$1.6 million dollars of our money is going to fund a La Raza display that details the "Reconquista"?
If I drew up a map of the US depicting an area I wanted to take by force and make an ethnically pure white state, do you think I could get $1.6 million from the government? How about $.16 million?
No, I'd probably be put on an SPLC and ADL watch list, and labeled a terrorist and racist. I'd probably be discussed at the upcoming private Obama / LEO leader summit on extremism and domestic terrorism.
Likely a treasonous "detainee" as well.
I'd probably be compared to Hitler, even. Dear me. Whatever would I do?
The double standard in this nation sickens me. A while back, I had to write a paper for a Human Resources Management class on "reverse" discrimination, a term that implies that discrimination against whites is less real or valid than discriminating against other races. Reverse? There's no reverse. It's denial of opportunity based on race, or it's not. End. Full stop.
I have been discriminated against for my skin color, in no uncertain terms, by the Doyon Native Corporation in Alaska. I was politely informed that for "Non-shareholders" (polite speak for "non-natives"), the only jobs they would offer me were seasonal, minimum wage, menial jobs. The US government and the state of Alaska allow this to occur regularly under the guise of the "Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act". Thanks to the former Teddy Stevens, Alaska Native Corporations are regularly awarded no-bid government contracts.
Does America have a problem with race? You betcha, Mr. Holder. You're right, too. No one will have an honest discussion about it. We are a bunch of racial cowards. Here's a good recent example of active racism in America.
"The pastor also said some in America disrespect King's legacy by "cutting off those for whom he died and the principles for which he fought," pointing to voter ID laws that he called "unnecessary and unjustifiable." He said such laws are an affront to the memory of the civil rights leader, who fought for equal access to the voting booth."
So, insisting that people show their IDs to vote for the people who will determine our nation's course is racist? (It affronts the "memory" of the civil rights leader? You mean the communist sympathizer who has an FBI surveillance record that is sealed until 2027 at the request of his family?)
YOU HAVE TO SHOW ID TO BUY BEER, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
Would we not be as diligent in our election process? Really? By using race as a bludgeon to beat down voter ID requirements, these people are using it as a political weapon to ensure the continuation of voter fraud to accomplish their desired means.
Our nation is awash in undocumented illegal aliens, and demanding a simple form of ID is racist and discriminatory???
Well, yeah, it is discriminatory. You're supposed to be a citizen to vote, and you're supposed to only vote once. Are these folks implying that certain races break election laws more than others? And, by the way, discrimination is a word that means making a decision based on fact.
What gives?
I know most folks won't touch the race issue with a ten-foot pole, but I'm jumping in neck deep here.
I'm sick and tired of the lies, the denials, and the double standards. I'm tired of racial guilt being used as a tool and a weapon against this country, its citizens, and our freedoms.
One of the great strengths, and weaknesses, of liberty loving Americans is their unwillingness to play "identity politics". Individualistic and independent, they usually take each person as-is, leave others alone, and want to be left alone.
Folks, it's a losing strategy. The enemies of liberty are masters of identity politics.
It's like insisting on forming up in battle lines and marching, Napoleonic style, into a line of bunkers, artillery, tanks, and machine gun nests, simply because it's more a more noble way to fight. It's the "right" thing to do and all.
Or, more accurately, it's like a few "rugged individuals" charging that same line one at a time.
A lot of good being right and noble does for you when your entire unit is wiped out in three seconds.
The enemies of liberty play identity politics. Face it. They band together in groups based on race (quit denying it, they do...ever heard of the congressional white caucus? The United Caucasian College Fund? "White" colleges? Anyone??? Anyone remember 2011's flash mob attacks? They'll be back with the summer...), nationality, or on a specific cause, and they do what is natural for people to do. They look out for their tribe at the expense of all others. They band together with other tribes to defeat a common enemy, then turn on each other as it suits them. They only know one concept. Forward, to victory.
Team freedom had better start banding together and playing identity politics, and quick. The "Team" had better start being a team, as well as recognizing and acting on realities as they are, not as we might wish them to be. But where to begin? Look at Bracken's "CW2 Cube"...
I'd suggest turning your IFF systems on, and that you start to face reality for the upcoming Balkanization of America that is likely to culminate (it's happening right now, and it's an ongoing process) when the bus we're on finally goes off the cliff. Don't be blind.
Do I want it to be this way?
Is it "right"?
It merely "is".
Denial of reality in favor of what is wished or hoped for is insanity.
Find your tribe and stick with it.
Many would probably prefer I didn't go down this route. It is uncomfortable. It flies completely in the face of our societal programming.
Societal programming, you say? What? We're not programmed!
Really? Read these statements and notice the instinctual reaction in your head/gut. Imagine a person of each group wearing a t-shirt with the statement on it in a public setting. Watch your reactions closely.
#1.
We must work to preserve Asian culture and ensure that Asian children have a bright future. No problems with that in modern America, right?
Ok.
#2.
We must work to preserve Latino culture and ensure that Latino children have a bright future. Still, no alarm bells going off.
#3.
We must work to preserve African-American culture and ensure that African-American children have a bright future. Ok, all is still good.
#4.
We must work to preserve Native culture and ensure that Native children have a bright future. No problems there. Almost done.#5.
We must work to preserve White culture and ensure that White children have a bright future.
Don't you even try to deny what you just felt and/or thought. You cannot tell me that the last statement is socially acceptable in America, although the preceding ones would be. Put a t-shirt on your kid and send him to school with that on it. Good luck with that.
A real-life example of this is commonly found in Alaska, where "Native Pride" stickers, t-shirts, and hats are common. I have no problem with them. Be proud of your people. Right on. What would happen though, if I, being white, were to sport a "White Pride" sticker, hat, or t-shirt? Would it be acceptable, or would pride in my race make me a "racist" in the eyes of society? You know the answer. Don't pretend it isn't true, either.
A nation of racist cowards? Yep. I agree 100%, Mr. Holder. You betcha. Very few people are willing to discuss race honestly and objectively in America.
So, there it is, reality as I see it.
I do not want it to be this way, but it is. It is reality. Call me what you will. Demonize me and hit me with ad hominem as you see fit. I do not really care.
Accept it or discard this information as you will.
Resist.
40 comments:
A mistake made on both sides of the argument is that "white" is not a race. "White" is a descriptor just like caucasian, asian and black. I am not "white", I am a gael. My friend is not "native" he is Tlingit. "Black" is a catch-all term for what is actually a melange of dozens of different tribes and ethnicities from all over sub-saharan Africa. The only true "black" culture, is that which has been developed since the beginning of importation of slaves to America. There have been attempts to resurect certain tribal traditions and some specific ethnic folklores. Too much has been lost, too many tribes died out, too many people never knew their lineage. A distinct and rich culture to be sure, but too much of it is wrapped up in victimhood.
"My ancestors were kept as slaves for 250 years."
"The man is keeping us down!"
Segregation, prejudice, racism; all are stndard complaints.
Allow me to rebut.
My ancestors were kept in slavery, of one form or another, for about 1800 years. For the last 1000 years we have been struggling for equality, freedom and independance. Their wives and daughters raped systematically in an atempt to erase us as a people. Used as conscripts in endless wars. Slaughtered wholesale, banished from our homes to the other side of the earth, forbidden to return, forced into indentured servitude, subject to racism, segregation, starvation, and prejudice. Our traditional religions have been systematecaly destroyed. Finally, after centuries of struggle, unknown numbers murdered, and hardships uncounted, we have acheived some semblance of autonomy, equality, and acceptance. Because we fought for our freedom. We did not expect a handout. We did not wait for someone else to save us.
I am a Gael, and things are tough all over. Get over it. Life isn't fair and the world isn't just. Deal with it.
I understand what you are saying.
Your description may or may not be more accurate; I am describing how "race" is played today in reality. "White" is indeed a descriptor, and descriptors are used as political tools, weapons and bludgeons to secure one end or another.
"Rising above the fray" is a good way to stay "noble", but it is pragmatically a losing strategy.
I don't much care how anyone's ancestors were treated. I don't. I had nothing to do with any of it. Still, such things are deployed as weapons in America. You cannot deny this. You pointed out yourself (rightly, and with pride) how your ancestors fought against injustice. Then you tell me to get over it and accept injustice.
Which is it then? Fight as they did or resign ourselves to injustice? Should they have merely "dealt with it"? Your words indicate that "dealing with it" means to passively accept it. I say that correctly "dealing with it" means recognizing the data and using that information to act and fight.
The CW2 cube is accurate. Pick a corner or two, and know your allies and enemies. Ask folks in Yugoslavia about "rising above" and "dealing with it". Sarejevo went from hosting the olympics to ethnic cleansing in just under a decade, I believe.
AP
Your arguement here can be used against you in a previous post; and the arguement goes, I don't care why the Iranian leadership wants to kill us. They do, and thats all I need to deal with the situation as is.
;-)
Rauðbjorn, I'd argue you're talking nationality or ethnicity, not race. Race is wider and less specific. West Africans and East Africans are not the same, but they're both black. Chinese and Japanese are not the same, but they're both Oriental. Celts and Slavs are not the same, but they're both white.
As for slavery, more white Europeans were taken as slaves by Muslim Arab and Turkish raiders than the total of any other people enslaved anywhere else. Not that we complain about it.
Why not? Why is it so socially unacceptable to make such arguments? Because we have grown so used to taking it absolutely for granted that whites are on top, that whites have all the power, that whites are never in any actual danger and therefore can not ever be in actual danger, the mindset overrides reality. Why is it so horrifying to state the 14 words in public? Because it forces the listener to confront the possibility of the real mortality of everything they care about. Making such statements is tantamount to admitting the danger actually exists, and that is a terrifying thing.
I'm beginning to
I did a little digging last year, trying to find the first use of the term "racist" in English. So far, most of the earlier ones I've found were in Marxist propaganda...
There is a reason the term is used by the people using it.
(bah, hit submit too soon)
I'm beginning to think we are going to see a preference cascade on these things. In any online discussion concerning certain types of crime and behaviors where people actually are free to speak their minds without fear of social repercussions, the commentary always goes one way, following a line that could be denounced as horrifyingly racist. For example, the comments here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088553/Race-row-Rev-backs-Gingrich--says-blacks-sent-plantation.html
There comes a point where people look around themselves and realize lots of other people have the same hidden thoughts. Like in Ceaucescu's case: he was making a speech, the crowd was cheering, one guy started booing, and the entire crowd flipped. The harder the Cathedral tries to maintain approved thought, the more sudden and drastic the backlash will be.
fakedit: ok, having just checked, the comments at that link aren't quite the evidence they was yesterday. Some stuff has gotten edited out. But any news article comments about a flash mob will show what I mean.
AP: Have you read CIVIL WAR TWO by Thomas Chittum? It spells out Amerika's Balkanization in detail, and kickoff starts with the LaRaza folks in LA. That's why my wife and I bailed in 2002 for SW Oregon. It is not perfect, but at least we will have plenty of advanced warning. Also, up here there are way more of us than them!
Your picking corners advice is very good AP. You mentioned Yugo, and how it fell into savagery.
Folks, make sure your tribe understands that when it comes to "rules", the lowest denominator is where you ALL play. Possess the best intentions with the loftiest ideals of equality, brotherhood and honor and it will get you nothing but dead. In the end you have to treat rats like rats because you won't win any other way.
At no point do I say to accept injustice. I always advocate resitance, challenge and combat. But that's just it, pretty much every one is on roughly equal footing in the here and now. I will not say that there is still not prejudice and even outright racism, but nothing like what was practiced 60 years ago. The struggle for equality is all over save the crying.
What we're seeing now are not demands for equality, but attempts at punitive expiditions and reparation demands (sometimes in those exact terms). It didn't work in Germany after the first world war, and it will not work in this instance either.
I'm not certain I agree with Mr. Bracken's conclusions regarding the role ethnicity would play in an American civil war. I think that his data may be tainted on the basis that many modern civil wars have been ethnicly motivated. The primary motivation in this instance, I beleive, would be political ideology rather than ethnicity.
While I'm certain there will be division along ethnic lines, I doubt it will be as prevalent or as bloody as Mr. Bracken beleives. Remember, it's not jackasses vs. elephants. It's bears vs. everybody else.
I applaud your courage in tackling this controversial, but urgent issue. Your readers who have not read Thomas Chittum's "Civil War Two" might take a look at the synopsis and reviews of his book at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Two-Breakup-America/dp/0929408179
AP, the US already has ethnic cleansing of Blacks via Hispanics. Its public in Azusa and happening elsewhere commonly
This will eventually (in some areas not all) become Hispanics vs. Whites and there seems to have been the case a couple of times already in California (c.f. the Dodgers game and the San Clemente attacks)
So far this has been kept in check by swift law enforcement action and by the media playing it down but that will stop.
when it does, damned straight you need to know who your friends and foes are.
Its also incumbent that you find ways to use it, setting rival groups at each others throats is a good strategy. Divide Et Impera and all that.
In the end, the world plays by prison rules: race trumps pretty much everything else. You can organize into hierarchies within your own race, thereby become "more _________," but at the end of the day, you side with the people who look like you against everyone else.
It ain't pretty, but it's there.
When I lived in Alaska my wife was a dental assistant. She would typically work for a dentist for a few months and then the state would force the dentist to hire a "native" who was "qualified". It would take a week to three weeks and the "native" would either quit or quit coming to work and the dentist would be on the phone begging my wife to come back to work. I don't know the exact wording of the law but essentially it boiled down to; if a "qualified" "native" applied for a job held by a non-native the employer must hire the native even if it meant firing the current employee.
Yes, you will lose all debates on race every time. By even discussing race you are already bowing your head and agreeing to play by their rules which put you at the disadvantage.
Change your thinking by getting out of their pre-defined box first.
You can nullify race in the story by arguing that while roads are literally crumbling that $1.6M in tax dollars was tagged to restore graffiti in an underpass. Show them for the idiots and incompetent managers that they are.
"The enemies of liberty are masters of identity politics."
read on:
White Privilege
http://www.woodpilereport.com/html/index-248.htm
Biblically, there is one race: The human race. All people groups described after that are nations. And within those nations we find cultures. But the facts don't play well in the MSM. Racism must be inculcated to preserve the power of the elite.
Guess I need to go out and get a shirt that says "Viking Power!" Or does that make me a white supremacist? ;o)
Carl +1
I tend to believe that playing the race card puts you in their battlespace, per the old adage of "Never argue with idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level."
I've read Chittum's book. Recognizing that he fought in both Rhodesia and Serbo-Croatia, and has a rather unique PoV into racial/ethnic conflicts that I don't (while I was deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo, our PoV as interlopers is necessarily flawed. Someone who fought on one side or the other, as Chittum did, will have a better grasp of certain ground truths), I'd argue that, by making it racial, he overlooks the true socio-economic aspects of the Balkanization of America we're living through.
Yes, in large part, in some enclaves, it WILL be racial. Initially, it seems to be racial (La Raza, Black Power movement resurrection, White separatists/supremacists, etc), but there are as many ethnic "minorities" in this country who value traditional American values that, by drawing the lines based on race means you are necessarily abdicating potentially key allies.
America was never about multi-culturalism. Once upon a time, we were referred to as a "melting pot." We took the best aspects of newly arrived cultures and incorporated them into our own. That's how we surpassed our primarily Western European cultural ancestors and became the most powerful, influential nation and culture in the history of the world. Lo, that we could regain that mindset before the shooting starts in earnest.
ND,
JM
MG-
While I agree that it would be a mistake to become an "idiot" by arguing on his terms, one would be foolish to ignore the crowds that his idiocy raise against you.
AP
I support Arctic Patriot’s post. Whites need to become aware of how wrong and illogical it is for every other racial group to be able to have pride in their group and established preferences by policy. Whites are perpetually at a disadvantage in that system. That system amounts to genocide against Whites. No surprise that the White race is declining as is Western Civilization along with it. Whites no longer have a homeland in America, which was established to be theirs and theirs alone to the exclusion of all others. Not keeping God’s Law to keep all other races out is what has led to this ridiculous and horrid situation. Another principle from the Law is also at work, that of Proverbs 22:6. The principle of that Scripture also works conversely in that if a child is brought up in the way he should not go, he will not depart from that, either. White children brought up in their enemy’s system that is systematically eliminating the White race are taught to dislike their own race and to not defend it. We have blacks in America because the Jews merchanted them here at a profit with the ultimate goal of destroying the White race and because organized Jewry thwarted all historical efforts at repatriating blacks back to Africa. We have mestizos and other dark races here because Jews want them here to shove the White race out of existence. Jews applied political pressure for decades for immigration reform, finally getting their destructive wish with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The devastating effects of decades of such policies from Jewish hegemony are now becoming apparent. In Biblical terms, it is Esau Edom (modern Jews) versus Jacob Israel (true Whites). Blaming the Jews who exercise their hegemony over all other groups because of their vast money power, which has provided them control of virtually everything, is not the whole story. That would ignore the fact that Whites as a group willingly became the victims of the Jews and other racial groups by not keeping God’s Law to exclude all racial aliens from the land. Jews and their White victims are both to blame for the losing situation Whites now find themselves in. Whites must develop a strong identity for themselves if they are ever to fight for the very survival of their own kind.
Josh @ 5:59:
So, are you taking on Iran by yourself, or are you spending my money and other people's blood and money to do it?
One is a personal choice, involving you.
The other concerns many, many more.
I believe the argument fails.
AP
The Gaelic One thinks Bracken is wrong about race. (And you're all wrong about "race"! Once upon a time, "race" meant the exact thing "ethnicity" means to us today.)
Rather, Rothborn believes the next American civil war will be fought over political ideology.
Pal -- you're wrong. Dead wrong.
Politics can change in a heartbeat. So the old man has impeccable "politics". His kid, well his kid is heterodox.
What are you proposing? That nationality is something like a club, which can be joined or quit at whim?
God forbid!
I may not approve my boys' politics when they get to that age ge them -- and they might change them with the seasons -- but they will always be MY boys and I will always value their life over my life.
And that's why blood is thicker than water.
Sign me,
ANGLO-SAXON, BABY
(and lots of other stuff. But you've got to admit the A/S are The Man and everyone else are ... not.)
The white race the whole world over is reaping what it's sown. We turned away from God and His laws and now we're suffering the consequences in the form of the curses listed in Deuteronomy 28, specifically the one which foretells that aliens will overrun our lands and rise high above us. God promised that He would cleanse the land of our non-white oppressors if we turn back to Him. Alas, that's not going to happen until things get worse, far worse, for the white race, His true Israelite people. When whites finally realize that there is no political fix to their dire predicament, nor place for them to flee the pervasive non-white flood, will be when they start calling upon the only One Who can get them out of this fine mess their habitual transgressions have got them into.
Pilgrim, none knows better than I the importance of blood, I'd burn the whole world down for my brother. But I'm not talking about kinship here, I've as much in common with my causcasian neighbors as I do with Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I do however have quite a bit in common with Arctic Patriot. Though we have never met, belong to different religions and probably have differrent ethnic backgrounds, so many of our political and philosophical leaning coincide that I can let his irrational prefferences slide, as I hope he can mine.
As for nationality being a voluntary club? Well it is and it isn't; I can voluntarily give up my citizenship and the state department can revoke my citizenship, but apparently my entire state cannot do the same and take our homes with us. What do you think the War of Northern Agression (I will not call it the Civil War, the confederacy had secceded from the union and formed a seperate government for a seperate country) was about? It was not about slavery, or liberty or "a house divided" it was about power and whether the people would have it, or the federal government.
I respect your kin-bond Pilgrim, but do your children? During China's "Cultural Revolution" thousands of parents were turned in to the Kuomintang by their family members to be imprisoned, raped, tortured, have their property seized, denied medical attention, murdered, starved, and worked to death. There's a difference between sacrificing yourself for your children and allowing your children to murder you.
The whole porpose having a military is to protect us from state actors. The standards the same for making the decision. You seem to me to be willing to gamble with my life and everyones life that might be effected if a nuke goes off CONUS. Should the decision be made by one man, no. That is why it is suposed to be made by congress.
But, that wasn't my point. My point was if past action by third parties are not justifiable reasons for curent hatred and action. Why would you throw up past actions by the US as posiable reasons for current US hatreds? Your not sugesting we might have brought this on ourselves? I personal had nothing to do with past stupidity on our governments part. It is a personal decision to support any action to keep Iran from getting a nuke. Your personal choice to suport or not is up to you.
:-)
Josh
P.S. I find it stupid in the extreme to dislike or hate someone that isn't based on personal experiance.
Josh- If all you got out of this post was an assumption that I am proposing that people hate or dislike others, you have missed the entire point.
Completely. Totally. Try reading it again. Quit reading it with the "racist witch hunt" glasses you government has given you. Read it objectively. Pay attention to the CW2 cube. Where IN THE HELL do I even MENTION hate and dislike?
I'm so sick of the "wacist" meme....
And on Iran? Well. If the "threat" they pose is so great, there are a few more countries that pose the same, if not greater, risk to the US. There are several more to add to your list. Start with Pakistan. When you get done with those two in ten years or so, come back. I'll have more for you to invade and conquer.
And, while you're galavanting around the globe, your nation will (is) fall(ing) apart at home.
Why is it so hard for you and others to accept that the US' actions in the past have hurt and angered others?
Very simple advice for the coming balkanization of America: 1. Move to a more rural area where your own racial and ethnic group is the majority. The more rural the better, the more majority the better. 2. Learn to take care of your own, as quick as you can...in every way possible. 3. Beg the people you care about to do the same.
Josh must of been talking about a man fish. Porpose i believe was his spelling.
So says the Urban Dictionary..... :-O
CIII
"Why is it so hard for you and others to accept that the US' actions in the past have hurt and angered others?" - AP
What if I say, "Why is it so hard for you and others to accept that WHITE'S actions in the past have hurt and angered others?" I believe you find this statement to be irrelevant.
I'm total with and what you are say with this post. I'm not arguing this post. I'm using you logic tree from this post and appling it to foreign policy.
I'm of the sleeping bear, approach to foreign policy.
1. Pull all millitary back to our boarders, except the Navy; Quadruple it's size, use Carrier groups as a quick reacion force. (6 month deploments 3 group rotation. areas to cover: Atlantic/Caribbean, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, North & South Pacific and a 2 rover pacific/atlantic to cover port calls.) Base the Air Force out of Alaska. All pilots Carrier able.
2. Secure our boarders. We need a guest worker program, and streamline the emigration process.
3. I would add to the State Departments Embassies mission an education role. Set up a school system that promotes Liberty and First Principles. Make the Madrasa system work for us.
4. Make it known, you poke us, we punch you. None of this nation building. Focused direct action, then we come home.
5. Combine the NSA&CIA focus their mission on information collection. Leave direct action to the military.
(4. & 5. The effect around the world should be: You don't want the US involved, so you better police yourselve . You are not going to like it if we do it.)
The Arab/Persian/Muslim world only respect strenght. If we just pull out, they will see it as weakness, and it will embolden them. They will not have the thought, ok they are leaving us a lone now, we will do the same.
Anon 0900 - lets fracture ourselves even further, as to make ourselves easer to pick off.
;-)
PS. I have green eyes what color eyes do you have....
It doesn't really matter why should any of the rest matter.
Content of Character is how I will judge others from first hand knowlge... Nothing else matters.
Josh- Yours "eyes" comment is again, missing the point of this article.
Attacking Iran now, or for blocking Hormuz as retaliation for sanctions, is inconsistent with the "sleeping bear" philosophy.
We're likely going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
AP
Yes, Iran attacks our intrests all the time, we can not allow them a nuke. Their poking us with sticks and will continue to poke us. Thier about to have the ability to drop a whole tree on the bear and her cub. If someone is poking you don't allow them to get a bigger stick.
They're building a network Humas, Venezuela, Mexican Drug Cartels. They are already at war with us and actively engaged in it. For what ever reason I don't care.
We need to strengthen ourselves while realizing we are already in a fight. Do believe that they will stop if we go my bad, you do what ever you want?
You want to secure freedom, they want to united the world under Shiria Law. Two incompatible goals. You can live under Islam or die thats the choice they will give you. Convert, pay a tax or die is what it used to be, but for the extremist it's now convert or die.
They're not going to give you a choice of Liberty.
Agree to Disagree... Hmmm... I'm not sure I can do that. Your position threatens my ability to live and to live freely; as I will suport those will to stop them from being able to drop a nuke on one of our cities. Statement of intent is enough for me. I don't need them to do it, before I go ok now I can feel justified in retaliation.
As to this post.
We can have pride of self, just not to the point of feuding bickering groups that then go onto fighting one an other. What does it mean to be 'white?' I'm not white I'm me. I reject all 5 if your writen statnents. It leasons from the past should be oerserved; so that all children have a bright future.
I should of said I agree with what I see as the core of this; which is, Pride of self, but not the out come which is to play the lefts game of identity politics. Thats their game and a loosing propisition. If I do what you want, I would risk loosing me to the larger group Identity. It becomes easy to play one groups interest, or perceived interest, off one another.
When all our interest should be "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
I refuse to play their games. Bad behaviour by the left doesn't justifiy joining in; to what purpose, "to even the playing field?"
My 'eye' comment was to show how far do we want to go down this rabbit hole of Identity politics. I'm a green Eyed German. We're humans we can always find a reason to hate and kill one another. Why make it easer.
I have the right to be me, and the right to live and defend myself when others threaten that freedom. So, does everyone.
We can agree to disagree, but do we realy?
Take Care,
Josh
:-)
PS. Yes, I be a crappy speller and stuff.
;-)
Josh-
Dude.
You are not going to convince me that the US has any business or long-term interest in attacking Iran.
Ain't gonna happen.
I want to secure freedom here. Not in Iraq. Not in Iran. Not in Israel.
I don't give a rat's ass if someone wants sharia law in their nation.
I don't care if Israel attacks Iran.
Have at it.
We disagree, and likely never will agree on this.
As to this post...
We disagree as well. That is fine.
Let me tell you this though.
This "rugged individual", "I don't need a group", "I'll take on the world", and "pride of self", as you put it, is noble and all, but its a losing game.
A losing game.
Logic tree arguments can go both ways.
If you are you, and do not identify with any group, why identify as an American, and be worried about "America's" security?
Why "play their game" (of "American" identity politics) and attack Iran? After all, you're not "white", you're not "American", you're you, remember?
Devotion and pride in nation is no more reasonable and rational than is devotion to and pride in one's race and corner of the CW2 cube.
AP
"If you are you, and do not identify with any group, why identify as an American, and be worried about "America's" security?"
Because it leads to my security. I'm for joining groups, but they do not define me.
"Why "play their game" (of "American" identity politics) and attack Iran? After all, you're not "white", you're not "American", you're you, remember?"
"I want to secure freedom here. Not in Iraq. Not in Iran. Not in Israel."
You say that like we have a choice. They have stated the they want to wipe out the little satan and take down the Big Satan (That woud be us.). They want to bring Shiria Law to the whole world. I believe the US is part of the world.
I can't be me or an American or anything if I'm dead.
Do you think that if our American Revolution 2.0 happens that Iran want use the chaos to sow even more confusion and chaos.
"Devotion and pride in nation is no more reasonable and rational than is devotion to and pride in one's race and corner of the CW2 cube."
You can have devotion and and pride in what ever you want (and I never said you shouldn't), but ultimately you are you and I'll judge you on those merits. Hell you might not even be a good representation of what ever group you are part of. If thst be the case should I then judge the whole group by what I think of you. People are Individuals not the stereotypes and the boxes people want to put them in.
Are you human? Are you a man or a woman? Do you need any more lables than that?
I believe in a lot of the Ideals of the Founding Fathers and was born in America, so I self identify as an American. Because that is what it means to me to be American.
The group didn't Identify me. I identified what group I was a part of.
What does it mean to be "white" other than it being my skin color I have no clue. I know more sbout mexican culture than I do about German culture.
Hmmm...
:-)
Josh-
Really, listen to me.
You are not going to be convinced that I am right.
I am not going to be convinced that you are right.
Let's leave it at that, ok?
AP
Ok, no good argument out of this one.
:-(
Wish it were all so easy. We live in a nuclear world. If tomorrow a nuclear war broke out between the super powers it would be fought with the weapons, army and forward bases we had right then. There won't be time or ability to "build up" our forces or move them to a more strategic location to retalliate. If we give up our foriegn bases we might as well invite Russia and China to attack. Ad for Iran, make no mistake we are at war/they are at war with us. It should have been clear to us in 1979 when they held our diplomats hostage or in 1983 when they bombed the marine barracks in Beirut. Unless you are in your deathbed you will more then likely be alive to witness then next attack on our soil and it may well be a nuke. MAYBE then people will understand we are at war and we should have fought back when the battle would have been "over there". The arguement that we should appease and pull our military back so we don't offend was Neville Chamberlain's. 50 million people died in WW II and there was a point in time when it could have been prevented. Fear, indecision, poor leadership, whatever, is going to cost far more lives in the next war. A billion or two lives! And it could be prevented...
Anon 7:50-
Too short of a timeframe.
The US declared war on Iran going back to the 50s, when we started meddling in their internal political affairs.
I do not care much who we "offend", I do not push an "appeasement" philosophy, only a "kill-them-now-in-a-total-war-or-leave-them-alone philosophy".
I am glad we agree there is a war on between Iran and the US; your time-frame is too short to provide the correct context and identify the initial aggressor.
One could go back further, but I would put the starting point in the 50s or thereabouts.
The 1970s was just backlash and response to our trespassing.
Why do Americans only remember what the .gov tells them to?
AP
WWI-British Empire, 50's all still resent history.
Post a Comment