(07-27-2016 05:22 PM)Parzival Wrote:  They live at our mercy and when the mood change they will feel it. They are like teenagers that rage but forget who pays the pill for the housing and the food.

This is a fantastic analogy.

(07-27-2016 07:00 PM)Saga Wrote:  In the interests of brevity, I'll leave aside the points I made which were avoided by non-argument responses and focus on those that are still in contention.

Nope. Go ahead and list them so that I can both prove your assertion wrong and dismantle your apparent arguments that I missed.

Quote:That WWI was an avoidable disaster for Germany is not propaganda, but rather observable fact.

Facts are facts. The opinions of armchair generals one-hundred years later are not "facts" but opinions.

Quote:However, after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the German government crucially gave assurance to Austria-Hungary that it would give military assistance in the case that an invasion of Serbia would be followed by a Russian declaration of war against Austria-Hungary; from that moment on, it had effectively committed itself to the prospect of a two-front pan-European war, a possibility which was made all the more likely given that Austria-Hungary now had a much stronger geopolitical position.

I can't read this sentence at all. It's a single, run on sentence. Someone else give it a go. You can restate it if you wish.

Quote:

Quote:Austria-Hungary then pursued war with Serbia, invaded even after Serbia offered considerable concessions, which then brought everyone else into war through treaties. It wasn't Germany's fault alone, but the German government had the chance to quell the crisis and did not take it.

You're talking mechanics, not broader geopolitical motivation and considerations that actually compel people to war.

Quote:With regard to the western front (which is what really bled Germany into defeat), Germany violated Belgian neutrality, giving Britain formal casus belli; pre-war German plans counted on passing through Belgium, and persisting in this even after Belgium and Britain made their positions clear was highly unwise, and in the long term it turned out to be ruinous. In the end, as Bismarck predicated, disaster came from "some damned foolish thing in the Balkans".

You're arguing mechanics. Why? As some type of convoluted theory that allows you to place fault with the Germans, ignoring the over-arching geopolitics? It seems like a constipated exercise.

Quote:As for British participation in WWI and WWII, I think British involvement was ill-advised, and in both cases they were far worse off for their pains despite ostensibly being on the winning side. This disproves your assumptions about my views.

What disproves what assumption, specifically?

Quote:Explain to me the political framework of "tradition", including how it incubates political power for the populace.

Quote:This is a good example of how utopians reflexively invert the national interest. In conservative philosophy, tradition (defined as the intergenerational cultural, social, religious, civil, linguistic and artistic inheritance of a nation and people) is not meant to serve politics; instead, politics is meant to serve tradition.

You, on the other hand, think that traditions (previously defined)

1. You're avoiding my specific challenge.

We were speaking in regard to political systems. You appealed to "tradition" as an alternative to a specific political system. I asked you to tell me how your suggestion, in tradition, incubates political power that would allow it to politically counter the forces that fascism was attempting to counter. Because you suggested it as a superior political alternative. Now, you are telling me that I am "utopian" for thinking that you were suggesting something political, at all, in "traditionalism". You're jostling the semantics around, and avoiding my challenge, in an attempt to keep your argument alive.

2. You've defined nothing, still, yet I have no doubt that you will keep spinning your wheels, loudly, trying to convince yourself and me that you are actually talking about something specific. You've only listed broad categories under which systems fall.

3. Political power challenges political power. Nothing else. I have no issue with going to church and the nobility, except when you are appealing to it in an anti-intellectual fashion as an actual cure for communism. It doesn't stop communism today, and it didn't then. Because communism is an actual political framework with teeth, and what you suggest is not excepting for monarchy. But that's not what you referred to, specifically, and we saw that get beat as well with the newer revolutionary social technologies. Big time beat. In fact, liberalism and its later manifestation in communism made all of those "traditional" things its bitch and it continues to do so. Going to church is not a political solution for society other than a mild-to-weak values reinforcement and, for many Christian sects, it even acts as a sociopolitical liability that leaves the door open for more sociopolitical destruction.

The real issue is that you don't understand politics and political power. And that's okay. I'm not trying to shame you for that. I'm merely pointing it out because you are insisting on belligerently arguing a case that you say that you have, but still fail to provide any structured logic for. And so now its come to this.

Quote: that encapsulate a nation's character are worthless except when they further your political purposes...which means your objective is not the good of the nation but rather the good of your ideology.

Don't get emotional about it. It's clouding your comprehension of what I am writing, respectfully.

I didn't imply, or at least mean to imply, that these things are worthless in general. Churches have various degrees of ability to encourage family life and community, which is the beginning of political power when it works well. It's just that the mainstream Christian Church, especially as it stands today but also back then, is often too weak in its community creation. It also counters this community creation effect by other doctrines.

'Nobility" is to vague of a concept, on its own, to stand as any type of "pillar". Monarchy is not, but its social technology was antiquated and has been bested. Though I would not oppose to its return. It's just not going to happen as long as what can destroy it exists.

Quote:Thus, your view isn't nationalist, but rather abstract theory that pretends to be nationalist when convenient while undermining the nation to serve itself.

Word salad. Absolutely meaningless and wholly unsupported. Its sounds sufficiently combative, though.

You're still trying to have a conversation on a topic that you clearly don't understand.

Quote:

Quote:The communist-globalist political framework is well documented. It's even logical, in its blueprint for social evil. I bet we could even merge it with the undefined "tradition" because of the latter's inherent vagueness.

Quote:Wrong. Marxism denies the value of tradition, and reduces the importance of national character down to political efficacy. This is indiscernible from what you've written above.

My bolded comment was pointing to (suggesting to the conversation) the fact that Marxism has merged itself with much of Christianity.

Marxism is more than happy to infiltrate and rot, from the inside, any semblance of something that competes with its power in the social sphere. There is a long history of Marxist infiltration in the Church.

Quote:If it varies, it does not exist as a political framework, and it does not offer a political framework that can defend itself against the very specific, and politically strong framework of communism.

Simply, if it varies, it offers no coherent way to incubate political power.

Quote:And since you view tradition with the same hostility as Marxism

^^ Here, you are telling me what I feel to set up your argument.

In this specific instance, you are lacking a sufficient rhetorical standard. That's me being polite.

Quote:your self-justification is essentially saying that you wish to trample and destroy the national character yourself so that communists can't.

You're absolutely wrong and you are either a. not comprehending what I write or 2. intentionally mis-characterizing what I wrote to make you feel better about your argument.

First, your "national character" is a term that I suspect is largely either defined by you, or else those who sympathize with your views.

Undoubtedly, you think that you are appealing to religion, culture, custom, and history. And I agree that all of those things are a part of it. But are they most of it? Really? Are they truly cohesive stuff of community, that causes it to work together? Or is it something else that causes certain human beings to stick together and cooperate, that is perhaps more primal and innate?

Second, I certainly never said that the things that you are appealing to should either be trampled or go away.

I did reference a very specific politically contentious point in history wherein I feel that it was non unjustified to reject the internationalist Church out of wont for self-preservation against a strong enemy that may have been making use of the Church. This is further addressed later. Though, I also reject your view of the mainstream Christian Church, across all such denominations that are considered to be such, as an integral part of civilization. It's too new. I accept it as a tool. But that's another conversation.

Your rabid assertion that "(my) self-justification is essentially saying that you wish to trample and destroy the national character yourself so that communists can't" is setting up a strawman to attack. It's a weak arguing style, and I won't entertain it.

The topic at hand was:

I stated or variously implied that you were wrong to appeal to these things (tradition) as a political solution against the primary enemy of the West. Not only can their framework for providing a legitimate defense not be articulated, as you have shown, but these institutions historically have been proven to be too weak to stand, as political solutions, against the enemy. I'm fine with them in any other role but as a delusion that they can be used to effectively politically counter internationalist communism and its associated ideologies.

And, simply, there is no more time to argue with people like you who fail to come to grips with both historical and modern reality, and who cannot articulate a conceptional grasp of power let alone a strategy to survive against hostile power. This conversation is nothing more than the entertainment of the middle of your education on these matters.

Quote:After this, we find another self-defeating line of reasoning. The German language varies...does this mean there's no such thing as German? Clearly, variation does not imply nonexistence, and the variation in nationality necessitates a variation in nationalism.

Again with the attempt at meaningless semantics that have nothing to do with the specific topic at hand, a topic that is flush with its own very specific considerations and nuances. And, beside that, your analogy is not analogous in the least.

German dialects are small variations on a single grammatical framework that an be articulated. Every language, or dialect, has a grammatical framework that can be articulated. Your tradition does not have a specific political power framework that can be articulated. And if a specific political framework can not be articulated, then "tradition", as a general concept, is not viable as a serious political framework against the specific framework of the enemy.

In a world in which the enemy did not exist, people could fuck about politically, not really cultivating power for their community and often feeling the brunt of what it is to not have any power - probably often in the form of being slaughtered or enslaved in small numbers, but low and behold someone was building something monstrous. And we live in a world after that monstrous thing was released. Fucking about with non-specific, already beaten, weak systems is not an option.

I challenge you again to articulate a single viable political framework for cultivating resistant, anti-communist power among any of your many systems that falls under the banner of "tradition". If it is politically viable, then I'll be more than happy to concede and agree that society should give it a try.

Quote:Nationalism is an inherently contextual viewpoint because nations are variable contexts, and your hostility towards contextual politics once again leads one to the conclusion that your ideology isn't nationalist.

^^This is a fun train wreck. The worst part of your arguments is that they aren't well thought out enough to be respectful of my time. It's literally a huge waste of time to respond to things that are barely comprehensible, but attack me.

Specifically, first, the above logic is circular bullshit.

A translation of your paragraph: "Nationalism is subjective according to whatever specific traditional culture exists in a location, because nations are different, and your 'hostility' toward differing cultures as representative of nationalism shows that 'your' ideology isn't nationalist".

Right?

Circular, meaningless bullshit. Does it sound better in your head before it is committed to the page? Stop bullshitting me and just bow out of the argument, or edit your commentary better to exclude logic that has not been hashed out well.

You continue to setup strawmen in telling me that I am 'hostile' to views that simply lack coherent meaning, and thus don't exist. It's not hostility to a view. I'm hostile to Marxism. It exists. I'm telling you that your logic, itself, is complete bullshit when the hard work that I need to put into comprehending it bears fruit at all.

Here is what is going on in the above quoted paragraph:

you still dance around pointing to anything specific as tradition, because you cannot articulate any of its value as a primary strategy, and instead gamble on the opposite tack when you choose to redefine this non-specific "tradition" agglomeration as "nationalist. You then use the no true Scotsman fallacy to couch my view is politically illegitimate.

I'll tell you what. Even though you are engaging in nonsense that any adult would dismiss you over, I'll play along for a moment. Okay, fine, hmmpf, I'm not a nationalist. I really wish this emoticon had tears because that's how I feel right now.

Now, you have hypothetically won your meaningless semantic victory using your novel logic, of course ignoring that you still can't articulate a thing about political power. You're the nationalist, because nationalists are everyone, and that's where the power is, or something.

Now, what I'll settle for is being the effective anti-communist. I really do wish that we could run this sim to see where we would both end up.

Quote:it begs the question of why you're still arguing for that war when the German leadership only accepted it after presented with a fait accompli, and when it ultimately did nothing but damage Germany permanently.

They accepted "the War" fait accompli? You need to be more careful with your syntax. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Try again.

Quote:That aside, the nobility and military leadership did not disappear but persisted, and what you continue to ignore is that both of these manifestations of the German body politic became opposed to the Third Reich because it was increasingly clear that Germany's leaders were in it for themselves and their ideals, not for the good of Germany.

The nobility persists today in bloodline. If you aren't arguing power, then you aren't arguing. What was their legacy in the post WWI period? Wiemar Germany? Or now do they not get the credit? Which is it, did they "exist", truly and functionally, or did they not?

What I continue to ignore is your conjecture as an armchair general, who exists 80 years after the fact, and whose opinions seem to be based in an absent sense of how group power works and a desperate need to be 'correct' and re-direct the conversation innumerable times, in an effort to find any argument that you can make progress on.

I'll follow you to these places for now, even though the original arguments were weak to the primary topic, but I will again urge you to stick with the primary topic. Explain how a substitute "traditional" political system works, in detail, that can resist internationalist communism.

Quote:A mass socialist party imposed upon traditional German institutions was never in the interests of Germany or her people, and quite deservedly earned their enmity.

Assertions. No wider social context. No wider geopolitical context. No support in general. Just emotion.

Quote:

Quote:The German people's true pillar was always its natural, genetically determined ability to create its society. That's the ability that was dusted-off in lieu of a false worship of the internationalist Church and its other weakened leadership.

"The proletariat's true pillar was always its natural, historically determined ability to create communist society. That's the ability that was dusted-off in lieu of a false worship of the capitalist Church and its other bourgeois leadership."

Quote:Perhaps you could explain why your vision for Germany seems to display so many similarities with Marxist paradigms. The fact that utopian political programs share a common philosophical root might be one observation to make.

So, you substituted words into my paragraph to attack the substitution? You need to read on how to avoid fallacious arguing. You're a waste of time, otherwise. Your new paragraph is rhetorically meaningless and illegitimate in its attempt to draw any meaningful parallel.

You're basically arguing that it is "Marxist" in politics to assert the innate potential of any tribe to create anything social.

You're also demanding that we accept that the Church is the default anti-Marxist institution if we are to accept your pseudo-rhetorical analogy.

I reject your assumed foundation of your argument, as the Church's history and ideology clearly is not always separate from ideologies that Marxists also hold.

Third, it cannot be argued that the Church was and is not internationalist, as it is expressly so, or that it was effective at staving off Marxism. Because it held some social ideologies in common with Marxism, a rejection of the Church was one means of cutting off some internationalist ideology within German society that left them politically vulnerable to Marxist ideology.

Thus, a rejection of the Church (and it wasn't completely rejected, was it?) would not imply Marxism. Your argument that because two movements would reject an institution, it makes them similar movements, is yet another rhetorical fallacy.

You seem to have trouble arguing, and the problem lies mostly in your over-confidence in your various attempts at making analogies, your over confidence in making logical proofs, and your unabashed continuous use of fallacies that are well beyond simple ad-hominems that I could over-look. You tend to make these fallacies more core to your arguments.

Quote:Moreover, your argument is again self-defeating. If Germany's "true" political pillar was always innate, then on what grounds do you object to any form that Germany might take?

Again? That's funny coming from you, considering your arguing style.

Let me, for clarity, quote what I wrote before I comment:

Quote:The German people's true pillar was always its natural, genetically determined ability to create its society. That's the ability that was dusted-off in lieu of a false worship of the internationalist Church and its other weakened leadership.

The first line refers to the fact that everyone's political pillar is innate. Not just Germany.

The true "political pillar" is what enables groups to create political power. That's it. It's not a comment on how that power is used or judged in any era. It merely refers to any group's relative ability to create a society and a state that they perceive to be in, and that can adequately defend or otherwise pursue, their self-interest.

This creation can variously exist in a state of consistent chaos for some groups who lack the ability to build society and power for themselves, and other groups are more efficient at it than most of the rest of the world.

The second line refers to a politically detrimental deference to replacements for that pillar; insofar as they are increasingly complete replacements and not merely compliments. These replacements are not nearly as efficient in creating political power, and thus they lead to a diminished if not eliminated result in the accumulation of power. Thus, when they are over-emphasized they lead to a weakened political defense against politically powerful out-groups who would care to exploit or harm them for their own ends.

Quote:Additionally, the fact that you've cast aside any possibilities for variation in this theoretical "true" German society means that this has nothing to do with the will or history of the German people, and everything to do with the ideal of Germany you've formed in your imagination.

I've done no such thing. You're setting up strawmen again. It's typical of your arguing style, and its exhausting. I'll be finished with you after this. You're absolutely not worth the continuing effort. We can agree to disagree, and I'll see you on the other side of things.

Where did I cast aside "variation"? Exactly? "Variation" is a matter of degree. There are variations between two brothers, two cousins, and two distant members of what can generally be considered to be the same tribe. Your variation exists in every exchange, every moment of the day, and it all averages out across large numbers to give a sense of a cohesive result.

Quote:In this way, you confuse your utopianism for Germany, just like the Jacobins confused their theoretical perfect republic for France.

You should really stop mentioning religious concepts that you little understand the history nor the current function of. And, again, with the fallacies.

Quote:Lastly, you think the churches that had helped build Germany from the time of Charlemagne (before there was a Germany) were un-German, but a socialist party invented in 1920 is the true voice of Germany?

I love this last statement, because it summarizes a complete lack of understanding of the core of the entire conversation.

Churches are not "un-German".

I'm unsure as to what most of your semantic attachments mean in general, but this invention is now what is on the table.

You seem to be arguing against yourself, caught within your pseudo-historical and pseudo-political concept of "tradition".

YOU see Churches as German, and thus because I argue against their political usefulness you necessarily perceive that I see them as "un-German".

The reality is that I see them as neither, but as a social institution that is open for use, or rejection depending on their current usefulness or possible liability, for the sociopolitical interest of any one tribe at any point in time. It's the same possibility that exists for any tool of its nature or for any tool of any other nature, other than what is innate and thus what persists as the foundation of being.

Your thinking is rigid and basic on these matters. And I simply don't care.

Quote:Laughable. The NSDAP was hostile towards traditional German institutions because, like you, it scorned German tradition, which proves my point.

You may as well just mix up a bunch of letters at this point into nonsense words. It would be as discernible to me. Seriously, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You were doing okay until you failed to define your point that you say that you are making, thus making the entire paragraph useless.

And you're still setting up strawmen and misdirecting the argument, out of angry desperation. You take a disagreement with the primary political usefulness of your "tradition" in Germany as "scorn", which shows me that you are not prepared to argue on any level that doesn't completely waste my time.

Quote:No it isn't. You just made that up. Utopianism can be nationalist, and the largest utopian ideology, still in the world, is hyper-nationalist. You obviously haven't a clue about utopianism, its manifestations, nor its history.

Quote:Utopia literally means "no-place", and as there is no nation called "no-place", utopianism and nationalism are incompatible paradigms.

You're really uneducated on this topic. No offense.

Quote: the other begins with speculative ideals in the heads of would-be revolutionaries.

This specifically is true, but your dichotomy is absolutely false.

Quote:Thus, utopianism seeks to impose its abstract theories upon the nation, invariably crushing much of the nation and her national character in the process.

The abstract theories part is true, your latter assertion is an ignorance of the modern world that I wouldn't be proud of writing so arrogantly about.

I know that you think that your idiosyncratic and absolutely meaningless implied (and aforestated) definition of nationalism supports your pet theory, but it doesn't and the largest revolution in world history stands in defiance of your self-delusions. If you can't name that revolution, then you don't belong in this conversation. Everything is going over your head. And it is.

Quote: In this regard, German fascism is indistinguishable from Jacobinism or Bolshevism: the nation, subjugated and silenced, is forced to serve and suffer for the ideal of the revolutionary; this is contrary to nationalism, which seeks to formulate ideas capable of serving and ennobling the nation.

All made up bullshit/unsupported assertions, no doubt not your own but something that you gleaned from some writer with a political interest in re-defining modern anti-communist nationalism to not be such an obstacle to internationalism/communism. Note the craven shaming. Those writers are pretty ubiquitous.

I bolded the part that highlights your poverty of understanding of political power, or in other words what works to serve and ennoble the nation.

Quote:As a result of these categorical differences, nationalism and utopianism are not compatible, and you've made it quite clear which you prefer.

Did you have fun talking yourself in circles?

Quote:Maybe you should begin with noting that your examples are those of the victories of internationalists and communists, in Paris over the reign of the "Traditionalists" and in Berlin, after they were forced to fight the entire West and almost successfully did so, in alliance with the communists.

Quote:What we have in Paris 1794, Berlin 1945 and Moscow 1991 (all three of which you seem to possess little to no understanding, since you erroneously describe Jacobins as "traditionalists")

Because you didn't better define the events of one date during the French Revolution, and I didn't catch precisely what you were referring to only by a single year during that long period, I don't understand all three? Nice logic.

Quote: In chasing after their imagined German empire that was supposed to stretch from the Irish Sea to the Urals, the Third Reich betrayed what Germany in actual fact was and ruined her through their unhinged hubris.

Oh, I see. You have an agenda. I'm arguing from a place of logical structure in what it takes to build political power and oppose communism, and your primary aim is to, willfully or not, ignorantly misrepresent history to oppose fascism. Likely out of either political self-interest, or an emotionally rooted misunderstanding of history. The perseverance was a little bit odd, considering that you have never attempted to say anything meaningful about political systems other than make emotional assertions, false analogies, and liberally use fallacy in an attempt to shout me down.

Quote:In the relationship between the nation and ideology, Jacobinism, Bolshevism and Nazism are functionally analogous. German fascism was nothing but abstract utopianism dressed up in nationalistic clothes: Jacobins wearing lederhosen.

No sale on the BS. Good luck with it.

Has this been posted yet? Sounds too good to be true, might be fake news...

Sweden announced closing of borders

Quote:Sweden “has had enough”: the Kingdom no longer wishes to host migrants, creating too many problems to locals. Starting from July 20, immigration laws changed.


Swedish Kingdom has announced the closing of borders. Frequent cases of aggression from eastern migrants, including a bloody massacre at a German train by an Afghani, bathed in acid graduates of the Danish University – all this has led the government to think about the need to get rid of the concept is too wide-open doors.

Now the right to immigrate can only be got in case of family reunification. No refugee status, no citizenship upon years of an illegal stay in the country. Refugees will be able to stay in Sweden for no longer than 3 years, for other categories of migrants the period of stay in the country was reduced to 1 year.

However, if a refugee can prove to be useful to the country, to find housing and a job, to assimilate into the society, and not to participate in questionable activities, they have a chance for an exceptional naturalization. It is also stipulated that in order to bring family members, a refugee must provide documents on financial viability – to be able to support every one of them.

https://realrussiatoday.com/2016/07/23/s...f-borders/

When the Taliban feel like quitting, they call Hydrogonian for advice on dogged determination and staying power.

(07-27-2016 05:06 PM)redpillage Wrote:  This is loosely related to this thread: A Welt article which describes in much detail how the cost of real estate in German cities (purchase or rent) is basically out of control.

Can someone explain to me why a country with one of the most restrictive building regulations on the planet and practically no available housing even for middle class earners would import nearly two million strangers in one year?

Germany has actually enough places to live - it's far worse in Switzerland or Sweden. Germany's populations used to be higher once - up until recently they even demolished Eastern German old communist apartment buildings - could use them now.

But for real estate owners it is a bonanza where they will make billions in rental income - since the taxpayer is footing the bill.




Former migrant helper tells of his experiences. I think someone posted it before here - but he mentions how angry the rapefugee was for getting a 50m2 state-funded flat while the student lives on 23m2 and has to pay rent.

High immigration usually helps the 1% and especially the 0,01% - it means a rise in rental income, rise in property values and a lowering of wages. An increase in crime and terror does not affect them nearly as much. That is why the moneyed classes in the UK don't mind millions of migrants. They are profiting from all of this - up until the governments go broke and civil war breaks out, but even then - they can simply move for a while on their private island and come back when the dust settles and buy everything on the cheap. It's actually a sweet deal - you profit when they come in, you profit, when they fight it out and you profit even more after the killing has stopped and everything is dirt cheap - pennies on the dollar they call it.

(07-28-2016 03:34 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  Has this been posted yet? Sounds too good to be true, might be fake news...

Sweden announced closing of borders

Quote:Sweden “has had enough”: the Kingdom no longer wishes to host migrants, creating too many problems to locals. Starting from July 20, immigration laws changed.


Swedish Kingdom has announced the closing of borders. Frequent cases of aggression from eastern migrants, including a bloody massacre at a German train by an Afghani, bathed in acid graduates of the Danish University – all this has led the government to think about the need to get rid of the concept is too wide-open doors.

Now the right to immigrate can only be got in case of family reunification. No refugee status, no citizenship upon years of an illegal stay in the country. Refugees will be able to stay in Sweden for no longer than 3 years, for other categories of migrants the period of stay in the country was reduced to 1 year.

However, if a refugee can prove to be useful to the country, to find housing and a job, to assimilate into the society, and not to participate in questionable activities, they have a chance for an exceptional naturalization. It is also stipulated that in order to bring family members, a refugee must provide documents on financial viability – to be able to support every one of them.

https://realrussiatoday.com/2016/07/23/s...f-borders/

What Sweden calls 'closing their borders' means just letting in 50.000 to 75.000 in instead of 120.000.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/...-patriots/

Marion Maréchal Le Pen, the 26-year-old niece of France’s Front National leader Marine Le Pen has urged her fellow countrymen to join the military in a series of tweets following the beheading of a priest in Normandy this morning.



WBAPWPO (after putting war paint on)

(07-27-2016 05:22 PM)Parzival Wrote:  About taking action, well of course you the the Sub Sahara Africans and the Arabs every day. They scream, they yell, they are on the streets. Like a mob and you think that's taking action. But what action? When you talk about Germans be passive, then think about all the passive things that make your live run. In some places in the world you expect the AC to run in summer, that you have clean water, electricity, that you get your mail, that your phone and internet connection work. Of course a riot make a big show but beside that what does it change in the big picture? Not much I would say. Did the Arabs from the Cologne attacks change Germany? They did not change the way how we run our society, they did just change the look we have about them. So they think we are weak because we don't beat them up. But for us they did prove they are scum. One drop after another till it's enough.

Yes, Arab clans control certain districts in Germany, but when the police really wants or given free hands from the politics do you really think they will hold on long? When we take action we take it systematical and then we can take them out without allahu akbar screams and make a big show like them. We kick their doors in the morning and we know them well. We have a list. Do they have list? Do they know us? They live at our mercy and when the mood change they will feel it. They are like teenagers that rage but forget who pays the pill for the housing and the food. All we lack at the moment is leaders that have the balls to take action. The Germans themselves will not hesitate to restore order.


Also never forget, even now in Germany it never got that bad like it did in other countries. No riots before and also the bad districts are still possible to walk.

This infatuation with the 'Che Guavera rebellious state' is typical of cultural marxists. It never dawns on them that they glorify a psychopathic mass murderer who liked to torture small animals for fun as a kid - and later he just loved killing and most of it not as a soldier, but as a ruthless executioner.

The same goes for blind rebellions.

The Germans are methodical and exact, which explains why they did not go on a raping spree in the conquered territories during WWII - they actually punished rapists. It also explains why their military almost conquered the world - all except the US of course - that was the only force that mattered as opposition - the other countries were all inferior in terms of combat ability.

But let us look at the current examples of glorious rebellions of other people:

1) Syria : the people rebelled against Assad thinking that it would improve their living conditions and generally not liking his regime. Did the idiots not know what happens in Middle Eastern countries when you oust a strongman? Obviously they did not think it through when the Jihadis and Western backed infiltrators took over the protests and started the wars.

2) Arab Spring like morons running around and protesting against other strongmen like Mubarak - their relative order is now replaced step by step with Jihadis - Tunisia is 95% down in tourism income since then - well done you idiots - enjoy your freedom right until the caliphate

3) WWII - Polish Warsaw uprising (not the Jewish one which is understandable - the general one at the end of WWII): I have read enough reports about the time and even saw it mentioned by older men who lived through this. It was utter madness - they had no weapons - 1 in 4 had a gun, there was no reason to do it and it resulted in the almost complete destruction of Warsaw - a city that was called the Paris of the East before the war. Some men even said that it was suicidal madness of the officers who organized the uprising - yes it was brave and valiant, but stupid as hell. The Russians goaded them into it laughing as the Germans destroyed the city. So another rebellion that was just dumb and idiotic. If the Parisians had done this, then Paris would be an architect's shithole now and not the most visited city in the world.

4) Any South American riot in the last decades - they smash, they protest, nothing changes

5) Black Lives Matter and Ferguson riots - smash stores, destroy, now kill cops - entire regions become economic and criminal waste lands - smashing stuff does not solve anything

What did the Germans do so far?

Currently it's mostly limited to a view demonstrations, some burnings of refugee homes (when no one was inside - most burnings were done by the rapefugees). Also the Germans went to work to create a movement and party which might change things - the AFD and Pegida. Those political arms now have 15% - with each terrorist attack and loud murder and rape you get 1-2% more. It is slow, but it will be there in time.

Other countries like Austria are further along.

Methodical organized opposition is what gets the elite nervous - not blind riots and angry flashmobs. They can deal with the latter, but fighting against controlled opposition is something else.

When the command 66 comes, then the Germans are perfectly willing to kill every last one of their enemies. Islamist Jihadis will be surprised to find an adversary that can easily kill each and everyone of them.

But that command will come much later. Maybe they will leave the terrorism around in order to usher in the future Orwellian everyone-needs-to-get-chipped police state.

To add issues with revolution:
What did happen after the the French revolution? Years of terror.
What did happen after the Russian revolution? Years of terror.

What would the benefit it Germans start to smash their own country? Burn cars and destroy stores? Will it harm the Elites? No but the fellow citizen. Let's assume someone assassinate Merkel. What's next? Be unhappy and angry with the actual situation is one thing, but know that you have no better answer yet and will bring meanwhile just chaos and destruction is no better solution. What do you guy think will be the international reactions if Germans create a violent or even a militant cup?

When I'm unhappy with my phone & internet provider but he is the only one in my town, what are my options? Destroy his transmitter mast?

Here is a rare instance of German resistance and fight back against the corrupt establishment.
German federal minister of justice, Heiko Maas booed, heckled and chased away from 1st of May celebrations....he fled like a rat to his Mercedes and ran away.
This what we need to see more of from the German people if things are to really change:

But Parzival, Merkel is not the only leadership provider in town, and no one except government propagandists believes so.

Surely out of 80 million Germans someone could be found to competently lead the country in a new direction. If there's not even one person available... well, I guess Germans better commit suicide now because if that's the case there's no hope for them.

When you want to see Germans take action, look at HoGeSa - Hooligans against Salafist


http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/a...itert.html

Quote:After attacks and violence of refugees say 57 percent of Germans: The course of the Chancellor has failed. More than half accuses her of not taking citizens' concerns seriously.

Bavaria will take action now, what the others states will do, I don't know. The next federal election is in 2017 what happen till then, nobody knows.

5 mass killings attacks in the name of islam, in just one week in the south of Germany,
over 100 german victims.

Receiving all those islam foot soldiers "refugees" seems to be doing wonders for the implementation of the "vibrant and strong multiculturalism"

Sometimes I see videos like the one above and I think we're all being a bit hypersensitive to the progress or seeming lack there-of.

It's horrible to see everyday people dying in terrorist attacks but in terms of human casualties during a political transition, historically speaking, it doesn't even rate.

Resistance is forming. We are reaching critical mass. There doesn't need to be a leader yet. In fact, leadership tends to demotivate the fence sitters because they get the idea that the situation is being taken care of and that they don't need to personally get involved.

Keep the faith, RVFers. These times they are a changin'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36912141

Quote:Merkel rules out migrant policy reversal after attacks

Quote:'We can do this'
Mrs Merkel, who interrupted her summer holiday to hold the news conference in Berlin, said the asylum seekers who had carried out the attacks had "shamed the country that welcomed them".
But she insisted that those fleeing persecution and war had a right to be protected, and Germany would "stick to our principles" in giving shelter to the deserving.
Referring to the attacks that have taken place in France, Belgium, Turkey, the US and elsewhere, she said "taboos of civilisation" had been broken, and they were intended to "spread fear and hatred between cultures and between religions".
But in reference to her famous phrase "Wir schaffen das" or "We can do this" - uttered last year when she agreed to take in a million migrants - Mrs Merkel said: "I am still convinced today that "we can do it".
"It is our historic duty and this is a historic challenge in times of globalisation. We have already achieved very, very much in the last 11 months".

Germany's first suicide bomber - jupee!

Quote:18 July: An axe-wielding teenage asylum seeker from Afghanistan is shot dead after injuring five people in an attack on a train. IS claims the attack, releasing a video recorded by the attacker before the incident

22 July: A German teenager of Iranian extraction goes on a shooting rampage in the Bavarian state capital, Munich, killing nine people, most of them migrants, before shooting himself. He is said to have been obsessed with school shootings
(secterian violence between rival groups - but still one could call it Islamic-Middle-Eastern violence that would not be here by West)

24 July: A Syrian asylum seeker is arrested in the town of Reutlingen, Baden-Wuerttemberg, after allegedly killing a Polish woman with a machete and injuring two other people. Police suggest it was probably a "crime of passion"

24 July: A failed Syrian asylum seeker blows himself up outside a music festival in the small Bavarian town of Ansbach, injuring 15 other people.

Yes - we can all manage - if we are surrounded by bodyguards 24-7 and don't leave children behind - who cares if the country descends into a multicultural shithole or civil war in 30 years, right?

4 Rapefugees go berserk at a doctor's practice.

They first hit his wife who falls down, then they pull large knives and scream that he treated their comrade badly. They demand an apology on his knees. One of them said: "I am Palestinian, I killed many Jews." They lock themselves in until the cops come. The nurses and receptionists already thought that they guys killed the MD and his wife.

But the best thing comes at the end: All 4 are released by the cops, since they ruled out terrorism - hehe!!!!

The doctor is not amused and does not feel safe at all!

Fucking A - they just let them go. Come to Germany ISIS - you can hit someone's wife, threaten to kill him brandishing a knife, then you tell him to kiss your feet and go on his knees. Then when the cops come you are released after a few hours and the government explains away your deeds.

The traitors above are getting feisty. Now in the West I recommend acute measures whenever you see a potential Muslim or Middle Easterner. You need to be always ready and prepared for the worst - when there are more of them, then be ready to fight for your life.

Germany is fucked and so is the rest of Europe. This will become 100 times worse. By the way - they thought that he was Jewish - Attila is a rare name in Germany, but he sounds like a Hungarian migrant, but being in the country for decades. Of course to the rapefugees we are all unbelievers so this is just a minor matter.

But I do wonder what would happen if the doctor had a gun and started killing the bastards? I am certain that the MD would be in jail by now.

Gents - visit Europe as long as it lasts, because soon it will disappear in a sea of blood. (It's not there yet - the Muslim numbers are too low, but it will get there for sure.)

(07-28-2016 09:12 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Attila is a rare name in Germany, but he sounds like a Hungarian migrant, but being in the country for decades.

Yeah Attila is a hungarian name. A lot of hungarian doctors moved to Germany...

Here is what real 1st world public resistance and fightback against hated government policies looks like in the west.

This is what happened in London, England in March 1990 during a time of peace when Margaret Thatcher refused to remove the universally hated poll tax (a tax on the property you live in). After those riots, Thatcher was removed from office and the poll tax was abolished and hastily replaced by the council tax. Since those street protests happened, more than 26 years ago, every single British politician has been scared to death of changing the laws governing taxation of housing in the UK.

This is what happens when a class of politicians becomes entrenched in their own hubris and loses touch with reality....

...and the men reach breaking point:

Let me tie off my above post so that the thread can get back on track. I've no inclination to wrestle in the mud with these guys anymore.

Speaking to the thread in general:

Neoareaction / "Tradition" politics

The last direct thing that I'll say on this specific matter is that Neo-reaction type politics are a superficially attractive but dead end in my opinion, for very specific reasons both having to do with how they conflate some specific tools of society with the idealized social result that is founded on factors beyond these tools.

This leads to not being able to nor even willing to tell when these tools are being ineffective. It leads to mistaking them for a political solution, even absent an ability to be specific in what they are or how they would work to get the desired result in destroying cultural Marxism / communism. They are simply held as central to a specific social result in a populace. Their absence is asserted to be an absence of that social result. I hold that to be wrong because it conflates the tool with the crafstman, and it prevents emphasizing what might be actually effective.

I would offer that only the sociopolitical opposite of communism can destroy communism, and only its opposite (at its core and absent all additional legal and military additions of any specific era) makes sense to evaluate until, at least, one would be able to explain both it, communism, how they work in an opposite manner, and then explain whatever solution that you would think is better because of very specific reasons having to do with an analysis of this structural conflict in political systems. Every other solution is self delusion, if for no other reason that it will lack the context of a logical depth of such analysis, until you can get at least that far.

Neoreaction being wrong also has to do with how proponents cannot explain how these tools have lost ground against revolutionary forces, if they were such a structurally sound foundational solution for the self-interest of society. The answer is because the framework for being effective counters to liberal revolution/cultural Marxism/communism doesn't exist in the tools being referenced.

I could care less what political solutions anyone here has a preference for. However, when broad assertions are repeatedly made about solutions in a manner that denigrates other opinions here, without a valid foundational logic, then I hold that an argument might result.

The Germans are genetically flawed subthread

Similarly, I feel that the "Germans have an innate weakness" argument has been talked out. All sides have been heard in detail. I believe that the thread is comprised of enough people that take the opposite view that, again, referencing this topic is the repeated denigration of valid views that act as the subtext of this thread. Why would a racial attack on Europeans be useful in this thread? I find the motivation suspicious. Personally, I'll view further references to this topic as belligerent trolling for an argument. But I won't personally intervene any longer.

Last

If anyone wants to pm me to ask about my specific structural views on politics, to include communism and nationalism, and how they can be identified and fought as structural opposites, then I'll be happy to lay them out in a pm. Responding to Saga's flurry of assertions, false analogies, and false logic had not left me with any window to be overly-specific.

I also have an aversion to correcting non-argument assertions with longer logical proofs because I usually feel that invalidating them as structurally valid arguments is enough. And I still feel that way. Otherwise, anyone could throw any short assertion that they wish against the wall, and it would keep their opponents in a never-ending engagement in long proofs to disprove what they failed to minimally properly argue in respect for their opponent and the conversation

So, again, assuming that you have enough posts and a minimum of rep here, say over 500 posts and over ten rep, just to filter out casual forum guests and save my time, please pm me and I'll be happy to lay out a civil, logical, concise explanation of my perspective on the aforementioned frameworks. Thanks.

Merkel recently labeled as terrorists the people who wish to reduce refugee migration.

The Newspeak intensifies.

Quote:Merkel At Emergency Press Conference: Germany Stands By Mass Migration Policy Despite Terror Attacks

She also claimed that terrorists wanted Germany to take in fewer migrants, and said she would not bow to their wishes.

“The terrorists want to make us lose sight of what is important to us, break down our cohesion and sense of community as well as inhibiting our way of life, our openness and our willingness take in people who are in need,” she said.

   

http://www.stern.de/panorama/weltgescheh...83416.html

I think I've found the most unintentionally hilarious article

Title: How Merkel's refugee policy will PROTECT Germany from terrorism
It goes on to cuck about how allowing hordes of unchecked refugees into Germany will win "hearts and minds" of muslims "will surely" encourage other muslims to cooperate more readily with the police to stop terror. Also says that the last 3 muslim attackers already lived in Germany several years so weren't part of the refugee waves which is a dumb argument in and of itself, but also conveniently doesn't mention how the other ones actually were refugees.

Germans are starting to wake up and realize that Angela Merkel wants them dead.

Quote:The attacks have given way to mockery by some Germans as well as foreigners, who have dubbed the recent weeks of bloodshed on social media as #MerkelSommer, or even "Merkel's summer of slaughter."

(07-28-2016 11:53 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Merkel recently labeled as terrorists the people who wish to reduce refugee migration.

The Newspeak intensifies.

Quote:Merkel At Emergency Press Conference: Germany Stands By Mass Migration Policy Despite Terror Attacks

She also claimed that terrorists wanted Germany to take in fewer migrants, and said she would not bow to their wishes.

“The terrorists want to make us lose sight of what is important to us, break down our cohesion and sense of community as well as inhibiting our way of life, our openness and our willingness take in people who are in need,” she said.

(07-28-2016 12:19 PM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  http://www.stern.de/panorama/weltgescheh...83416.html

I think I've found the most unintentionally hilarious article

Title: How Merkel's refugee policy will PROTECT Germany from terrorism
It goes on to cuck about how allowing hordes of unchecked refugees into Germany will win "hearts and minds" of muslims "will surely" encourage other muslims to cooperate more readily with the police to stop terror. Also says that the last 3 muslim attackers already lived in Germany several years so weren't part of the refugee waves which is a dumb argument in and of itself, but also conveniently doesn't mention how the other ones actually were refugees.

(07-28-2016 06:21 AM)Parzival Wrote:  When you want to see Germans take action, look at HoGeSa - Hooligans against Salafist


http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/a...itert.html

Quote:After attacks and violence of refugees say 57 percent of Germans: The course of the Chancellor has failed. More than half accuses her of not taking citizens' concerns seriously.

Bavaria will take action now, what the others states will do, I don't know. The next federal election is in 2017 what happen till then, nobody knows.

From the article:

Quote:"Etwas mehr als die Hälfte der Bürger glaubt, dass Merkel die Sorgen der Bevölkerung nicht ernst genug nimmt. Wesentlich mehr Männer als Frauen sehen die Lage so."

More than half of German citizens believe that Merkel has not taken serious the increasing concerns of the population. Substantially more men than women are considering the situation this way.



It never fails, does it? And that after thousands of violent attacks and rapes of native women and children. If you think the women in your country suck, think again. German women are despicable, corruptible, and heartless creatures. Most of them crave 'exotic' dick and don't give a rat's ass about the future of their children or that of their motherland. Fuck 'em - fuck 'em all. They deserve what they have coming.