97 replies to this topic

[Vortigern]

We'll get there one day. The problem is, nobody seems to want to listen to the voice of reason, whoever it may be.

[partyzanPaulZy]

Have you ever seen Kosovo - stolen land ? It's Serbian documentary film, but 1 thing author says in the beginning something like: "I don't justify acts of Miloshevich and his crimes... " Next is showed what Albans did there, masacres during Turkic domination, Albanian pact with Nazis (they were Nazis allies), Tito's precautions against Serbian nationalism and against danger of collaps of Yugoslavia led to growing Albanian population in Kosovo, too. From the 1970's during economical crisis Albanians settled KLM [UChK] which caused genocide of Serbians and Serbian exodus. GENOCIDE WAS BILATERAL and I doubt really Serbians lost less people (children and women too). In 1912 there wasn't more than 20% of Kosovo's population Albanian, before NATO's occupation there lived SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSANDS Serbians, after their "humanitary bombardment" (casualties several thousand civilians) in Kosovo left till remained just 30 000 Serbians. When there were reports Serbian army could attack north of Kosovo (fake) several NATO contingents guarding important buildings or Serbian population went to north Kosovo's border. Albanians garrisoned (stole) buildings left by Serbian refugees and when some of them returned, they realized they lost their homes they build by their own hands for decades, Serbians lost land they have for centuries. There are also examples of KLM murders (children and women too) in this film, when there's some report that Serbian killed Albanian, these islamic-nationalistic-hotblooded Albanians starts street commotions immediatly. NATO's soldiers in Kosovo were expeling Serbian civilians from their homes with firing from rifles. Don't wonder Serbians says NATO is fascistic organization because there was similar situation like during WW2 (Albanians - anyhow turkic nation, were killing Serbians with Nazi help) and when war ended, KLM terrorists had to be judged (it was said they will be) but they haven't been judged + they are 'big friends' with politicians from NATO countries. UN judges just Serbians...

Right reason for American assault? The largest American base out of the USA.

And I also like the end of the film:
A group of Albanian children (5-7 yr) are threating 3 Serbian children of same age. Albanian children : "You are catholic? We will cut your necks!! (to Serbian girl): Your too, you Virgin Mary! We will cut your necks!! ..."

We are inviting these agressive Albanians to the EU, they are same as Turks, large birth-rate, agressive form of nationalism (Kurdistan case, same like Tibet case), hotblooded...

I have also seen french documentary film "Kosovo - black hole of the Europe", but this seemed to me like propaganda (type of propaganda: just part of true) after I saw "Kosovo - stolen land" (that old Albanian woman lived there JUST 30 years x Serbians lived there longer).

Today's Kosovo is led by former KLM (terrorists) who gained money from drugs and weapon black market.

[Romanul]

Kossovo is rather an sad case.

Tibet tought is something that shouldn't be part of China,I mean,Dalai Lama killed less than Mao,right?

Mao killed those from Tibet because they were neutral in the Chinese civil war.Communists,(like the nazis)are expansionists.

My grandfather,has gone in China,like 20 years ago,and he found romanians(yes,you heard it right) in Manchuria.

By?The USSR!

Now,the general idea of hard communism,is mixing people,with other people.

Why?So that only 1 element be common:language.

Language is the thing which generaly(not allways) shows off were do we come.

Albania mixed intentionally,albanians,so that they can get what they consider is theirs.

Its the same simple idea...

[Casen]

We are inviting these agressive Albanians to the EU, they are same as Turks, large birth-rate, agressive form of nationalism (Kurdistan case, same like Tibet case), hotblooded...

He's right. Muslims breed like vermin because they can have multiple wives. They will soon overtake European population...we can't let that happen.

Albanians, Turks, Muslims in general...all dangerous to the future of Europe.

[Casen]

So then I'm sure that you support:

- Tibetan independance.

Actually someone with my logic and a neutral standpoint would probably not, other than the fact they got invaded. Honestly, I'm neutral on the issue since I do not know much about it.

- Reestablishing all current Romance countries as their original inhabitants. This would mean a celtic (Irish-Welsh-Scottish-Cornish-Breton) invasion of England, France and Switzerland (since Britain and Gaul were predominantly celtic 2000 years ago), and evacuating Spain and Portugal in favour of the non-Roman original inhabitants.

Since all citizens have equal rights in those countries, and neither group "dominates" over the other it'd make little to no difference. As for the native Americans, you do not know enough about what happened there, we came peacefully, they savagely attacked us.

Regardless, those happened so long ago and we can't go back in time and fix all those things, and fixing them now would make little difference since cultural identities already exist.

But this happened so recently, with a bombing, and for no reason whatsoever. Honestly, I'm just trying to put myself in a Serbian's position, I'd be upset. I'd be upset if the same thing happened to my country, and I don't care what liberals or politically correct people tell me.

[CodeCat]

we came peacefully

[Mastermind]

Actually someone with my logic and a neutral standpoint would probably not, other than the fact they got invaded. Honestly, I'm neutral on the issue since I do not know much about it.

You use that word, I don't think you know what it means.

[Vortigern]

we came peacefully, they savagely attacked us.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. We went to the New World with the sole aim of stealing their stuff and putting our stuff there instead. On an international scale, that's an invasion. The only reason it doesn't go down in history as that is that we stayed there and called it colonialism instead. Just because they were less 'civilised' than us, doesn't mean they must have savagely attacked us. Research the situation before you come to a conclusion like that.

[partyzanPaulZy]

Spielberg's "To the West" is good serial about this.
Now it looks they have better times than during colonization.
I heard some tribes of native Americans have casinos nowadays (something at least).

Another thing is The Hawai islands, most of the native inhabitants are against American domination, but some 2/3 Hawaians aren't native (Americans came there mostly during 20th century). This is the same as China have done in Tibet and other new parts of China or Turkey in Kurdistan (but is part of the NATO so Kurds are 'bad' then).

Do you remember what Putin said about Kosovo's independence? "If Kosovo will be independent, Abchazia* and Southern Osetia will be independent too."
What is happening right now? War in these two countries. Gruzia fights with insurgents and Russian peace forces** there! Both says other side started first. I think Gruzia cannot win if Russians will send reforcements (and they will do it).

During Summer Olympic Games...

*ch like in Achmed (the dead terrorist)
**reminds me socialistic (before 1989) slogans like we were part of Mass of peace (in Czech "Tábor míru"), but they kept peace by force, Peace through Power is kind of balance policy and not only WW invention

[Romanul]

woah,I am the only that can speak in the name of Achhmed

I KILL YOU!!!

Another title for this day was "War and Peace"

War - Georgia

Peace - Beijing(untill tibetans come )

[Puppeteer]

Communists,(like the nazis)are expansionists.

Not always, it's just a coincidental relation between extreme-cases-of Communism and Nationalism whose leaders have aggressive foreign policies.

[Casen]

we came peacefully

Actually, a lot of what you read is revisionist history. The Native Americans for one thing weren't even environmentally friendly, they left their garbage wherever they went. Secondly, the Puritans never oppressed the Native Americans, contrary to popular belief. The Spanish did, but I'm not talking about them.

The majority of the population of Native Americans were killed unintentionally by small pox, in addition many natives savagely attacked civilian settlements, and we were forced to preemptively defend ourselves. It's this type of political correctness which leads to the rise of white supremacists. It's like the bullshit that goes on in South Africa where they can't even celebrate the Day of the Vow anymore because apparently it's "racist" to defend yourself against natives.

Also, none of the founding fathers were anti-Native Americans, at least the prominent ones I know about. Jefferson said they were equal, Ben Franklin even admired them.

The one that led to their "oppression" was Andrew Jackson, but even Andrew Jackson gave them the choice to integrate into our society as equals but they refused, so they we were forced to leave.

As a futurist, I support the elimination of primitivist, paganistic, nature-worshiping culture.

Edited by Kacen, 08 August 2008 - 08:54 PM.

[Vortigern]

The Native Americans for one thing weren't even environmentally friendly, they left their garbage wherever they went.

So do we... At least theirs was properly biodegradable, what with being made of wood and animal skins, so it's not like it matters. When carbon-based matter like wood and bones decays, it actually fertilises the soil, so they were actually doing nature a favour by leaving their stuff lying around.

The majority of the population of Native Americans were killed unintentionally by small pox, in addition many natives savagely attacked civilian settlements, and we were forced to preemptively defend ourselves.

Early biological warfare. And they may have attacked our settlements, but that was because we cut down their sacred forests and put big ugly buildings on theirs and their ancestor's lands. We were attacked because we occupied their territory without even bothering to find out if they existed, let alone minded.

As a futurist, I support the elimination of primitivist, paganistic, nature-worshiping culture.

Do you also support the elimination of blind-faith invisible-entity-worshipping culture? I'd call that far more primitive than nature worship. Nature worship is a lot more understandable and in many ways more forward-thinking than belief in an omnipotent being who created everything with a flick of his wrist. It could be argued that nature worship is scientifically accurate, as it was entirely due to the actions of nature (or so the scientific faction believes) that the world we know was created.

Edited by Vortigern, 09 August 2008 - 07:53 AM.

[Casen]

So do we... At least theirs was properly biodegradable, what with being made of wood and animal skins, so it's not like it matters. When carbon-based matter like wood and bones decays, it actually fertilises the soil, so they were actually doing nature a favour by leaving their stuff lying around.

I never said we didn't pollute, I am just saying that to counter the political correctness of them being "environmentally friendly".

Early biological warfare. And they may have attacked our settlements, but that was because we cut down their sacred forests and put big ugly buildings on theirs and their ancestor's lands. We were attacked because we occupied their territory without even bothering to find out if they existed, let alone minded.

They weren't making good use of them anyway.

Do you also support the elimination of blind-faith invisible-entity-worshipping culture? I'd call that far more primitive than nature worship. Nature worship is a lot more understandable and in many ways more forward-thinking than belief in an omnipotent being who created everything with a flick of his wrist. It could be argued that nature worship is scientifically accurate, as it was entirely due to the actions of nature (or so the scientific faction believes) that the world we know was created

It depends, really. Deism is superior to the Abrahamic religions and the Abrahamic religions are superior to Paganistic religions, although more dangerous and violent.

And you are wrong. It takes intelligence to realize that dirt and rocks do not have spirits in them, but also assuming there is nothing and we came from nothing is dumb as well, something created us, but not the "Abrahamic" god...the problem with the Abrahamic religions is not the idea of one omnipotent god creating everything it's all the text and bullshit that surrounds them.

[Puppeteer]

I never said we didn't pollute, I am just saying that to counter the political correctness of them being "environmentally friendly".

I'm sure their small local fires for the necessities of warmth and food was far more environmentally friendly then the colonialists. And when they killed an animal, they tried to use what they could so they could get the best possible outcome from the smallest dire necessity.

They weren't making good use of them anyway.

That's subjective. I would say destroying forests and not replanting them was a worse way to use the resources. Sustainable Development down the plughole there. Whether it was a good way or a bad way to use the land they had, it wasn't the colonialist's right to move in on their territory. They didn't care what the Natives were doing. They didn't even care if they still existed once they'd expanded fully into their territory. Money made their world go round.

[MSpencer]

It depends, really. Deism is superior to the Abrahamic religions and the Abrahamic religions are superior to Paganistic religions, although more dangerous and violent.

I might be opposed to all religions, but I have a bone to pick with this statement. It's not your place to determine what religions are right and wrong, what religions should be allowed to violently massacre the others, and to place them on some arbitrary rating of "good and better." There's nothing such as a good religion, and as for the harm argument, I could argue that all religions tend to do equal harm over time, it's just a matter of where they are in their life cycle.

something created us,

I defy you to find some scrap of evidence which remotely supports this hypothesis over a strictly naturalistic hypothesis. I'm reasonably certain you'll never be able to find any, simply because there's mounds of theory which supports a strictly naturalistic interpretation of the universe, and a lot of rhetoric on the side of "divine creator."

They weren't making good use of them anyway.

A million people, the entire original population of North America, aren't making good enough use of forests (That's debatable), so the answer is to combat their livelihood, steal their resources, and ultimately devise an agenda to systematically eliminate them?
That's genocide.

Secondly, the Puritans never oppressed the Native Americans, contrary to popular belief. The Spanish did, but I'm not talking about them.

As someone coming from Puritan country, I'd like to make an objection here.
The Spanish were the most upfront about their destruction of native states. They wanted to make it clear that they could take down the biggest on either continent, and proved it with their exploits against the Incas and the Aztecs, but they also wanted to make an example of smaller tribes such as the Seminoles. Here they largely failed, the Spanish weren't able to put enough resources into holding South America and colonizing the north, which explains their shift to missionary colonization towards the 1600s.
The "Puritans," who can be lumped under the British, as the Puritans made up a pathetically small portion of the colonists of the New World even at the start, had bigger things to deal with than Native Americans. None of the tribes in the northeast were violent, and those that had been tended to be ostracized from Native American relations. They mostly cooperated with the Puritans; they had guns, more manpower, and the threat of reinforcements. It wasn't so much a lack of oppression, as much as the Puritans couldn't do anything, because there were just enough natives to throw them out, while the Native Americans couldn't do anything because they were afraid that they'd alienate themselves from other tribes by attacking a group of people who had so far turned out to be not that bad. Northeastern Native Americans were very peaceful, which was their downfall.
The English, up and down the seaboard, and the French in Quebec, didn't have this problem though. They largely followed the Spanish examples of how to rule a colony. Genocide, again.

It's like the bullshit that goes on in South Africa where they can't even celebrate the Day of the Vow anymore because apparently it's "racist" to defend yourself against natives.

Now that I've heard your defense of the genocide of the Native Americans and of Kosovar civilians (Even the Serbians admit that killing civilians was wrong, you apparently believe they were illegitimate colonists who should have been exterminated. Not even Milosevic shared this viewpoint, and they largely viewed Kosovar civilians as potential KLA supporters), I can't wait to hear you stand up for the obviously excellent idea that was apartheid.
And I love how you continue to insist you're not a racist. Or a bigot.

Not always, it's just a coincidental relation between extreme-cases-of Communism and Nationalism whose leaders have aggressive foreign policies.

There are a lot of expansionist governments in the past who haven't been near communism or nationalism. The extremes are far more likely to be expansionist though, as it seems to make common appearances throughout their doctrine and rhetoric. It's also worth nothing that expansionism is a way to unify a country and usually makes for an excellent spot of propaganda, and most extreme governments need that since they often have a legislative minority or a low domestic approval rate. While not all communist and nationalist regimes are expansionist, it's sort of a consequence of having a low approval rate, and usually ministers who support expansion in your cabinet.

[Casen]

That's subjective. I would say destroying forests and not replanting them was a worse way to use the resources.

False, loggers, at least today, replant the trees they cut down. Don't listen to modern environmental activists, they spew propaganda because they were hijacked by anti-"Corporatist" and anti-Capitalist people who use environmentalism as a cover for their socialistic goals.

[Casen]

I might be opposed to all religions, but I have a bone to pick with this statement. It's not your place to determine what religions are right and wrong, what religions should be allowed to violently massacre the others, and to place them on some arbitrary rating of "good and better." There's nothing such as a good religion, and as for the harm argument, I could argue that all religions tend to do equal harm over time, it's just a matter of where they are in their life cycle.

Name any time in history where Deists oppressed or killed people.

I defy you to find some scrap of evidence which remotely supports this hypothesis over a strictly naturalistic hypothesis. I'm reasonably certain you'll never be able to find any, simply because there's mounds of theory which supports a strictly naturalistic interpretation of the universe, and a lot of rhetoric on the side of "divine creator.

I think the problem with atheism, which is reactionary, is that when they think of God they think of the Abrahamic god, some butcher, unfair, hypocritical entity, or they think of some ridiculous nature gods. Atheism is reactionary to these things, primarily the former, and most atheists haven't heard of the alternative: Deism. As a former atheist, I sympathize.

A million people, the entire original population of North America, aren't making good enough use of forests (That's debatable), so the answer is to combat their livelihood, steal their resources, and ultimately devise an agenda to systematically eliminate them?
That's genocide.

Living with nature for so long and not devising up the ideas to create technology and whatnot is a humongous waste of human potential. We're not as primitive as other animals, we can invent things, we are superior. We shouldn't let paganism and nature worship and anarcho-primitivism get in that way, we should eliminate it by any means necessary, and even if the way we dealt with it was not for the cause of futurism, it undoubtedly helped it a long.

The Spanish were the most upfront about their destruction of native states. They wanted to make it clear that they could take down the biggest on either continent, and proved it with their exploits against the Incas and the Aztecs, but they also wanted to make an example of smaller tribes such as the Seminoles. Here they largely failed, the Spanish weren't able to put enough resources into holding South America and colonizing the north, which explains their shift to missionary colonization towards the 1600s.
The "Puritans," who can be lumped under the British, as the Puritans made up a pathetically small portion of the colonists of the New World even at the start, had bigger things to deal with than Native Americans. None of the tribes in the northeast were violent, and those that had been tended to be ostracized from Native American relations. They mostly cooperated with the Puritans; they had guns, more manpower, and the threat of reinforcements. It wasn't so much a lack of oppression, as much as the Puritans couldn't do anything, because there were just enough natives to throw them out, while the Native Americans couldn't do anything because they were afraid that they'd alienate themselves from other tribes by attacking a group of people who had so far turned out to be not that bad. Northeastern Native Americans were very peaceful, which was their downfall.
The English, up and down the seaboard, and the French in Quebec, didn't have this problem though. They largely followed the Spanish examples of how to rule a colony. Genocide, again.

Notice I never claimed that the Spanish did not commit a genocide, though to be honest the "genocide" against Native Americans up north was very unorganized and before Andrew Jackson not even coordinated by the government. It was more like sectarian violence...because back then we lived on a principle of small government that didn't interfere with people's lives, the government didn't get involved until Andrew Jackson. Once again, to reiterate, Andrew Jackson gave the primitives a chance to live like us AS EQUALS, and they refused, so we were forced to NOT KILL THEM, but push them out of our territory. When they began fighting back, we were forced to become violent.

I can't wait to hear you stand up for the obviously excellent idea that was apartheid.
And I love how you continue to insist you're not a racist. Or a bigot.

Wait, when did I say I support apartheid? Well I do think Nelson Mandela was a whiny communist bastard, but I never once mentioned apartheid, I merely brought up the Day of the Vow as being an important part of Boer culture, a group of people who endured so many hardships on their treks that now their pride is being smashed in the name of political correctness.

And the same thing goes on in the USA. We have an entire God damned month devoted to black history and one single "president's day" for our founders. Jefferson who was a polymath, among other amazing people.

And then there is affirmative action, which could be called reverse racism, though that's a relative term. It's really just racism. It's like giving blacks a handicap...and what message does that send to white supremacists? Think about it. All this shit fuels white supremacism. The KKK over here, Nazis all over the world, the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging in South Africa, all pissed off. They complain about the hypocrisy of political correctness and such. I don't agree with them, but I cannot help but have a sliver of sympathy mainly for the AWB for how their pride is being trampled on. They are racist out of anger and spite, like many other racist groups. I reiterate: defending yourself from natives that happen to not be white is not racist.

Affirmative action is addressing a legitimate problem in the wrong way. Giving them handicaps to get into college is like cheating on a test. Blacks are living in slums because culturally they like to rebel against white culture and be different, and reject our help, not because they are racially inferior. It's all culture, not race. Blacks sometimes act like degenerate gangster fuckers for the same reason, not because their brains are predisposed to it. And there are a set number of blacks who would agree.

Edited by Kacen, 09 August 2008 - 07:48 PM.

[Mastermind]

So, basically, people should only be allowed to live the way that you decree? Have a god complex much?

[Casen]

So, basically, people should only be allowed to live the way that you decree? Have a god complex much?

Bud, every single ideology is like that. Just depends on how much force is applied...