Is that 21st century conservatism is simply 20th century communism. A jewish woman claiming to be "proud to be Japanese" is subversive as Japan only sees people of pure Japanese blood as being Japanese (As it should be) and she's actively trying to subvert this norm, and trying to push the idea that anyone can be Japanese.
But the West has been so utterly subverted that a foreigner claiming to be "proud to be German" or "proud to be Swedish" is considered "based" , instead of being considered subversive that they are even trying to claim that they are German or Swedish when they are not.
Its the racial version of trannism. (I feel like im a Japanese therefore i am a Japanese. I feel like im a woman therefore i am a woman)
There's a reason we say for a lot of 'conservative' political parties in the west that they are 'leftists that obey the speed limit'...
The problem is not just that there's usually only two major parties to choose from per country that rarely offer true conservatism but the administrative state that is usually left leaning as they love to waste more taxpayer money enriching themselves. They ensure that everything always trickles to the left.
You'll need to purge the administrative state in order to have a chance to get such right leaning views recognised as you have to be born there and a family to live 2 generations to be considered an actual native.
That's because for most conservatives, including those over on The Donald, their political philosophy is nothing more than conserving the status quo. And as the Overton Window shifts leftward, these status quo conservatives adopt the new status quo as their own.
If we're just talking about people claiming to be a race they are not, then I agree with you. But a legal immigrant can at least claim to have that nationality. If, say, a Mexican immigrated to America, I would prefer they say they're "proud to be American" rather than "proud to be Mexican", provided they actually integrate with American culture.
Going around saying " im proud to be Japanese. " in a nation that doesnt accept anyone except full blood Japanese as being Japanese is nothing but subversion. But that's what i mean by the West is so subverted that an immigrant with no roots to the countries saying they are proud to be a German or Swedish is now considered "based".
Immigrants should not be accepted at all and the ones that are already in another country should not say that they are something they are not and should still work for the betterment of the country that so graciously allowed them in, but they should know their place that they cannot go around saying they are the same as the native people who have actual roots in the country . The country doesnt owe them anything they owe the country for even allowing them in in the first place
Well if they can't say they're proud to be a German or Swedish, what should they say instead then? "I'm proud to be an immigrant"?
I mean I get where you're coming from, protecting a nation's race and culture is important, and the West has really screwed up when it comes to immigration. I've known some ungrateful immigrants too and they are awful.
they should say "im an immigrant and not a true German or Swedish but i love Germany/Sweden and i love German/Swedish people and i want to help protect the nation that has taken me in and looked after me"
Lol fair enough
They actually go further than that. Even full blooded Japanese born abroad (for example, in Brazil where they are a sizable minority) are not fully welcome.
I think the problem is, we know that isn't true.
What we are seeing here is almost certainly "I'm white when criticizing, but when its beneficial I'm not I'm Jewish" in action.
You would be correct in a world where people weren't being duplicitous or subversive. But that's not where we are and this is absolutely filled with all the hallmark signs of "internal subversion and humiliation rituals."
That's a good point. I suppose I'm guilty of replying to this outside of its context. It's clearly disingenuous when they use the "I'm one of you" line as an excuse to promote their own agenda.
It's an interesting point.
Quite a few prominent English over the years have non-English heritage. Disraeli was of Italian Jewish origin, converted and was baptised, etc. The royal family are total Euromutts. Ditto for many of the other noble families.
In Russia, Pushkin was 1/8th Eritrean. His great-grandfather was a black slave, taken by the Turks, freed by the Russians.
The reason you see this so much now is that the globalists want to crush all national and racial identity amongst Europeans and whites. The easiest way to do that is to dilute the very meaning of the words.
Post Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Post Approved: I don't see how.
That's not really true. In some places, 21st century Conservativism is Fabian Socialism, rather than Communism. The UK is the perfect encapsulation of this, and the Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn is clearly Communist; not even Socialist. Their current leader is trying to push towards Fabiansim after a purge.
You're complaining about Civic Nationalism, which is an aspect of Liberalism, not Communism.
Civic Nationalism can't exist everywhere; and will typically only exist in Empires & Liberal states. However, places like Japan and Ireland are explicitly not Civic National states.
"Liberalism " and "communism" who cares what its called. Liberalism and communism are the same exact thing , aka trash ideologies meant to destroy the nation.
Literally antithetical to one another, but okay.
They are the same thing. Trash globalist ideologies meant to destroy the nation
Liberalism is not ever meant to destroy nationhood. If anything, it serves as a mechanism to unify a nation against the oppression of a state. Liberal Nationalism also exists, and was very common in the 19th century. Nationalism itself stems from Liberal pre-suppositions about self-government.
Civic Nationalism does occur within Liberalism, but it is never a requirement.
Communism doesn't tolerate anything outside of Communism. It can, at best, use national identity as a human shield (like Stalin, Tito, and Ceausescu did)
And yet here we are. It has (and continues) to produce exactly this result.
'The result is the purpose' as a wise man once said.
That's because Socialism is what we live under. Liberalism has been beaten down in America since Warren G Harding left office.
I literally dont care. You were trying to claim that civic nationalism is liberalism not communism. But i dont care how you want to call it , either way its all subversive globalist trash. . Any ideology that doesnt put the native founding population first , is globalist subversive trash.
Civic Nationalism is independent to both Liberalism and Communism.
Liberalism puts the founding population first.
No it doesnt. Liberalism wants equality for everyone, that's not the same as putting the founding population first. Liberalism is just communism-lite
This is semantics, but I'm curious what you think of this Lotus Eaters talk and Sargon's recent tweet "Communism isn't separate from liberalism, imo." and the resulting slapfight with James Lindsay. Carl admitted he was exaggerating to trigger a debate, but Lindsay (who also makes good content) comes across as the unhinged extremist. Regardless of who is right, I thought it inspired some interesting conversation with the guest in this segment and they provided good starting points for further research.
I considered posting it for discussion but was too lazy to summarize the important quotes so I didn't bother. It amuses me how Carl has gradually changed his opinions and moved towards the right while people like Lindsay seem mired in ideology and refuse to yield any ground in their beliefs.
Carl isn't wrong he just wasn't being nuanced enough for someone who is clearly reacting in a nonsense way. The other two members of Sokal Squared are behaving like children.
My problem with Carl's analysis is that it relies on the assumption that if you take an ideology to it's logical extremes, it will be fucking insanity. This is basically true of all ideologies, and in all times, and in all conditions; because it's basically Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem. Any logical system can either be complete (to cover all things) or consistent (to give repeated outcomes). No logical system can do both. It is a fundamental problem with logic in and of itself. Even math is not exempt, and we used math to prove it.
My problem with how he's looking at it is that he's tolerating Rousseau (which he shouldn't), and then pre-supposing that a Liberal order "loses" to all Leftist orders because they "don't fulfil the promises of Liberalism".
While it is true that Liberalism seeks liberty, egality, and fraternity; we have to accept that Liberalism has boundary conditions. One of those things is (for example) reality. Rousseau actually rejects this. Well, that's fucking wrong. His ideas can be thrown away right at that point. I also understand that Locke has limitations, since he believed in Tabula Rasa. But again, this is the point. We have to recognize that the boundary conditions of Liberalism must be set by observable reality.
Leftism, and by definition Communism, is an evil shadow-version of Liberalism which claims to guarantee the promises of Liberalism by literally killing everyone and everything in their quest for utopia.
This should make sense to everyone if they are being honest, because every system has these 'evil shadow versions'. The shadow of Monarchism is autocracy. The shadow of Nationalism is a hermit-kingdom. The shadow of Christian Nationalism would be Divine Command Autocracy. The shadow of Libertarianism is PvP. The shadow of traditionalism is an unthinking appeal to ignorance.
I know a lot of the right likes traditionalism, but Carl himself made a video series entirely on: "All Cultures Are Beautiful". Most of the cultures he went over were people who were insane savages who developed traditions that we would consider evil. Whether it's the burning of widows alive, or horrific things being done to children, or human sacrifice... tradition is not necessarily enough on it's own. Everything has a shadow when you don't test it, or take it to extremes.
Unlike Connor, Neema Parvini, and the rest of the reactionary right; that doesn't mean we criminalize Liberalism and eliminate individual freedom. Liberalism will have to get replaced because it's axioms are false, but the majority of it works fine when applied against a state, by a people with a strong moral sentiment, a nationalistic mindset, and a desire to take individual responsibility. Liberalism responsibly, and we'll squeeze some more decades out of it.
Communism is downstream of liberalism. Carl Benjamin describes this better than I can so I'll just link the video here. (It's in the first few minutes of the stream.)
I know the argument. I'm saying he's wrong because you don't carry Liberalism downstream to the point you go off the waterfall.