Because it's stupid to draw your battle lines based on skin colour. You have two people: a pro-democracy protester from Hong Kong, and a white rioter from Seattle. Which one is your ally?
On what basis should I conclude the "pro-democracy protestor from Hong Kong" is an ally? Because they're "pro-democracy"? We have those here: they just "fortified" an election. Because they use American symbolism? our leftists used to do that here as well before discovering they could drop the pretense.
Because they're pro-Western residents of a Western colony. The enemy of our enemy is not our friend, but there is a meaningful difference between the people of Hong Kong and the people of Xinjiang.
Being someone who tends to support self-determination of separate peoples, that just means I ought to support Hong Kong over China. Which I do. That doesn't mean I consider them an "ally" in American internal conflicts. They are not providing me aid and comfort, and their own culture tends to be more authoritarian and less pro individual liberty than my own.
Xenophobic resentment has defined the sensibility of the protesters, who vow to “retake Hong Kong” from Chinese mainlanders they depict as a horde of locusts. The demonstrators have even adopted one of the most widely recognized symbols of the alt-right, emblazoning images of Pepe the Frog on their protest literature.
You are citing a deranged left-wing lunatic. Fuck him and fuck you.
"you could actually facilitate the start of an ACTUAL white power movement"
Lesson 1: If the object of a program is to fight against a force, yet literally its only result is a higher level of recruitment for said force, PERHAPS IT'S NOT A GOOD PROGRAM.
CRT is just about hating white people. You can dress it up all you like but that's what it comes down to in the end. She's got some more deprogramming to do.
If CRT facilitates the rise of a White Power movement (which I predicted it would at least 5 years ago), that's not an argument against calling CRT anti-white. It's an argument against CRT.
CRT is not about race. It's about power.
Hitler's hatred of Jews was about power, too. Look how that turned out.
Group A: We define "Group B" as those people having Attribute X. We hold Group B responsible for historical crimes against Group A and will seek retribution
People having Attribute X: We never thought of ourselves as belonging to a single group, but if you do and wish us collective harm as a consequence, perhaps those of us who have Attribute X have some common interest to defend ourselves from being harmed by Group A
Intellectuals of Ideology 1: There is no such thing as Group B, so it is unthinkable that people with Attribute X would respond to Group A's attempt to do them harm.
No it is unthinkable that Group A decided to aggress against people with Attribute X. People with Attribute X collectively responding to that aggression is a natural and reasonable consequence to that aggression. The aggressors ought to be condemned, not those who are defending themselves from aggression.
If you are screaming about how critical race theory is anti-white,
All leftism is racist, including it's descendants, Marxism, National Socialism, and CRT.
Isn't that fun? Let's dissect it briefly. It's in fact a fairly common argument among old-school liberals and conservatives, that opposing CRT or as I'd call it radical liberalism, in ways that is heretical to old-school liberalism
The original lefties, the Jacobins, were guillotine nutters that invented "universal human rights" merely as a PR scam.
The Girondins (US: /(d)ʒɪˈrɒndɪnz/ ji-RON-dinz, zhi-,[3] French: [ʒiʁɔ̃dɛ̃] (listen)), or Girondists, were members of a loosely knit political faction during the French Revolution.
From 1791 to 1793, the Girondins were active in the Legislative Assembly and the National Convention. Together with the Montagnards, they initially were part of the Jacobin movement. They campaigned for the end of the monarchy, but then resisted the spiraling momentum of the Revolution, which caused a conflict with the more radical Montagnards. They dominated the movement until their fall in the insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793, which resulted in the domination of the Montagnards and the purge and mass execution of the Girondins. This event is considered to mark the beginning of the Reign of Terror.
The Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1793 (French: Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1793) is a French political document that preceded that country's first republican constitution. The Declaration and Constitution were ratified by popular vote in July 1793, and officially adopted on 10 August; however, they never went into effect, and the constitution was officially suspended on 10 October. It is unclear whether this suspension was thought to affect the Declaration as well.
Equality is the most important aspect of the Declaration of 1793. In its second article, equality is the first right mentioned (followed by liberty, security, and property). In Article 3 states "All men are equal by nature and before the law". As such, for the authors of this declaration equality is not only before the law but it is also a natural right, that is to say, a fact of nature.
Article 7 states "The necessity of enunciating these rights supposes either the presence or the fresh recollection of despotism." Article 9: "The law ought to protect public and personal liberty against the oppression of those who govern." Article 33 states that resisting tyranny is a logical consequence of the rights of man: "Resistance to oppression is the consequence of the other rights of man". Article 34 states that if one is oppressed, everyone is. Article 27 states "Let any person who may usurp the sovereignty be instantly put to death by free men." Though the usurpation of sovereignty is not detailed, sovereignty is explained in article 25 as residing "in the people". There is no doubt that this way of thinking deeply influenced the revolutionary government during the Terror.
Finally, article 35 states "When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties."
"Human" rights doesn't exist, and neither does "liberals", nor "radical liberals".
They're about as real and binding as Santa Claus and the US Constitution. Toliet paper is more real.
One of the reasons I’ve been worried about the current state of racial politics is the potential that it will drive aggrieved white people to the far right. Seems like an obvious problem but I rarely see people talking about it.
Ur-whitey, Adolf Hitler, tried to install his vision of German Volkish socialism, fucked the German economy, lost the retarded war, and so let East German women get raped by Soviet liberators 2 million times, let Germany be annexed into communism for 50 years, and ensured modern Germany is a cucked socialist country.
https://archive.vn/ArEa
http:// www. independent. co. uk/news/world/europe/raped-by-the-red-army-two-million-german-women-speak-out-1669074. html
Raped by the Red Army: Two million German women speak out
FRANCE 24
WEDNESDAY 15 APRIL 2009
Unlike cucked whitey, Iran didn't get rekt by leftism. Islam uber alles.
Yeah, I'm aware about most of it, though I'd disagree with your conclusion that human rights don't exist. They do, they just serve to justify imperialism.
As for human rights, they were critiqued by Marx:
Yes, Marx, in his "On the Jewish question" tells us rights only exists in a community-society-democracy-collective. And other things too. All things only exist in socialism, aka "human" rights don't exist, leftist rights do.
Marx, like all leftists, is deluded and lives in a pesudo-reality.
In the end, those ensnared lose the ability to distinguish reality and pseudo-reality almost entirely and become functionally psychopathic, and if they gain enough social, cultural, economic, and political power, they can hold hostage entire societies that are, in effect, on the march to totalitarianism and, eventually, total catastrophic collapse.
Don't believe in stupid things like "human" rights, Santa Claus or the mystic powers of "the US Constitution", a piece of paper.
As for liberals, it does exist insofar that it's a term referring to certain set of beliefs, ideals, and values, all of which are utilized to justify their application in real life, which ends up necessarily different. Certainly, in its ideal form it can exist only in fantasy or fiction, especially due to the notion of individuals, but that's also the case with "free market" and other various ideologies/systems. as a fucking 200 year old lie.
There are no human rights, but there are God given rights. The trick they used to corrupt people is to turn them away from God to focus on man. (selfishness, ego) Thus, human rights were born.
Yes, human rights are meaningless in a secular worldview. Because it always boils down to "my right to speech/life/etc is intrinsic", because they can't say sacred. But what if I don't agree with your assessment of what's intrinsic to human "dignity". And what happens when I have the power to take away your so-called rights? Why shouldn't I? Because you said I'd be evil? Because you deep-down believe they're sacred? Solely because you asserted that I can't? LMAO watch me
If however, you believe their is a higher power, then your appeal to intrinsic rights is logically sound. Because then the violator of your rights will get his in the end. And their punishment will be far worse than anything they could ever deal to you on earth
Rights have to be based on morality, and humans don't know what morality is. We only see glimpses of it that we get from God. That's why we get ridiculous things like the UN announcing that Broadband is a basic human right.
If it doesn't come from God, then where does it come from? What makes it valid? I think the founders of America had a better understanding of God than most people do today. At least they were talking about the right things.
And you are right, these evil people will be judged in the end, and not by me.
From a libertarians perspective, both hate individualism and freedom, and so look similar. She is wrong though. They are not fundamentally the same. They have real diffierences and they build on different core values.
You're confusing the point being made, which is that within society it does exist and has immense power behind it, which if left at "x doesn't exist" ignores that.
He's just telling young men to stay under the yoke, pretend the game is the same as it was in 1850, work harder, take on more responsibility. Do all that as the rules have obviously changed and they are being made into ignorant slaves.
Yeah. Of course they see the utility in JP's message.
Nice one. I’m not into race, but it’s crazy how people completely sidestep the fact that only one race is not allowed to celebrate itself.
Every other race or culture can have its own day, but not white people. I don’t even want a day, but if blacks are getting black history month, then fuck it I want a white history month where you hear nothing but how great white people are.
Why would White people standing up for themselves be a bad thing?
Because the tradcucked "muh white women" shit is how we got here in the first place.
Because it's stupid to draw your battle lines based on skin colour. You have two people: a pro-democracy protester from Hong Kong, and a white rioter from Seattle. Which one is your ally?
Democracy is a shit value. Blood and soil, authority that has the people's interests in mind is a thousand times more important
On what basis should I conclude the "pro-democracy protestor from Hong Kong" is an ally? Because they're "pro-democracy"? We have those here: they just "fortified" an election. Because they use American symbolism? our leftists used to do that here as well before discovering they could drop the pretense.
Because they're pro-Western residents of a Western colony. The enemy of our enemy is not our friend, but there is a meaningful difference between the people of Hong Kong and the people of Xinjiang.
Being someone who tends to support self-determination of separate peoples, that just means I ought to support Hong Kong over China. Which I do. That doesn't mean I consider them an "ally" in American internal conflicts. They are not providing me aid and comfort, and their own culture tends to be more authoritarian and less pro individual liberty than my own.
You are citing a deranged left-wing lunatic. Fuck him and fuck you.
Quick, the asian is giving you a blowjob while the white lefturd is trying to decapitate you, who do you choose?
Errrrr, whitey! Dass rite, he dindu nuffin!
We've been carrying society for a while now. Makes more sense to cut the dead weight.
Lesson 1: If the object of a program is to fight against a force, yet literally its only result is a higher level of recruitment for said force, PERHAPS IT'S NOT A GOOD PROGRAM.
CRT is just about hating white people. You can dress it up all you like but that's what it comes down to in the end. She's got some more deprogramming to do.
there is no gain in being the most principled corpse in a mass grave.
always fight against woke.
If CRT facilitates the rise of a White Power movement (which I predicted it would at least 5 years ago), that's not an argument against calling CRT anti-white. It's an argument against CRT.
Hitler's hatred of Jews was about power, too. Look how that turned out.
Good point.
Additional point to consider:
It also resulted in the growth of a Jewish Supremacist movement that now runs an apartheid ethnostate.
"Don't call it radical islamic terrorism or you'll radicalize more muslims into committing terrorism"
Group A: We define "Group B" as those people having Attribute X. We hold Group B responsible for historical crimes against Group A and will seek retribution
People having Attribute X: We never thought of ourselves as belonging to a single group, but if you do and wish us collective harm as a consequence, perhaps those of us who have Attribute X have some common interest to defend ourselves from being harmed by Group A
Intellectuals of Ideology 1: There is no such thing as Group B, so it is unthinkable that people with Attribute X would respond to Group A's attempt to do them harm.
No it is unthinkable that Group A decided to aggress against people with Attribute X. People with Attribute X collectively responding to that aggression is a natural and reasonable consequence to that aggression. The aggressors ought to be condemned, not those who are defending themselves from aggression.
All leftism is racist, including it's descendants, Marxism, National Socialism, and CRT.
The original lefties, the Jacobins, were guillotine nutters that invented "universal human rights" merely as a PR scam.
https://archive.ph/XpY2R https:// en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Girondins
https://archive.ph/TUc3U https:// en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_the_Man_and_of_the_Citizen_of_1793
"Human" rights doesn't exist, and neither does "liberals", nor "radical liberals".
They're about as real and binding as Santa Claus and the US Constitution. Toliet paper is more real.
The French Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Ur-whitey, Adolf Hitler, tried to install his vision of German Volkish socialism, fucked the German economy, lost the retarded war, and so let East German women get raped by Soviet liberators 2 million times, let Germany be annexed into communism for 50 years, and ensured modern Germany is a cucked socialist country.
https://archive.vn/ArEa http:// www. independent. co. uk/news/world/europe/raped-by-the-red-army-two-million-german-women-speak-out-1669074. html
Unlike cucked whitey, Iran didn't get rekt by leftism. Islam uber alles.
Yes, Marx, in his "On the Jewish question" tells us rights only exists in a community-society-democracy-collective. And other things too. All things only exist in socialism, aka "human" rights don't exist, leftist rights do.
Marx, like all leftists, is deluded and lives in a pesudo-reality.
https://archive.vn/smjeB https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/nature-pseudo-reality/
Don't believe in stupid things like "human" rights, Santa Claus or the mystic powers of "the US Constitution", a piece of paper.
There are no human rights, but there are God given rights. The trick they used to corrupt people is to turn them away from God to focus on man. (selfishness, ego) Thus, human rights were born.
Yes, human rights are meaningless in a secular worldview. Because it always boils down to "my right to speech/life/etc is intrinsic", because they can't say sacred. But what if I don't agree with your assessment of what's intrinsic to human "dignity". And what happens when I have the power to take away your so-called rights? Why shouldn't I? Because you said I'd be evil? Because you deep-down believe they're sacred? Solely because you asserted that I can't? LMAO watch me
If however, you believe their is a higher power, then your appeal to intrinsic rights is logically sound. Because then the violator of your rights will get his in the end. And their punishment will be far worse than anything they could ever deal to you on earth
Rights have to be based on morality, and humans don't know what morality is. We only see glimpses of it that we get from God. That's why we get ridiculous things like the UN announcing that Broadband is a basic human right.
If it doesn't come from God, then where does it come from? What makes it valid? I think the founders of America had a better understanding of God than most people do today. At least they were talking about the right things.
And you are right, these evil people will be judged in the end, and not by me.
She’s not wrong.
From a libertarians perspective, both hate individualism and freedom, and so look similar. She is wrong though. They are not fundamentally the same. They have real diffierences and they build on different core values.
Leftism is totalitarianism.
Santa Claus man.
He's just telling young men to stay under the yoke, pretend the game is the same as it was in 1850, work harder, take on more responsibility. Do all that as the rules have obviously changed and they are being made into ignorant slaves.
Yeah. Of course they see the utility in JP's message.
Would we be so lucky.
Nice one. I’m not into race, but it’s crazy how people completely sidestep the fact that only one race is not allowed to celebrate itself.
Every other race or culture can have its own day, but not white people. I don’t even want a day, but if blacks are getting black history month, then fuck it I want a white history month where you hear nothing but how great white people are.