Well, I was speaking mostly for Europe, I'm not sure about the US yet.

I should have specified.

But with so much of this talk that it IS inevitable, I believe that's a self-fulfilling prophecy that's going to cause the less... coherent to initate the violence for one side or another.

Really, there's only two realistic possibilities that are going to happen, and one of them isn't even that realistic: either there's a sudden surge of popularity with the alt right to the point where it even becomes a household name and starts gaining traction, which I don't see it happening, but they have been getting a *lot* of traction on YouTube in recent months. They actually manage to gain political power, and then try to enact their ethnostate, resulting in violence.

The more likely scenario is that the alt right continue to be a bunch of memelords and never get taken seriously, and things continue going the way they do now, which will result in many European countries becoming muslim-majority in about half a century or so, resulting in a new dark age for Europe.

The migrants and refugees didn't exactly come into Europe peacefully. Do any of us honestly think they will leave peacefully?

Speaking of which, whether being expelled for being "illegal immigrants", or being expelled for being brown, isn't the effect the same? The forceful relocation of large groups of people sparking violence and destruction?

Jaden, stop a second

Then again, I have absolutely no faith in humanity, especially wherein islam is concerned. lol

Let's clarify something

I do not believe, for a second, that the merkelization of Europe is a move for the greater good.

I never said you did. I'm just saying that it is not likely to stop, that's all. lol

right.

However, even if we put a stop to all immigration and stopped the influx of migrants this second, as in the moment of the conversation, there are still more than enough in their host countries to outbreed their native populations in a few decades if they are not made to return back home.

I actually do believe that identity politics, to a degree, is needed in Europe.

I don't like identitarian politics. Ideally, we shouldn't have them at all, but in this situation I don't know about that anymore.

just out of curiosity, what would identitarian politics solve?

Very little, but a burst of it would nudge the modern course the right direction.

Right now decisions aren't being made to the benefit of the host population

Whether we engage in the idea of white people existing in a group or not, other groups are doing that very thing.

Groups get things done.

It's just that simple.

It would put races on a level playing field

Groups also don't like to give up power

that's the problem with that.

Yeah.

For instance, there was a time where Feminism accomplished it's goals

"No guys, I promise I'll put down the ultimate power you've given me after I finished a couple of things with it, really."

Now, in a scramble for relevancy, the movement is doubling back.

"We just need to kill all of the dragons."

"But the dragons are dead?"
"YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!"

MICRO-DRAGONS!

you lot do realise that its the fact we achnowledge "groups" is what caused all this right?

they're all "the immigrants who came from bad arab places" so we let them all in, instead of kicking out anyone with a valid reason

And they're not going to stop acknowledging groups.

Groups caused this because we, as a group allowed it

So what is the solution?

No, I don't believe that's accurate, jay.

So we as a group have to push back

The problem is misidentification.

Hm?

the misidentification is caused by considering them all a group of "refugees"

and we let them in cuz "ooh the poor refugees", refugees flee to the nearest safe zone and sit out the conflict in their homeland

refugees don't traverse an entire continent to sit it out in the place where they get given free money, a house and food

well let's take terrorism for instance. If we identify where a son-of-a-bitch mass-murdering explodey-boi comes from, that's just the first step.

But the thing is, no matter how WE group them

if they're already a part of a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda, Hezbola, or the NRA

And no, refugees are *supposed* to flee to the nearest safe country, but they don't, they come into western countries anyway.

They've already grouped up.

Partly because the nearest safe countries close off their borders, if I recall. I just remember milions of empty tents in Saudia Arabia.

I live in a hurricane-prone area of the US.

During an evacuation, I've been a 'Refugee' before.

Part of the whole point of being a refugee is being a seeker of temporary refuge.

I don't think there's any problem with being a refugee.

The problem comes in

when the host country starts making arrangements for that to become a permanent solution.

Yeah.

yes

That's a slimy method, and a backdoor way to import a new voting base

which they do in europes case, because the left-wing european states are failing due to obviously flawed policies, and they need a voting block

Yeah, I think it was either Ireland or Scotland that is already talking about giving migrants the right to vote?

The curious thing is, this won't help anyone. Once the refugees become a majority, they will create their failed state in the host nation, because they haven't been culturally adapted or selected for citizenship.

Yeah.

I doubt it's Ireland really

They're pretty culturally hegemonic

socialism doesn't work either, but people still want to implement it at all costs

the point is, these leaders are disconnected from the normal society, they're surrounded by yes-men feeding their ego that they're being nice to poor poor refugees, and in addition they gain votes to remain in charge.

its simply bad/weak leadership because the west hasn't had REAL hardships for over 2 generations

Ah, it is Scotland.

and identitarian politics won't help with these leaders because they're in most cases the white politicians

Yeah, I wasn't trying to blame everything solely on the migrants. If anything, they're the symptom.

don't get me wrong, i will never accuse anyone here, i don't like the "Ha! gotcha i win the argument" debating thing

i rather talk, discuss things, explore viewpoints and find solutions with people

Yeah, I've been in that kind of argument, especially the kind where you're talking about a subject, they give you their sources, and because you're in the middle of actually *reading* their sources they try to declare victory. lol

Because you didn't respond "fast enough."

well that sort of arguing is what youtubes bloodsports is all about basically

Make argument A, refute it with Response B
Counter response B with argument C
Defeat argument C with response D

declare the other person is a cuck
get called a snowflake

end the debate with 0 progress, cuz the people who believe Person 1 support person 1 and hate person 2, and the same goes for person 2's supporters

Now where I'd say the Alt-Right is wrong, is that I don't see any restraint from them. If their movement, for instance, was for the preservation of culture, simply keeping Beer Steins & Polka german, Escargot French, and Fish'n'chips british, These cultures need protecting, absolutely. But I think there's a point that people who don't share a skin color ARE absolutely capable of adopting cultural values. If not for the idea of an Ethnostate, I'd likely support the Alt-right.

you hit the nail right on the head Ryecast

polka is not german

The Alt-Right are like First-wave feminists with third wave feminist objectives.

looking past the point where the problem is solved, looking for power, as opposed to solutions.

and that's where they lose me.

well they basically want the revolutionary end goal

Replace the current ruling class with "our" ruling class, who will then fix the problems in society

Basically.

Falko, my apologies.

Keep Czech Polka.

german polka would be the white supremacist thing to do, appropriate it 😛

antifa is german though 😒

ironic.

antifa is larpers chasing ghosts

antifa is the reason hitler got voted into power because they gave him enough victim points by physically attacking him and his followers. THAT is ironic.

and if you see parallels to the current day alt-right... that is just in your head.

wasn't it the communist revolutionaries?

and what was their name...?

i'm assuming you're gonna say Antifa

antifaschistische aktion, or antifa for short

thats where the current day antifa got their name and logo from

but wasn't the antifa started AFTER the nazi's came to power?

or maybe i'm mixing it up with Mussolini coming to power

no, shortly before in 1932

but regardless, your original point still stands and i agree, the increasing aggression of the current Antifa movements is most likely going to cause history to repeat itself and sweep factions like alt-right into more influence and power

i would not go so far to agree that history will repeat itself, but only because ww2 happened.

Nuclear weapon just went off outside of japan

lol

well i meant antifa giving legitimacy to response by fascist-like groups

a nuke you say?

oh, my mistake

it was an evangelion

no clue what that is, i'm not familiar with american churches

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nafii87gdzs

antifa, blm and so on are doing their best to make the alt-right relevant, yes.

right, anime

and they are, because then they themselves become legitimate again

but what they're gonna end up doing is losing sympathy from the bystanders because they themselves throw the first punches

so that when alt-right factions actually DO become prominent and respond in kind, no one will care

bystanders... look at my avatar... and i can't stand antifa...

They can't be the only group talking about the problems brought upon by PC culture and the migrant crisis, which is I think another part of the problem, and why they are so attractive to those that see what is going on.

by bystanders i mean anyone thats not affiliated with either antifa or alt-right type of groups

(i also can't stand the alt-right)

again... look at my avatar 😄

i have, sorry i don't get it 😦

A lot of it is cut out.

one moment...

i'm a cultural neanderthal, i only learned justin bieber existed when gangnam style became a thing

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Em3cZ8tZ&id=F2636C1417AC6F2B48A3FFB8722E507C3406BD27&thid=OIP.Em3cZ8tZK1dIDjnmuE6NzwHaE7&q=st.+pauli+antifa&simid=608009904850995132&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0

so some against antifa thing

not really...

fc st. pauli...

kraut sports

they have literally "no football/soccer for the fascists" as a banner in their stadium

Not sure what kraut sports has to do with political alignment

also a niners fan...

ok; so does that extend to antifa or is it just people some X media has proposed is a fascist

its an openly political statement against fascism

OK, but what do you mean by fascism?

i don't know, ask them 😄

Ain't no cookie cutter for that one

i'm just a supporter of the club 😄

if you support it, obviously you'd agree with them, right?

kinda.

Therefore one would expect that you have researched what they mean right?

Otherwise you'd just be conforming for your teams

then again, to quote myself: i can't stand antifa...

i know what they meant when the adopted it

(we -really- had a problem with right-wing/neo-nazi violence back then)

One thing I've come to learn

any movement, group, intent, or even word

can be hijacked.

will

probably right.

that's why i don't align myself with any political movement or the like

and as a rule of thumb... if it ends with "-ism" it's bad

All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, all great factions are most likely bad factions

mmm. as far as US politics go, I just had a thought cross my mind

'Progressives are people who haven't had a chance to be conservatives yet'.

I.E. any accusations that Conservatives are 'afraid of change' are bunk, because if progressives were to get their way overnight, they'd have the same labels as conservatives now.

progressives are people who can not think for themselves

Not really.

I'd argue both sides suffer that.

depends... there ARE conservatives that can think for themselves... not that many but they exist

but yes, both have the tendency to sound like parrots

its Optimists vs Pessimists

Progressives see changes as "It MIGHT work, we better try it"
Conservatives see changes as "It MIGHT NOT work, we better not try it"

and they shut off any other thought, i'm with Falko on this one
Any rational person can be reasoned with and if a change is reasonable they'll agree

which is why we have accepted gayness, as opposed to throwing those people off of roofs

if you give me a policy proposal i look at it, look at the risk/reward and then make my mind up based on that.

exactly

And that's not even to mention the corporate interests and lobbyists being involved.

those are just using people as a means to an end, wahtever works for their income they'll stand with

pretty much like every single person does, no one votes for what they believe is bad for them

for example: i personally do not think that civilians should be allowed to own guns (with VERY specific exceptions). but if i look at the US it obvious that it is impossible to get rid of all the guns (especially the illegal ones) which makes the risk of a ban outweigh the reward.

Pew Pew Bang Bang.

On Christmas, I received my permit (because the state regulates firearms excessively). :3

SHALL NOT, etc.

Next month, I attend a safety-course!

what state?

The United States' most gerrymandered one.

Maryland?

👍🏽

http://planning.maryland.gov/PDF/OurProducts/Redistrict/CongDist/District/Color_Map/2002CongDistNoRoads.jpg

The 2nd & 4th Districts appear awkward, but the 3rd proves comical.

gun regulation in germany: only for police, military, hunters (hunting rifles only) and security personnel...

So it goes.

There exist more private security officers than police in the United States.

and most of the police in the US would probably not be able to become police officers in germany...

Why?

Simply incorrect, about german gunlegislation

They could.

http://planning.maryland.gov/PDF/OurProducts/Redistrict/CongDist/District/Color_Map/CongDistColor100Dist.shtml

somi, what is wrong about it?

Issue is the typical german police officer has been in training for about three years before finally becoming an officer? Whereas in the US the typical training time is about six months.

There's a fuckton more people that own guns in Germany than just those groups.

It's simply not correct that there's no such thing as recreational gun ownership in Germany.

yeah, 3 years training and physical and mental tests to before you can even begin training

One professor from Germany stated there exists a "right to technology" in Germany that grants arriving refugees iPhones, though he specialized in economics so that may prove unreliable.

Nope.

@I AM ERROR

Sure as fuck not what I've heard from German gun owners.

right to technology...?

3 years was police 😉

You meant that "Nope" for me, or Falko?

I think that should be obvious.

Me, then.

...No

"Common sense is not so common." 🤷🏽

It seems obvious to me that a right *to* technology (esp. an iPhone) seems ridiculous. :/

In terms of being available for purchase, sure, but not for it to just be handed to you. And even then, that should have some limitations.
Obviously, private citizens shouldn't be allowed to purchase nuclear weapons.

Yes, availability & ability to purchase one make sense.

(I apologize; English is not my first language.)

recreational gun ownership is the same as "hunter" for me... basically the same regulations for both

You're moving goal posts...

not really

And @Miss Direction IIRC it's an EU human right to have access to the internet

Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Ntk8peiIE

I just think it's more complicated than that, especially in the United States. There are plenty of areas in the US where it is not uncommon to be miles away from the nearest telephone pole, much less being within a reasonable response time to a police station or sheriff's office.

Because most north/west EU countries have basically fully digitized their government communication

hunter/sportsschiessen: heavily regulated where you are allowed to use your guns, what guns you can use and even how you can use your guns.

And in a lot of the major cities, there *is* very strict gun control, if not outright bans.

I depart. Good luck, all.

Yes, but you at first just said hunter. When I pointed out that isn't true, you suddenly changed that to hunter 'also means recreational shooting'

to me hunting is recreational shooting

but you are right that there IS a destinction in the law

Here is a problem, in the us, with at least some instances. There are several laws already in place that are not enforced as well as the should be. Yet the solution proposed is to add more to it? In Florida, it seems literally everyone knew this was a very real possibility with this kid
The FBI even knew but couldn't get him on anything. Banning assault weapons doesn't really fix it. Or more accurately is like having a hammer and treating everything like a nail. Why ban all cars, for example, when you knew a person was very likely going to use a car to commit a terror act. Why not find where they should have been able get them, and add a small piece of legislation there, rather than punish all the law abiding companies and citizens for the action of a minority.

why should anyone give a sliver of their rights up to stopgap something that may or may not do anything long term?

In the grand scheme of things, you cannot reasonably stop people who lose their shit from doing anything.

You ban guns and they run around with cars or swords or make explosives

we cannot un-learn these things

NICS should have a bit more of a handle on things

but in this shooter's case; really I'm not sure that the feds should have been able to do anything

maybe the teachers could have actually been armed?

As much as I might dislike that kids were shot and killed; it's honestly probably not possible to actually predict and 100% stop nutjobs like this

Arming teachers and having armed security is a very logical thing to do.

short of infringing rights significantly

Well, I'm not suggesting arming them per-se, but allowing them to do so would be nice

Giving them the ability to be armed yes.

Don’t have to force them.

In that case, you're removing at least one penal code from the state

so I has no issue

It sounds fucked up to say, but I am more OK with random spurious lunatics losing it than I am with giving up the rights enumerated in the constitution of the US

I'd of course, rather they be stopped

but I don't want to go down the thoughtcrime path

Where I live we have security guards at all schools, some teachers have personal weapons, and in general lots of people walk around with military grade weapons (which are allowed in schools). Can’t recall ever having a school shooting so guns aren’t the problem.

Yeah, there are like a handful of states/municipalities that allow it afaik

Here in the social justice capital of the united states however, that's a big nono

Frisco?

The problem with armed security is the cost

And that in public schools it would be taxpayers money

Better to spend it on security than stupid social programs.

Bray areayylmao only

not SF

(Thankfully)

Just cut wasteful expenses and start funding security (also creates new jobs).

actually most campuses already have security

But really, I think one gaurd and only the main entrance unlocked to the outside might have helped. If there was a button that trigger an internal lockdown and the procedure of "if you see a person with a fucking long gun, press button first ask questions later", it might have helped some

they just aren't armed at all

Security might as well not be security if they aren’t armed.

red alert button might be good but