No, hierarchies in society form naturally regardless of race or ethnic group.
Oligarchy is not the result of mere hierarchy. And it also matters if it's merit that lands you there or pure exploitative-amoral behavior. You could argue it's normal that it's the latter.
You're thinking that evidence of one jew in a hierarchy means evidence of a jewish racially controlled hierarchy.
One? Well, someone did some research and calculation. If the Rothschild wouldn't be artificially excluded from these lists, they'd all occupy the top 9. Of the "official" top 9, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg are jewish. So of the top 18 there are 12 jews, which makes it 66%. That's a little more than "one", isn't it?
There isn't a difference.
So you think discriminating against all races except your own, and discriminating against Whites only is practically the same? We are entering 2+2=5 area here. They are not the same, you just pretend it is out of ideological reasons. Maybe you believe the only relevant distinction is "racist" vs "non-racist"?
Yeah, those are the same thing, and it's not 'natural' behavior.
Preferring your own species, race and tribe is natural for humanity for its entire existence minus the past century for Whites, and natural for ALL other humans and animals. So what "ideology" are you talking about? "Common sense?"
or affiliated with, members of the NSDAP, who are championing the anti-white rhetoric they have now.
So do we have to talk about the very concept of "change"? This is just some wild, baseline nonsense in a desperate attempt to make a point. You know it's nonsense, but you will play it in hopes it lands.
Leftists of the past were "racist" by your definition, and it's quite plausible to assume they had interactions with the NSDAP, as they likely shared agendas. After WWII, things started to change. The Marxists have taken over the US Democrat party, and it slowly turned into the neo-Marxist mess it is today. Not a single person would vote for both, the US Democrats of the past and today.
So you think discriminating against all races except your own, and discriminating against Whites only is practically the same?
No, you're intentionally assuming things.
Preferring your own species, race and tribe is natural for humanity for its entire existence minus the past century for Whites, and natural for ALL other humans and animals.
No, you're intentionally conflating preference and "I will exclusively hire people of my race". That is ideological.
So what "ideology" are you talking about?
National Socialism.
Leftists of the past were "racist" by your definition, and it's quite plausible to assume they had interactions with the NSDAP, as they likely shared agendas.
Yes, because National Socialists are Leftists. Most of their agenda is the same.
After WWII, things started to change.
Yes, Leftism seeks to alter topical issues to push for Socialist revolution. Same reason why the Left is both for and against the working class today. They are against the anti-Left working class, while claiming that the pro-Left working class are the "real" working class.
Maybe you weren't clear with: "There isn't a difference."?
No, you're intentionally conflating preference and "I will exclusively hire people of my race". That is ideological.
So you think hiring 90% of a certain race ("preference") vs 100% ("exclusive") is such a big difference that one is ideological, and the other is natural? If we'd go by nature, it would be 99%+ btw... so wouldn't it make sense to assume the former with the "preference" is the ideological one that is deviating from the norm? Maybe an ideology that ignores everything except pure selfish monetary benefit, that is sociopathically utilitarian in that pursuit? At which % does it start to become more like the leftists' ideology? 75%? 60%? 50%? 0%? They literally have quotas btw.
National Socialism.
It's so weird how dangerously close that is to that "Common sense" ideology. Unless of course you consider "Nature" to contradict common sense... in that case damn that filthy evolution!
Yes, because National Socialists are Leftists. Most of their agenda is the same.
That's exactly what I said in the past too. Boy was that stupid. Common conservative rhetoric nonsense. But let me highlight their agendas in a comparison:
Marxist Socialists: They believe in "equality", believing all humans are born equal, and stripped of equality due to the inherent corruption of society. Thus altering society according to their ideas of wealth equality should bring society to a "fair" and "just" status.
Problem: Equality is a fabrication, a myth, entertained only as an idea, as fiction, but with no root in reality. So it ended in genocide and a LOT of corruption to a point bribery was often occurring.
National Socialists: They believe foreign interference causes harm to a nation, and that only natives of that country should be in charge of the country. They seek to eliminate harmful vectors like degeneracy and usury, usually coming from foreigners in order to improve all people of the country.
The rest? Not sure if that matters much, but being nationally protectionist is clearly important to them. Communists called them "capitalists" if that means anything.
And here is the third side: Conservatives: They have no inherent belief except to preserve the status quo, and maybe lean towards Libertarianism while ignoring all consequences in a naive way. They are patriotic to the imagination of what their country is, but they have zero intent to EVER restore it to its former glory. Instead they pride themselves about how they are not "racist" (and accuse leftists to be), how they are the ones who actually love homosexuality and transvestites. But it should just be reasonable, you know? At least inform the parents that you are going to chop their dicks off - that is the right amount of pushback for them. They long settled with the idea of homosexual marriage, and that the "cultural melting pot" is forever going to haunt them and their children.
The political spectrum is a triangle, "left" and "right" is insufficient to describe them. It leads to the mistake that you conflate 2 ideologies that are in staunch opposition to another.
It's so weird how dangerously close that is to that "Common sense" ideology. Unless of course you consider "Nature" to contradict common sense
Then let's get back to you admitting your bullshit.
This is not about you crying about 'common sense' and 'pointing out patterns'. This is me calling you out about Judeo-Capitalism, and you pretending to be stupid.
National Socialists: They believe foreign interference causes harm to a nation, and that only natives of that country should be in charge of the country.
Nope, this is an explicit lie. National Socialism is not nativistic, and it's not anti-foreign. It is about the gleichschaltung of a race into a Volksgemeinschaft administered by the state. "Foreigners" are not really a concept because it would not be within the state anyway. A state's boundaries become the boundaries of the 'blood'. It's not about removing foreign interference from a state, it's about abolishing that state and making a new one.
Nativism is totally irrelevant. The nation doesn't have to be of a region for the state to occupy it.
Oligarchy is not the result of mere hierarchy. And it also matters if it's merit that lands you there or pure exploitative-amoral behavior. You could argue it's normal that it's the latter.
One? Well, someone did some research and calculation. If the Rothschild wouldn't be artificially excluded from these lists, they'd all occupy the top 9. Of the "official" top 9, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg are jewish. So of the top 18 there are 12 jews, which makes it 66%. That's a little more than "one", isn't it?
So you think discriminating against all races except your own, and discriminating against Whites only is practically the same? We are entering 2+2=5 area here. They are not the same, you just pretend it is out of ideological reasons. Maybe you believe the only relevant distinction is "racist" vs "non-racist"?
Preferring your own species, race and tribe is natural for humanity for its entire existence minus the past century for Whites, and natural for ALL other humans and animals. So what "ideology" are you talking about? "Common sense?"
So do we have to talk about the very concept of "change"? This is just some wild, baseline nonsense in a desperate attempt to make a point. You know it's nonsense, but you will play it in hopes it lands.
Leftists of the past were "racist" by your definition, and it's quite plausible to assume they had interactions with the NSDAP, as they likely shared agendas. After WWII, things started to change. The Marxists have taken over the US Democrat party, and it slowly turned into the neo-Marxist mess it is today. Not a single person would vote for both, the US Democrats of the past and today.
Oligarchies are not inherently immoral nor amoral
No, you're intentionally assuming things.
No, you're intentionally conflating preference and "I will exclusively hire people of my race". That is ideological.
National Socialism.
Yes, because National Socialists are Leftists. Most of their agenda is the same.
Yes, Leftism seeks to alter topical issues to push for Socialist revolution. Same reason why the Left is both for and against the working class today. They are against the anti-Left working class, while claiming that the pro-Left working class are the "real" working class.
Maybe you weren't clear with: "There isn't a difference."?
So you think hiring 90% of a certain race ("preference") vs 100% ("exclusive") is such a big difference that one is ideological, and the other is natural? If we'd go by nature, it would be 99%+ btw... so wouldn't it make sense to assume the former with the "preference" is the ideological one that is deviating from the norm? Maybe an ideology that ignores everything except pure selfish monetary benefit, that is sociopathically utilitarian in that pursuit? At which % does it start to become more like the leftists' ideology? 75%? 60%? 50%? 0%? They literally have quotas btw.
It's so weird how dangerously close that is to that "Common sense" ideology. Unless of course you consider "Nature" to contradict common sense... in that case damn that filthy evolution!
That's exactly what I said in the past too. Boy was that stupid. Common conservative rhetoric nonsense. But let me highlight their agendas in a comparison:
Marxist Socialists: They believe in "equality", believing all humans are born equal, and stripped of equality due to the inherent corruption of society. Thus altering society according to their ideas of wealth equality should bring society to a "fair" and "just" status.
Problem: Equality is a fabrication, a myth, entertained only as an idea, as fiction, but with no root in reality. So it ended in genocide and a LOT of corruption to a point bribery was often occurring.
National Socialists: They believe foreign interference causes harm to a nation, and that only natives of that country should be in charge of the country. They seek to eliminate harmful vectors like degeneracy and usury, usually coming from foreigners in order to improve all people of the country.
The rest? Not sure if that matters much, but being nationally protectionist is clearly important to them. Communists called them "capitalists" if that means anything.
And here is the third side: Conservatives: They have no inherent belief except to preserve the status quo, and maybe lean towards Libertarianism while ignoring all consequences in a naive way. They are patriotic to the imagination of what their country is, but they have zero intent to EVER restore it to its former glory. Instead they pride themselves about how they are not "racist" (and accuse leftists to be), how they are the ones who actually love homosexuality and transvestites. But it should just be reasonable, you know? At least inform the parents that you are going to chop their dicks off - that is the right amount of pushback for them. They long settled with the idea of homosexual marriage, and that the "cultural melting pot" is forever going to haunt them and their children.
The political spectrum is a triangle, "left" and "right" is insufficient to describe them. It leads to the mistake that you conflate 2 ideologies that are in staunch opposition to another.
Then let's get back to you admitting your bullshit.
This is not about you crying about 'common sense' and 'pointing out patterns'. This is me calling you out about Judeo-Capitalism, and you pretending to be stupid.
Nope, this is an explicit lie. National Socialism is not nativistic, and it's not anti-foreign. It is about the gleichschaltung of a race into a Volksgemeinschaft administered by the state. "Foreigners" are not really a concept because it would not be within the state anyway. A state's boundaries become the boundaries of the 'blood'. It's not about removing foreign interference from a state, it's about abolishing that state and making a new one.
Nativism is totally irrelevant. The nation doesn't have to be of a region for the state to occupy it.