ultimate benefit. And what has been the price in bodies and prosperity for nations other than your own?

Definitely a lot less than WWII. Not to mention millions of Koreans died in the Korean War...

Quote:Just because your people got into the worst family feud known to modern man, and we helped you to leverage you against China, North Korea, and Russia, doesn't make our hand up your collective asses the savior of mankind. I'm glad that you enjoy the benefits of us saving you from your worse half, though. I might too.

I guess we should go back to a time before US military supremacy and US bases everywhere so we can go back to everyone fighting each other (not just the two Koreas) and losing 60 million people (World War II)

Quote:Quickly or slowly, it destroys what it absorbs. I know what is in store. I live it every day. In Korea (where I have also lived) you do not. You live in a hermetic bubble of homogeneous "unity" and think that it will be the same or similar once you are unified with the rest of the world. I can tell you that it will not, and not in a good way.

But, again, be a leader. Let Koreans show us to the future. We have millions of extra refugees that we can donate to the cause, almost immediately. It'll be like gaining a new, extended family and it won't cause any issues; long or short term. They'll be Korean, just like you, in two generations. Or is Korea too "different" for it to work? I know, I know, you want us to do it.

You're right. I don't want it. But you're not getting the point I am trying to make - that hopefully someday there will be something that transcends race, ethnicity, religion, etc that people around the world can unite under (idealistic but I remain hopeful)

Quote:Again, you are comparing as analogous what occurred between close cousins of tribes that formed nation states, and what you are proposing for the world. As I carefully explained in my last response, it is not analogous.

You're right. It's not like Cameroon people went over to Scandinavia to mix with the Goths and produced Sweden.

Quote:[quote]
Lol stop coming at me with your agenda. Manosphere / hard right is just as stupid as crazy leftists. Keyboard warriors

You mean in response to your post on your agenda? Did you really just ask someone to "stop" in a political discussion that you chimed in on with, for this forum, a contrarian view?

I'll make a deal with you: type "Uncle" and I'll stop.
[/quote]

You're right. It's a forum - for discussion.

Though you did seem overly aggressive in response to something I posted that was not targeting anyone or talking shit in any way. But I guess that is expected on the Internet and its silly faceless keyboard warriors. Instead of starting shit over the internet go and Google "p4p" - I'm sure it will solve a lot of your problems. Besides, that shit will be gone once us communists suppress all free enterprise!

Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton

I'm being kind by leaving my response limited to this link. My recommendation is to read the link, and then read the books of the author who coined the phrase. Agree or not, it'll introduce you to a new level of political and historical discourse.

I will take a look

Quote:[quote]
But proof that unity and change is inevitable:

I am Korean-American so a Korean that is part of the "United" States of America.
Before that, my ancestors were Korean.
Before they were Korean, they were Chinese/probably Mongolian/descended directly from Genghis Khan (the Chinese part directly documented in my family tree. Genghis Khan lineage highly probable due to my family being descended from a high-level diplomat at the time with the Chinese name of Kublai Khan's dynasty).
Before that, they were probably part of some Mongol tribe that got absorbed by Genghis Khan's tribe.
Before that, probably some hunter-gatherers that formed that Mongol tribe absorbed by Genghis Khan.

Etc...

I'm unsure of that being proof of anything, and besides it seems like a lot of guesswork rooted in pre-historical and pre-modern migration patterns. Luckily, today, we can plant land mines should Ghengis Khan ever again resurrect the Mongol Horde.
[/quote]

Proof that identity is fluid. 100% accurate going back to the 1200s-1300s - I can't remember the exact year. Many Korean families have a record of their family name from the beginning

Quote:Same could probably said for any white American - probably a large % of this forum - but replace the Asian ethnicities with thing like German, Bavarian, etc.

Quote:Again, I reject your rhetorical tactic of making me assume that the U.S.A. sociopolitical culture is an improvement in order to accept your further point. In Europe, these tribes largely keep their cultural heritages and, beyond that, they are largely close cousins. Again, degree of difference is essential.

Where do you get the idea that I think the USA culture is an improvement. Actually, I think USA culture (as it is today) is a joke. Just saying how things change over time

Quote:What's the point of forcing social dissolution if it is only going to come together in a more primitive manner later?

Why not preserve what we have built first, culturally and in every other measure, and worry about the rest at the appropriate time when they are ready to develop equivalently in their territories on their own?

Something to think about - thanks

Quote:I'll tell you why. Because it isn't really about "unity". It's about destruction of the socially rooted political and economic power of select nations.

Yes, destroying things is exactly what I want to do

Anyway, I guess there is no point in arguing. We are all set on our own views and those color our perception of things. You will take the slightest hint that I am a communist and run with it, whereas I will do the same with you but think you are a bitter PUA loser

Not going to read or respond, save your finger stamina for another online battle

Post: #23

^ This guy wants a one world government, has some sort of idealistic, communal vision for the future, yet rejects the label communist or socialist. Then calls someone who argues with him a bitter PUA loser... hm ok.

Post: #24

So I've been thinking about this

-Btw, the one world government or whatever, I don't know whether that's part of communism/socialism. I just associate communism/socialism with welfare state and destroying the economy which is something I'm not about-

But multiculturalism, the Borg, one world government, whatever you want to call it - it seems like it will never work. Or at least hasn't up until now.

I guess it can never work - at least probably not without conflict

Quick google search of "successful multicultural societies" yields results like Australia, Canada, USA, which were all immigrant nations to begin with (the present day success of which is questionable)

Also, I addressed most of the guy's points. He just came at me pretty aggressively after no real provocation in my first post. Though admittedly the post was half-baked/not well thought out and I shouldn't have posted it in the first place

Post: #25

(05-16-2016 08:29 AM)whiteknightrises Wrote:  So I've been thinking about this

-Btw, the one world government or whatever, I don't know whether that's part of communism/socialism. I just associate communism/socialism with welfare state and destroying the economy which is something I'm not about-

But multiculturalism, the Borg, one world government, whatever you want to call it - it seems like it will never work. Or at least hasn't up until now.

I guess it can never work - at least probably not without conflict

Quick google search of "successful multicultural societies" yields results like Australia, Canada, USA, which were all immigrant nations to begin with (the present day success of which is questionable)

Also, I addressed most of the guy's points. He just came at me pretty aggressively after no real provocation in my first post. Though admittedly the post was half-baked/not well thought out and I shouldn't have posted it in the first place

You need to get off Google and get your head in some books. Don't take that personally, it's good advice, not an insult. Books are much better places to get information than google searches.

To date, supra-national organisations have failed miserably.

League of Nations: tried to castrate Germany, germinated Hitler and WW2.

United Nations: essentially the USA's mouthpiece, nothing more. Also created Israel, look at the shit storm that has been creating. What does it(UN) achieve that's good? Not much. (disclaimer: I'm not saying Israel shouldn't exist)

Sykes-Picot: carved up the Levant/Middle East. Impossible to remove this supra-national deal from the causes of current Middle East tension.

Triple Entente/Triple Alliance: Millions dead.

EU: Destroying Europe.



Sometimes it is better to not post on this forum, and let existing discussions take their own path. However, if you have an honest question, no one will rebuke for you asking about something.