The Rise of Trumpism

[Raver]

Trumpism is just a natural reaction or rebellion from the masses to globalism, neo-marxism and post modernism.

[Waster]

Trumpism is just a natural reaction or rebellion from the masses to globalism, neo-marxism and post modernism.

Eggzacly

If you want to criticize Trump, criticize him for being a zionist agent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJW5A7ruLM

Boy things have changed around here.

[Ave]

Trumpism is just a natural reaction or rebellion from the masses to globalism, neo-marxism and post modernism.

Yes, that is true, but it's a bad reaction because it's anti-intellectual at its core.

Just because the thing(s) being reacted against, in this case political correctness and post modernism are bad, doesn't make the reaction against those things automatically good.

Lots of people talk like Trump is somehow good simply because he opposes political correctness, well the sickness can kill you, but so can the antidote...better to find a better, safer antidote...

On a side note, I don't think globalism (another thing you mention people rebelling against) is that bad. Being open towards the outside world is better than being closed off to it. It does have some negative consequences for some, yes, like the movement of capital leaving some areas penniless and the outsourcing of cheap labor but I think the consequences of rolling back free trade would leave people worse off. Countries should be able to control their borders, if only for the safety of their own citizens. I am mostly pro immigration but I do think government should be able to make harsh decisions if they have to, to protect their citizens. I do think that racialist theories about whites being replaced are bullshit though. It seems to me that international organzations iike the EU and the UN consist of career politicians oneupping each other, too, which is why any opposition to them labels you a heretic of sorts. You gotta be polished and right-thinking.

[Alonzo]

There are some in this thread whose mothers’ (in utero) should’ve belly flopped down 249 flights of stairs, and spared us the subsequent social and intellectual drain. Unapologetically, I take a hostile stance to certain views–to those not directly/immediately affected by hatemongering idiocy masquerading as accuracy, it’s easier to hold a more dispassionate point of view–but my “interest groups” aren’t afforded that luxury because much of these views encompass an existential assault and not the imagined kind by those perpetuating the notion of some “white genocide.” And so I give subzero fucks about any bigots and their sympathizers whom I might offend.

But you, unlike the rest, don’t necessarily strike me as a completely hardened piece of fecal waste; I think that some of your thoughts and conclusions lack a certain rigor, but that can be remedied if you have the will–if not, off to the heap with you as well. But I say this to say the only reason why I’m critiquing your comment and not any of the others (that hardly amount to anything but compacted hot air and flatulence) is because you don’t seem morally submerged. For the sake of transparency, I'm approximately 3/4 ethnic Scandinavian (with a European passport) and the rest a mishmash of colonized "others," but I'm particularly interested in those who speak on affairs concerning "my people" and what's happening within our borders.

Clustering groups of different ethnicities together won't work because human nature is naturally tribal like our ancestors from thousands of years ago. This won't be undone because of forced social policies.

So then how do the vast majority of the 87 European ethnicities, for example, live side by side in relative harmony and not routinely slaughter and murder each other? Granted, prior to WWII and in a few blips on the radar since then, that certainly wasn't the case. But for the most part, since WWII and particularly in Western Europe, the various ethnicities, while still having stark socio-cultural-political differences in some cases (Scandinavia vs the Mediterranean), all live in relative stability with each other. If what you say is true, that "clustering groups of different ethnicities together won't work," how is this currently possible?

Would love to read your answer to that.

I am fine with Europe receiving actual refugees from Syria, but they are merely a small fraction of actual migrants to Europe. The vast majority are economic migrants from Africa and the middle east. They are not fleeing war, but rather poverty.

According to the latest and most up to date empirical data (If you'd care to see, I have the research to post), the fact of the matter is that a third of income inequality in the world today can be explained by the diversified impact of European colonialism on different societies, especially on the continent of Africa, where much of its economic growth was substantially smothered and stifled by way of removing opportunities for the vast majority of its population. Were there some benefits to colonialism? Yes, but the cons far outweigh the pros (e.g., by splitting ethnicities across countries, the colonial border design has systematically spurred political violence, unrest, and instability). That being the case, why should it be unreasonable and unacceptable for Africans to try and better their lot, particularly in the lands that reaped the most benefit from their disenfranchisement? Would that not, at the very least, amount to some degree of fairness? Or is that not a concern of yours?

[Cybernetic]

There are some in this thread whose mothers’ (in utero) should’ve belly flopped down 249 flights of stairs, and spared us the subsequent social and intellectual drain. Unapologetically, I take a hostile stance to certain views–to those not directly/immediately affected by hatemongering idiocy masquerading as accuracy, it’s easier to hold a more dispassionate point of view–but my “interest groups” aren’t afforded that luxury because much of these views encompass an existential assault and not the imagined kind by those perpetuating the notion of some “white genocide.” And so I give subzero fucks about any bigots and their sympathizers whom I might offend.

But you, unlike the rest, don’t necessarily strike me as a completely hardened piece of fecal waste; I think that some of your thoughts and conclusions lack a certain rigor, but that can be remedied if you have the will–if not, off to the heap with you as well. But I say this to say the only reason why I’m critiquing your comment and not any of the others (that hardly amount to anything but compacted hot air and flatulence) is because you don’t seem morally submerged. For the sake of transparency, I'm approximately 3/4 ethnic Scandinavian (with a European passport) and the rest a mishmash of colonized "others," but I'm particularly interested in those who speak on affairs concerning "my people" and what's happening within our borders.



So then how do the vast majority of the 87 European ethnicities, for example, live side by side in relative harmony and not routinely slaughter and murder each other? Granted, prior to WWII and in a few blips on the radar since then, that certainly wasn't the case. But for the most part, since WWII and particularly in Western Europe, the various ethnicities, while still having stark socio-cultural-political differences in some cases (Scandinavia vs the Mediterranean), all live in relative stability with each other. If what you say is true, that "clustering groups of different ethnicities together won't work," how is this currently possible?

Would love to read your answer to that.



According to the latest and most up to date empirical data (If you'd care to see, I have the research to post), the fact of the matter is that a third of income inequality in the world today can be explained by the diversified impact of European colonialism on different societies, especially on the continent of Africa, where much of its economic growth was substantially smothered and stifled by way of removing opportunities for the vast majority of its population. Were there some benefits to colonialism? Yes, but the cons far outweigh the pros (e.g., by splitting ethnicities across countries, the colonial border design has systematically spurred political violence, unrest, and instability). That being the case, why should it be unreasonable and unacceptable for Africans to try and better their lot, particularly in the lands that reaped the most benefit from their disenfranchisement? Would that not, at the very least, amount to some degree of fairness? Or is that not a concern of yours?

Take a chill pill

[Alonzo]

Take a chill pill

Sure, while you help yourself to a glass or 2 or 3 of that, my treat...

[Cybernetic]

Sure, while you help yourself to a glass or 2 or 3 of that, my treat...

I thank you for your kind offer, but it's empty. Have you been using it to wash down your chill pills? Would explain a lot...

[Alonzo]

I thank you for your kind offer, but it's empty. Have you been using it to wash down your chill pills? Would explain a lot...

Nah, must've given it to your Uncle so he could rinse out your fetid twat.

Uh-oh, did all the chimpouts make little monkey forget that this meme died in 2016?
1552703880190.jpg

1.) That means little coming from a flying proboscis monkey...you know, pot and kettle, and all that.

2.) Only some premi-dicked incel, Nosferatu sun-dodging, dank, dark, basement dwelling Cave Bitch still feeding off of Mommy's depleted, sandbag titties is going to criticize someone for using an old meme, as if I should give a fuck. Lol Stop beating that baby dick to some delusional, inoculated notion of your (pseudo) intelligence, considering the likelihood you're the only dumb, basic bitch you talk to all day.

[Cheebs]

Sure, while you help yourself to a glass or 2 or 3 of that, my treat...

Uh-oh, did all the chimpouts make little monkey forget that this meme died in 2016?
1552703880190.jpg

[Starvish]

Sure, while you help yourself to a glass or 2 or 3 of that, my treat...

>telling someone to kill themselves just because they asked you to calm down

DQPH2-qUQAEkuhE.jpg

[Ave]

>telling someone to kill themselves just because they asked you to calm down

DQPH2-qUQAEkuhE.jpg

As @Sol would put it, "not base T".

[Raver]

There are some in this thread whose mothers’ (in utero) should’ve belly flopped down 249 flights of stairs, and spared us the subsequent social and intellectual drain. Unapologetically, I take a hostile stance to certain views–to those not directly/immediately affected by hatemongering idiocy masquerading as accuracy, it’s easier to hold a more dispassionate point of view–but my “interest groups” aren’t afforded that luxury because much of these views encompass an existential assault and not the imagined kind by those perpetuating the notion of some “white genocide.” And so I give subzero fucks about any bigots and their sympathizers whom I might offend.

But you, unlike the rest, don’t necessarily strike me as a completely hardened piece of fecal waste; I think that some of your thoughts and conclusions lack a certain rigor, but that can be remedied if you have the will–if not, off to the heap with you as well. But I say this to say the only reason why I’m critiquing your comment and not any of the others (that hardly amount to anything but compacted hot air and flatulence) is because you don’t seem morally submerged. For the sake of transparency, I'm approximately 3/4 ethnic Scandinavian (with a European passport) and the rest a mishmash of colonized "others," but I'm particularly interested in those who speak on affairs concerning "my people" and what's happening within our borders.

My immigration stance is nationalistic primarily towards Europe for a host of variety of reasons that I will get into later. Within my own country of Canada and other non-European countries like US/NZ/Australia, I am much more lenient towards immigration due to the fact that preserving ethnic identity in former European colonies is absurd due to being originally Native American. Personally within my own country, I'm more interested in immigrants being willing to integrate into Canada fully and adopt its culture so it can become a melting pot like the US instead of multicultural regardless of the ethnic groups that enter here.

So then how do the vast majority of the 87 European ethnicities, for example, live side by side in relative harmony and not routinely slaughter and murder each other? Granted, prior to WWII and in a few blips on the radar since then, that certainly wasn't the case. But for the most part, since WWII and particularly in Western Europe, the various ethnicities, while still having stark socio-cultural-political differences in some cases (Scandinavia vs the Mediterranean), all live in relative stability with each other. If what you say is true, that "clustering groups of different ethnicities together won't work," how is this currently possible?

Would love to read your answer to that.

You just answered your own question, it's because those 87 ethnicities reside within different nations. If these 87 ethnicities were within the same nation then it would be significantly more problematic. I don't see how this even remotely compares to diffferent ethnicities residing within the same nation.

According to the latest and most up to date empirical data (If you'd care to see, I have the research to post), the fact of the matter is that a third of income inequality in the world today can be explained by the diversified impact of European colonialism on different societies, especially on the continent of Africa, where much of its economic growth was substantially smothered and stifled by way of removing opportunities for the vast majority of its population. Were there some benefits to colonialism? Yes, but the cons far outweigh the pros (e.g., by splitting ethnicities across countries, the colonial border design has systematically spurred political violence, unrest, and instability). That being the case, why should it be unreasonable and unacceptable for Africans to try and better their lot, particularly in the lands that reaped the most benefit from their disenfranchisement? Would that not, at the very least, amount to some degree of fairness? Or is that not a concern of yours?

If Africans or anyone else entering into Europe that is not an actual refugee that wants to migrate to Europe due to poor economic conditions then they this should be done through a proper immigration process. Prioritization should be given to families as opposed to young men, immigrants willing to integrate into Europe, those with careers or jobs that will benefit the economy in some form. Those that do not meet these requirements should not enter Europe, it's pretty simple. Other countries like the US and Canada follow this simple system of immigration to an extent, yet Europe ignores these basic immigration rules and just let in anyone in posing as a refugee when they're not.

The EU is single handedly ruining Europe with their abysmal immigration laws that don't screen anyone and just let them in because they want to come there and are masquerading as refugees. The fact that the EU enforces these laws upon all members of the EU rather than allowing EU nations to choose immigration laws that they believe will benefit them is autocratic and prohibitive of the power of nations to govern themselves independently. This is ignoring all the other economic issues the EU has brought upon the majority of nations with the introduction of the Euro and many other reasons on why the EU dictatorship is single handedly destroying Europe.

Sure, while you help yourself to a glass or 2 or 3 of that, my treat...

@Cybernetic is trying to tell you that you should be less hostile and less emotional when it comes to political debates. You have demonstrated on numerous cases that you are perfectly capable of being logical and rational so why you decide to add in hostility and emotion when it's not required is befuddling.

Wait, where did I say that I thought "white genocide" was an issue that needed to be solved? I'm fine with whites in my country being mixed with brown people, black people and so on. I do agree everyone should integrate into the culture, but to your point, as a European myself I don't see how our culture correlates to race.

I was referring to the fact that we agree that the mass influx of economic migrants that enter Europe without going through a proper immigration process and are posing as refugees should be controlled to an extent. I'm aware that our views on retaining ethnicity in Europe are different so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I didn't suggest that Syrians enter the EU though? What I said was that checking their backgrounds is problematic, due to the fact that the Syrian government doesn't collaborate with Western countries. What the Syrian government considers a terrorist organization might not be considered one by the EU and vice versa, so it's basically impossible to do background checks on Syrian refugees.

What I am saying is that race is not issue when it comes to integrating immigrants. I do oppose bringing in immigrants who could potentially endanger a country's citizens and residents. As far as those who don't wanna integrate, well I don't know. I suppose my stance would be to let them in, if we do background checks, and the background checks show they aern't terrorists, but they shouldn't be entitled to welfare. The thing is that we don't know beforehand if someone wants to integrate or not, so I prefer giving folks the benefit of the doubt rather than build a wall.

Fair enough, it seems like we do see eye to an eye on this issue though nonetheless.

[Muddy]

You just answered your own question, it's because those 87 ethnicities reside within different nations. If these 87 ethnicities were within the same nation then it would be significantly more problematic. I don't see how this even remotely compares to diffferent ethnicities residing within the same nation.

Austria-Hungary makes a good case study in regards to this.

[Alonzo]

You just answered your own question, it's because those 87 ethnicities reside within different nations. If these 87 ethnicities were within the same nation then it would be significantly more problematic. I don't see how this even remotely compares to diffferent ethnicities residing within the same nation.

Wrong. And I’m going to be generous and just list the major European ethnic groups within various European countries.

UK (according to the 2011 census): English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish, British (including the Cornish)
Belgium: Flemish, Walloon
Spain: Andalusian, Aragonese, Asturian, Balearic, Basque, Canary Islanders, Galicians, Leonese, Valencian, Cantabrian, Castilian, Catalonian, Extremaduran
Switzerland: German-Swiss, French-Swiss, Italian Swiss, Romanch
France: Alemannic Germans, Arpitan, Basques, Bretons, Catalans, Corsicans, Flemings, Occitans.

That list is by no means exhaustive, but I just wanted to prove three points, that 1.) unsurprisingly, you don’t know what you are talking about; 2.) that you were disingenuously speaking in coded language meant to single out non-ethnic European people as somehow being incapable of integrating with ethnic Europeans without significant strife; 3.) that “social policies” rooted in unifying people through economic incentives, shared values, and laws that codify inalienable human rights can indeed bring peoples together. Don’t believe me? Take a gander:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_integration

The thing is this: reasonable people understand that it can take time (with a few bumps and bruises along the way) for different cultures to acclimate to each other and that's ok. Humans are tribal, narcissistic and stubborn--we need time, hell, even when we look alike, speak the same language and come from a similar place (look at early Irish immigrants in the US). Some of you seem to be incapable of understanding that ALL cultures change and evolve over time and that's both normal and ok.

But you know what doesn't help the integration process along? Hatred and fear mongering.

If Africans or anyone else entering into Europe that is not an actual refugee that wants to migrate to Europe due to poor economic conditions then they this should be done through a proper immigration process. Prioritization should be given to families as opposed to young men, immigrants willing to integrate into Europe, those with careers or jobs that will benefit the economy in some form. Those that do not meet these requirements should not enter Europe, it's pretty simple. Other countries like the US and Canada follow this simple system of immigration to an extent, yet Europe ignores these basic immigration rules and just let in anyone in posing as a refugee when they're not.

The EU is single handedly ruining Europe with their abysmal immigration laws that don't screen anyone and just let them in because they want to come there and are masquerading as refugees. The fact that the EU enforces these laws upon all members of the EU rather than allowing EU nations to choose immigration laws that they believe will benefit them is autocratic and prohibitive of the power of nations to govern themselves independently. This is ignoring all the other economic issues the EU has brought upon the majority of nations with the introduction of the Euro and many other reasons on why the EU dictatorship is single handedly destroying Europe.

I just find it utterly jarring that Christian Europeans conquer, dominate, colonize, crusade, enslave, destroy, pillage, and plunder virtually unimpeded for centuries upon centuries but when (according to some) "the chickens finally come home to roost," somehow Europe's shady, inhumane past vanishes into thin air and they suddenly become victims on the verge of being besieged by barbarian hordes. The unmitigated gall is astounding. To some, this is nothing but karma and I must say, you aren't taking it very well. And make no mistake, arguably, the Islamic Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc... are also getting their fair share of universal "karma." Maybe one day people will learn that regardless of our differences, we're similarly shit at the core and we should try to overcome that together.

Having said that, I don't believe in unfettered immigration, especially along the lines of what we've recently seen. I think that there must be a healthy respect for the fact that 1.) resources have limitations, 2.) most people need gradual change and time to adjust to "difference," and 3.) with that "difference" comes some potential culture clashes and problems that must be addressed honestly and responsibly. But then again, the migrant crisis is a crisis, and does not reflect normal trends. Sweden is particularly burdened because other countries don't pull their weight, whether from of a lack of desire (Denmark), an inability to handle the load (Serbia and Croatia) or both (Poland)--although Poles don't mind "burdening" other EU nations with their own people, including mine.

Lastly, I believe that most of the current influx of immigrants should go back to their countries once there is greater stability in their lands and that moreover, they actually do want that for themselves. But when people are in dire need, I believe that humanity owes it to ourselves to help, especially when a certain group of humans has literally benefitted off the backs of those now knocking down their doors. It's quite simple really.

@Cybernetic is trying to tell you that you should be less hostile and less emotional when it comes to political debates. You have demonstrated on numerous cases that you are perfectly capable of being logical and rational so why you decide to add in hostility and emotion when it's not required is befuddling.

What’s befuddling to me is how we are on a personality typing forum and you can’t read under my avatar, at the very least, and see that I’m an enneagram 8w7. Lol And an ENTJ who had his primitive ass Fi values stepped on, which is never pretty. But I came back to the discussion because I’m just too petty to let you get away with being wrong.