No, that's wrong. Only a minority of Spanish speakers could be considered white in Latin America (Spain is a different story, but arguably also not as white as Germany). Most people are mixed, they have white in them, but also indigenous blood, and often some black as well.
The "white revolutionaries" weren't "white". That word is not used in Latin America, the way it's used in the U.S., and nobody gives two shits about race there as most people are mixed already. (maybe now they're importing CRT but that's another issue).
They shouldn't have burned them. This is why censorship is wrong no matter what, either you want to let the discussion happen without restrictions, or you want the "wrong" discussions to persist as a warning/evidence that they have been discussed already. Burning/censoring is either tyranny or an invitation for those who were wrong to try again.
The idea that leftists want to control liberty focused people to feel good about their own lack of people isn't accurate.
They don't want control (a.k.a. power) because of lack of people... they want it because they think they have the moral authority. They know better... so as you outlined government has increasingly favored whoever wants more authority.
The whole though, it's people being pressured by the system and submitting to their system.
Yes, sheep, who overwhelmingly want socialism, ergo communism, which favors centralized authority because it needs some way to keep track of resources and people's behavior. Then this centralization gets corrupt quickly and you end up in a nightmare scenario. Compare this to a conservative that wants less government, and more individual level accountability, to decentralize authority, and prevent all of this in the first place.
What you now have is a government exuding its influence to pressure society in a manner which enhances its wealth and power.
So big government / authoritarian.
What you now have is a government exuding its influence to pressure society in a manner which enhances its wealth and power.
Again, big government / authoritarian.
You need to disrupt the government's ability to communicate to people so effectively.
So make the gov. smaller, by taking away its power, and its full control of public education (which is now almost literally brainwashing).
You're just outlining a case for being against "big gov.", and that all of this happened because gov. wants something that just happens to align with all these groups mentioned, like feminist. Regardless of how connected these are, they both agree so it becomes a moot point. The main problem is big gov. as you point out, and the people who want and enable this are a problem, because they just want the power as well.
In other words, maybe people should be free to do whatever they want to a great extent (or you know to the extent it was possible before cancel culture).
We can just do some simple deduction, "white" is a label, and for it to exist there has to have been a reason for a distinction that is in contrast to "white". In other words, probably nobody in medieval Europe was calling each other "white". The label came about from America and the need to distinguish between Africans (at the time) and Anglo-saxon colonists who later revolted against the rule of England.
Therefore strictly speaking white people are the direct descendants of English people, just like black people should be the direct descendants of the African slaves of the time. Everything past that became extensions to BOTH "races", which means any immigrant arriving to America at first would not identify as either. This includes Africans like Nigerians, many of which I have personally spoken with and told me they didn't identify as "black", and also other Europeans who would arrive and would experience a couple generations before being considered "white". This is especially true of southern Europeans that are already a very mixed group of people dating back tot he Roman Empire.
Now the terms have been changed beyond recognition, and is just a reference to light or dark skin tones, plus some CRT bullshit having to do with being oppressor or oppressed. Sadly everyone is somewhat embracing these terms anyway, and as usual, the Left has changed language and everyone is just jumping on board and using the new terms instead of pushing back or countering with better terminology.
Yes, it's because they are a cult of chaos and destruction. They don't build or create, only destroy by gender/race swapping and making shitty stories that don't fit the spirit of the franchise. This is literally part of their ideology, to take the past and change it / destroy it.
In ancient times, after a war, the victors would tear down the statues of the gods of those defeated, and sometimes take them back to their own gods as offerings. This is what is happening now, except it is a cultural war, and one side has been planning it for decades, while the other side only recently saw it coming.
Is there such a thing as collective individualists? So thinking for yourself but enforcing this value in a collective somehow, and at being hostile to collectivists as a collective of individualists? It seems contradictory, but I think that is what the Constitution was aiming for, it's just that it wasn't taught explicitly communicated this way.
We should have been enforcing the breaking up of minorities since the end of Jim Crow laws. If some group cannot self-segregate, no one should be able to, and any attempts to do so, especially in secret, should be punished by the law. Instead we only broke up the collectivism for one group of people only, while letting other groups organize themselves and live in their own cultures which increasingly hated on the dominant culture (not to mention in an ungrateful, under-appreciated way).
Right, even that core assumption is already on shaky ground. There is at least some reason to it,but I don't think it goes past a few generations though, and even then you need a very specific lense to trace back specific lineages instead of talkign about entire groups of cultures and races.
Men's physical form (i mean proper men, with some physical abilities and such), is directly coming from mechanical function. The shape of a bipedal ape that is meant to either run, or fight, takes on the form of a man. In fact, masculinity (et. muscle), is directly proportional to this mechanical function. I'm largely simplifying to make the following point: women's ideal body is about fertility, not mechanical function.
Now feminism comes along and basically downplays the role of fertility and motherhood (could also be the invention of the pill). This then causes feminists to be jealous of men's mechanically optimized bodies. In turn feminism gets used by communist ideologies to takeover Western society (or somehow goes mainstream), and this causes femininity to be under attack ... but not masculinity UNLESS you are man because then it means you're a toxic male. So in short, feminists have gained cultural momentum like never before, and it has helped in this inversion of ideals, and inversion of hierarchies (e.g. the new Victoria Secret model that looks like a boy).
Essentially feminism and its children, like trans ideologies, have gone to war against biology, but the huge irony is that because men's pysique is shaped by mechanical function, it follows that women who pursue this ideal will become men. By leaving behind fertility and motherhood, they are now effectively competing with men, except are a few million years behind.
I've been "studying" CRT in different forms, primarily watching videos on both sides (for and against) ...
CRT has a core that sounds reasonable, but everything surrounding it is basically snake oil salesman bullshit. The core of it is just attempting to draw a causality between historical events and current day "inequalities". There is something to be said about generational wealth, that does exist, and similarly, there could be said that there is generational poverty that people inherit (e.g. poor people don't get educated as much, so they pass on bad ideas to their children and those bad ideas hold them back, and the cycle continues).
Notice how I didn't have to invoke race in that explanation. I have seen many debates on this, and when pressed hard on the matter, the CRT proponents will try to blurr the connection in regards to race. The part where race comes in, is because of the historical analysis seen through a particular lense that demonizes only "white" Europeans.
They start layring a bunch of bullshit on this seemingly reasonable assumption that there is something to be said about inheriting wealth or poverty, and then the popular version just lays on top that it's "white supremacy's" fault. Then they jump through hoops, and do all kinds of tricks to just keep the blame on the mythical "whiteness".
Anyone who studies history enough can tell you it is much more complicated than "whites" going around conquering shit, although there was a time where this did happen, and people were definitely proper racist to a great extent. That is besides the point however, because nobody can really prove the direct causal link going so far back hundreds of years. Instead the real line of causality is communism, which started with Hegel, followed by Marx, then a bunch of other "philosophers" (more like marxist assholes) during the 20th century. This line of thinking is the one that keeps referring back to how history is still at play, and this line of thinking is the one being packaged by modern day communist because they are such hateful assholes they only want to destroy, and do so in the sneakiest possible way.
In general this is true because it's usually immigrants that appreciate America for what it has to offer. Black leftists take so much for granted and just focus on history and negative aspects of America it's a real shame. Zero appreciation that they have exported their culture around the world, from jazz, hip hop, athletes, and also get to enjoy first world access to technology, even for the poorest.
Right, that's not really the case anymore. I meant Germanic people. Cool song.