Does the Alt-Right event exist? Or just Clinton fiction?

[oleander89]

Well, first, "nationalism" has two different meanings: related to nations, and related to nationalities. I've been talking about the latter. The former (pride in your country) is also pretty silly, IMO, but it isn't necessarily malicious. It is wrong, because believing that your country is somehow special introduces bias and arrogance. To be objective and see the world as it is, you need to acknowledge that your country is just one of many, it is not something to be "proud" of - especially since you aren't the one having built it, so there really is little reason for pride.

Nationalists don't necessarily believe their country is superior. They think their country is best fit for their people and prefer to have lawmakers who are there to support their country and their people, rather than international banks and people who think they are making the world a better place for democracy by dropping bombs on 3rd world nations.

[Paranoid Android]

And Europeans were the ones to create the market that turned it into large scale industrial slave taking, and they were the ones to make race the basis of slavery.

How sad and silly that people cannot open a history book or hopefully taught somewhere along their American/World history in high school. I'm not making my shit up.

[Spectral]

This is exactly how I feel about it. The generic "white American culture" is frankly, so bland and boring I couldn't even name what they want to preserve, guns and apple pie?

Are there any other cultures that you'd say the same of? What's your take on the position that Native American culture is so silly that it's not worth preserving - like what are they even about, feathers and tobacco? Or similar takes on African or Asian cultures of various sorts?

At the bare minimum, you can surely see why those bland white Americans might be unenthusiastic about the eradication of their own culture?

[JohnBrown1917]

The Lefts refusal to even really deal with or address things happening in Europe such as in Germany on New Years Eve, vis a vis the so-called refugees. The problem is things like that reveal inherent contradictions as to who the Left globally has solidarity with.

So you named Germany, which has Merkel as a centre-rigth leader.

'Refugees' is rather broad, so you have to be more specific.
Because allowing in refugees is not even something I would say is a bad thing.

[oleander89]

So you named Germany, which has Merkel as a centre-rigth leader.

'Refugees' is rather broad, so you have to be more specific.
Because allowing in refugees is not even something I would say is a bad thing.

It's a bad thing when it threatens the safety of the citizens of your country.

[Spectral]

And capitalism is synonymous with Mass poverty, slave trade and abusing lesser devolped countries, we can do this for everything.

This is so obviously wrong as to be idiotic. Capitalist nations were the earliest to ban slavery as a practice and had the largest impact in raising humans out of poverty.

but here is a hint, Marx's communism is stateless. So again, find me a country that fits his vision. either that, or admit Marx was not guilty for the Sovjet Gulags, Because Stalin sure as hell did not follow the vision of Marx.

If someone advocates an ideology that has entirely predictable consequences that play out over and over again, the individual that concocted the ideology in the first place does bare some responsibility. Admittedly, Marx may not have known how awful his ideology was, but the lunatics that still push his failed, murderous ideology today have no such excuse.

Is the red scare really still so strong in the US?

You'll forgive me, as a bourgeois motherfucker, for not being enthusiastic about ideologies that advocate stripping bourgeois motherfuckers of all their material goods and occasionally smashing their skulls in while they're at it.

[Deleted]

So you named Germany, which has Merkel as a centre-rigth leader.

The dominant thought structure is left wing.

Because allowing in refugees is not even something I would say is a bad thing.

What would you think is the more moral choice?
A, help 100 refugees in refugee camps get enough food to not starve.
B, Take in one refugee in Europe?

[Spectral]

This is not the definition I tend to use, but I think nationalism in this sense is pretty wrong as well. Truly spectacular results happen when multiple nations are working together; being attached to your nation, rather than to the full world of nations, is very limiting. The US historically was basically formed by people rejecting nationalism and leaving their nations in pursue of happiness overseas - that's one of the major reasons it's been the world leader for such a long time.

There's nothing in the quoted link that suggests that nations shouldn't cooperate.

[JohnBrown1917]

It's a bad thing when it threatens the safety of the citizens of your country.

Arrest them if they break the law?

Is this really the only problem you can come up with from the 'global left', not to mention how its silly to generalize half the political spectrum. our most left-wing party is neither pro or anti-refugee and are euro skeptic.

[Deleted]

There's nothing in the quoted link that suggests that nations shouldn't cooperate.

Besides, the most successful international organisation today is the EU - A very loose confederation of nation states.

[primalmatter]

Regardless, it was bad. Bad when the Africans did it, bad when the middle east did it, bad when Europeans did it. We only deal with the effects of European style slavery here in the US, though.

No you deal with the end result of the African slave trade... Europeans ended it... You have the roles reversed.

[Felya]

Europeans were the last ones to the slave game. The middle east were the first large scale buyers that are recorded. They did however require that each slave be castrated before being sold.

Before Civil War, the biggest abolishion period was when the British freed northern slaves during war of 1812:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

Which is why the original Star Spangled Banner, included these lyrics:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...pangled_Banner

[JohnBrown1917]

This is so obviously wrong as to be idiotic. Capitalist nations were the earliest to ban slavery as a practice and had the largest impact in raising humans out of poverty.

ever heard of the coup in Chile? The huge wealth gaps that exist in capitalism? The wars started because of corprate intrest? The damage caused by the Dutch empire? The Atlantic slave trade that was started by an capitalistic country?

If someone advocates an ideology that has entirely predictable consequences that play out over and over again, the individual that concocted the ideology in the first place does bare some responsibility. Admittedly, Marx may not have known how awful his ideology was, but the lunatics that still push his failed, murderous ideology today have no such excuse.

That is not how this works, at all.
Marx has no murderous intent, What Stalin did to it probably made him turn in his grave so hard that we could generate enough energy for thousands of years for the whole world.

You'll forgive me, as a bourgeois motherfucker, for not being enthusiastic about ideologies that advocate stripping bourgeois motherfuckers of all their material goods and occasionally smashing their skulls in while they're at it.

And where exactly did Marx write that the rich should be killed?


But with people like you, its no wonder Marxism exists.
Almost makes me convert to it, if it was not impossible to implant.

[May90]

Nationalists don't necessarily believe their country is superior. They think their country is best fit for their people and prefer to have lawmakers who are there to support their country and their people, rather than international banks and people who think they are making the world a better place for democracy by dropping bombs on 3rd world nations.

Not superior, but special - that's enough to have a very strong bias and twisted perspective. What you are talking about (focusing on your nation's interests) is not as much nationalism as it is isolationism. Which is also a pretty terrible policy, for similar reasons: all countries are intertwined in the modern world, and if you want your country to be okay, then you have to invest in actions towards and, sometimes, against other countries as well.

There's nothing in the quoted link that suggests that nations shouldn't cooperate.

For nations to cooperate most effectively, they shouldn't be seen as nations, only as a single entity.

[Paranoid Android]

Before Civil War, the biggest abolishion period was when the British freed northern slaves during war of 1812:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

Which is why the original Star Spangled Banner, included these lyrics:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...pangled_Banner

Don't you love the defense of "Europeans were the last ones to the slave game". Why are they even defending slavery?

Hey guys, we were last people who bought slaves. So our slavery is not as bad as previous slavery. LuL

[primalmatter]

Another person who cannot handle the truth.

Again I gave you sources. Basically I did your the work for you. Where again "Slave trade was no different than many other countries. Most was same a Europe, as indentured servitude.

Since you can't take facts, you want to make it that Europeans who DEMANDED slaves, thus its people of Africa's fault. Oh btw the Portuguese created the slave trade by bringing slaves to Brazil plantations.



Source: .Deborah Gray White, Mia Bay, and Waldo E. Martin, Jr., Freedom on My Mind: A History of African Americans (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013), 11

Plain and simple for you. Africans did not ship slaves to the new world.

They traded for slaves they never captured slaves of their own ( or if they did it was in such small numbers to be insignificant.

I suggest you try reading some of the Wikipedia sources your link.

[Bakis]

What happened to his face?

[Paranoid Android]

No you deal with the end result of the African slave trade... Europeans ended it... You have the roles reversed.

You are saying they (Europeans) ended something they created? Very noble of them.

[primalmatter]

You are saying they (Europeans) ended something they created? Very noble of them.

They didn't create the slave trade so I don't really know what you are getting at.

Tell me you don't think the west was the only one buying slaves do you?

[JohnBrown1917]

Don't you love the defense of "Europeans were the last ones to the slave game". Why are they even defending slavery?

Hey guys, we were last people who bought slaves. So our slavery is not as bad as previous slavery. LuL

Nobody remembers the romans?