Let me guess, something, something, "moral equivalency," something something "Hamas," something something "right to defend," something something "antisemitism."
EDIT: Sentences #2 and #3:
The Jews were scapegoated and oppressed in nearly every country...Israel was re-established...a solution to this Holocaust-generating problem...
So far, it's worse than I feared. We continue.
The "English" are also a bit of a complicated mix of people-groups, if you want to get really ethnic about it.
The English don't exist, bigot.
Your reply, of course, will be that England is under precisely this kind of threat now, and might be forced to...establish an ethnostate like Israel...(making England not England), which has never applied to the Israeli circumstance.
What does he mean by this?!
Since then, you've just been frantic to catch me in some kind of contradiction so you can recover face...
What an egotistical, retarded cunt. No one thinks Sargon needs to "save face," no matter how you feel about him. James Lindsay really is just a ridiculous and delusional boomer, it's actually insane.
What generally happens when these things are adopted out of desperation, rather than as with Israel by covenant (rather than as a Volksgemeinschaft)...
Weird.
Israel doesn't do anything like that, which is actually a key difference, since you wanted one.
AMALEK. "G-d's" Chosen People vs Goyim. The list goes on.
If England made an ethnostate by covenant with its long history, that ethnostate would be... English Liberal. And then what?
I mean...
They're currently aiming for non-English, and a mix of liberal and foreign religious zealotry.
Btw, it's worth mentioning that while discussing German citizenship in the Third Reich, Hitler made implicit references to his intentions as such in Mein Kampf, explaining that people who weren't true ethnic Germans would be sent to nations where they belong if they didn't like being second-class citizens
Honestly, more sensible than the alternative. More sensible than what they've done to us over the last century.
...after recognizing that Jews and Romani people were stateless (therefore would have to be dealt with somehow else...).
"dealt with somehow else" started as just trying to get other people to take them. Yeah, it got dark from there, but acting like because they were stateless the plan was always to slaughter them is pretty disingenuous. If that were the case, why did Germany beg other nations to take them? Now, true, it wasn't the other nations' job, and they had a right to protect their own people too, so you can say that was naive and entitled. But it wasn't zero-to-genocide like Lindsay is laying out here.
The real question is how you keep your ethno-England off that road if you start going down it now.
First decent thing he said in this wall of text. He's correct that atrocities is the danger, when it comes to trying to separate the interlopers from the citizen. We didn't create this problem, but we still have to be damn careful how we go about solving it, or it will get nasty. Maybe the liberals should have given more offramps, instead of injecting these outsiders nonstop, and calling anyone who objects Nazis, when they weren't. If there is a nasty reaction, it won't be our side that caused it. It still won't be justified, if atrocities happen...but it will be understandable.
Linsday is being insufferable here. Conflation of England and Britain to this degree ought to be criminal.
Diversity is coded into the BRITISH identity, which is necessarily an amalgam of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. The chickens of empire being forced to roost in BRITAIN can be (poorly) argued, but ENGLAND as a cultural unit is ethno-national.
English people are revolting because the British elites no longer represent them. London is occupied territory and ethnic cleansing has been underway against them for some time.
Coming from someone as dedicated as Lindsay is to declaring the nuance and particulars of meanings in every word spoken by the radical left, this conflation of terms cannot be anything other than malicious.
That was my primary focus anyway, but I would argue I got the others, too, at least in the ballpark. Antisemitism for sure, and "right to defend" somewhat, although admittedly not in the way I expected. Hamas wasn't explicitly mentioned, but the same reasoning was used, I'd argue:
because of "the neighborhood" and the circumstances it was established as an ethnostate with Jewish-specific privileges
Funny how all these rules and concepts about who does and doesn't deserve states never mattered to white people in African states. Every black tribe in Rhodesia was given the same political power, while the white west removed political power from the minority whites. Funny how English identity can't be codified but disparate black tribes are suddenly just equal Rhodesian, Ugandan, South African, etc.
It's like everything else there's no principle behind it, it's just removing the power of white people and deploying it to the "historically oppressed."
The mistake was allowing a debate in the first place, if you are stronger you know the best way to build a civilization.
Blame it on Socrates, that bastard was the first loser that did activism against those that were building civilization, which is why he was imprisoned and died.
Before Socrates the country's identity was strong and anyone outside it was a potential enemy or something to pillage to make your country better. No understandings, no debates and no multiculturalism.
Wait, wasn't his "activism" to warn people that institutional democracy was a potential snake-in-the-grass? I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that's what they termed as "corrupting the youth."
And immediately after establishing itself, israel began oppressing it's neighbors and meddling in the affairs of nations all over the world. Jews were kept in check for a reason, they're a deceitful people. They believe they can trick their own god, why would they have any scruples for those they openly refer to as cattle?
…because there’s a logical counter argument that completely invalidates my stupid bullshit, and I’ll try to beat you to the punchline so I somehow seem like less of an abject dumb fuck.
The logic is Israel needs an ethnostate to protect Jews but English people don't need it because no holocaust happened to them yet? Do they need to be almost extinct before they're allowed to by James Lindsay?
If having their ethnostate protects from genocide does it not stand to reason that every people need an ethnostate?
If Europeans do not need genocide protection while being invaded and turned in to minorities in their ancestral lands you need a much better case then British people are diverse.
Imma start this with: no countries have a right to exist. All countries may be dissolved by their nations at will. Nations do not necessarily need countries, but they may seek them if this is their choice.
The Jews were scapegoated and oppressed in nearly every country...
Blah blah blah. Everyone has a sob story. Jews, as a religion, do not require a state, and lived without one for thousands of years. Jews, like many other nations or religions, may live without a state. Having a state doesn't not prevent oppression. All of this line of argumentation is irrelevant.
More specifically, collective rights may exist, again, without a state. In fact, the jews at many different points and times were given collective privileges by non-jewish states.
England has never been under this kind of threat, at least not since the Normans 960 years ago, and not quite so severely
Being good at war doesn't invalidate 'collective rights'.
The "English" are also a bit of a complicated mix of people-groups, if you want to get really ethnic about it.
No one wants to have this conversation. Sorry, but religions are always going to be less homogenous than specific indigenous, geographically local, genetically similar, nations. The English are more of a homogenous people than Jews are. You just have a bunch of Ashkenazi Jews (and a swathe of Jew haters) pretending that Jews don't come in forms outside of Ashkenazi, and definitely aren't in Ethiopia, China, Russia, or Iraq. Then you've got the European Neo-Liberal Jews pretending that they're super homogenous, despite being atheists, and intermarrying with non-jews for several generations, because they are wearing a skin suit.
or to take steps to establish an ethnostate like Israel as the last means of defending itself. That, of course, means abandoning the English tradition (making England not England), which has never applied to the Israeli circumstance.
England was more of an ethno-state than Israel. That's why Israel wanted to import European Jews, and the English didn't have to go anywhere. I may be a Civic Nationalist, but that's because I'm an American patriot. We created a nation that wasn't there before. We are engaging in ethnogenesis. The English never did.
The Israelis, specifically the Zionists created a civic, secular, progressive identity draped in the clothing of ethnic group, which it really isn't.
you trying to pass off that Marx isn't a collectivist, which is bar-none the dumbest thing you've ever said.
This is a fair criticism. Carl doesn't want to accept that Communism, even Rousseauian Liberalism, is effectively antithetical to Liberalism. Liberalism is trying to have political freedom, but at a certain point the Leftists are screaming that to be truly free you have to become the new socialist man and that means being an abject slave to the state. The outcome is collectivist, not individualist.
If you want to set up England as an ethnostate, you'll almost certainly fail, catastrophically for your country and your people, and whether you do or don't, good damn luck to you with what you get as a result
Bro, it was an ethno-state in, like, 1984.
England isn't even a state on its own yet, so you've got some work ahead of you, and good luck untangling your people groups.
Aroo??? It's literally a kingdom. It's blended in with the Act of Union, but it does exist.
he leadership of the ethnostates start looking for things to blame.
This could be done, but doesn't have to be. Just because a country is ethnically homogenous (or at least majority), it doesn't mean that the state has to engage in resentment mongering for the population. Denmark has been an ethno-state for it's post-imperial period, and it doesn't hyper-fixate on the dangers of the Belgians.
You're confusing a government of a homogenous society, with Communists.
If England made an ethnostate by covenant with its long history, that ethnostate would be... English Liberal. And then what?
It would just be England. I grant you that the Anglo mind tends toward Liberalism, but that doesn't mean that the Communist is the end-state of the English. The English may dispense with Liberalism in the same way they chose to dispense with Catholicism.
Hitler made implicit references to his intentions as such in Mein Kampf, explaining that people who weren't true ethnic Germans would be sent to nations where they belong if they didn't like being second-class citizens after recognizing that Jews and Romani people were stateless (therefore would have to be dealt with somehow else...). The real question is how you keep your ethno-England off that road if you start going down it now.
It's simple: you don't murder everyone like a fucking lunatic National Socialist, and you don't demographically replace yourself with mass migration like a lunatic Fabian Socialist.
Being a "second class citizen" because you're a foreigner who isn't integrating is not a problem. It's a feature. Colonies are always a bad idea, even for the colonist. They will need to assimilate or leave. Again, problems don't have to be solved with Left Wing Death Squads.
What we've learned from Lindsey here is that Gypsies deserve their own brutal fascist ethnostate somewhere, supported by trillions of dollars of military and supportive aid from effectively the entire world.
I suggest we use Ukraine, since its fracturing already. Just take a chunk of it from the edge of Crimea to the ocean, and make it Gypsiland, and give it a hundred nukes.
I immediately regret this decision.
Let me guess, something, something, "moral equivalency," something something "Hamas," something something "right to defend," something something "antisemitism."
EDIT: Sentences #2 and #3:
So far, it's worse than I feared. We continue.
The English don't exist, bigot.
What does he mean by this?!
What an egotistical, retarded cunt. No one thinks Sargon needs to "save face," no matter how you feel about him. James Lindsay really is just a ridiculous and delusional boomer, it's actually insane.
Weird.
AMALEK. "G-d's" Chosen People vs Goyim. The list goes on.
I mean...
They're currently aiming for non-English, and a mix of liberal and foreign religious zealotry.
Honestly, more sensible than the alternative. More sensible than what they've done to us over the last century.
"dealt with somehow else" started as just trying to get other people to take them. Yeah, it got dark from there, but acting like because they were stateless the plan was always to slaughter them is pretty disingenuous. If that were the case, why did Germany beg other nations to take them? Now, true, it wasn't the other nations' job, and they had a right to protect their own people too, so you can say that was naive and entitled. But it wasn't zero-to-genocide like Lindsay is laying out here.
First decent thing he said in this wall of text. He's correct that atrocities is the danger, when it comes to trying to separate the interlopers from the citizen. We didn't create this problem, but we still have to be damn careful how we go about solving it, or it will get nasty. Maybe the liberals should have given more offramps, instead of injecting these outsiders nonstop, and calling anyone who objects Nazis, when they weren't. If there is a nasty reaction, it won't be our side that caused it. It still won't be justified, if atrocities happen...but it will be understandable.
What a coinkydink
diversity is codified into the English identity (can't imagine why he'd think that)
Yeah, just ask him how Israel is planning to deal with the mooslims in Gaza
Edit: Apparently, gypsies are entitled to an ethnostate by any means necessary... Uhm, epic?
"If you smell shit everywhere you go..."
Linsday is being insufferable here. Conflation of England and Britain to this degree ought to be criminal.
Diversity is coded into the BRITISH identity, which is necessarily an amalgam of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. The chickens of empire being forced to roost in BRITAIN can be (poorly) argued, but ENGLAND as a cultural unit is ethno-national.
English people are revolting because the British elites no longer represent them. London is occupied territory and ethnic cleansing has been underway against them for some time.
Coming from someone as dedicated as Lindsay is to declaring the nuance and particulars of meanings in every word spoken by the radical left, this conflation of terms cannot be anything other than malicious.
100% correct. If this site has balls it’d be stickied.
mostly just the 'moral equivalency'. In that he claims there isn't one between Jews and the English because [INSERT HISTORICAL GRIEVANCE].
That was my primary focus anyway, but I would argue I got the others, too, at least in the ballpark. Antisemitism for sure, and "right to defend" somewhat, although admittedly not in the way I expected. Hamas wasn't explicitly mentioned, but the same reasoning was used, I'd argue:
Funny how all these rules and concepts about who does and doesn't deserve states never mattered to white people in African states. Every black tribe in Rhodesia was given the same political power, while the white west removed political power from the minority whites. Funny how English identity can't be codified but disparate black tribes are suddenly just equal Rhodesian, Ugandan, South African, etc.
It's like everything else there's no principle behind it, it's just removing the power of white people and deploying it to the "historically oppressed."
The mistake was allowing a debate in the first place, if you are stronger you know the best way to build a civilization.
Blame it on Socrates, that bastard was the first loser that did activism against those that were building civilization, which is why he was imprisoned and died.
Before Socrates the country's identity was strong and anyone outside it was a potential enemy or something to pillage to make your country better. No understandings, no debates and no multiculturalism.
Wait, wasn't his "activism" to warn people that institutional democracy was a potential snake-in-the-grass? I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that's what they termed as "corrupting the youth."
He knows his argument falls apart when you introduce non historically hostile immigrants to Israel, right? Let's enrich them with thousands of jeets
words words words
The truth tends to be concise while lies are complex.
And immediately after establishing itself, israel began oppressing it's neighbors and meddling in the affairs of nations all over the world. Jews were kept in check for a reason, they're a deceitful people. They believe they can trick their own god, why would they have any scruples for those they openly refer to as cattle?
One of the worst parts about Christians is that they don't even read their own book.
The worst part about Jews is that they do.
He stands for the people he supports, no surprise.
James Lindsay, Faggot
"The ethnic identity of Britain is being genocided. If Britain doesn't get genocided, it's not Britain anymore!"
I hate this faggot so much.
…because there’s a logical counter argument that completely invalidates my stupid bullshit, and I’ll try to beat you to the punchline so I somehow seem like less of an abject dumb fuck.
Christ, James Lindsay is an insufferable faggot.
they always cry antisemitism, but never tell you why...
The logic is Israel needs an ethnostate to protect Jews but English people don't need it because no holocaust happened to them yet? Do they need to be almost extinct before they're allowed to by James Lindsay?
If having their ethnostate protects from genocide does it not stand to reason that every people need an ethnostate?
If Europeans do not need genocide protection while being invaded and turned in to minorities in their ancestral lands you need a much better case then British people are diverse.
Imma start this with: no countries have a right to exist. All countries may be dissolved by their nations at will. Nations do not necessarily need countries, but they may seek them if this is their choice.
Blah blah blah. Everyone has a sob story. Jews, as a religion, do not require a state, and lived without one for thousands of years. Jews, like many other nations or religions, may live without a state. Having a state doesn't not prevent oppression. All of this line of argumentation is irrelevant.
More specifically, collective rights may exist, again, without a state. In fact, the jews at many different points and times were given collective privileges by non-jewish states.
Being good at war doesn't invalidate 'collective rights'.
No one wants to have this conversation. Sorry, but religions are always going to be less homogenous than specific indigenous, geographically local, genetically similar, nations. The English are more of a homogenous people than Jews are. You just have a bunch of Ashkenazi Jews (and a swathe of Jew haters) pretending that Jews don't come in forms outside of Ashkenazi, and definitely aren't in Ethiopia, China, Russia, or Iraq. Then you've got the European Neo-Liberal Jews pretending that they're super homogenous, despite being atheists, and intermarrying with non-jews for several generations, because they are wearing a skin suit.
England was more of an ethno-state than Israel. That's why Israel wanted to import European Jews, and the English didn't have to go anywhere. I may be a Civic Nationalist, but that's because I'm an American patriot. We created a nation that wasn't there before. We are engaging in ethnogenesis. The English never did.
The Israelis, specifically the Zionists created a civic, secular, progressive identity draped in the clothing of ethnic group, which it really isn't.
This is a fair criticism. Carl doesn't want to accept that Communism, even Rousseauian Liberalism, is effectively antithetical to Liberalism. Liberalism is trying to have political freedom, but at a certain point the Leftists are screaming that to be truly free you have to become the new socialist man and that means being an abject slave to the state. The outcome is collectivist, not individualist.
Bro, it was an ethno-state in, like, 1984.
Aroo??? It's literally a kingdom. It's blended in with the Act of Union, but it does exist.
This could be done, but doesn't have to be. Just because a country is ethnically homogenous (or at least majority), it doesn't mean that the state has to engage in resentment mongering for the population. Denmark has been an ethno-state for it's post-imperial period, and it doesn't hyper-fixate on the dangers of the Belgians.
You're confusing a government of a homogenous society, with Communists.
It would just be England. I grant you that the Anglo mind tends toward Liberalism, but that doesn't mean that the Communist is the end-state of the English. The English may dispense with Liberalism in the same way they chose to dispense with Catholicism.
It's simple: you don't murder everyone like a fucking lunatic National Socialist, and you don't demographically replace yourself with mass migration like a lunatic Fabian Socialist.
Being a "second class citizen" because you're a foreigner who isn't integrating is not a problem. It's a feature. Colonies are always a bad idea, even for the colonist. They will need to assimilate or leave. Again, problems don't have to be solved with Left Wing Death Squads.
What we've learned from Lindsey here is that Gypsies deserve their own brutal fascist ethnostate somewhere, supported by trillions of dollars of military and supportive aid from effectively the entire world.
I suggest we use Ukraine, since its fracturing already. Just take a chunk of it from the edge of Crimea to the ocean, and make it Gypsiland, and give it a hundred nukes.