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.
I don't condone any of the utter nonsense and stupidity that went down on both sides of that event. But one thing that has come out is all of the public outing of "racists" on twitter where people are posting pictures and identifying people in the crowd. One guy has already lost his job just because there were photos of him at the rally (fired by a restaurant in Berkeley surprise surprise). I don't personally agree with much of the politics of either side, but this is still the United States of America right? Doesn't everyone in this country have the right to gather under the First Amendment regardless of how offensive their views might be to anyone else?
This is just one example of the slippery slope this entire country is heading down on both sides toward civil war. And every day this stuff weakens us it only makes North Korea stronger, ISIS stronger and everyone that wants to destroy the American way of life because we're all doing it for them.
No. What you do in your spare time is none of your employer's business. (With a few obvious exceptions, like your job is the company's PR guy.)
I agree, I don't like the witch hunt aspect of some of this.
I believe also there is a lot of hypocrisy and many people advocating that white nation existence is 'racist' would not advocate that for other nations. Many of them really are just anti-white or just destructive in general and are trying to bring harm to white nations.
Since you mentioned Israeli-American, that is a good example of hypocrisy or worse and large part explains where much 'anti-Semitism' originates. Most Israeli-Americans strongly advocate for policies to make America (and every other white nation) no longer a white nation, but strongly advocate just the opposite policies for Israel. This can't be understated how infuriating it is to some people who would otherwise like Jews. Then there's the voting ~90% Democrat for about as long they've been in America, and western culture criticism..but I don't want too go too far afield.
I don't know if you're an Israeli or Jewish but no offense to you .
I'm not myself but I did have a conversation on just this topic with one of the Israeli-American colleagues in the office, his explanation for this apparent double standard (to Americans' eyes at least) was that, in his words, Israel was an "ethnic" country that was supposed to be primarily for Jews, whereas the USA was a "proposition country" founded on a belief system and secular creed, instead of an ethnic or racial group. So he said, at least at first, that he didn't feel a contradiction in being nervous about Muslim and African immigration to Israel, while at same time encouraging Muslim and African immigration to the USA and Canada, since he felt that North America was founded on different principles. He did acknowledge that since at least the 7th century, there had been a long-residing Muslim population in Israel along with the Jewish and Christian populations that had long been resident there before, but he still wanted to Israel to stay "mainly" Jewish and not take in too many "additional" Muslims from neighboring countries on top of the population already there. I asked him how he'd feel if an American moved to Israel and started campaigning for open borders and he admitted he'd be very against it, but he kept going to the argument about an ethnic nation vs a proposition country. He said this is why the 1965 immigration law was heavily supported and partly written by the US Jewish-American community like Jacob Javits and Emanuel Celler, even though many of those same members felt differently about Israel.
I'm not enough of an expert on history to understand this one way or another, I know the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other founding documents weren't overtly ethnic specific. On the other hand they are based in the Magna Carta and other European documents and traditions like philosophy of Locke and Montisquieu, although the Constitution and other early laws, ironically enough, did recognize the need for quasi-independent ethnic homelands for the native Americans. It's a question that I guess boils down to historical interpretation, and the question about what's a "proposition country" vs an "ethnic country".
The dilemma that I see is mainly practical, due to global interaction and basic things like the hiring of experts from other countries, even "ethnic states" like Israel and Gulf Arab states bring in a ton of foreigners. While OTOH even "proposition countries" like the USA or Australia clearly have limits to the number of people they can take in, partly due to ecological reasons and partly due to community tensions. For example one of the interesting tidbits the Israeli guy mentioned is that Tel Aviv and a number of other Israeli cities are absolutely teeming with guest workers from Africa and Asia, with large numbers in fact coming from other Muslim countries. Although they're expected to leave after a certain term, many do stay on and, if this isn't an irony, some Muslims even intermarry with Jewish Israelis. You see this even more in places like Dubai or Bahrain, where in some cases those cities in ancient Arab ethnostates actually have a majority of foreign guest workers from India and the Philippines. Whereas OTOH, Australia even as a "proposition country" has clear limits on its population, it's such a bone dry desert that many experts say it can handle a population of 25 million tops, and probably less as the desert and wildfires there spread. So clearly not even proposition countries can simply throw open their borders. As a practical matter, I think the distinction between the two types of countries is mainly that they allows governments to take certain actions.
For example in France Emmanuel Macron, despite his reputation as more "moderate" than Le Pen, has been closing so many mosques and kicking out so many imams with even a hint of radicalism, that entire north African communities are going back home (or in some cases going to French Canada). Italy has barred further migrants and is kicking out hundreds of thousands, even those born in Italy. Sweden recently expelled almost 300,000 refugees (almost all Muslim), again many born in Sweden, on the grounds that they simply weren't fitting into Swedish culture. More than 1.2 million refugees have left Germany either voluntarily or due to forced deportations, and even supposedly "tolerant" Netherlands and Belgium have quietly expelled almost 700,000 of their refugee and Muslim populations (with many of the remainder converting to Christianity). Although the SJW's tried to raise protests, their cries were ignored and their pleas went nowhere because people just "accepted" that the migrants "weren't Dutch" (or Swedish, French, German, Italian) even if they were born there. Whereas I can't imagine even the most conservative politician being able to do this in the US or Australia, certainly not in Canada which has been taking in so many Syrian refugees. And I'm guessing the submerged belief about us being "proposition countries" as opposed ethnostates, has a lot to do with it. That may be where the real difference lies.
But the event wasn't a "white supremacist" or "racist" event. Yes, it attracted certain groups that have those viewpoints but that's not what the event was. But anything that the left doesn't like now is labeled racist (unless of course it's BLM, Occupy or whatever). How are you or any business owner going to determine what a person's political or personal views are just because their is a picture of them at the gathering. How can you even tell what side they are on? The guy that got fired wasn't dressed in Nazi regalia.
So I guess we get to a point where your political, personal and religious views should be part of your job application. Maybe you should take a polygraph test before getting a job offer so people can make sure you're not secretly racist in your heart.
You know what? I actually don't care if people are racists. They are what they are. They weren't all Nazi's? Sure couldn't tell. Lay down with dogs and wake up with fleas. Guilt by association.
What is really obnoxious is for people to have the need to annoy, harass, express their hate do Nazi salutes, attempt to intimidate, glorify and revive a movement that many our relatives and fellow Americans died fighting, a movement that traumatized the world, that was responsible for millions of gassings and deaths. They want to glorify that crap? Fine--go to the middle of Death Valley and have at it.
Watching these bullies march through a university campus full of innocent students with their idiotic Polynesian torches yelling ethnics slurs, Nazi slogans and other garbage for no good reason, for the sole purpose of promoting their hate, insecurities, fear and misery upon others, was one of the most repulsive spectacles I've witnessed in my lifetime.
They have issues? Political issues? Let them take it up with their president. The one they elected and feel so very connected to. Talk to him. March on his golf courses. Leave the rest of us alone.
Better yet--they could go to their hero's homeland to pay homage to him. But, oh yeah--they'll get thrown in jail over there. Germans remember the white supremacists' hero very well, being that he destroyed their country.
Watching these bullies march through a university campus full of innocent students with their idiotic Polynesian torches yelling ethnics slurs, Nazi slogans and other garbage for no good reason, for the sole purpose of promoting their hate, insecurities, fear and misery upon others, was one of the most repulsive spectacles I've witnessed in my lifetime.
.
I am curious about that, being unfamiliar with the "campus". Is it a closed in, fenced in "campus" or a streetside "campus", as is Yale University?. If its the latter, the reality is, with the proper permit, anyone can protest on public streets. If the former, did the university consent, or is the land its on truly public land?
PS: Its summer. Campuses are mostly empty. That's a plus.
You know what? I actually don't care if people are racists. They are what they are. They weren't all Nazi's? Sure couldn't tell. Lay down with dogs and wake up with fleas. Guilt by association.
What is really obnoxious is for people to have the need to annoy, harass, express their hate do Nazi salutes, attempt to intimidate, glorify and revive a movement that many our relatives and fellow Americans died fighting, a movement that traumatized the world, that was responsible for millions of gassings and deaths. They want to glorify that crap? Fine--go to the middle of Death Valley and have at it.
Watching these bullies march through a university campus full of innocent students with their idiotic Polynesian torches yelling ethnics slurs, Nazi slogans and other garbage for no good reason, for the sole purpose of promoting their hate, insecurities, fear and misery upon others, was one of the most repulsive spectacles I've witnessed in my lifetime.
They have issues? Political issues? Let them take it up with their president. The one they elected and feel so very connected to. Talk to him. March on his golf courses. Leave the rest of us alone.
Better yet--they could go to their hero's homeland to pay homage to him. But, oh yeah--they'll get thrown in jail over there. Germans remember the white supremacists' hero very well, being that he destroyed their country.
The best response I've read so far. Yes! Let these white nationalists take their rallies to their "God Emperor" Trump's golf courses and scuff up the fairways a bit, and see how much he likes that ! Brilliant!! Also if Trump's golf courses became known as the site of frequent rallies, even if outside the grounds,, it would hurt Trump in the only thing he really cares about --his pocketbook.
I'm not myself but I did have a conversation on just this topic with one of the Israeli-American colleagues in the office, his explanation for this apparent double standard (to Americans' eyes at least) was that, in his words, Israel was an "ethnic" country that was supposed to be primarily for Jews, whereas the USA was a "proposition country" founded on a belief system and secular creed, instead of an ethnic or racial group. So he said, at least at first, that he didn't feel a contradiction in being nervous about Muslim and African immigration to Israel, while at same time encouraging Muslim and African immigration to the USA and Canada, since he felt that North America was founded on different principles. He did acknowledge that since at least the 7th century, there had been a long-residing Muslim population in Israel along with the Jewish and Christian populations that had long been resident there before, but he still wanted to Israel to stay "mainly" Jewish and not take in too many "additional" Muslims from neighboring countries on top of the population already there. I asked him how he'd feel if an American moved to Israel and started campaigning for open borders and he admitted he'd be very against it, but he kept going to the argument about an ethnic nation vs a proposition country. He said this is why the 1965 immigration law was heavily supported and partly written by the US Jewish-American community like Jacob Javits and Emanuel Celler, even though many of those same members felt differently about Israel.
I'm not enough of an expert on history to understand this one way or another, I know the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other founding documents weren't overtly ethnic specific. On the other hand they are based in the Magna Carta and other European documents and traditions like philosophy of Locke and Montisquieu, although the Constitution and other early laws, ironically enough, did recognize the need for quasi-independent ethnic homelands for the native Americans. It's a question that I guess boils down to historical interpretation, and the question about what's a "proposition country" vs an "ethnic country".
The dilemma that I see is mainly practical, due to global interaction and basic things like the hiring of experts from other countries, even "ethnic states" like Israel and Gulf Arab states bring in a ton of foreigners. While OTOH even "proposition countries" like the USA or Australia clearly have limits to the number of people they can take in, partly due to ecological reasons and partly due to community tensions. For example one of the interesting tidbits the Israeli guy mentioned is that Tel Aviv and a number of other Israeli cities are absolutely teeming with guest workers from Africa and Asia, with large numbers in fact coming from other Muslim countries. Although they're expected to leave after a certain term, many do stay on and, if this isn't an irony, some Muslims even intermarry with Jewish Israelis. You see this even more in places like Dubai or Bahrain, where in some cases those cities in ancient Arab ethnostates actually have a majority of foreign guest workers from India and the Philippines. Whereas OTOH, Australia even as a "proposition country" has clear limits on its population, it's such a bone dry desert that many experts say it can handle a population of 25 million tops, and probably less as the desert and wildfires there spread. So clearly not even proposition countries can simply throw open their borders. As a practical matter, I think the distinction between the two types of countries is mainly that they allows governments to take certain actions.
For example in France Emmanuel Macron, despite his reputation as more "moderate" than Le Pen, has been closing so many mosques and kicking out so many imams with even a hint of radicalism, that entire north African communities are going back home (or in some cases going to French Canada). Italy has barred further migrants and is kicking out hundreds of thousands, even those born in Italy. Sweden recently expelled almost 300,000 refugees (almost all Muslim), again many born in Sweden, on the grounds that they simply weren't fitting into Swedish culture. More than 1.2 million refugees have left Germany either voluntarily or due to forced deportations, and even supposedly "tolerant" Netherlands and Belgium have quietly expelled almost 700,000 of their refugee and Muslim populations (with many of the remainder converting to Christianity). Although the SJW's tried to raise protests, their cries were ignored and their pleas went nowhere because people just "accepted" that the migrants "weren't Dutch" (or Swedish, French, German, Italian) even if they were born there. Whereas I can't imagine even the most conservative politician being able to do this in the US or Australia, certainly not in Canada which has been taking in so many Syrian refugees. And I'm guessing the submerged belief about us being "proposition countries" as opposed ethnostates, has a lot to do with it. That may be where the real difference lies.
The US was not formed as "proposition nation" though especially not for anyone who was not ethnically/racially white. Your Israeli colleague is just creating a justification for a double standard. The "proposition nation" concept and philosophy was pushed after WWII and somewhat before that by particularly the Jewish and other non-WASPS and some WASPS brought to fruition by the 1965 immigration Act. In 1790, citizenship was reserved for "free whites of good moral character". It wasn't until a civil war and constitutional amendment and other laws by 1870 that first blacks were granted naturalization rights, and I think it was 1920 for Amerindians, since they've been American all along, and not until 1953 for everyone else. For many decades before the 1965 Immigration Act immigration was restricted or barred from outside of Western Europe.
And like you pointed out, even if America was and is a "proposition nation" there comes a time and circumstance when things have to be changed and reformed.
Should I be fired just because I believe that our Confederate statues be left intact and where they are?
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.
.
Also if Trump's golf courses became known as the site of frequent rallies, even if outside the grounds,, it would hurt Trump in the only thing he really cares about --his pocketbook.
