(The user was banned for this post)
You're missing the racial aspect which is extremely important. Austrians would never fight fellow Austrians neither would they fight fellow Germans and Germans would never fight fellow Germans.
(The user was banned for the post)
This is a very difficult question...What characteristics would this new race of humans have ?There is more to race then skin color.
A quote comes to mind "Equality is a lie… A myth to appease the masses''.Granted the quote comes from a sith lord (who aren't exactly known for their upstanding moral character) but that does not make it any less true.To claim that human races are equal to one another in ability is foolishness.All evidence points to the contrary.
The real problem the western world faces is forced diversity.Here is a good read on the subject.Racism is to be expected given our current situation.White people are being subjected to a form of ethnic cleansing in every country they live in.They are also the least racist race amusingly enough.The sheer amount of black on white crime in america is insane.Rotherham also shows what happens when western countries accept so many immigrants from third world countries.
Diversity is a truly terrible thing.If everyone were to suddenly become the same race ?Race based discrimination would probably stop but not very much would change if skin color is all that changed.The muslim jihadists would still keep trying to take over europe by immigrating and outbreeding the native populations like they are now.Africa would still remain a third world hellhole despite it's abudant resources because the people living there would still retain their depressingly low IQ's and so on.All that this would accomplish in the end would probably be the destrucion of many unique cultures which we have today.
(This is a posting by a banned member who presented his ideal vision of what the Allies should have done after WW2)
After WWII, the allies begin genetically engineering Germans to make them immune to nationalism. It's seen as a) a motivation to better understand the genetic code and b) a compromise with the Morgenthau Plan that will allow Germany to be prosperous while preventing another Hitler. The first phase is to examine the adult German population for signs of nationalism and to chemically castrate those who are seen as susceptible to tribalism, with the hopes that tribalist genes will phase out of the population within a couple of generations.
I don't believe in the Armenian Genocide; yes alot of Aremnians died, but it was the result of multiple things, including living in the middle of a Warzone with Great Powers fighting each other on each side combined with private pogroms, but overall not something endorsed or done by the Ottoman Empire or any other state actor.
Well, non-citizens (i.e. resident foreigners) have no inherent right to stay at a host country, even ones legally immigrated or born there. They are more or less there at the grace of the host country. Now, I dont advocate the sudden mass removal of over 2m people. This would be a humanitarian and besides also economical catastrophe. But I would advocate making removing them easier or making setting them under pressure easier - less social aid than for citizens, expulsion for non-citizens at every crime committed and legally convicted for, things like that.
Thats the problem with culture and identity, I admit. Its very vague and blurry at the edges. What Id do is as said to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, and then make getting German citizenship be dependant on enough tests and ceremonial stuff to weed out people believing in "Turks with a German pass" and stuff like that. But since asked directly about language, yes, I would expect of every German (in the national sense) to use German as primary language.
(...)
Citizenship should reflect national identity, yes. How one defines that for oneself can vary - obviously nations are always in a constant process of assimilating cultural elements of other nations, anyway. Thats why I said the borders between "cultures" can be blurry. I really do not think Germany should (further) build up a parallel Turkish society inside Germany. Primary use of Turkish would be an indication of that. To vary my question from before, if they want to be in Germany, why do they use Turkish?
(...)
Because "operating" and "functioning" are not the points. Germany is the country of the German nation, and as such should be home to the German nation, and not to other nations (with the well-justified exceptions for traditional minorities, of course). Now, its possible to enter, so to say, the German nation - but that really is the point then and not functionality. Now, of course I say nothing against knowing Turkish, or even against being German-Turkish bilingual. What I said was about, well, judgement in when to use it. In Germany, and as German, ones primary language should be German. Knowledge of other languages is of course always useful, I dont think its ever a negative to be able to speak more languages, but they shouldnt be the primary language in Germany.
Because its true and Israel is engaged in Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing.
Since all Israeli adult citizens are part of the military in one way or another, they forfeit the protection of Geneva and are fair game to Hamas which is a Government that was elected, mind you, to power and thus can't be labeled an Insurgent Group.
Also since Israel deliberately targets civilians, even those under UN protection, with air and artillery strikes, its civilians are also fair game to rocket and suicide bomber strikes which are no different.
If Israel doesn't like it, well tough shit, they shouldn't have started the war or committed genocide and ethnic cleansing.
I should also point out that Hamas despises Al-Qaeda and has killed and captured hundreds of them over the years.
The only way out of this mess, is to remove the Israelis from the region and give it back to the Palestinians who still have the right of return or decapitate the current Israeli Government, merge Gaza and West Bank into it and give it a true secular democratic government.
That's a false argument. The state holds a monopoly on violence. If we collectively, and legally decide to end the life of someone who has violated society's rules, then it is by definition moral. I don't do moral equivalence, sorry, so being accused of being an indecent person doesn't really phase me. There are enemies of society and the state within and without, what they have in common is that they need to die.
[Thread "What if HIV began in ancient times?" - Formatting in original]
@RGB
Your main proposed method of control was honour killings. No country in the world enforces honour killings, not even the Saudis...
Again, patriarchy is the main thing. Whether it is enforced by honor kills, actual govenment laws and police, shunning, or whatever else, it does not matter. A society that enforces patriarchy cuts down on promiscuity. It still exists, but it is not rampant, decreases sexual partners, and therefore decreases the spread of STDs.
...no ancient society would have a government set up any better than modern Sudan anyway.
Yes, but Shariah is not consistently applied in Sudan, likely (not that I know that much about Sudan.)
So there you go, great example of control-by-social-mores failing.
You have not showed that at all. The fact that the ancient world had most of the STDs we have today, but they simply did not spread, says a lot.
Take herpes for example. It used to be common just among prostitutes and those who frequented them (big surprise, not among "Respectable" or common women.) In the US, more than 50 million people today have the genital variety.
What changed? There's more condoms today and they're cheaper. Obviously, society changed.
I really wasn't meaning to be racist at all - I love people of all different colours. I was just being objective about what has actually transpired - that it's been Europeans who have been the biggest movers and shakers of the world system in the last few hundred years, and non-Europeans have been unfortunately victimized on the whole and have been undeservedly labelled as savages at worst.
If you guys still aren't convinced about the superior quality of the British legal system and British political institutions in playing a role in a country's economic development, as compared to those of France, Spain, etc., take a look here.
Let's say Hitler had his way and by 2010 every single person inside of Europe that was not over 90% German had been murdered, leaving Europe Racially made up of Germans from Alsace-Lorraine to the Ural Mountains, and down to Greece, and by 2030 for all intensive purposes that was Germany.
Wouldn't that be much more preferable to have than a racially and politically divided Europe? I'm not endorsing the Holocaust, but what I am saying is that if all of the resources and manpower were under one nation of White, Protestant, technologically advanced nation, wouldn't that be superior to having Hungaria and Bulgaria and Romania and Russia and Lithuania and Poland, etc.
Would there be other advantages to this? What would the effects be long term?
Sometimes people need to die. Pacifism is reactionary. I personally support the liberation of the homosexual proletariat, but such a stance was not widely held among Marxists from Stalin through the 90s. I wouldn't uphold them as my ideal people's army but I admire their social ideas and willingness to resist both imperialism and the neoliberal regime.
(...)
Shining Path were heroes. Those who died should feel honored to have been martyred in the name of the Peruvian proletariat and Revolution. First, I appreciate that you actually respond to my posts and engage in a reasonable manner.
(...)
Second, I'm a pretty big admirer of early DPRK as well. Kim Il-sung was pretty solid and he managed to create one of the most advanced socialist societies out of rubble after the Victorious Fatherland Liberation War. Juche, while clearly revisionist in ideological substance, is a fascinating attempt at creating a Marxism that rejects dialectical materialism. I follow the Korean Friendship Association and enjoy reading their "Juche classroom" articles. No, we want to liquidate the bourgeoisie and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. It's going to be bloody and if you're not comfortable with that, there's a spot in the gulag for you.
Recall the stock shorting done on the airline stocks on 9/11 that went through the WTC computers?
There's a reason attacks were done on the East Coast. Massive casualties & Massive theft. Think of a better way they & their shadowy backers could do that on the West Coast & you have your scenario.
All humans are selfish. Most humans are tribals. Most humans draw their lines somewhere, I draw mine at the nation-state and have consciously chosen to do so. I care more about Americans than I do foreigners. Much as I care more about my family than I do strangers. That is biology and sociology in action. In any case if South Korea and Japan have to be sacrificed to save America then so be it.
I don't say this to troll or to dehumanize others. Please understand that on a base level I care about Japanese, South Koreans and even North Koreans much as other people. On a base level I believe all people are equal. On a practical level though? When it's your tribe vs mine? I chose mine.
I wasn't talking about the physically handicaped, I was talking about people with negitave inheritable conditions. They shouldn't be allowed to breed. It's in the best intrests of humanity.
Also, the overwhelming majority of mentally handicaped persons are just that, handicaped, and thus a burden on the collective.
And morality is strictly a social construct. There is no such thing as "good" or "evil". Reality transcends morality, always.
People shouldn't be allowed to just up and "have" children anyways. All humans should be produced with perfect genes. The new humanity will be smart, pretty, superhumans truly worthy of life.
I think of the Indian wars as sort of a necessary evil if you want to build a powerful country. America wouldn't be the superpower it is today if it contained a balkanized mix of Indian tribal nations that had no interest in industrialization or modernization. It could probably have been done better and with less loss of life, but the tribes had to fall and make way for a modern country. It's sad what happened, but looking into the future we have a great country that wouldn't be the same if the west was not won.
Personally I believe that political violence in the name of a communist revolution is quite beneficial. I wouldn't mind if we sprung up and killed all the reactionaries in congress and on wall street. Don't give me crap on all the people Stalin killed if the kulaks weren't such reactionaries they'd be just fine. Had they listened and allowed modernization most of them would be alive but they were too stubborn.
Jews, Gypsies, Negroes and their bastard offsprings were the people that were effected by the Nuremberg Laws as non-Aryan, basically anyone who was not Indo-European.
All non-European people were seen as non-Aryan.
Japanese were seen as "honorary Aryan", and so was the Arab Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and some Jews.
The hierarchy was simple the Germanic Ubermenschen were the master race and all other Europeans were Aryans beneath the Germanic people.
The Slavic Untermenschen myth was created by the Communists after the war, the Nazis never called Slavs "untermensch" and many fought on the Nazis side against the Jewish Bolsheviks as well as many Nazi documents showing Slavs as "Aryan". Slavs were considered Aryan by the Nazis and sexual relations between Germans and Slavs was not forbid.
Whilst the Nazis did use anti-Slavic propaganda to dehumanize the opponent in the war they were no racial hatred against the Slavs than any other non-Germanic groups such as Balts and Celts neither. Many websites and books repeat that the Nazis considered Slavs to be untermenschen and non-Aryan but this is not true. People often confuse 'Aryan' with 'master race' the Nazis used the term Aryan differently and when used as the master race it was only meant for Germanic people only.
Remember, the Slavs were supporting and being ruled by Communism/Bolshevism which was Jewish according to the Nazis and the Nazis wanted lebensraum "living space" in Eastern Europe so remember you can see why they called them uncultured. Hitler himself never really "hated" Slavs as to speak, he just hated the fact that Austria was being overruled in the Austro-Hungarian empire by the Czechs, Poles and other Slavs and called it the Slavicification of Austria which he did not want as he seen it as the de-Germanisation of Austria.
Hitler was first a German nationalist and was pan-German all the way but he also was a pan-European leader who did not have any racial hatred against Slavs and they were considered Aryan. In fact, before the war Hitler initially wanted Poland as an alliance against the Soviet Union. Also, after the invasion of Poland there was an "Aryan side" which was mostly of Poles and the German minority and others.
Of course one must remember many truths are often ignored about the Nazis since history is written by the victors.
Sure it does, if and only if we're talking about lands that are in the temperate zone (amenable to those from the British Isles) and that don't have heavy indigenous populations to begin with. In such a setting, like in North America, Australia, New Zealand, and an ATL British Argentina, it would be easy for British settlers to move there and for British institutions and laws (which are generally superior to their Continental European counterparts) to take full effect. (A partial exception might be the plantation-based economy of the US South until relatively recently.)
Other areas that the British colonized in, like India and much of Africa, are in the tropics and already have had large (and relatively advanced) indigenous populations, and British colonization there takes a very different form which is not amenable to early industrialization. The Anglophone Caribbean is an interesting case, because while it's a) not as developed as North America, W. Europe, Australia/NZ, etc., b) there were plantation economies, c) most of the people there are descended from African slaves, d) in the tropics, the folks there are much more devoted to the British ideal than the rank-and-file in India or ex-British Africa and are generally much better educated.
(This is a poster who was banned for this post and banned again later on for racist conspiracy theories - it is his idea of how he would have punished Germany more harshly after WW2)
Take the entirre East German population and ship it off to Siberian labor camps. Have them segregated by gender so the German population eventually dies out completely. Alternatively, you can take the German woman and turn them into slavic breeding machines- have the soldiers rape them and force them to have as many babies as possible. You can adopt North Korea's three generation principle so that there is almost no Germanic blood left or breed them forever as a slave race.
I agree with those that say you need to take the financial backers out, economically if possible, militarily if necessary, and if their country raises a stink, agree with them that a casus belie has been committed, but do they really want to go there?
That being said, and with the understanding I am not advocating this. Getting rid of ISIS is not going to solve the problem, something else with the same goals will pop up in a couple of years.
This area has been in conflict since biblical times, at least, there must be something in the water, so simply killing off any given group is not going to accomplish much.
The best chance of stopping this from happening again someone needs to start at the northeast coast of the Mediterranean Sea and draw a line to the bottom of the Sinai Peninsula and start moving east, killing every living thing higher than a bacteria until they hit the Hindu Kush, then kill everyone that tries to resettle the area.
Will this stop political violence on a world wide basis, no, it will not even keep people from resettling the land, but we will not have to worry about these particular jokers ever again.
(He was banned for this post.)
People seem to think that certain politicians can never ever get to power under normal circumstances (the truth burns them and causes instant brain death). The entire Nazism in Germany thing can be described as:
1. be politician
2. be pissed and want to change things
3. turns out people are pissed also
4. be elected to power
5. do what you want to do
6. oh wait you're actually angry at the jews because 1918 german revolution
7. turns out a lot of jews are in the banking business
8. this pisses off everyone against you because money talks hehe
9. lose war
10. have your ideology rekt for a long time
regarding Sen. Obama (D-Chicago Way). The real election was not the general but the Democratic Primary. Even without the 7 of 9 scandal Jack Ryan was at best competitive in the general election but no Republican could have won that election except the incumbent, Peter Fitzgerald, who was dumped because he was too independent of the Chicago Way Combine. However, until a few weeks before that primary the clear favorite in the polls was one Blair Hull, an independent millionaire with no obligations to the Chicago or Illinois machines. Well guess what. Someone released previously sealed records from his divorce proceedings that indicated that Hull had abused his ex-wife. Immediately his standing in the polls collapsed to the benefit one of Barry Obama, who by this time was a fully made member of the Chicago machine complete with his own real estate fairy. Without this out of nowhere release of sealed records Barry remains an obscure member of the IL State Senate (BTW all members of that body are obscure except the majority leader). So lets look at this. Barry O is gifted in one election cycle with damaging divorce papers against both his primary and general election foes. Me thinks the fix was in. Of course, it is Illinois (i.e. Chicago machine).