Is England-Scotland-Ireland Dieing??

[Wizard22]

she ruined her own life in Scotland by obsessing about buying a house instead of living life.

You're so far out of touch with reality... for normal people, buying a house *IS* "living life"! But owning assets, cars, houses, property, building a family, is something foreign to a far-lib-leftist-marxist like you.

You better watch out promoting people like him btw. At the moment Veggie cares about antisemitism, so she might disapprove of you promoting the guy who posts stuff like this...

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files ... orba-3.png

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files ... orba-1.png

I thought you Far-Leftists were against the slaughter, ethnic cleansing, and genocide of Palestinians?? But at the turn of the hat, all "Anti-Zionists are Nazis" again? So which is it, D Pants?? Do you advocate for ethnic-cleansing of Palestinian women and children, or, are you also a HItler-supporter??

Or ... and hear me out ... maybe races aren't all that important, and there's no particular reason to promote all this racial segregation and homogeneity you are always looking for.

So, at the base of it, you just hate "Hwhite" people, for reasons you can't explain huh? Have you considered the logical beginnings of your belief-system, why it is you hate white people?

This video is kind of stupid.

This is what you want England to look like; anybody who disagrees with you is "Racist":

https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/493009663

Which one of these commenters on that very obviously racist thread might you be?

More side-stepping the conversation. Firstly, I haven't posted at 4chan...yet, maybe in the future I'll go and dominate that area. Secondly, you have a knack for avoiding real issues and problems plaguing a growing majority of Westerners and real people. To you, obviously, white people wanting to live and build society among their own kind, is deeply "RACIS!", while brown and black and jewish and east indian, etc. doing so is, conveniently, "not racis?!" So you have selective-reasoning, which is a quintessential aspect of your lib-leftist-marxist mindset and ideology.

You can't go deep into it, for obvious reasons: not being smart enough, and needing to avoid your hypocrisies put on public display.

Like many Westerners, you are a leech and parasite to a system that you, and your ancestors... had no part building, no part defending with violence, no part contributing in anyway. And your mindset, your supposed 'morality', reflects this. So you don't care if other parasites, collecting and congregating, actually destroy and collapse Western societies. You and your kin, as you are prone to do, will simply flee to the next ship, to sink that one, and the next one , and the next one. Your mindset doesn't understand, 'Owning' a land, a country, and doing what is necessary to Defend it against Invaders.

[Wizard22]

Over the last 10 years and since I have been paying attention, what was a repressed view and discourse about “in-group preference” that was labeled as racism, has broken out of that designation and has become “acceptable thought” when before it was “forbidden thought”.

This is by Andrew Torba, an American Evangelical who holds some fairly radical ideas on the topic, and feels comfortable couching them within his Christian Evangelical religious understanding:

The debate surrounding H-1B
...
Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Christ is King

Nice response by Torba, thanks for bringing that up to me Alexis...oh and a belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you! I didn't get the chance to send it to you earlier.

We could just skip to the endgame where race stops counting for or against any proposition of any sort. Let people just live wherever life takes them in the jet age, let them marry whoever they fall in love with rather than trying to make them fall in love with their own "culture" etc...

Here’s the problem with that. Like it or not, communities of people, regions and nations, and even people of defined races (Japanese, Caucasian, African, American Indian), may not want what you want. They might have very different ideas and values, see?

So your idealistic program, undergirded by all sorts of ideological positions I should add, simply might not be appreciated.

The turn against Liberal impositions is often a return to the definition of prior sets of valuation. And that explains some part of what is going on today.

It is something that can be examined cooly.

Well you leave a lot open to interpretation by design don't you? What did you intend by that talk of radical, super-problematic programs?

You are ultra-paranoid. However I do understand that some of my references (Bowden’s talks!) are ever-so slightly edgy …

I intended to amplify on what Wizard is making reference to: the beginnings of a rejection of some primary Liberal tenets.

It is happening whether you think it good, bad or indifferent.

Alexis, your arguments against Dpants are often in a Defensive posture--I don't know if you're aware of it. Dpants will learn, in due time, that his position and cultural-Leftism suffered a heavy defeat with the 2024 Election and MAGA-movement. I believe, the Western Lib-Leftists are still in heavy 'Denial' stage of their Grief. They have yet to enter the Anger/Rage phase. Dpants will understand more of how his position has faded, after Trump's inauguration.

It's time to go Offensive against them.

As demonstrated so far from this thread, Dpants cannot defend Western 'whites' being forced out of their small towns, communities, and historical countries, by the brunt of Lib-Leftist-Marxists ideology, physically forcing and en-forcing 3rd World Immigration upon them. Now it cannot be ignored, as it was during the Obama and Biden Administrations.

And what was Dpant's first response??? She shouldn't feel 'entitled' to owning a home? Or that she's just "dumb"? So, to Dpants, owning a house, and being 'smart' are effective ways to counter living in a country, and they decide to dump 10,000 illegal immigrants into your neighborhood: Moslems and Pakistanis in England, East Indians and South Americans in USA. And it's also very bad throughout Europe, in each European country, save for maybe Belarus, Finland, and Poland, Eastern European countries perceived as 'poor' and so not the target destination of these 3rd world hordes swarming to the West.

[Wizard22]

How about this:

If the European and American racists don't want incompatible hordes of other races and ethnicities invading their nations via legal (or illegal) immigration,...

...then how about the European and American racists stop invading and destroying the immigrants' homelands (either overtly or covertly) to the point of making them uninhabitable?
_______

That's a moot-point, seeds, because:

Even Eastern European countries, Poland, Belarus, Hungary, Finland, Etc. are having issues with Globalists inducing mass-migrations of 3rd worlders, and those countries/nations do not have any history of New World Colonialism whatsoever.

So there is not really any single first-world nation in this world that you can point to, that illegal immigration is not a problem.

That the two anecdotes in the OP have moved to East Asia, should be a signal of what's going on...Totalitarian governments are the only real safe-guard against unchecked Immigration and cultural overthrow.

Many Englishmen, and women, for example, feel like their people/country/history are being destroyed.


And *YOU* don't care, and Dpants doesn't care, because they're "evil whitey!" and killing white countries is promoted by your kind...meanwhile you're also a white person. So you're self-destructive. You hate your own skin color and people.

[FlashDangerpants]

she ruined her own life in Scotland by obsessing about buying a house instead of living life.

You're so far out of touch with reality... for normal people, buying a house *IS* "living life"!

Really? Shouldn't it just be a part of life, along with lots of other things? I am merely pointing out that she made herself unhappy by putting every single one of those other things on hold for this one item.

The rest of your incoherent racist and antisemitic ranting isn't of a high enough standard for me to bother addressing.

[FlashDangerpants]

Totalitarian governments are the only real safe-guard against unchecked Immigration and cultural overthrow.

That would be the most overtly Nazi way to look at it.

[Wizard22]

Really? Shouldn't it just be a part of life, along with lots of other things? I am merely pointing out that she made herself unhappy by putting every single one of those other things on hold for this one item.

It's a major problem in the US too; it's something that a majority of people care deeply about. It's a significant cause of why Trump was re-elected and your cultural platform is being pushed Right.

The rest of your incoherent racist and antisemitic ranting isn't of a high enough standard for me to bother addressing.

Not like you have anything better to do...?

[Wizard22]

That would be the most overtly Nazi way to look at it.

So China is Nazi-Hitler land, to you, correct?

See, your over-generalizations are making you look bad, Dpants. Figure it out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ho hum, silly evasive semantics from Jacobi again. Briefly it seemed like you were trying to do better.

This...

Here’s the problem with that. Like it or not, communities of people, regions and nations, and even people of defined races (Japanese, Caucasian, African, American Indian), may not want what you want. They might have very different ideas and values, see?

So your idealistic program, undergirded by all sorts of ideological positions I should add, simply might not be appreciated.

Doesn't seem to tally very much with this...

But in time, and when the children become American, those divisions abate.

So I'll give you some time to collect your thoughts and try to work out some sort of cohesive argument to make.

If ever you wanted to understand the actual positions of those who are “white nationalists” and those who perhaps less aggressively support “in-group preference” positions, you could access their material and read it. I have and so I have a fair grasp of where they stand. My position is I think more “philosophical” than is yours if only because I am not an activist for the cause. I can examine the Liberal or Ultra-Liberal posture, and understand what values it holds to, and also examine the Anti-Liberal posture and similarly make note of where and how it attempts to defend values.

Every nation and region is different, so the posture of Renaud Camus in France is expressed and defended quite reasonably through a fair and balanced consideration of and desire to preserve “genuine Frenchness”.

But the “American ideology” which has taken shape and gathered force since the Sixties, is tied up with a notorious and expansive “Americanism” which tenets are that our way of life, our way of thinking, our cultural forms and our institutions, must become the norm for all people. If you are interested in platforms that take aim at this Americanist ideology read Pierre Krebs and Alain de Benoist. They believe it is destructive to Europe and to European identity.

And all the postures that have anti-Liberal elements and which are based on nationalism (in whatever degree) can always be and will always be compared to European fascist ideas and (as is your case) to Nazism. Any view that expresses “racial pride” or that proposes a special valuation of race, culture, country and civilizational forms, will immediately be associated with Nazi-like ideology.

My view is that any platform, be it Left-tending or Right-tending will generally incline either toward a communistic pole of thought, or to one with more “strict” ideas and notions that define and defend “identity” as a necessary and a good value. The arguments and the values that cause a rightist to defend “Occidental civilization” will, in one degree or another, share common features with their more aggressive expressions.

So the defense of one’s community at the somatic level (i.e. through notions of self and self-valuation that depend on recognition of race, culture, body type, heritage, and continuation and protection of those things), is seen and defined by those of an opposing ideology as backward, retrograde, far-right, and Nazi-esque. Because obviously the valuation I just mentioned are comparable to an ideology of “blood & soil”.

Now, our modern ultra-Liberal ideologies and the Americanism I mentioned, can certainly be fairly critiqued, I am certain of that. But here we begin to deal in ideological battles dovetailing into cultural wars but also (and importantly) economic battles and the issue of the extension of markets. It should be relatively plain that when the term “anti-elite” and “anti-globalist” are used (often too loosely) that it is “Americanism” that is being critiqued. Because America dominated the world after WWII and constructed the Postwar global order.

The people I mentioned — Krebs, de Benoist — critique that order because they are opposed to (what they define as) its destructive elements.

I propose that their arguments are fair, lucid, grounded in reason. They are not Nazi broadsides in any sense!

The arguments of American nativists revolve around the understanding that American demographics were re-engineered by ideologues beginning in the 1930s and culminating in policy modifications in the 1960s. See the work of Wilmot Robertson (The Dispossessed Majority, 1972). It defines a position far more in alignment with original American values — those of the men who created the nation and the values of the Founders — than that of a newer “interpretation” of Americanism expressed, by way of comparison, with Kathleen Belew and Ramón A. Gutiérrez’s A Field Guide to White Supremacy, 2021)

What is at stake? What is actually going on? My answer is the ideological remanufacture of Americanism and newfangled definitions, grounded in Left and also Ultra-left ideological positions that are destructive to the “older definitions”. The defense of or the recovery of the older values is necessarily portrayed as “evil”.

Now, when I say that in a generation of two the incompatible foreigner is assimilated into American identity, it is a statement of fact. But it is and it will be a new(er) identity structure. And we see this developing today. (And aligned with so-called “woke” values, new definitions of sexual normalcy, but often in ideological positions that are “radical” to the older ones). Some go along with this, some have different objectives. But one thing about it all: it is an ideological mess and super-hard to sort through.

To understand what is going on in America today, and certainly in Europe, will involve one in an examination of the value bases in each posture.

NB: For the value you received from reading this wondrous essay, US$299.00 will automatically be deducted from your account. Thank you!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis, your arguments against Dpants are often in a Defensive posture -- I don't know if you're aware of it. Dpants will learn, in due time, that his position and cultural-Leftism suffered a heavy defeat with the 2024 Election and MAGA-movement. I believe, the Western Lib-Leftists are still in heavy 'Denial' stage of their Grief. They have yet to enter the Anger/Rage phase. Dpants will understand more of how his position has faded, after Trump's inauguration.

First, I recognize that Flash always takes a simplistic, aggressive posture. It is just not my style to argue in attack-mode. And all of this is a sort of intellectual pastime and (for good or bad) I do not have a great deal of skin in the game.

My function is to •get things out on the table so they can be fairly examined•. Often that involves preliminary disentanglement.

I do not have the confidence in Trump or the present state of the US system that perhaps you do (?) at this juncture. Or, put another way, there is more to be gained by maintaining some distance from too-overt commitments. That is my view anyway.

If the question is What opposes or can correct the “dying” you refer to, I suggest that the conversation could become far more interesting than these interchanges usually are.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ho hum, silly evasive semantics from Jacobi again. Briefly it seemed like you were trying to do better.

This...

Here’s the problem with that. Like it or not, communities of people, regions and nations, and even people of defined races (Japanese, Caucasian, African, American Indian), may not want what you want. They might have very different ideas and values, see?

So your idealistic program, undergirded by all sorts of ideological positions I should add, simply might not be appreciated.

Doesn't seem to tally very much with this...

But in time, and when the children become American, those divisions abate.

So I'll give you some time to collect your thoughts and try to work out some sort of cohesive argument to make.

If ever you wanted to understand the actual positions of those who are “white nationalists” and those who perhaps less aggressively support “in-group preference” positions, you could access their material and read it. I have and so I have a fair grasp of where they stand. My position is I think more “philosophical” than is yours if only because I am not an activist for the cause. I can examine the Liberal or Ultra-Liberal posture, and understand what values it holds to, and also examine the Anti-Liberal posture and similarly make note of where and how it attempts to defend values.

I have less inclination to arrange complex hierarchies of all the types of white nationalist, white supremacist, neo-nazi, old-fashioned-nazi, and whatever other groups form the far right hellscape you promote. Splitting hairs isn't an important endeavour.

Every nation and region is different, so the posture of Renaud Camus in France is expressed and defended quite reasonably through a fair and balanced consideration of and desire to preserve “genuine Frenchness”.

That would be notorious white nationalist Renaud Camus, inventor of the Great White Replacement conspiracy theory so beloved of the far right in all territories?

But the “American ideology” which has taken shape and gathered force since the Sixties, is tied up with a notorious and expansive “Americanism” which tenets are that our way of life, our way of thinking, our cultural forms and our institutions, must become the norm for all people. If you are interested in platforms that take aim at this Americanist ideology read Pierre Krebs and Alain de Benoist. They believe it is destructive to Europe and to European identity.

Isn't Pierre Krebs the neo-nazi Thule Society dude?

And all the postures that have anti-Liberal elements and which are based on nationalism (in whatever degree) can always be and will always be compared to European fascist ideas and (as is your case) to Nazism. Any view that expresses “racial pride” or that proposes a special valuation of race, culture, country and civilizational forms, will immediately be associated with Nazi-like ideology.

All anti liberal racialist ideologies are always going to be compared to nazism for the perfectly good reason of extreme similarity.

My view is that any platform, be it Left-tending or Right-tending will generally incline either toward a communistic pole of thought, or to one with more “strict” ideas and notions that define and defend “identity” as a necessary and a good value. The arguments and the values that cause a rightist to defend “Occidental civilization” will, in one degree or another, share common features with their more aggressive expressions.

So the defense of one’s community at the somatic level (i.e. through notions of self and self-valuation that depend on recognition of race, culture, body type, heritage, and continuation and protection of those things), is seen and defined by those of an opposing ideology as backward, retrograde, far-right, and Nazi-esque. Because obviously the valuation I just mentioned are comparable to an ideology of “blood & soil”.

It seems strange that after so much posturing you would adopt something so oversimplistic as "Left-tending or Right-tending will generally incline either toward a communistic pole of thought" but ok. The comparisons to nazism will continue for as long as the blood and soil stuff does either way.

Now, our modern ultra-Liberal ideologies and the Americanism I mentioned, can certainly be fairly critiqued, I am certain of that. But here we begin to deal in ideological battles dovetailing into cultural wars but also (and importantly) economic battles and the issue of the extension of markets. It should be relatively plain that when the term “anti-elite” and “anti-globalist” are used (often too loosely) that it is “Americanism” that is being critiqued. Because America dominated the world after WWII and constructed the Postwar global order.

No. The far left and the far right both tend to associate all that stuff with America and both go in for a lot of anti-American bullshit because of it. But the analysis is flawed. After Pearl Harbour America dopped its tradition of isolationism and joined in with the long standing European traditions of alliance formation and multinational institutional organisation, but we're talking about a post-industrial era do-over of Metternich here, not some Manifest Destiny nonsense.

Left-tending or Right-tending will generally incline either toward a communistic pole of thought
The people I mentioned — Krebs, de Benoist — critique that order because they are opposed to (what they define as) its destructive elements.

I propose that their arguments are fair, lucid, grounded in reason. They are not Nazi broadsides in any sense!

The arguments of American nativists revolve around the understanding that American demographics were re-engineered by ideologues beginning in the 1930s and culminating in policy modifications in the 1960s. See the work of Wilmot Robertson (The Dispossessed Majority, 1972). It defines a position far more in alignment with original American values — those of the men who created the nation and the values of the Founders — than that of a newer “interpretation” of Americanism expressed, by way of comparison, with Kathleen Belew and Ramón A. Gutiérrez’s A Field Guide to White Supremacy, 2021)

What is at stake? What is actually going on? My answer is the ideological remanufacture of Americanism and newfangled definitions, grounded in Left and also Ultra-left ideological positions that are destructive to the “older definitions”. The defense of or the recovery of the older values is necessarily portrayed as “evil”.

The American nativists are idealogues intent on re-engineering America's demography, that is exactly what Wizzy has been openly obsessed with on this forum. You too.

Now, when I say that in a generation of two the incompatible foreigner is assimilated into American identity, it is a statement of fact. But it is and it will be a new(er) identity structure. And we see this developing today. (And aligned with so-called “woke” values, new definitions of sexual normalcy, but often in ideological positions that are “radical” to the older ones). Some go along with this, some have different objectives. But one thing about it all: it is an ideological mess and super-hard to sort through.

Well the elephant in the room is force is it not? The liberal ideal is to allow each person as much personal space for free action as possible, and to coerce as little as possible. All the ethno-nationalist stuff is predicated on assigning individuals a duty to suborn their own desires to that of the blood and soil of the ethno-monster. The difference between real nazis and the mere white nationalist is really just a matter of the degree of coercion each is willing to indulge in towards otherwise very similar ends.

All of that is stuff that you and your cohort try not to talk about because it makes you look like bad people.

[seeds]

How about this:

If the European and American racists don't want incompatible hordes of other races and ethnicities invading their nations via legal (or illegal) immigration,...

...then how about the European and American racists stop invading and destroying the immigrants' homelands (either overtly or covertly) to the point of making them uninhabitable?
_______

That's a moot-point, seeds, because:

Even Eastern European countries, Poland, Belarus, Hungary, Finland, Etc. are having issues with Globalists inducing mass-migrations of 3rd worlders, and those countries/nations do not have any history of New World Colonialism whatsoever.

So there is not really any single first-world nation in this world that you can point to, that illegal immigration is not a problem.

That the two anecdotes in the OP have moved to East Asia, should be a signal of what's going on...Totalitarian governments are the only real safe-guard against unchecked Immigration and cultural overthrow.

Many Englishmen, and women, for example, feel like their people/country/history are being destroyed.


And *YOU* don't care, and Dpants doesn't care, because they're "evil whitey!" and killing white countries is promoted by your kind...meanwhile you're also a white person. So you're self-destructive. You hate your own skin color and people.

My "Chauncey Gardiner-ish" (Being There) reply to that would be:

"...If you destroy an ant hill, the ants will scatter in all directions..."

Chauncey's Solution:

"...Don't destroy the ant hill and the ants will not scatter..."


_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

That would be notorious white nationalist Renaud Camus, inventor of the Great White Replacement conspiracy theory so beloved of the far right in all territories?

That indeed would be. And I am 100% certain that you have never read anything he has written, do not understand his value-set, and therefore have nothing actually relevant to say about him, because with you extreme prejudice always interposes itself between yourself and ideas that your ideological glasses color as “evil”.

You always amaze!

Camus’s selected political writings:

Enemy of the Disaster is the first authorized translation to appear in English of Renaud Camus' political writings and includes his notorious 2010 speech, "The Great Replacement." Though forty-two years have passed since his work was last translated into English, Camus is endlessly and irresponsibly discussed in the media, his vast and complex oeuvre reduced to a single phrase devoid of all context. In the English-speaking world, at least, he is the opposite of an author; he is a floating signifier, a rumor, an element in someone else's narrative.

This volume aims to change that. Spanning the years 2007-2017, its ten chapters present a very different Camus, one freed from the opportunistic glosses of “friend” and foe alike. Instead of a conspiracy theorist, the reader discovers a committed opponent of conspiratorial thinking of all kinds. Instead of a proponent of rightwing terrorism, one discovers the founder of a political party devoted to the promotion of civic peace. Above all, one discovers in Camus a man of culture, of the high European culture that he sees everywhere in retreat amid a generalized debasement of humanity.

The book opens with a critical Introduction by its editor, Professor Louis Betty of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Betty seeks to free Camus from the various polemical misrepresentations to which he has been subjected in order to situate him in the context of recent French debates concerning immigration and identity, debates that have only become more intense since Camus first entered the fray. Each chapter is thoroughly annotated to help non-French readers better navigate what might be unfamiliar references.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well the elephant in the room is force is it not? The liberal ideal is to allow each person as much personal space for free action as possible, and to coerce as little as possible.

Elephants — pink elephants! — cavort mercilessly in the rooms of your mind, yet the issue of force is an important one.

But it is quite questionable to assert that our modern Liberalism — hyper-liberalism — is not force-dependent.

As Liberalism’s hyperactive tenets are challenged, the force-levers show themselves.

The reason you surprise me so often is because your ideological blinders have been given such a strident mouthpiece. They scream. In some areas you reason well. Then you careen off the page in others, totally out of control.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well the elephant in the room is force is it not? The liberal ideal is to allow each person as much personal space for free action as possible, and to coerce as little as possible.

Elephants — pink elephants! — cavort mercilessly in the rooms of your mind, yet the issue of force is an important one.

But it is quite questionable to assert that our modern Liberalism — hyper-liberalism — is not force-dependent.

I quite obviously didn't make that claim. To say that liberalism tries to coerce as little as possible is of course to aknowledge that zero coercion is impossible. Please try to keep up.

I am happy to go further. To the extent that democracy requires that politics change according to the demands of the people, and totalitarianism requires that the people change according to the needs of politics, liberalism requires a certain degree of totalitarian action in the form of the manufacture of law abiding citizens. There's no escaping it. But the basic premise of liberalism remains to secure for the individual as large a private space for free action as is possible.

As Liberalism’s hyperactive tenets are challenged, the force-levers show themselves.

The reason you surprise me so often is because your ideological blinders have been given such a strident mouthpiece. They scream. In some areas you reason well. Then you careen off the page in others, totally out of control.

Yawn. Your views clearly don't permit freedom of religion, nor freedom to mingle with whomesoever one chooses, nor to marry whomesoeverone chooses. You can try to gaslight about that as much as you like, but you never did impress me, and it isn't likely to happen for you now.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yawn. Your views clearly don't permit freedom of religion, nor freedom to mingle with whomesoever one chooses, nor to marry whomesoeverone chooses. You can try to gaslight about that as much as you like, but you never did impress me, and it isn't likely to happen for you now.

Discussion of ideas, of current events, of social ideologies — all of this must be for you advocacy.

“My views” are not what is the topic. The topic is how people and communities are navigating a decided turn against Liberal idealism in our present.

Another topic is the ideological platform of hyper-Liberalism, and Americanism, what it advocates for, why, and also how opposition to it is taking shape.

You will not get anywhere, Flash, if you only remain a maddened advocate of whatever your own position is and if you cannot — won’t — make an effort to understand how other people think.