Originally Posted by nihilist moron

But ... I'm not so sure it's all about racism. I have a white American friend living in England and she runs into prejudice a lot.

Yeah - no surprise here. The English brand of racism goes so far as to rate the value of the white races as well. Darwin's "Descent of Man" provides a good blueprint. Hell, the whole idea of monarchy and nobility ranks prejudice down to the family level. Belfast's conservative neighborhoods (and yes, they divide their housing based on political ideas and which kind of white you are) are literally the most dangerous place in all of the EU for a foreigner to be.

Anyway, I don't remember signing up for some kind of ideological affirmative action, so I'm going to enjoy the karma train.

Ok, lets get back to this. *Cracks fingers*

Nothing wrong with your last sentence! I understand your view and don't want to tell other people that they should not find meaning in their "native" culture or ancestry. It is not meaningless to me either, but it's not my "identity." And I don't think such an idea is going to hold up much longer in a globalizing society. Nor do I think people will find it so meaningful that it becomes a basis for politics, war, and resistance to immigration. That is already a minority view and it will get more so. Liberalism should win over conservatism; otherwise there's no progress. But a balance is good, in the sense that new liberal ideas may not work, so a conservative's caution can be valuable at times in regard to the untested and impractical.

An interesting point you make here but allow me to explain my own thoughts on the matter.

Firstly, I feel the reason you do not associate with nationalism as an identity is because you are primarily a 1960s baby boomer. You come from a time when ideas of global utopianism and rebelling against traditional society in order to build a 'better world' was the norm. You also live in California, a predominately liberal, cosmopolitan state where traditional identity really is pointless considering its melting pot status. I cannot blame you for feeling the way you do and you are entitled to your values. Yet for me, as a Millennial, all I have ever remembered is conflict caused by globalism. Whether it is interfering in the affairs of Islamic states or forcing Europeans to accept mass immigration, all of these factors eventually lead down the road to violence and conflict. We cannot force people to do anything and the vast majority on this planet would prefer to uphold the identities and values of their ancestors. Yes, they may change and liberalise to an extent but deep down, traditionalism still remains king in their hearts.

For example, in my own native Britain, until relatively recently, the vast majority used to have much pride in having stood up to the Nazis and remaining an independent nation. It used to be common as late as the 1990s to hear the phrase "we beat Hitler! No one can defeat the British! No one will rule over us!". This patriotism was the norm for the Greatest Generation, Boomers and even Gen X. When Gen Y came along, it was still there but not to the same extent. I do not think the American people had the same feelings but for the British, it really was a moment of national pride. Even in the 1960s when America was undergoing a vast liberal transformation, Britain itself still remained wedded to its traditional core conservative and patriotic values.

So once again, there was a different mindset.

In regards to your proposition that the world is globalising and the world will become one big melting pot in a similar guise to America, I tend to find this view the same as the days of the Roman Empire. Back then, the Romans thought that the world was "Romanising" and that Roman values would continue on forever. After all, Rome pretty much dominated the vast then 'known world' at the time, just like America and its ideas do today. Yet Rome eventually collapsed and with it so did their own ideas for how the world should be run. The vast "Romanised" world splintered up with the once subjugated colonies getting their resistance and becoming independent once again. They were allowed to live as they so chose to do so and once again, the world became a multitude of nations, not just one large Roman pond. I think you will find the same will happen to our world. Eventually globalisation itself will run out of steam and new world powers and ideas will come to challenge the status quo, leading to a divide once again in global consciousness. This itself is already beginning to take shape with the rise of Russia, India and China, all three being incredibly nationalistic countries that have no intentions of playing a global game in the same way as the United States. They have their own visions, beliefs and ideas and will shape the world with these rather then a united global vision.

As for liberalism always being the vanguard of "progress" against backwards, "regressive" conservatism, I do disagree with this. Liberals like to think that the world must keep liberalising and progressing until eternity. But liberalism itself is ultimately a philosophy rooted in expansionism and the question must be asked - just how long can you keep progressing and expanding on an ever infinite planet? At what end can traditional conservative values that did uphold good values be overtaken to allow unlawful practices to become acceptable, all in the name of progress? Just how much can the world keep on progressing when eventually, new technological ideas will eventually dry up and the Earth will become stagnant, as has happened many times in the past?

I tend to find that you cannot have absolute liberalism just as you cannot have absolute conservatism. Both eventually will become redundant whether the Earth goes forwards or backwards. This is why it is ultimately about the balance but you cannot have one rule over the world. It is like the fishes of Pisces. Both must swim together equally and cooperate in order to build a better world. One should not rule over the other for there are good ideas and merits in both yet equally destructive and dangerous ideas in both too. It is all about the balance and favouring one over the other is very dangerous.

Have people tried to silence you when you express nationalist views and such? I don't agree with that, and your nationalist views will not be silenced here. Disagreed with; you bet! But others will agree.

Oh you bet they have! As I explained in my first post today, many times I have been silenced, called names, threatened, even mocked for my beliefs. Yet this is the prevailing ruling orthodoxy over here in Western Europe. If you dare utter any views that do not fit in with the ruling politically correct liberal orthodoxy, then you will be silenced. Hence this is why many Millennials are quietly going "underground" in order to discuss these views because they cannot discuss them in the open, which is itself a dangerous trend.

This itself is leading to a quiet revolution of ideas in European Millennial circles. Its not just about nationalism itself per say but the right to freedom of speech and the right to criticise the government which is causing angst amongst the Millennials. Of course, this itself is tying in with nationalistic thought hence we are now starting to see in some weird way nationalism becoming a new driving force for a new revolutionary libertarianism. The more you oppress people and deny them the right to say as they feel, the more they will start to fight back.

That said, I would like to thank you Eric for being a good sport. You are something rare in liberal circles today and that is a chap willing to debate fairly without the need for name calling and slandering. To that you have my respect. We may disagree on ideas but overall you have behaved like a true liberal and have kept an open mind to this discussion to which pleases me. As a result, I offer you the same respectful courtesy and dialogue.

I agree, except for your statement about recoiling in horror. Japanese may do so at first, as some such as yourself may be doing in Europe now. But it will happen; everywhere will be multi-ethnic. But preserving old traditions can still happen. In fact, it's the moral duty of everyone to respect and preserve these, and not act like the Islamic State/Taliban genocidal militants.

I disagree with this. You cannot preserve old traditions if new people enter a land as they will bring in new ideas that ultimately change the entire identity of the nation in question. Lets be honest here - how many Americans celebrate and practice traditional Native American customs and values today? Very few I presume. Instead the ruling white European Christian ideals overruled the tradition of the natives and a new culture formed. You cannot preserve the traditional if you replace the original inhabitants. Eventually the dominant culture of the new group will start to form the majority and the old is forgotten about.

As for ISIS/Taliban - why do they go down that road? Because they feel threatened. If you threaten a people with racial/cultural/linguistic extinction, some will react radically and cause violence. Its basically like a wounded animal fighting back aggressively. If on the other hand their own people open up to new ideas but with the concept of retaining the old, then the radicals themselves eventually disappear. There is no need for radicalism when a group is not threatened. Bomb them, destroy their homes, destroy their culture and they will fight back.

As for everywhere being multi-ethnic? I somehow doubt that. America might go down that road but I know for certain the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, the Koreans and other ethno-groups will refuse to follow the same path. Its a dream world the whole "we will melt into one people". It is very Babelistic and as we have seen with empires, organisations and groups that attempt to impose a unity of anything on the planet, eventually they all come crashing down with nationalism always coming to take its place.

Once again, its about the balance. The key is the balance.

Assad's Syria was making no progress to democracy, and tech innovation makes no difference in itself. Assad rejected all reforms, and when his people marched in the streets, he shot them down, destroyed their cities and chased them out of his country. Qaddafi was about to massacre the people who were protesting against his cruel dictatorship. There was no progress in either. There was no reason for either one to be in power. To say violence isn't needed, but then to say it's OK for a dictator to use it but not the people, I disagree with. The Arab Spring rebels rose up against them non-violently, and our help is a good thing. We should have followed up in Libya and helped them establish order, since there was no law and order under Qaddafi; only gangland rule. No, sometimes the people have to rise up for freedom if they want any; Syria was still no better (and in fact worse) than it had been 5000 years ago. There's no progress unless the people make it happen. Non-violence is better, but that's what the Syrians practiced, and the Libyans and Egyptians too. But when you are rolled over by tanks, a free peoples' army is the only answer. There will be no peace in Syria until their evil genocidal monster is chased away--- and preferably killed in the most cruel way possible. And no-one should call me to task for saying such a thing.

Actually this is incorrect. With Assad, the country was having an economic boom period. The vast majority were actually content with Assad's rule. Of course, they didn't like the iron handed ways he handled things but compared to his father, Assad was more liberal in his methods. Assad always had wanted to move towards more democracy but had to do it carefully due to the various ethnic groups that inhabited the land. It was happening very slowly but elections were slowly starting to take place. To be honest, reading the biography of Bashar al-Assad, I get the opinion he never actually wanted the leadership in the first place and only was chosen by his father after his brother, the original heir, died in a car crash. I think he really did want to reform the country but due to international pressure, especially from the United States and Israel plus the recent U.S incursions into other countries, he just couldn't enact the enormity of reforms without causing a mass civil war in the first place. It really was the case of a rock and a hard place for him and his leadership. The only thing he could do was keep with the status quo and slowly change things.

Never have I read about Assad though bombing cities and gunning down people en masse for opposing his rule. Before the Arab Spring, there never was really any mass protests taking place. I recall watching and reading the news at the time and actually seeing a majority of citizens proudly waving the Syrian flag and supporting Assad. The reason? Because Assad's official state policy of secularisation has allowed the various religious groups to live in peace, his regime has allowed for greater women's rights, his regime keeps the peace and has allowed the economy to grow. Read some of the news links I've just posted. All of them pretty much sum up the exact same thing I have been saying.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-al-Assad.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-syr...-assad/5405208

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ern-propaganda

The number is something between 55-70% of Syrians actually supporting Assad. This does make sense because if you think about it, who is actually winning the civil war in Syria? The government. It has made the greatest gains and would have struggled had the vast majority been against the government. Yet the truth is, the majority are against the rebels and for good reason. Why would they want to give up gains on greater female equality, secularisation which has benefited them and the continued move towards democratic reform under the Assads for totalitarian radical Islam? It makes no sense.

It was the same with Qadhafi minus democratisation. Qadhafi had built up a very strong, prosperous, even middle class economy for a North African country. The vast majority supported Qadhafi because their quality of life always continued to improve due to Qadhafi's "Green Book" socialism and spreading the wealth from Libya's vast oil revenues. Oh Qadhafi was no democratic saint but people supported him because he did pretty much the same things as Assad. Greater gender equality, secularisation, economic growth, things people want. Lets be honest, when Assad was in complete control of Syria and Qadhafi in Libya, Europe did not have an exodus of people fleeing for safer shores. Because they were happy where they were.

But that's where it leads; to fascism and racist politics.

Somehow I doubt the Scottish Nationalists and the Welsh Nationalists are going to start building death camps and massacring people for their beliefs. I'd like to add that despite their nationalism, economically speaking both the SNP and Plaid Cymru are very much socialistic parties and believe in improving the lives of poor communities throughout Wales and Scotland, especially those affected by the remnants of Thatcherism.

Not exactly parties that want to start dancing around in black shirts and invading other lands. A perfect example of the nationalism I do support.

You've made quite a leap there. The Arab Spring was not caused by George Soros and the United States. You need to give credit to the people there for realizing what you said in your first sentence. That's all this is about. And saying that the Syrians want Assad is a flagrant lie. Adding on fantasies about the USA causing all this, just fulfills some need of yours, and has no relation to the facts at all. The USA has meddled in the Middle East, yes, but you can't put the Arab Spring and everything else happening there at Uncle Sam's doorstep.

But you yourself admitted that Uncle Sam had meddled in Middle Eastern affairs and was proud of that fact? There is very much evidence of American support for the Arab Spring. Many of the groups that were involved in the protests had been trained by American agents, educated at U.S universities or had been paid off as agents of provocateur. Same deal with the Ukrainian crisis. You do not get masses amount of people to suddenly rebel all over a vast area such as the Middle East without some organisation and planning. You see, the vast majority of people are like sheep, wherever they come from. They always follow the masses. Before the Arab Spring, no one was even uttering about rebelling against the government. Then suddenly and miraculously, the entire majority riot against the established powers of state one day and topple the governments in a quick successive fashion. The Arab Spring had American, possibly Israeli involvement and there can be no other reason for such a quick, organised, spontaneous uprising. Besides, as any military analyst will tell you, spontaneous uprisings like that takes years to plan and usually happen in one or two countries, not an entire swath of continent in quick succession.

Europe has meddled more in the Middle East than the USA historically, so on that basis I can place the mess on your shoulders too and ask you to clean it up.

Not since the 1950s. After the Suez Crisis, Europe stopped its meddling in the Middle East and has been clean pretty much since. Instead that role has gone to the United States plus I would like to add we never actually entirely destabilised the region. We ruled very briefly over Middle Eastern nations and left. Britain for example only had Middle Eastern possessions from the late 19th century to the early 20th century as a result of the Great War. Even then, we left the nations in good standing and until recently, there has been few to little revolts in the European created Middle Eastern countries. The only one I can think of was Colonel Qadhafi overthrowing King Idris but there are probably a few more incidents. But otherwise, the Middle East was actually quite peaceful and never experienced a mass exodus of people until America decided to meddle. So yep - its your mess, you clean it up. Not our problem anymore.

Immigration to Europe from the Middle East is as natural as immigration from Latin America to the USA, and we are just going to have to get used to it. Far from ignoring these third world places, as you seem to propose, we will need to help them when they ask, and yes, leave them alone and allow them to unfold their freedom, rather than taking advantage of them for our own needs (such as starting wars or propping up dictators there to secure our oil supplies). And remember my principle; immigration happens because people want a better life than is possible where they live. Help and allow them to have better lives where they live, and they won't immigrate. That's much better than arousing resentments and erecting walls and thus fomenting hatreds.

Europe is not a melting pot like America. It always has been the homeland of European peoples. This is an entirely different affair compared to Mexicans. Muslims are of a different religion, culture and even ethnic background to Europeans. Mexicans may differ in ethnic background but ultimately they share the same Christian heritage as Americans and thus will be able to assimilate into such a society. Europe remember is not a society of people that can assimilate. Its a continent of the natives. It never had the same assmilationist mindset. Plus if the migration keeps up, it will lead to worser prospects for us all in the long run.

As for helping them out - I agree with you and this is what we should be doing. Yet by allowing them to come here in vast numbers, we are not actually helping them but merely creating a future conflict in Europe in the long run. We can help each other as neighbours but mass migration is not an answer, neither the solution. Sometimes good fences make good neighbours as the old saying goes. And to help them, we need to have good fences so we can be good neighbours.

I will reply later. Got a few chores to do.

Originally Posted by Ksim

Ok, lets get back to this. *Cracks fingers*



An interesting point you make here but allow me to explain my own thoughts on the matter.

Firstly, I feel the reason you do not associate with nationalism as an identity is because you are primarily a 1960s baby boomer. You come from a time when ideas of global utopianism and rebelling against traditional society in order to build a 'better world' was the norm. You also live in California, a predominately liberal, cosmopolitan state where traditional identity really is pointless considering its melting pot status. I cannot blame you for feeling the way you do and you are entitled to your values. Yet for me, as a Millennial, all I have ever remembered is conflict caused by globalism. Whether it is interfering in the affairs of Islamic states or forcing Europeans to accept mass immigration, all of these factors eventually lead down the road to violence and conflict. We cannot force people to do anything and the vast majority on this planet would prefer to uphold the identities and values of their ancestors. Yes, they may change and liberalise to an extent but deep down, traditionalism still remains king in their hearts.

Yes, I am a Boomer who came of age in the 60s. All correct. And I think we are the vanguard of future opinion. That is based on the inevitable facts of globalization. The kind of "globalization" you refer to, "interfering in other states," was also opposed by our generation and young people in our state. So that definition of "globalization" is not something we favor. You can't really lump imperialism and globalization together. The former is a European pastime since 1400 AD. The latter is a 20th-21st century process that is mainly driven by technology, economics and ecology.

For example, in my own native Britain, until relatively recently, the vast majority used to have much pride in having stood up to the Nazis and remaining an independent nation. It used to be common as late as the 1990s to hear the phrase "we beat Hitler! No one can defeat the British! No one will rule over us!". This patriotism was the norm for the Greatest Generation, Boomers and even Gen X. When Gen Y came along, it was still there but not to the same extent. I do not think the American people had the same feelings but for the British, it really was a moment of national pride. Even in the 1960s when America was undergoing a vast liberal transformation, Britain itself still remained wedded to its traditional core conservative and patriotic values.

So once again, there was a different mindset.

I can't see a major difference there. The right-wing here is very super-patriotic. After 9-11 "God Bless America" became sung in the 7th inning of every baseball game. It never stopped. Young people went off to war without thinking. American patriotism is stronger just because it has to compensate for the lack of ethnic uniformity. America right or wrong, and America love it or leave it, have been slogans on the right here for decades.

In regards to your proposition that the world is globalising and the world will become one big melting pot in a similar guise to America, I tend to find this view the same as the days of the Roman Empire. Back then, the Romans thought that the world was "Romanising" and that Roman values would continue on forever. After all, Rome pretty much dominated the vast then 'known world' at the time, just like America and its ideas do today. Yet Rome eventually collapsed and with it so did their own ideas for how the world should be run. The vast "Romanised" world splintered up with the once subjugated colonies getting their resistance and becoming independent once again. They were allowed to live as they so chose to do so and once again, the world became a multitude of nations, not just one large Roman pond. I think you will find the same will happen to our world. Eventually globalisation itself will run out of steam and new world powers and ideas will come to challenge the status quo, leading to a divide once again in global consciousness. This itself is already beginning to take shape with the rise of Russia, India and China, all three being incredibly nationalistic countries that have no intentions of playing a global game in the same way as the United States. They have their own visions, beliefs and ideas and will shape the world with these rather then a united global vision.

Rome did what it set out to do. It Romanized the world, and its legacy lived on until today in politics and religion. But 2000 years later the forces of globalization don't need swords. So, we have a globalizing world, and it doesn't matter who the dominant player is at all. For the next 400 years, the globalized civilization will be here. After that, there may be some kind of collapse, just like what happened with Rome. But the legacy of our globalizing civilization will live on and become even greater in the centuries beyond.

As for liberalism always being the vanguard of "progress" against backwards, "regressive" conservatism, I do disagree with this. Liberals like to think that the world must keep liberalising and progressing until eternity. But liberalism itself is ultimately a philosophy rooted in expansionism and the question must be asked - just how long can you keep progressing and expanding on an ever infinite planet? At what end can traditional conservative values that did uphold good values be overtaken to allow unlawful practices to become acceptable, all in the name of progress? Just how much can the world keep on progressing when eventually, new technological ideas will eventually dry up and the Earth will become stagnant, as has happened many times in the past?

I tend to find that you cannot have absolute liberalism just as you cannot have absolute conservatism. Both eventually will become redundant whether the Earth goes forwards or backwards. This is why it is ultimately about the balance but you cannot have one rule over the world. It is like the fishes of Pisces. Both must swim together equally and cooperate in order to build a better world. One should not rule over the other for there are good ideas and merits in both yet equally destructive and dangerous ideas in both too. It is all about the balance and favouring one over the other is very dangerous.

No, liberalism is not "expansionism" except in the limited sense that we want power and prosperity to expand for all people. It's true, there's no limit to progress. The arc of history is long, with many reversals, but it bends toward justice for all. It's not about infinite material expansion. Liberal ideas now are less militarism and less material progress unless it is sustainable on a finite planet. Liberal ideas are just the cutting edge of thought about what will work best for everyone. Conservatism today, most especially in the USA, is driven merely by reactive support for the status quo and the powerful, and offers very little that is constructive. Liberal always wins out, as long as there is progress. The balance comes in in regard to specific ideas. Conservatives, when constructive (which is NOT the case today in the USA), offers caution about too much spending or experiment with untested policies.

Oh you bet they have! As I explained in my first post today, many times I have been silenced, called names, threatened, even mocked for my beliefs. Yet this is the prevailing ruling orthodoxy over here in Western Europe. If you dare utter any views that do not fit in with the ruling politically correct liberal orthodoxy, then you will be silenced. Hence this is why many Millennials are quietly going "underground" in order to discuss these views because they cannot discuss them in the open, which is itself a dangerous trend.

This itself is leading to a quiet revolution of ideas in European Millennial circles. Its not just about nationalism itself per say but the right to freedom of speech and the right to criticise the government which is causing angst amongst the Millennials. Of course, this itself is tying in with nationalistic thought hence we are now starting to see in some weird way nationalism becoming a new driving force for a new revolutionary libertarianism. The more you oppress people and deny them the right to say as they feel, the more they will start to fight back.

That said, I would like to thank you Eric for being a good sport. You are something rare in liberal circles today and that is a chap willing to debate fairly without the need for name calling and slandering. To that you have my respect. We may disagree on ideas but overall you have behaved like a true liberal and have kept an open mind to this discussion to which pleases me. As a result, I offer you the same respectful courtesy and dialogue.

Thank you. People here at this forum mostly allow for others' views. I try to do this also. I want all views represented, and someone who disagrees is more stimulating to discuss things with than someone who agrees with me. I hope you feel able to speak out. Yes indeed, oppression can often lead to underground rebellion, which can explode.

I disagree with this. You cannot preserve old traditions if new people enter a land as they will bring in new ideas that ultimately change the entire identity of the nation in question. Lets be honest here - how many Americans celebrate and practice traditional Native American customs and values today? Very few I presume. Instead the ruling white European Christian ideals overruled the tradition of the natives and a new culture formed. You cannot preserve the traditional if you replace the original inhabitants. Eventually the dominant culture of the new group will start to form the majority and the old is forgotten about.

Native Americans are reviving their traditions today, and I think it's good.

As for ISIS/Taliban - why do they go down that road? Because they feel threatened. If you threaten a people with racial/cultural/linguistic extinction, some will react radically and cause violence. Its basically like a wounded animal fighting back aggressively. If on the other hand their own people open up to new ideas but with the concept of retaining the old, then the radicals themselves eventually disappear. There is no need for radicalism when a group is not threatened. Bomb them, destroy their homes, destroy their culture and they will fight back.

They are badly deceived, and lacking in hope and awareness of true liberal alternatives, they fall for the koolaid and go down the wrong road. And many will be killed. It's true that Western intervention has provided an excuse and provocation for their anger.

As for everywhere being multi-ethnic? I somehow doubt that. America might go down that road but I know for certain the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, the Koreans and other ethno-groups will refuse to follow the same path. Its a dream world the whole "we will melt into one people". It is very Babelistic and as we have seen with empires, organisations and groups that attempt to impose a unity of anything on the planet, eventually they all come crashing down with nationalism always coming to take its place.

Once again, its about the balance. The key is the balance.

As I said, no Roman style imposition will be needed. Globalization is inevitable everywhere, and yes it should be balanced, with traditions and local power preserved; not an imperialist monoculture.

Actually this is incorrect. With Assad, the country was having an economic boom period. The vast majority were actually content with Assad's rule. Of course, they didn't like the iron handed ways he handled things but compared to his father, Assad was more liberal in his methods. Assad always had wanted to move towards more democracy but had to do it carefully due to the various ethnic groups that inhabited the land. It was happening very slowly but elections were slowly starting to take place. To be honest, reading the biography of Bashar al-Assad, I get the opinion he never actually wanted the leadership in the first place and only was chosen by his father after his brother, the original heir, died in a car crash. I think he really did want to reform the country but due to international pressure, especially from the United States and Israel plus the recent U.S incursions into other countries, he just couldn't enact the enormity of reforms without causing a mass civil war in the first place. It really was the case of a rock and a hard place for him and his leadership. The only thing he could do was keep with the status quo and slowly change things.

Never have I read about Assad though bombing cities and gunning down people en masse for opposing his rule. Before the Arab Spring, there never was really any mass protests taking place. I recall watching and reading the news at the time and actually seeing a majority of citizens proudly waving the Syrian flag and supporting Assad. The reason? Because Assad's official state policy of secularisation has allowed the various religious groups to live in peace, his regime has allowed for greater women's rights, his regime keeps the peace and has allowed the economy to grow. Read some of the news links I've just posted. All of them pretty much sum up the exact same thing I have been saying.

Myself I am very angry about what Assad has done. He has committed the worst atrocity so far in the 21st century. He killed hundreds of thousands and destroyed his country merely because the people mached peacefully in great numbers for reform in the Arab Spring. Young people thought, if Egyptians can do it, why not us? There was no democracy there, ever; in spite of some educational facilities and some opportunities for some people. He could have made reforms, but he did not. Now he has lost all legitimacy, and I am sure he will face the same fate as Qaddafi and Saddam, and he richly deserves it. There's no excuse for anyone to cosey up to him or excuse him. He is the worst of many tyrants in the Middle East, and the USA had little to do with his behavior. He was not our client, as Mubarek had been.

The number is something between 55-70% of Syrians actually supporting Assad. This does make sense because if you think about it, who is actually winning the civil war in Syria? The government. It has made the greatest gains and would have struggled had the vast majority been against the government. Yet the truth is, the majority are against the rebels and for good reason. Why would they want to give up gains on greater female equality, secularisation which has benefited them and the continued move towards democratic reform under the Assads for totalitarian radical Islam? It makes no sense.

Assad has a Aloite base, which is only about 10% of the country. Basically, the entire country opposes him, and marched against him, and then was expelled from the country. You need to be more informed about this. It was widely reported. There was never any "democratic reform," and such is totally impossible now under his rule. Assad's only future in his country is civil war and revolution. The people will never accept him after what he has done to them. Would you?

Radical Islam has nothing to do with the aspirations of the Syrians. They came in to take advantage of the chaos, ostensibly to help the moderate rebels fight Assad. When they could, they set up a "state" of their own and broke with the actual Syrian people and their army. The Syrian people have no choice now except either to fight alongside the moderates or to leave.

It was the same with Qadhafi minus democratisation. Qadhafi had built up a very strong, prosperous, even middle class economy for a North African country. The vast majority supported Qadhafi because their quality of life always continued to improve due to Qadhafi's "Green Book" socialism and spreading the wealth from Libya's vast oil revenues. Oh Qadhafi was no democratic saint but people supported him because he did pretty much the same things as Assad. Greater gender equality, secularisation, economic growth, things people want. Lets be honest, when Assad was in complete control of Syria and Qadhafi in Libya, Europe did not have an exodus of people fleeing for safer shores. Because they were happy where they were.

The Libryans were very unhappy under Qaddafi's dictatorship. That's why they rose up against him with no prompting from outside, and killed him. They had no legal system, and oil profits were hogged by his henchmen. There was no reform going on. He deserved what he got. We should have helped the Libyans more.

Somehow I doubt the Scottish Nationalists and the Welsh Nationalists are going to start building death camps and massacring people for their beliefs. I'd like to add that despite their nationalism, economically speaking both the SNP and Plaid Cymru are very much socialistic parties and believe in improving the lives of poor communities throughout Wales and Scotland, especially those affected by the remnants of Thatcherism.

Not exactly parties that want to start dancing around in black shirts and invading other lands. A perfect example of the nationalism I do support.

Best wishes to them, but I hope the UK stays together myself.

But you yourself admitted that Uncle Sam had meddled in Middle Eastern affairs and was proud of that fact? There is very much evidence of American support for the Arab Spring. Many of the groups that were involved in the protests had been trained by American agents, educated at U.S universities or had been paid off as agents of provocateur. Same deal with the Ukrainian crisis. You do not get masses amount of people to suddenly rebel all over a vast area such as the Middle East without some organisation and planning. You see, the vast majority of people are like sheep, wherever they come from. They always follow the masses. Before the Arab Spring, no one was even uttering about rebelling against the government. Then suddenly and miraculously, the entire majority riot against the established powers of state one day and topple the governments in a quick successive fashion. The Arab Spring had American, possibly Israeli involvement and there can be no other reason for such a quick, organised, spontaneous uprising. Besides, as any military analyst will tell you, spontaneous uprisings like that takes years to plan and usually happen in one or two countries, not an entire swath of continent in quick succession.

The Arab Spring sprung up spontaneously among young people through social media. That was widely reported at the time. There's no reason to knock the world revolution that has been going on for 2+ centuries now. It is what truly inspires the people, and is the only thing worth "joining." The astrological signature of this revolution in 2011-13 is clear. It is real.

Not since the 1950s. After the Suez Crisis, Europe stopped its meddling in the Middle East and has been clean pretty much since. Instead that role has gone to the United States plus I would like to add we never actually entirely destabilised the region. We ruled very briefly over Middle Eastern nations and left. Britain for example only had Middle Eastern possessions from the late 19th century to the early 20th century as a result of the Great War. Even then, we left the nations in good standing and until recently, there has been few to little revolts in the European created Middle Eastern countries. The only one I can think of was Colonel Qadhafi overthrowing King Idris but there are probably a few more incidents. But otherwise, the Middle East was actually quite peaceful and never experienced a mass exodus of people until America decided to meddle. So yep - its your mess, you clean it up. Not our problem anymore.

No, I disagree. You set up the whole situation. It's true, less so recently. But the immigration today has to do with many factors.

Europe is not a melting pot like America. It always has been the homeland of European peoples. This is an entirely different affair compared to Mexicans. Muslims are of a different religion, culture and even ethnic background to Europeans. Mexicans may differ in ethnic background but ultimately they share the same Christian heritage as Americans and thus will be able to assimilate into such a society. Europe remember is not a society of people that can assimilate. Its a continent of the natives. It never had the same assmilationist mindset. Plus if the migration keeps up, it will lead to worser prospects for us all in the long run.

As for helping them out - I agree with you and this is what we should be doing. Yet by allowing them to come here in vast numbers, we are not actually helping them but merely creating a future conflict in Europe in the long run. We can help each other as neighbours but mass migration is not an answer, neither the solution. Sometimes good fences make good neighbours as the old saying goes. And to help them, we need to have good fences so we can be good neighbours.

I will reply later. Got a few chores to do.

Interesting justification for the contrast. "Always" is a relative affair, as I explained. All Europeans are originally immigrants from the Middle East. Islam and Christianity are closely related and worship the same God; whether admittedly or not makes no difference. It's the same tradition. Mexicans are mostly descended from a people who were living in America for thousands of years. So their background is quite different. Religion is less important to people these days as a basis for identity, and that's a good thing. Both places will assimilate their immigrants, and I think immigration will slow down in both places as third world nations advance. Look to the evolving revolution for hope in this process, not to nationalism.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Experienced activists will tell you that those practices are most effectively changed by people in those countries who want to change their own culture.

A few days ago there was a really good BBC World Service story about a Somali guy who is an anti-FGM activist and the struggles he has been having trying to stop it.

Originally Posted by Ksim

But it is not our right to interfere. That is their culture and their traditions. It is up to them to have their own reformation of ideas. Just because you find it immoral does not mean they do. We can offer them new suggestions but ultimately it is for them to decide what to do in the long run. Forcing them to take on our ideas is just another form of imperialism which I also find abhorrent. Of course, I don't like hunting whales and dolphins just like many others yet I'm not going to tell them what to do as it is not my place. Same with female genital mutilation. Let them sort it out, its not our place to dictate to them what is right and wrong about their culture.

Eventually the Islamic and even the oriental world will probably repent and have a revelation on how best to enlighten their own cultures and societies. Until then, we should just leave them be and focus on our own culture. Fair is fair.

The problem with this logic is that it would mean you will have countries like Mauritania trying to back overt, legal slavery. That's the slippery slope of cultural relativism.

Originally Posted by Ksim

You know, I have met very few liberals in my life time that really are "peace loving" I find the ones over here in the UK to be just as bad, if not worse then the most extreme conservatives. They do not tolerate any other idea apart from their own and will literally attack anyone (even violently) who disagrees with this. Look at all the ANTIFA activists that attack conservative and national party events throughout Europe and America. It isn't tolerance or peace - its just bullying and is in no way good for freedom of speech.

I will be perfectly honest and admit to believing that the only good Fascist is a dead fascist. I'm NOT a pacifist, I never have and I never will be.

And freedom of speech is not freedom from the social consequences of speech, it just means that the government cannot restrict speech. In my experience when right-wingers whine about liberals suppressing their freedom of speech it is because they want to be dicks without people being allowed to get angry at them for being dicks.

Originally Posted by Ksim

In regards to your proposition that the world is globalising and the world will become one big melting pot in a similar guise to America, I tend to find this view the same as the days of the Roman Empire. Back then, the Romans thought that the world was "Romanising" and that Roman values would continue on forever. After all, Rome pretty much dominated the vast then 'known world' at the time, just like America and its ideas do today. Yet Rome eventually collapsed and with it so did their own ideas for how the world should be run. The vast "Romanised" world splintered up with the once subjugated colonies getting their resistance and becoming independent once again. They were allowed to live as they so chose to do so and once again, the world became a multitude of nations, not just one large Roman pond. I think you will find the same will happen to our world. Eventually globalisation itself will run out of steam and new world powers and ideas will come to challenge the status quo, leading to a divide once again in global consciousness. This itself is already beginning to take shape with the rise of Russia, India and China, all three being incredibly nationalistic countries that have no intentions of playing a global game in the same way as the United States. They have their own visions, beliefs and ideas and will shape the world with these rather then a united global vision.

I need to nitpick here, because this isn't really historically correct. When the Western Roman Empire broke up it was not the "subjugated colonies becoming independent again", except for parts of Roman Britain, these were all pervasively Romanized areas and the "Barbarian" successor states were basically Roman politically and culturally. And those "barbarians" that invaded the Western Empire were actually quite Romanized, too. Roman and "German" in AD 400 wore similar clothing, a tunic, trousers, and a cape or cloak fastened by a brooch, and their soldiers used similar equipment.

Basically, By 400 the upper echelons of the West Roman army were dominated by assimilated German warlords, and so when the West Roman government failed following the murder of Stilicho by Valentinian III and the revolt of the usurper Constantine III these warlords simply filled the vacuum, carving out "Little Romes" under German leadership.

Originally Posted by Odin

I need to nitpick here, because this isn't really historically correct. When the Western Roman Empire broke up it was not the "subjugated colonies becoming independent again", except for parts of Roman Britain, these were all pervasively Romanized areas and the "Barbarian" successor states were basically Roman politically and culturally. And those "barbarians" that invaded the Western Empire were actually quite Romanized, too. Roman and "German" in AD 400 wore similar clothing, a tunic, trousers, and a cape or cloak fastened by a brooch, and their soldiers used similar equipment.

Basically, By 400 the upper echelons of the West Roman army were dominated by assimilated German warlords, and so when the West Roman government failed following the murder of Stilicho by Valentinian III and the revolt of the usurper Constantine III these warlords simply filled the vacuum, carving out "Little Romes" under German leadership.

Adding my support to this, with the tentative exception of Gaul--though with the invasion of the Franks this soon ended.

By the time the Western Roman Empire was falling apart, it was the fashionably hip thing for Rome's equivalent of hipsters to adopt Germanic styles (greasing their hair with butter, growing long mustaches, and wearing tight pants--the older conservative Romans were all complaining about how they couldn't tell the difference between their children and the Germans--who'd they'd been living beside and including in their army since the beginning of the Empire).

Originally Posted by Odin

I find ANY hunting of whales and dolphins to be completely immoral and wrong because of how intelligent they are,

Originally Posted by Odin

I will be perfectly honest and admit to believing that the only good Fascist is a dead fascist. I'm NOT a pacifist, I never have and I never will be.

Therefore, Fascists are less intelligent than cetaceans.
Just curious, what do you think about the U.S. Navy killing whales by using sonar during training exercises, and using dolphins to detect mines?

The problem with this logic is that it would mean you will have countries like Mauritania trying to back overt, legal slavery. That's the slippery slope of cultural relativism.

But ultimately it is their culture, their society. We can give them guidance on how to do things but it is not our responsibility to interfere. Each group must decide for itself on how to embrace the light.

I will be perfectly honest and admit to believing that the only good Fascist is a dead fascist. I'm NOT a pacifist, I never have and I never will be.

But don't you see it? With views such as these, you are becoming the fascist. I am a nationalist, yes, but I am not a fascist. I have no designs on oppressing other people groups or interfering with their way of life. You sir are the violent one. Why don't you try and adopt the attitude both myself and Eric have? Calmly discussing the issues and debating them out without getting all tense and making such ridiculous remarks?

You see, this is what I was explaining to when I told Eric earlier. Many of the liberals in the West have these attitudes so is it any fault when people go underground because they cannot discuss the views they have in public? That itself is totalitarianism and radicalism. If you don't agree with what I say, then you will die. I'm sorry but I do not agree with this stance. I would never admit death on you because you are a person too. You have your own views and ways of doing things. Listen to other people, talk calmly with them for if you do not, you and others like you become the oppressor and that itself is not a good thing.

And freedom of speech is not freedom from the social consequences of speech, it just means that the government cannot restrict speech. In my experience when right-wingers whine about liberals suppressing their freedom of speech it is because they want to be dicks without people being allowed to get angry at them for being dicks.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. If you could articulate your response I might have an idea of what you are trying to get at. Thanks.

I need to nitpick here, because this isn't really historically correct. When the Western Roman Empire broke up it was not the "subjugated colonies becoming independent again", except for parts of Roman Britain, these were all pervasively Romanized areas and the "Barbarian" successor states were basically Roman politically and culturally. And those "barbarians" that invaded the Western Empire were actually quite Romanized, too. Roman and "German" in AD 400 wore similar clothing, a tunic, trousers, and a cape or cloak fastened by a brooch, and their soldiers used similar equipment.

Well our colonies adapted many British cultural attitudes yet they still broke up in the end. Remember that in India, Africa, Malaysia and elsewhere, they too were wearing Western clothing and adapting to a more Western cultural way of life. Yet they still broke up in the end although not in a violent fashion in the same way as the Roman Empire. But then I suspect that is down to the fact Britain was all the way across the ocean and an actual military invasion could not even be dreamed of compared to the land border shared between Rome and old Germania.

Yes, I am a Boomer who came of age in the 60s. All correct. And I think we are the vanguard of future opinion. That is based on the inevitable facts of globalization. The kind of "globalization" you refer to, "interfering in other states," was also opposed by our generation and young people in our state. So that definition of "globalization" is not something we favor. You can't really lump imperialism and globalization together. The former is a European pastime since 1400 AD. The latter is a 20th-21st century process that is mainly driven by technology, economics and ecology.

I think this is where the Boomers and the Millennials start to differ. When it comes to the Boomers, life in general was good when they came of age. Economy was great, social stability was good and life held many opportunities. Boundless optimism was in the air and this itself produces new ideas and ways of doing things. However for the Millennials on the other hand, life itself has not been this tough since the last depression. Millennials are having to deal with a very different world, competing for limited jobs and resources amongst other people groups, pessimism is in the air and the good middle class life that was once guaranteed with just work is now gone. As a result, I think Millennials will start to drift away somewhat from the Boomer ideals of how life should be and instead adopt a more conservative approach to life as time goes on.

I think this itself will play a part in a potential future nationalistic revival in Europe. We hear it a lot in the news hear, "foreigners take this and this jobs, foreigners cost billions on the NHS, foreigners do this and that," etc, etc. I think as a result therefore, the more liberal open world policy idealised by the boomers of "lets unite and dream of a better world together" will be put on the back shelf for the foreseeable future.

Yet I do not think Boomer ideas will die out either and will come to influence future generations. I predict personally that the previous prophet generation's ideas will influence another generation going through a high although it won't entirely be like the original plan. Personally I view the Earth will go through periods of conservatism and liberalism eternally until The Kingdom of God is restored upon the Earth. Yes, I am a Christian too and I must confess, I do wonder how far we can keep going until finally we need some "outside help" so to speak to help us clean up our mess. Its a good question.

As for globalism and imperialism, I tend to find the United States itself has been pushing globalism as their new imperialism. "The Pax Americana". I tend to find the vast majority of global culture is based around American culture. Whether it comes to fashion, to music, to films, even to language such as catchphrases, it is ultimately America that is the leader of this globalisation period. The question is - if America takes a back seat - will there be an actual unipolar globalisation like we have had, perhaps under China? Or will it be a multipolar globalisation? Interesting thoughts.

I can't see a major difference there. The right-wing here is very super-patriotic. After 9-11 "God Bless America" became sung in the 7th inning of every baseball game. It never stopped. Young people went off to war without thinking. American patriotism is stronger just because it has to compensate for the lack of ethnic uniformity. America right or wrong, and America love it or leave it, have been slogans on the right here for decades.

I don't think British patriotism is as strong as that. I tend to view American patriotism as really a form of over compensating. British patriotism is more about your roots, your identity, where you come from and your history, your legacy. Whether what class you were born into or which part of the country you came from, it really does stick around. People have pride here yet it is just a nice, strong, warm pride, not anything like America. I'd say its more a natural pride and not overly substituted. But it is still there.

I mean I live in a small town and recently there has been new immigrants arriving from all over the world. The environment I grew up in was very British, like an English country garden. People could trace their ancestry back to the Domesday book. Heck unlike Americans, most people here have relatives who very rarely if ever settled anywhere else aside from the next town 5 miles away. Yet immigration is now changing this and that British national spirit dosen't like it. Sure, Brits are tolerant people and tend to be okay with foreigners in the cities but when you get a large group migrating to small towns and villages, they don't really like that. To them, its an infringement on their homeland.

To be honest, when it comes to Brits in my neck of the woods, most tend to be sympathetic to nationalism of some kind although will vote for the Labour Party simply due to the FPTP system. Yet if there was proportional representation, more would vote on national conservative lines.

Rome did what it set out to do. It Romanized the world, and its legacy lived on until today in politics and religion. But 2000 years later the forces of globalization don't need swords. So, we have a globalizing world, and it doesn't matter who the dominant player is at all. For the next 400 years, the globalized civilization will be here. After that, there may be some kind of collapse, just like what happened with Rome. But the legacy of our globalizing civilization will live on and become even greater in the centuries beyond.

I agree that the globalised world is here to stay, I am not going to argue with this. I think the question is - what kind of globalised world is it going to be? Will it be a melting pot Earth scenario where all races become one and we live under a world government? Or will it be very much a similar world we have today that is multipolar in nature but still very much global in essence? I think personally I'd prefer a globalised world built on nations and trust. I do not deny globalisation is here and I fully accept that it is a reality. Yet each group must have its own house on this planet to live in. I still agree with the old USSR idea of "Friendship of the Nations". That is each nation helps the other but promises not to invade each other's territory or influence their affairs, which I include mass immigration in. Under the old USSR it was a case of "we will take you in as students, we will train you and we will give you support to your homeland but you must go home and help build up your own country." As an idea it worked very well and it is an idea I'd like to see implemented in Europe, especially in order to help build the Middle East back up.

Like I said before - I'm a Global Nationalist. I accept globalisation but would like to see our legacies live on and for us to retain our homelands if we so wish. Ultimately it does depend on the people but still, I think the vast majority will take a more balanced approach to the question at hand. One of preservation yet cooperation, which is what I favour.

No, liberalism is not "expansionism" except in the limited sense that we want power and prosperity to expand for all people. It's true, there's no limit to progress. The arc of history is long, with many reversals, but it bends toward justice for all. It's not about infinite material expansion. Liberal ideas now are less militarism and less material progress unless it is sustainable on a finite planet. Liberal ideas are just the cutting edge of thought about what will work best for everyone. Conservatism today, most especially in the USA, is driven merely by reactive support for the status quo and the powerful, and offers very little that is constructive. Liberal always wins out, as long as there is progress. The balance comes in in regard to specific ideas. Conservatives, when constructive (which is NOT the case today in the USA), offers caution about too much spending or experiment with untested policies.

I tend to find liberalism to be an expansion of ideas which itself can lead to over consuming if we are not careful. When it comes to actually saving resources and protecting the environment, crazily enough but I find this to be more of a conservative notion in itself. Conservatism is more itself about conserving and rebuilding. Yet it still does amaze me at how conservative movements in the West do not take the environment more seriously although as you said, it is about preserving the status quo. I think when it comes to the environment and green politics, it'll start out as liberal but eventually conservatise as time goes on.

That said, the expansion of liberal ideas can lead to some pretty stupid decisions such as letting murderers be released from prison in 10 years or the possibility of legalisation of paedophilia. Yes, this is shocking but in the Netherlands, there is actually a paedophile rights movement. Who can stop them eventually when in 40 years time, they argue everyone else has a right to do what they want so why can't they? This is where good conservative ideas come in and say "no, its disgusting, wrong, perverted and filthy, we're not having any of it". Hence the balance - a balance both desperately need.

In my opinion therefore - liberalism can bring new ideas, some good, some bad where as conservatives needs to conserve the good, adopt potential good ideas and not become radical and authoritarian in order to keep power. Once again - all about the balance.

Thank you. People here at this forum mostly allow for others' views. I try to do this also. I want all views represented, and someone who disagrees is more stimulating to discuss things with than someone who agrees with me. I hope you feel able to speak out. Yes indeed, oppression can often lead to underground rebellion, which can explode.

Thank you and I have to confess, this is a very nice forum to be on. It is refreshing to be able to speak one's mind in an intellectual fashion and learn new ideas at the same time in the process. I must confess, there are some areas I disagree on when it comes to our debates but then there are others I very much agree with. Its been a refreshing conversation for me and I can tell you are a man who does ponder alot about the future, just like myself. Perhaps I may have more conservative traits compared to you but still, it does not mean we cannot continue to learn from one another and share new ideas on how to build a better future for people.

I agree, all views must be represented and I too have found your views have stimulated my thought patterns. I've been in cases where people agree with you, offer a few words of support yet just silently nod their heads without saying or doing much in the process. Heh, I recall once back in the day doing an interview once on politics and the vast majority offered no criticism aside from "you go tiger! go get 'em!". It can get annoying.

But on the other hand, you do have those such as Odin who have views which I consider to be antiethical to the nature of a good debate. I'm not saying Odin isn't a good guy, he's probably a fine gentleman and has his heart in the right place yet I have learned that when it comes to debate, we have to listen and talk to others otherwise we end up becoming staunch radicals of one particular ideology or another. Like we see in the UK and other Western countries, had free speech truly have been allowed to reign, we would not have had that many problems yet.....because it hasn't, people get angry, they get desperate and when they go down that road, trouble arises.

Trust me, having the views I have and being told I'm evil just because I'd like to see nations, cultures and ideas from old survive on into the future is quite distressing. Yet you end up being roped in with Neo-Nazism somehow which is itself unfair. They are a grossly nasty bunch of people who I cannot stand but then so are radical leftists that resort to cruelty and violence to get their point across.

So yes, I am enjoying this. Nice to feel free to be able to discuss one's mind.

Native Americans are reviving their traditions today, and I think it's good.

Oh this is a brilliant thing. I am glad to hear it. I always have had a lot of sympathy for the Native Americans. My only hope is that they revive themselves and perhaps form a homeland for themselves at some point should they want it. If not, then I hope they are happy with what they have. Still it'd be pretty cool to see a few states created for a Native American homeland. I think it'd be a beautiful thing.

They are badly deceived, and lacking in hope and awareness of true liberal alternatives, they fall for the koolaid and go down the wrong road. And many will be killed. It's true that Western intervention has provided an excuse and provocation for their anger.

Agreed. It is a terrible situation yet Westerners could also potentially go down such a road if they feel threatened but only to a major crisis. This is what I fear the most with mass immigration. The problem is, we are not having small waves of people that we can cope with like in the past. We are having large numbers of people coming into Europe. In my own native Britain, we have immigration at levels which is the equivalent of building 2 new cities every year. As a result, the more we take in, the more Britain as a nation along with other European countries become fractured and the potential to violence opens up, especially with welfare cuts and people feeling hopeless and desperate.

Look at Breivik. That could very well be the beginning of a potential Europe scenario if we are not careful. When people get desperate, they do crazy things. I am all for peace hence my nationalism is about peaceful cooperation between nations so we truly can live in a global society with one another. Yet if crisis's are created, bad things can happen.

Assad has a Aloite base, which is only about 10% of the country. Basically, the entire country opposes him, and marched against him, and then was expelled from the country. You need to be more informed about this. It was widely reported. There was never any "democratic reform," and such is totally impossible now under his rule. Assad's only future in his country is civil war and revolution. The people will never accept him after what he has done to them. Would you?

You know its interesting when it comes to Syria but from what I read, the vast majority supported Assad to begin with when the potential for civil war started to heat up. I think the majority knew that if Assad went, the country would really go down the pipelines. Lets be honest, the Christians getting beheaded due to radical islamists was a terrible thing yet under Assad, they were safe. Assad himself has done bad things, I agree, not going to deny that but when it comes to the battle of moderates vs radicals, I do feel he is the lesser of two evils, hence the overwhelming present Syrian support for the man.

The Libryans were very unhappy under Qaddafi's dictatorship. That's why they rose up against him with no prompting from outside, and killed him. They had no legal system, and oil profits were hogged by his henchmen. There was no reform going on. He deserved what he got. We should have helped the Libyans more.

Libya wasn't reforming towards a democracy, no. But the people were not in absolute poverty like other middle eastern nations either. Qadhafi did spend a lot of the oil money on improving social services, health care, the economy, etc, etc in order to keep the people compliant. Look I'm not saying Qadhafi was a saint, no but he did create a country that really was just desert into a modern nation. Once again, the strongmen in a sense were needed in that area of the world until democratic ideals and aspirations could peacefully have been attained.

My own opinion is that had the Arab Spring not have happened, within 50 years, the descendants of the strongmen would have eventually taken the reigns of power and started to move in a more liberal direction. In fact Arab Spring or no, I do believe myself the Middle East could actually become a lot more liberalised in the next 50 years as the ideas are there. They just need the means to implement them and right now, I think only a more reformed strongman could do it.

The Arab Spring sprung up spontaneously among young people through social media. That was widely reported at the time. There's no reason to knock the world revolution that has been going on for 2+ centuries now. It is what truly inspires the people, and is the only thing worth "joining." The astrological signature of this revolution in 2011-13 is clear. It is real.

Well even in revolutions in the past, you had agent provocateurs that helped to stir up the masses. Agents from the government or various organisations in order to forment rebellions and dissent. Always has been the case throughout history hence my belief that nothing spontaneously ever happens which in itself is incredibly rare. I think though in regards to the Arab Spring it was half and half. Half of it was genuine and the other half certainly had Uncle Sam's (possibly Mossad's) fingers in the pie. The reason? Divide and conquer. If the Arab states break up into various mini-states and the power of the secular dictators is vanquished, then it becomes easier for the U.S/Israel to effectively control the region without too much interference. Good for oil supplies, too. Yet I think ISIS and other groups wasn't something the U.S had planned on and the fire got out of hand.

Do I believe young people wanted change? I think many did. But do I believe they were content also in a sense? Moreso then right now. Yet do I also believe Uncle Sam was involved somehow? Its hard to believe America was not involved, even if just at a minimal. There were many political, economic and military gains to be made from the Arab Spring. Especially for Israel.

No, I disagree. You set up the whole situation. It's true, less so recently. But the immigration today has to do with many factors.

We ruled the Middle East half a century ago. America has been meddling in it for the last 30 years. I think that had it been 50 years ago then we would have had the responsibility but for now it is America's. However, we can work together but America needs to step up and start helping Europe because we are struggling right now.

Interesting justification for the contrast. "Always" is a relative affair, as I explained. All Europeans are originally immigrants from the Middle East. Islam and Christianity are closely related and worship the same God; whether admittedly or not makes no difference. It's the same tradition. Mexicans are mostly descended from a people who were living in America for thousands of years. So their background is quite different. Religion is less important to people these days as a basis for identity, and that's a good thing. Both places will assimilate their immigrants, and I think immigration will slow down in both places as third world nations advance. Look to the evolving revolution for hope in this process, not to nationalism.

What we have to remember about Europeans is that ultimately they actually descended from the Caucasus Mountains. Hence the term for white people, 'Caucasian". Sure, there was some limited Middle Eastern ancestry in Europeans but overall it was extremely limited. The vast majority came from the Caucasus and settled into Europe thousands of years ago. If we look at the ancestors of Europeans, we can quite easily see it in the rather European looking Circassians/Ossetians/Karbadians etc, still native peoples (and nationalists too) to the area. In Biblical times and still even today in some circles, Europeans have always been identified as the Sons of Japheth. To the ancient Hebrews, the Sons of Japheth were in the North, primarily around the Caucasus and Europe. If we look at the DNA and linguistic patterns, it actually makes sense. Europeans are more related to each other then other racial groups. An Englishman is more related to a Russian then he is to a Subsaharan African in terms of genetic distance. Hence the Japhethite theory actually fits in. History matches up and there is a brotherhood between European nations, just as there is between the Asian and African countries.

When it comes to the Middle East, Jews and Arabs are actually blood brothers. Makes sense considering that Jews and Arabs in the Bible and other historical documents actually descended from Jacob and Ishmael respectively, from the same forefather Abraham yet split off by two sons. Genetics and linguistic wise, there is very much a strong connection between the Arabs and the Jews. Quite amazing really and they were regarded as the original "Sons of Shem".

So there is an ethno-linguistic blood line present and I found it amazing to find the correlations when reading about race.

As for immigrants - it depends. America I think could potentially although it will take a century or so due to the mass migration. Race and culture will be redefined in America. For now though I see it splitting off. As for Europe - not quite so. We have had black and South Asian immigration into Britain for decades yet they have not "assimilated" compared to the white Slavs we had in the 50s and today. Rather, they wanted to maintain their own racial make up and preferred to create their own communities with their own traditions. This itself had led to a balkanised UK in many regards. Where as the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, etc, etc just melted in without no question and became British. People could not tell the difference.

Hence I tend to find there is a racial bias for assimilation. When other races assimilate, they tend to adopt more the culture yet remain relatively seperate due to their own desires for preservation where as immigrants of the same race naturally assimilate with little difficulty. Although it isn't pleasant to be racially observant in this view, it is very much the truth. I have seen people know who is a black man even if he was born here yet not know who is a Pole despite them having a Polish parent. Race unfortunately does exist and there is what I term a more comfortable immigration with people and a more fractious one.

That said, we should help the Middle East, I agree. We should help them but I'd prefer more the Friendship of Nations approach, not bring everyone in and allow them to permanently stay forever.

Therefore, Fascists are less intelligent than cetaceans.

Depends really. There is a huge divide between nationalism and fascists. Fascists seek to stop free speech, impose their world view on everyone else and even march to the drums of imperialism. A nationalist is more or less proud of his own homeland and wishes to preserve it yet isn't against working with others. To be honest, you get idiots in all movements. You do get intelligent nationalists though just like you get retarded leftists. Thats just the way the world works sunshine.

What about killer whales, who kill other cetaceans? Goddamn sea-fascists!

Originally Posted by Ksim

I think this is where the Boomers and the Millennials start to differ. When it comes to the Boomers, life in general was good when they came of age. Economy was great, social stability was good and life held many opportunities. Boundless optimism was in the air and this itself produces new ideas and ways of doing things. However for the Millennials on the other hand, life itself has not been this tough since the last depression. Millennials are having to deal with a very different world, competing for limited jobs and resources amongst other people groups, pessimism is in the air and the good middle class life that was once guaranteed with just work is now gone. As a result, I think Millennials will start to drift away somewhat from the Boomer ideals of how life should be and instead adopt a more conservative approach to life as time goes on.

Older Boomers had it good after coming of age; the further down the age group you go within Boomers, the less good it was. The 1970s was full of recessions, and the 80s started outsourcing, Reaganomics that only benefitted the rich, etc. I think most Boomers are aware that millennials have it less good economically. They were given lots of good emotional support and guidance, so they are optimistic and confident anyway. In that they are just like the GIs, the previous civics. They are more conservative in lifestyle than boomers and Xers, but if they are like the GIs, they will remain liberal on economic and social issues; though they could well resent and resist the radical behavior and (to them, misguided) idealism of the next prophets, as they did the boomer prophets.

I think this itself will play a part in a potential future nationalistic revival in Europe. We hear it a lot in the news hear, "foreigners take this and this jobs, foreigners cost billions on the NHS, foreigners do this and that," etc, etc. I think as a result therefore, the more liberal open world policy idealised by the boomers of "lets unite and dream of a better world together" will be put on the back shelf for the foreseeable future.

Yet I do not think Boomer ideas will die out either and will come to influence future generations. I predict personally that the previous prophet generation's ideas will influence another generation going through a high although it won't entirely be like the original plan. Personally I view the Earth will go through periods of conservatism and liberalism eternally until The Kingdom of God is restored upon the Earth. Yes, I am a Christian too and I must confess, I do wonder how far we can keep going until finally we need some "outside help" so to speak to help us clean up our mess. Its a good question.

As for globalism and imperialism, I tend to find the United States itself has been pushing globalism as their new imperialism. "The Pax Americana". I tend to find the vast majority of global culture is based around American culture. Whether it comes to fashion, to music, to films, even to language such as catchphrases, it is ultimately America that is the leader of this globalisation period. The question is - if America takes a back seat - will there be an actual unipolar globalisation like we have had, perhaps under China? Or will it be a multipolar globalisation? Interesting thoughts.

There will be some resentment about jobs, I think. Once the Middle East recovers from the Syrian debacle and the other results of the Arab Spring, immigration will lessen, but not stop until those countries liberalize. But cultural imperialism is not military imperialism. It's up to others to find real culture instead of imported American trash. Europeans have the education and the culture all around them to resist this. America has also been influenced quite a bit by cultures from other countries. It's really an exchange going on.

I don't think British patriotism is as strong as that. I tend to view American patriotism as really a form of over compensating.

Yes, that's what I said too.

I mean I live in a small town and recently there has been new immigrants arriving from all over the world. The environment I grew up in was very British, like an English country garden. People could trace their ancestry back to the Domesday book. Heck unlike Americans, most people here have relatives who very rarely if ever settled anywhere else aside from the next town 5 miles away. Yet immigration is now changing this and that British national spirit dosen't like it. Sure, Brits are tolerant people and tend to be okay with foreigners in the cities but when you get a large group migrating to small towns and villages, they don't really like that. To them, its an infringement on their homeland.

To be honest, when it comes to Brits in my neck of the woods, most tend to be sympathetic to nationalism of some kind although will vote for the Labour Party simply due to the FPTP system. Yet if there was proportional representation, more would vote on national conservative lines.

Britain has quite a few immigrants. It has always been a refuge for disaffected rebels, and in the last 150 years has received people from its empire. So, it's largely the choice by Britain to create immigration. Cities absorb them more easily, no doubt. That's the case most everywhere. France has always been a country that assimilated people from all over Europe. Not as much as the USA, but it's still the case.

I agree that the globalised world is here to stay, I am not going to argue with this. I think the question is - what kind of globalised world is it going to be? Will it be a melting pot Earth scenario where all races become one and we live under a world government? Or will it be very much a similar world we have today that is multipolar in nature but still very much global in essence? I think personally I'd prefer a globalised world built on nations and trust. I do not deny globalisation is here and I fully accept that it is a reality. Yet each group must have its own house on this planet to live in. I still agree with the old USSR idea of "Friendship of the Nations". That is each nation helps the other but promises not to invade each other's territory or influence their affairs, which I include mass immigration in. Under the old USSR it was a case of "we will take you in as students, we will train you and we will give you support to your homeland but you must go home and help build up your own country." As an idea it worked very well and it is an idea I'd like to see implemented in Europe, especially in order to help build the Middle East back up.

Like I said before - I'm a Global Nationalist. I accept globalisation but would like to see our legacies live on and for us to retain our homelands if we so wish. Ultimately it does depend on the people but still, I think the vast majority will take a more balanced approach to the question at hand. One of preservation yet cooperation, which is what I favour.

Good. Like I said, it sounds like 19th century romanticism. Many people in the 21st and 22nd century will not care so much whether they are part of a national identity or not. Some will, but other folks find identity in their personal journey, their talents, their purpose in life, what they love, or their own family (which is often multi-cultural now), and ultimately, unless you identify with the All, God, your individual or group identity is built on sand. Ultimately, all is one is not an ideal; it's an inescapable reality of your being.

I tend to find liberalism to be an expansion of ideas which itself can lead to over consuming if we are not careful. When it comes to actually saving resources and protecting the environment, crazily enough but I find this to be more of a conservative notion in itself. Conservatism is more itself about conserving and rebuilding. Yet it still does amaze me at how conservative movements in the West do not take the environment more seriously although as you said, it is about preserving the status quo. I think when it comes to the environment and green politics, it'll start out as liberal but eventually conservatise as time goes on.

Except, it's not. Greens are liberals. It's a liberal idea because it's a new place where we need to go, and those resisting are the wealthy and powerful. Conservative sounds like conserving and rebuilding, but the political reality is that conservatives are defenders of the status quo. What they are "conserving" is the power, status and wealth (all the same thing) of those who already have them. Reactionaries go further and want to "restore" (like our restorationist friend) power to those who used to have it.

That said, the expansion of liberal ideas can lead to some pretty stupid decisions such as letting murderers be released from prison in 10 years or the possibility of legalisation of paedophilia. Yes, this is shocking but in the Netherlands, there is actually a paedophile rights movement. Who can stop them eventually when in 40 years time, they argue everyone else has a right to do what they want so why can't they? This is where good conservative ideas come in and say "no, its disgusting, wrong, perverted and filthy, we're not having any of it". Hence the balance - a balance both desperately need.

In my opinion therefore - liberalism can bring new ideas, some good, some bad where as conservatives needs to conserve the good, adopt potential good ideas and not become radical and authoritarian in order to keep power. Once again - all about the balance.

Yes, healthy conservatism can, as I said, guard against stupid new ideas.

Thank you and I have to confess, this is a very nice forum to be on. It is refreshing to be able to speak one's mind in an intellectual fashion and learn new ideas at the same time in the process. I must confess, there are some areas I disagree on when it comes to our debates but then there are others I very much agree with. Its been a refreshing conversation for me and I can tell you are a man who does ponder alot about the future, just like myself. Perhaps I may have more conservative traits compared to you but still, it does not mean we cannot continue to learn from one another and share new ideas on how to build a better future for people.

I agree, all views must be represented and I too have found your views have stimulated my thought patterns. I've been in cases where people agree with you, offer a few words of support yet just silently nod their heads without saying or doing much in the process. Heh, I recall once back in the day doing an interview once on politics and the vast majority offered no criticism aside from "you go tiger! go get 'em!". It can get annoying.

But on the other hand, you do have those such as Odin who have views which I consider to be antiethical to the nature of a good debate. I'm not saying Odin isn't a good guy, he's probably a fine gentleman and has his heart in the right place yet I have learned that when it comes to debate, we have to listen and talk to others otherwise we end up becoming staunch radicals of one particular ideology or another. Like we see in the UK and other Western countries, had free speech truly have been allowed to reign, we would not have had that many problems yet.....because it hasn't, people get angry, they get desperate and when they go down that road, trouble arises.

Trust me, having the views I have and being told I'm evil just because I'd like to see nations, cultures and ideas from old survive on into the future is quite distressing. Yet you end up being roped in with Neo-Nazism somehow which is itself unfair. They are a grossly nasty bunch of people who I cannot stand but then so are radical leftists that resort to cruelty and violence to get their point across.

So yes, I am enjoying this. Nice to feel free to be able to discuss one's mind.

Thanks. I find Odin difficult sometimes as well.

Agreed. It is a terrible situation yet Westerners could also potentially go down such a road if they feel threatened but only to a major crisis. This is what I fear the most with mass immigration. The problem is, we are not having small waves of people that we can cope with like in the past. We are having large numbers of people coming into Europe. In my own native Britain, we have immigration at levels which is the equivalent of building 2 new cities every year. As a result, the more we take in, the more Britain as a nation along with other European countries become fractured and the potential to violence opens up, especially with welfare cuts and people feeling hopeless and desperate.

Look at Breivik. That could very well be the beginning of a potential Europe scenario if we are not careful. When people get desperate, they do crazy things. I am all for peace hence my nationalism is about peaceful cooperation between nations so we truly can live in a global society with one another. Yet if crisis's are created, bad things can happen.

Immigration seems a reality we need to get used to. It often happens too fast; that's why we have immigration laws and borders. They help keep things from becoming too hard to adjust to. There is illegal immigration too. A balanced policy is needed.

You know its interesting when it comes to Syria but from what I read, the vast majority supported Assad to begin with when the potential for civil war started to heat up. I think the majority knew that if Assad went, the country would really go down the pipelines. Lets be honest, the Christians getting beheaded due to radical islamists was a terrible thing yet under Assad, they were safe. Assad himself has done bad things, I agree, not going to deny that but when it comes to the battle of moderates vs radicals, I do feel he is the lesser of two evils, hence the overwhelming present Syrian support for the man.

The facts are not thus. Assad is wholly responsible for his evil, and he will pay the ultimate price.

Libya wasn't reforming towards a democracy, no. But the people were not in absolute poverty like other middle eastern nations either. Qadhafi did spend a lot of the oil money on improving social services, health care, the economy, etc, etc in order to keep the people compliant. Look I'm not saying Qadhafi was a saint, no but he did create a country that really was just desert into a modern nation. Once again, the strongmen in a sense were needed in that area of the world until democratic ideals and aspirations could peacefully have been attained.

My own opinion is that had the Arab Spring not have happened, within 50 years, the descendants of the strongmen would have eventually taken the reigns of power and started to move in a more liberal direction. In fact Arab Spring or no, I do believe myself the Middle East could actually become a lot more liberalized in the next 50 years as the ideas are there. They just need the means to implement them and right now, I think only a more reformed strongman could do it.

Qaddafi was a lot less socialistic than was supposed, especially in his later years. His regime was pure thuggery. Strongmen won't cure the peoples' problems; only democratization. That may happen gradually in places such as Egypt. Dictators make things worse, and it's counterproductive when the USA supports them for its own needs. I suggest that such behavior by America will decrease in the coming years.

Well even in revolutions in the past, you had agent provocateurs that helped to stir up the masses. Agents from the government or various organisations in order to forment rebellions and dissent. Always has been the case throughout history hence my belief that nothing spontaneously ever happens which in itself is incredibly rare. I think though in regards to the Arab Spring it was half and half. Half of it was genuine and the other half certainly had Uncle Sam's (possibly Mossad's) fingers in the pie. The reason? Divide and conquer. If the Arab states break up into various mini-states and the power of the secular dictators is vanquished, then it becomes easier for the U.S/Israel to effectively control the region without too much interference. Good for oil supplies, too. Yet I think ISIS and other groups wasn't something the U.S had planned on and the fire got out of hand.

Do I believe young people wanted change? I think many did. But do I believe they were content also in a sense? Moreso than right now. Yet do I also believe Uncle Sam was involved somehow? Its hard to believe America was not involved, even if just at a minimal. There were many political, economic and military gains to be made from the Arab Spring. Especially for Israel.

Beliefs don't count for much; the facts are that these were indigenous movements by young people who wanted a better life, and mobilized through social media. No outside provocateurs were needed. It was virtually all genuine, as most movements of the people are. Where they failed, radical Islam filled the void. It was there too, and it is folly. But we live in the age of revolution by people power. It started in America in the 60s and has spread around the world. It will eventually triumph, and the people will be free. Now that's something to "identify" with, and I do.

We ruled the Middle East half a century ago. America has been meddling in it for the last 30 years. I think that had it been 50 years ago then we would have had the responsibility but for now it is America's. However, we can work together but America needs to step up and start helping Europe because we are struggling right now.

How should America help Europe now?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Therefore, Fascists are less intelligent than cetaceans.

Only if they are dumb enough to march openly with shitty tattoos and shaved heads.

Just curious, what do you think about the U.S. Navy killing whales by using sonar during training exercises, and using dolphins to detect mines?

The first is bad and they need to find a way around that so they don't kill dolphins. I also don't like the second for the same reason I don't like places like Sea World.

Originally Posted by Ksim

But don't you see it? With views such as these, you are becoming the fascist. I am a nationalist, yes, but I am not a fascist. I have no designs on oppressing other people groups or interfering with their way of life. You sir are the violent one. Why don't you try and adopt the attitude both myself and Eric have? Calmly discussing the issues and debating them out without getting all tense and making such ridiculous remarks?

You see, this is what I was explaining to when I told Eric earlier. Many of the liberals in the West have these attitudes so is it any fault when people go underground because they cannot discuss the views they have in public? That itself is totalitarianism and radicalism. If you don't agree with what I say, then you will die. I'm sorry but I do not agree with this stance. I would never admit death on you because you are a person too. You have your own views and ways of doing things. Listen to other people, talk calmly with them for if you do not, you and others like you become the oppressor and that itself is not a good thing.

I wasn't referring to liberal nationalists like you when I said, that, I was referring to genuine Neo-Nazi pond scum, fanatics and assholes who are beyond having reasoned discussions with.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. If you could articulate your response I might have an idea of what you are trying to get at. Thanks.

What I meant was that the principle of free speech is about the free exchange of ideas free from government interference. Unfortunately a lot of people, like the edgy assholes on Reddit and 4chan, think that is a free license to be a jerk without any social consequences and so act like they are being censored and oppressed by "social justice warriors" if the reaction to their behavior is anger and ridicule. These people think freedom of speech is freedom from criticism.

Well our colonies adapted many British cultural attitudes yet they still broke up in the end. Remember that in India, Africa, Malaysia and elsewhere, they too were wearing Western clothing and adapting to a more Western cultural way of life. Yet they still broke up in the end although not in a violent fashion in the same way as the Roman Empire. But then I suspect that is down to the fact Britain was all the way across the ocean and an actual military invasion could not even be dreamed of compared to the land border shared between Rome and old Germania.

We didn't adapt those cultural attitudes, we inherited them from you. Apart from food and in some cases religion all the other ethnic groups quickly assimilated into this "Frontier British" culture. With India and Malaysia the culture was imposed on them and then only part of it was assimilated via a native intelligentsia.

Roman culture was also imposed from above, but the Roman Empire lasted for a lot longer than the (post American Revolution) 2nd British Empire. Northern Gaul had been Roman for 400 years, southern Gaul and northern Spain 550 years, southern Spain almost 650 years. Imagine if the British had ruled India for 500 years rather than just 175 or so years.

I think this is where the Boomers and the Millennials start to differ. When it comes to the Boomers, life in general was good when they came of age. Economy was great, social stability was good and life held many opportunities. Boundless optimism was in the air and this itself produces new ideas and ways of doing things. However for the Millennials on the other hand, life itself has not been this tough since the last depression. Millennials are having to deal with a very different world, competing for limited jobs and resources amongst other people groups, pessimism is in the air and the good middle class life that was once guaranteed with just work is now gone. As a result, I think Millennials will start to drift away somewhat from the Boomer ideals of how life should be and instead adopt a more conservative approach to life as time goes on.

This is why transnational labor unions like the IWW need to be more of a thing. Economic nationalism isn't the answer, and organized international working class that works together globally is the answer (Yes, I'm one of THOSE Leftists!).

Yes, this is shocking but in the Netherlands, there is actually a paedophile rights movement.

EWW, EWW, EWW, KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!

In my opinion therefore - liberalism can bring new ideas, some good, some bad where as conservatives needs to conserve the good, adopt potential good ideas and not become radical and authoritarian in order to keep power. Once again - all about the balance.

Despite being quite radically left-wing I am actually quite conservative by temperament, I don't like change for the sake of change, something that probably stems from my Asperger's and so liking stability and routine. But when things are broken they need to be fixed and not just swept under the rug, and right now things are really, really broken and there is a lot of denial, bargining, and many of the other stages of grief going on. The Slovenian philosopher Slovoj Zizek published a book a few years ago called Living in The End Times (nothing to do with the Christian Apocalypse) with that exact premise of our society being in a state of denial and is still trying to insist that nothing is broken.

Originally Posted by Ksim

What we have to remember about Europeans is that ultimately they actually descended from the Caucasus Mountains. Hence the term for white people, 'Caucasian". Sure, there was some limited Middle Eastern ancestry in Europeans but overall it was extremely limited. The vast majority came from the Caucasus and settled into Europe thousands of years ago. If we look at the ancestors of Europeans, we can quite easily see it in the rather European looking Circassians/Ossetians/Karbadians etc, still native peoples (and nationalists too) to the area. In Biblical times and still even today in some circles, Europeans have always been identified as the Sons of Japheth. To the ancient Hebrews, the Sons of Japheth were in the North, primarily around the Caucasus and Europe. If we look at the DNA and linguistic patterns, it actually makes sense. Europeans are more related to each other then other racial groups. An Englishman is more related to a Russian then he is to a Subsaharan African in terms of genetic distance. Hence the Japhethite theory actually fits in. History matches up and there is a brotherhood between European nations, just as there is between the Asian and African countries.

When it comes to the Middle East, Jews and Arabs are actually blood brothers. Makes sense considering that Jews and Arabs in the Bible and other historical documents actually descended from Jacob and Ishmael respectively, from the same forefather Abraham yet split off by two sons. Genetics and linguistic wise, there is very much a strong connection between the Arabs and the Jews. Quite amazing really and they were regarded as the original "Sons of Shem".

So there is an ethno-linguistic blood line present and I found it amazing to find the correlations when reading about race.

There are actually 3 main genetic strata in Europeans, the original hunter-gatherer population on the bottom, Near-Eastern farmers in the middle, and Indo-European speaking farmer-herders (themselves actually an eastern splinter group from the bottom layer) from what is now the Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Odin

The first is bad and they need to find a way around that so they don't kill dolphins. I also don't like the second for the same reason I don't like places like Sea World.

So how about we work on these issues in our own culture, instead of pointing our collective finger at others?

Originally Posted by Odin

There are actually 3 main genetic strata in Europeans, the original hunter-gatherer population on the bottom, Near-Eastern farmers in the middle, and Indo-European speaking farmer-herders (themselves actually an eastern splinter group from the bottom layer) from what is now the Ukraine.

Well, West/Central Europe at least. You get into the part of the FSU in geographical Europe there is a fourth major strand representing non-Indo-European Ancestral North Europeans. It loosely matches up with Uralic peoples, slavicized or no.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

What about killer whales, who kill other cetaceans? Goddamn sea-fascists!

This is an episode of Archer I really want to see made.

Originally Posted by Kepi

This is an episode of Archer I really want to see made.

I'd watch it. Man, they've really brought it back with the new season. I really thought they jumped the shark a little bit with the Archer Vice thing.

Hey, guys.

I've never watched Archer(I do know what it is),
but "sea-fascists" ... that just may be 'a keeper'!


Prince

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Yeah - no surprise here. The English brand of racism goes so far as to rate the value of the white races as well. Darwin's "Descent of Man" provides a good blueprint. Hell, the whole idea of monarchy and nobility ranks prejudice down to the family level. Belfast's conservative neighborhoods (and yes, they divide their housing based on political ideas and which kind of white you are) are literally the most dangerous place in all of the EU for a foreigner to be.

Really? I've not experienced a hierarchical "white" kind of discrimination. Maybe a bit, during my two-year exile in Pennsylvania, but I'm interested ... how does it work in Great Britain?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

So how about we work on these issues in our own culture, instead of pointing our collective finger at others?

We can't work on more than one thing at the same time?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Well, West/Central Europe at least. You get into the part of the FSU in geographical Europe there is a fourth major strand representing non-Indo-European Ancestral North Europeans. It loosely matches up with Uralic peoples, slavicized or no.

DOH, I can't believe I forgot the Finno-Ugrians!

Interestingly there is very little of the origin Siberian/"Mongoloid" element left in most Finno-Ugrian groups west of the Urals, the main exception being the Y-Chromosome of men with Y-DNA Haplotype N. IIRC the Finns are the blondest people in the world.

Originally Posted by Odin

We can't work on more than one thing at the same time?

Sure, as long as it's done without the finger-pointing.
(And as long as "work" doesn't just mean bitching about it on an internet forum, and/or using an inflammatory issue to further one's own agenda.)

This is an incredible thread. Frankly, I hate most threads on this forum, but this is a good one.

Ksim, I don't agree with all of your ideas (certainly not your interpretation of the turnings), but I think you are offering some interesting viewpoints and insight and it's always good to challenge what people think they know.

There is SO much to dissect in this thread, and I'm just going to try my best not to go into a long-winded diatribe.............but if I could very briefly sum up how I feel about Europeans, it's this - well, they may be progressive when it comes to bike lanes and wind mills, but it doesn't mean they can't be nationalist or downright racist. As bad as the racism is here in the U.S., I hear about some of the stuff that Arabs and black Africans put up with in Europe and it actually makes me glad that I live here and not there.

No, Europe is not too good or too enlightened to devolve into another sweeping tide of fascism like it did in the 1930s and 1940s. The same seeds that were planted then are planted now - an economic crisis that grips almost the entire continent, hatred towards a religious / cultural / ethnic minority (not just Muslims - anti-Semitism is back on the rise in Western Europe as well although to be fair, some of that is propagated by Muslims), the rise of right-wing nationalism, etc. I don't see how it is not more obvious that Europe is headed down the exact same road it was headed down in the 1930s.

I'm just hoping and praying that 10 years from now you guys don't produce another Hitler who tries his hardest to exterminate all of the Muslims in Europe. You are headed down that path.

For centuries now, many European societies (particularly Western Europe) have held some notion or idea that they are superior to all other non-white, non-European people around the world. It's white privilege and white supremacy amplified - after all, as KSim pointed out, Europe is the indigenous home of white people. You can't play the "but you killed all the Indians!" card over there like you can here.

Maybe Angela Merkel is right - maybe multiculturalism doesn't work in Europe. But if that's the case, it will be just as much native Europeans fault (if not more so) than the new immigrants. As a person of color living in the United States, it's hard to believe that there is a place (especially in the developed world) that actually makes America look good in terms of race relations, cultural understanding and tolerance, etc. but Western Europe seems to be that place.

Odin said it best early on the thread - you guys simply suck at assimilating minorities into your societies. Maybe it's because you haven't had as much practice doing so as we have. Maybe it's because you never went through a tumultuous 1960s style civil rights movement like we did here in the U.S. I don't know what it is, but Europe scares me. Nationalism, and even fascism, can most certainly return to Europe any day now.