Well you provide some comedic anecdotes, but there’s very little doubt about Bannon and Miller, and Trump himself, as even called out on Fox News.
I don’t believe I’ve seen you however espouse racist comments, but then I don’t suppose I’ve seen too much of your posting history.
Mr dictionary, I’m not interested in theories. Just facts.
The Russian Revolution was sponsored by the Rothschilds, and Rockefellers.
So was Mao’s terror regime.
North Korea is an extension of China.
Why is this fact so hard to understand?
Nationalism is nothing but national pride and putting your nation first.
It’s only when you add the white supremacy/separatism to it that it becomes something ugly.
Most of us put our families before out towns/cities, our town/citiy’s interests above those of our neighbors, same with our states and nobody sees that as a problem.
The same applies to nationalism.
You can’t possibly show that to be true.
Nationalism is not the problem, it is when socialism is added to nationalism that you get National Socialist Workers Party (NAZI).
Why do shabbos goys try to ban these photos?
It’s because they are the enemy of the truth about socialism.
■■■■ behind the biggest genocide ever.
Some estimates go as high as 100 million killed by Mao and his gang.
Mind-boggling
I know without even looking that every single post in this thread that the positions are wrong.
Marxist-Leninism is not a compelling theory because it subscribes to that particular 19th Century post-Enlightenment view of man as a rational creature, and ethics as a scientific field. Truth, so the argument goes, cannot contradict truth. You cannot have two things that are equally true but that invalidate the other. All truth must be true at the same time as all other truth. This is important, because it means that if you can find the truth then you can find a perfect, harmonious system. It means that there can only possibly be one right, and everything else is wrong. This right can be rationally proven, because the right is the truth and the truth doesn’t contradict other truth. Then, when you rationally prove this right, other men, being rational beings, will see the truth and will act according to it. There is a complete system out there, whole and beautiful, and if we can but implement it everything will come good. This is why the state “withers away” in Marxist-Leninism. Once you have taught people this truth you don’t need a state, because as rational actors they will behave according to the right by themselves.
This might seem strange to us - maybe even stupid - but Marxist-Leninism is far from the only political philosophy to espouse this. Adam Smith believed the same thing, and his predictions were equally wrong. You just don’t hear so much about them. You have to understand that immediately following the Enlightenment people believed that logic and reason could derive the objectively correct way to live - hence replacing the “government of people” with the “management of things”. Marxist-Leninism was just one of M A N Y political philosophies who said “this is objectively correct way to live”, but they weren’t the only ones to say that there was an objectively correct way.
It wasn’t until the 1950s that Isaiah Berlin revived pluralism.
Wake up!
Ahh and then came along the Post Modernists that pretty much ascribed truth as being irrelevant and ending all grand narratives! Thus we get the subjective in a sea of fragmentary ideas, competing with one another to be heard while all wrapped up into secularism!
If socialism is so great why are people risking death to escape from countries like China., North Korea. Cuba and Venezuela. Why would they want to run away a paradise like you described
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
Or when ‘white’ is added to nationalism.
Probably because they lack the Democratic aspect…
Here’s a thought: do you recall the everyone has right to a homeland guff … well, why aren’t those bad? They’re just ethnic nationalism dolled up in Left wing rhetoric.
Really? Where is that right enumerated???
Aside from wanting to ask if you’ve never really heard people demanding that every ethnic group (non-white goes without saying) has a right to a homeland …
… do you really think rights need to be enumerated while governing powers should be general?
How very French of you…
Nope, not French lmao.
I’m just pointing out that there are no rights that cannot be defended. Might makes right. If you posses a “homeland” and someone of greater strength wants it, they will wrest it from you. That’s the history of the world, and your so called rights be damned.
As to your assertion that every ethnic group has a right to a homeland, that’s likely born out of an appetite for retribution for a few centuries of white European exploitation of most all ethnic groups, their homelands and natural resources.
It is a major fallacy to state that government “[p]rovides free education, training, and housing” under socialism." These things are simply not paid for at the time under socialism; but they are paid for through higher taxes.
And I would much prefer to have a low-tax society, coupled with meager government services, than to have a high-tax society, coupled with generous government services.
As for the elderly “being taken care of”–but not allowed to “hoard” their resources–I do not desire government confiscation of my resources, that I have accumulated over a lifetime.