Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, I am quite capable of thinking objectively, and in fact do so quite often. No need for you to "force me to think about the world more objectively."
If society completely collapsed, you're right - I'd probably hunker down with my family. Well, get this -my immediate family looks like a UN delegation. We're very diverse. In my immediate family (parents, siblings, kids, their spouses, grandkids) we have white non Hispanics, Hispanics, several Koreans, and African Americans.
My family eagerly and willingly embraced diversity and maybe it's just because I notice it more - sort of like you don't notice how many people have a car just like yours till you buy one yourself - but all my life I've been surrounded by "voluntary diversity," starting with my military childhood.
So I guess you can go preach that stuff to someone else.
The military is a very abnormal environment, where families are broken-up and shipped around the world. I pity the children of military families, because they generally have attachment disorders. Since they are usually shipped to a totally different state/country every few years.
The marriages between military men and foreign women almost always fail. Especially once they leave the military.
Don't even get me started on the mental-health problems strongly associated with being in the military. Especially those who have seen active-combat.
I hate to sound like a jerk, but I can almost-guarantee that your family is completely dysfunctional, and probably lives hundreds of miles away from each other.
You might have a good relationship with your mom, but not much more than that.
I understand that many service-men pick up a foreign wife when stationed in Korea, or some other country. But most of the women who they find there, tend to be rather unusual women, who badly want to come to America, or have some other American fetish(think of mail-order bridges for reference).
When my friend was stationed in Korea, outside of his base, there were tons of women who's only goal was to find an American man to marry them and take them back to the states.
That's just it, the Democrat Politburo realized that "racist" was getting old, and worse, could be used against non-whites when they display racist behavior, believe it or not that can happen, can you imagine! So the order went out to use "white supremacist" or "white nationalist" which are fresher, imply a connection to the KKK and best of all, can't be appropriated against non-whites. And the mindless, brainwashed comrades of that party are having at it with the new epithets, for example the notoriously addled Pelosi. Good thing she has someone else's words to copy.
Aren't we lucky to have the Democrats to call out hateful behavior for us? Watching them, we know just what it is.
Just like they went from "liberal" to 'progressive" and "global warming" to "climate change", etc.
Tell me, what do you think would happen to NYC without the police?
One of my critiques of libertarianism, was always that libertarianism only works in largely-rural areas. Libertarianism CANNOT work in a densely-populated city.
If there were no police, Manhattan would be overrun with crime, just as it was prior to Giuliani putting an officer on every corner. The subways would be unusable, and it would be impossible to even get around the city.
The problems in the Bronx and Harlem would move south, and all the rich people would leave the city.
As the police might say, "There is a thin blue line between order and chaos".
What do you think would be happening in New York City right now, or in other major cities, if there were no police? What do you think would happen to Trump Tower?
New York City can't exist without a heavy police presence. And the massive wealth-inequality couldn't either.
Please give the libertarian schtick a rest. It seems to be influencing your rationale. Your assertions are internally inconsistent & therefore muddled. I asked about your extraordinary claim that, "All of these vibrant diverse neighborhoods are all artificial." Artificial? How so? They exist in the real world & were formed by all sorts of natural circumstances, human beings are part of the natural world, we live in ever changing environments, including ever changing conditions. Diversity in nature is naturally occurring & is ever present. No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river & he's not the same man.' (Heraclitus)
I don't think it's helpful to describe Libertarianism as something akin to Scientology. It'd be more helpful to describe it for what it is - a failed ideology in the free & unfettered marketplace of ideas.
But why does libertarianism fail?
We need to understand that the goal of all governments, is more power. And as a general rule, to achieve greater power, it requires greater economic growth(IE more money). But to achieve economic growth, it requires large-scale cooperation and social-stability, for the purpose of economic growth.
Libertarianism would not create large-scale cooperation or social-stability, and that is why it cannot be allowed.
Our government hates diversity, but it must embrace it to a certain extent, because it wants to not only keep our diverse society together, but it wants to expand its influence over other territories as well(and their resources/markets/labor/etc).
My objection to government, is that the prerogatives of governments are always secular. And what that really means is, all governments are "amoral".
All governments must do whatever is in their national interests, regardless of if the act itself is moral or immoral. A government limited by morality, would merely be limited, and thus weak. A government not limited by morality, could do anything and everything which furthered its interests.
My seeming hostility to diversity, is not derived from any sense of hatred. But merely that I believe that the nature of diverse peoples living together, is not only artificial, but that it leads people to behave immorally.
Keep in mind, all morality is derived from "behaving unselfishly". Our society incentivizes, and even encourages, selfishness. Selfishness is what this country is built on. Greed is good, so to speak.
And that is what I am crusading against. People being selfish and irresponsible, and ultimately hurting others as a result.
Please give the libertarian schtick a rest. It seems to be influencing your rationale. Your assertions are internally inconsistent & therefore muddled. I asked about your extraordinary claim that, "All of these vibrant diverse neighborhoods are all artificial." Artificial? How so? They exist in the real world & were formed by all sorts of natural circumstances, human beings are part of the natural world, we live in ever changing environments, including ever changing conditions. Diversity in the nature is naturally occurring & is ever present. No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river & he's not the same man.' (Heraclitus)
Without government, diversity has never existed. Our government, through its policies, is what has created, or enabled the world to be what it is today.
There is no way for different people to live in close-proximity to each other, without fighting. And the more-different they are, the more-likely they are to come to blows.
I don't just mean black and white, I mean rich and poor as well, among many other "class divides".
Manhattan has the most income-inequality in the entire country. You can't have a bunch of poor people, living only a few feet from the richest people on Earth, without an officer standing between them.
The world is obviously significantly different today, than it was a thousand, or ten-thousand years ago. It is only through these institutions, as well as through force and propaganda, that we can even continue to live like this.
We do not live in a "natural environment", humans were not evolved to live in this environment. Everything around you is artificial.
The only question is whether this artificial world is "good", or if it is "bad". My contention is that it is evil. And continues to get worse.
Good. Every decent man is a nationalist(though their definition of nation can vary).
Nation, broadly-speaking, merely refers to a "tribe"(IE the Cherokee Nation). America is not a nation in the traditional sense of the word. It is just a "state". Or really, a pseudo-empire.
We need to understand that the goal of all governments, is more power. And as a general rule, to achieve greater power, it requires greater economic growth(IE more money). But to achieve economic growth, it requires large-scale cooperation and social-stability, for the purpose of economic growth.
Libertarianism would not create large-scale cooperation or social-stability, and that is why it cannot be allowed.
Our government hates diversity, but it must embrace it to a certain extent, because it wants to not only keep our diverse society together, but it wants to expand its influence over other territories as well(and their resources/markets/labor/etc).
My objection to government, is that the prerogatives of governments are always secular. And what that really means is, all governments are "amoral".
All governments must do whatever is in their national interests, regardless of if the act itself is moral or immoral. A government limited by morality, would merely be limited, and thus weak. A government not limited by morality, could do anything and everything which furthered its interests.
My seeming hostility to diversity, is not derived from any sense of hatred. But merely that I believe that the nature of diverse peoples living together, is not only artificial, but that it leads people to behave immorally.
Keep in mind, all morality is derived from "behaving unselfishly". Our society incentivizes, and even encourages, selfishness. Selfishness is what this country is built on. Greed is good, so to speak.
And that is what I am crusading against. People being selfish and irresponsible, and ultimately hurting others as a result.
Previously you said something like "when you used to be a libertarian"? You seem to have embroidered this artificial worldview over the real one.
I gotta go now & deal with the artificial foot of snow outside my door .
You said somewhere previously:
"Though I do want to point out that whites in America are not a monoculture."
Is this the artificial type of diversity? Or the police forced type? Or the proper libertarian ordained type?
Is this the artificial type of diversity? Or the police forced type? Or the proper libertarian ordained type?
The United States is an artificial country. The only reason this country even exists, is because we stole it from the Native-Americans. And the only reason there are even black people here, is because we chained them up and forced them to come here.
On many occasions, parts of America threatened or attempted to break-away. With the most-famous case of this being the Civil-War. And the only reason this country continues to exist, is because this government killed hundreds of thousands of people to prevent secession. And it would gladly march in hundreds of thousands of soldiers, today, to put down any other attempt at secession.
You've got hundreds of thousands of foreigners living in this country now, who fly flags of other countries, and are only here for the money. And the only reason these people are even allowed to be here, is because the big business-interests in this country want cheap labor. And they use their money and influence to make sure nothing is done about them.
Most of the people in this country hate each other. They only tolerate things as they are, because they see no alternative, or because they want to be in power.
Look around you. When someone says they love America, they merely love their little slice of America, or what they imagine America is. Most of these so-called America lovers, wish California would secede, or better-yet, fall into the ocean.
They don't love America, at least not for what it is. But merely for what they imagine America is, or was, or should be.
So you're an American nationalist who happens to be black
Not the same thing as a white nationalist whose goal is to kick out all non-whites (some Asian sex slaves probably excepted). They are not American nationalist who happen to be white
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.