America has the power to do what ever we want

Russia gives military support to Iran.... They wouldn't to whites in SA?

if it comes to it we could give them a state if we actually wanted to

<:FeelsTriedMan:459545653723398144>

@Obungus Correct

we can get the white south africans

a state

by negotiating

i don't think a two-state solution is realistic

No. You have to own the land to give the land, did you forget that,???

^

usa would not lobby for this

So

the UN can't just give away a sovereign nation's land

10 Percent of South Africa is white

they couldnt win a war

With support they could

Even with coloured and asian support

What you're suggesting is conquering a part of Africa and assigning it as white territory.... As much of a dream that would be..... Unrealistic.

they would only be 20%

They did it with israel

They could easily win. Air superiority

(((israel)))

Where are the planes from?

they have no planes

🤣

Seriously though, where would the whites get their air superiority?

10% of the population, >10x the ability.

Any number of allies

like whom

.....

🏏

I already said

Russia

Any western country with a modern military

I guess they could get volunteers

Russia.most likely

They'll back Iran, they'll back white SA

but even with support of South Africa, Israel and others in the 70's Rhodesia fell

too many enemies

Rhodesia was alone

And they only fell due to internal political strife

Lots of reasons for Russia to want influence to SA

Over

Strategic.... resources

Support from South Africa, Israel, Malawi and Portugal

South Africa is in BRICS right?

and Rhodesia still fell

@Obungus BRICS dont help BRICS

its just economic

I know

So

There's a path

But I was just making sure they were in it because that would influence Russian intervention

I would rather not have White South Africans slaughtered in a civil war

Id rather have russia and the US get the UN to create a new state

for the whites

I doubt they'd get slaughtered if people helped them

I am however skeptical of Russian ability to provide aid

hard to read that purple

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wpvt3sdXcs

👍

https://www.ice.gov/webform/hsi-tip-form#

I keep this bookmarked.

"employment of unlawful workers" and "fugitive criminal alien"

Good to keep handy if you ever get bad service at a restaurant

hmmm...Idk what to think about this

So it was libtards who had the idea, and libtards who got mad about the idea?

at first the newstory looks a little over reactionary,I mean,we had to do track in the middle of rain once

but the you see the last part and it's like smh

The whole outraged over 91 degress farenheit seemed libtardy, and the whole show solidarity with refugees seemed libtardy

yeah,it's stupid from all perspectives

Get those kids walking! Teach them at a young age that life is just like walking around pointlessly in the heat.

Builds character!

yeah,no problems with that

but then the reason behind this is so embarrassing...

I wager this a 50/50 chance of a prog busybody school administrator, or a gym teacher with a bit too much self-importance.

or maybe both

Who believes an abrahamic god existed at some point of time, wether he was actually a higher power or not.

Me. How can God exist and then no longer exist?

^

If he wasnt actually a higher power

but then how did he create the universe if he wasn't?

Who created god?

you mean something like the end of The Last Question or what?

The abrahamic god had to exist as 3 major religions all speak of him throughout the course of history

Wether he was a higher power or sides with one religion in particular is debatable

I was having a debate about if some animals are capable of understanding mortality with anon last night

I'm not in the capacities to side on that subject

but common knowledge has always said not

Some animals have been documented mourning over theyre dead young

that's true

dogs shed tears when they see their mother dead or are abussed by humans

Anon argued that only humans are capable of going to heaven because they are the only sentient lifeform

However, creatures have been documented showing emotions many times

Typically primates, elephants, and cetaceans (whales & doliphins)

but the thing is if they understand their actions are whether right or wrong or rather they just act according to survival principles

remember the definition of morality

"Scientists studying animal behaviour believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans.

Until recently, humans were thought to be the only species to experience complex emotions and have a sense of morality.

But Prof Marc Bekoff, an ecologist at University of Colorado, Boulder, believes that morals are "hard-wired" into the brains of all mammals and provide the "social glue" that allow often aggressive and competitive animals to live together in groups.

He has compiled evidence from around the world that shows how different species of animals appear to have an innate sense of fairness, display empathy and help other animals that are in distress."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

"Recent neurology work has also revealed that distantly related mammals such as whales and dolphins have the same structures in their brains that are thought to be responsible for empathy in humans."

"Other findings have also suggested that some animals may even be capable of showing empathy with the suffering of other species."

I see

very interesting indeed

Its still controversial as its one of those Science Vs. Religion things

The problem is religion makes humans feel special

especially the thought of your species being the only intellegent lifeform that will get to go to the afterlife

but then when that gets disproved, not only does it mock religion, but it mocks humans aswell so of course there will be denial

at least I don't relate morality as a religious matter

but the capacity of judge if actions are right or wrong according to your principles

which might be founded in religion,of course,but also in sole logic

"why would I attack somebody who haven't done anything against me?"or "why do I have to obey my authorities?" can be answered outside of a religious perspective if you ask me

aaand I killed the chat

https://yadi.sk/d/1BfEdu3P3S8J7S

>porpaganda

@Koninos here

Mhm

What do you define as nationalism?

In your words?

I haven't ever searched about Nationalism in the terms of owning a state. Nationalism in my words is a far right winded ideology. It is born from Fascism, and it is a light form if Fascism is we wanted to make this easy-to- understand.

That's where i disagree

I take nationalism as an ifeology

Ideology*

Nationalism in of itself is not an ideology

It can be politicized and used *in* an ideology

Yes, I agree, but I'm only talking for the nationalist ideology.

Nationalism has existed since the first civilization arose

Not when it comes to ideology

Historians anywhere agree, Nationalism is not Fascism, Fascism used nationalism and abused it to it's extreme.

I am not talking for the nationalism you claim it exists

I am talkig about the Nationalist ideology

Describe this "ideology" then

Didn't I?

"Light Fascism"

Yes.

Fascism is broad

Yes.

You forget it was founded by a socialist

Lol

Socialist but not applied as a socialist

The inventor of fascism, Giovanni Gentile, called Fascism "the ultimate form of socialism"

But it isn't exactly.

It is a changed form of socialism made right winded

Right-Wing socialism?

What?

Fascism is not even very right-wing

It's more centrist than anything

I'd even argue it dosent even fit into the left-right spectrum

It's on its own

-leaves-

<:HyperLmao:459545665517780993>

That emoji is problematic

@Deleted User 👌 <:OOF:459550070942203924>

<:thanosdaddy:459545656479055873>

Lol he liked that Jews are responsible for slavery.

Uhmmm

Who wants to debate with me

I'm An Alien

@Deleted User debate him k thx

<:GWqlabsThonkery:398950779769061376>

Nationalism is supporting your nation above others.

Your nation being people with a shared culture, heritage, language, etc.

^^^^^^

"Kim Jong Hitler"

Where do you noggers come up with these fucken usernames

lmfao

lol

Nationalism has not existed since the beginning of civilization since Anon brought it up.

Nationalism destroyed the Ottoman Empire and resulted in the largely mythical ethnic identity of Romanians and Ukrainians being invented in the 19th century by the literary elite.

The 100 Years War resulted in the national identity of France and England being materialized.

But prior to the 19th century nationalism was basically nonexistent and most identities were communal.

ex. Spain being divided between Castilians, Leonese, Galicians, Catalans, etc.

And Italy having multiple communal identities.

Also when Gentile speaks of socialism he means the mobilization of society. The difference between Marxian socialism and fascist "socialism" (which is wholly appropriated) is that fascism sees the social aspect on the national level and Marxian socialism is exclueionary and reserved for the proletariat. The bourgeoisie the fascist speaks about is liberal interests and decadent foreign powers.

Stop saying fascism is socialism and then offering no further context.

@Doctor Anon

It's low IQ.

"No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle."

What you do is offer a pathetic sleight of hand with the appropriation of the term socialism by fascists to mean completely different from the mainstream definition of socialism which is Marxian.

Nationalism has existed since the nation state

Nationalism didn't become a school of thought in the 20th century

It has been around forever

How long has the nation state existed? Since the 19th century, with few exceptions.

That is a Cultural Marxist view constructed to delegitimize the nation state

Nation state has been around since the agricultural revolution

Except it hasn't.

Name one.

Egypt

LMAO

China

Terrible example, because it's false.

China???????

Those are not nation states.

Persia

wtffff

these are all nation states

Stop, let me address how you're wrong one at a time.

they have an authority and border

Egypt's identity was religious and shifted through time, the nation was embodied by the dynasty.

no

Persia really has no national identity.

Yes. You are simply blatantly wrong.

those are or where nations

Persia was routinely conquered by foreign entities.

routinely

no

There was no national identity to speak of.

Yes, routinely.

Muh nations came around in 1850

no thats not a thing

Jalayirids, Mongols, Gokturks, Oghuzi Turks, Scythians.

Persia has repeatedly been conquered.

look at european empires

they had nationalism for as long as they where around

look at mercantilism

Mercantilism was based on the acquirement of resources.

Has nothing to do with nationalism.

How about we start by you defining what a nation state is because it clearly is not what an actual nation state is if you think Persia and Egypt and China were nation states.

France was not even a nation before the French Revolution. It was numerous languages and *communal* cultures. People did not speak "French" outside of the Ile-de-France.

Same thing in China.

Mandarin, the word itself, refers to the court language of the Qing dynasty. People did not speak Mandarin. There were various local languages. Same as France.

There was no national identity to speak of.

You are simply historically incorrect on this.

The word Mandarin literally comes from the Portuguese word for minister.

Egypt did not really have a collective identity until the Muslim conquests, and thereafter it had a religious identity just like European states did until the erosion of that form of identity by the Westphalian system and the secularization of Europe by liberalism in the 18th and 19th centuries, giving birth to actual ethnolinguistic identities.

Which was fostered by increased communication and standardization of language.

To further my point Egypt was not even ruled by Egyptians during the Mamluk period. The Mamluks were first Turks under the Bahris and then Circassians under the Burjis, who controlled the Ayyubid caliph as a figurehead to maintain order.

Notice something there? The caliph is a religious figure.

Religious identity more than anything was the defining characteristic of national character and therefore the precursor of the nation state, which in most cases only arose in the 19th century.

Think about this

How did mercantilism call for wealth do be kept?

The cosmopolitan nature of countries like Egypt and China and France disallowed an ethnolinguistic identity to form.

By classes

by people

or by a __nation__

I gtg

You mean countries competed for wealth as they have been forever? This is not a convincing argument for the existence of the nation state.

You are retroactively defining the country as a nation where it doesn't exist.

Again, you're just wrong.

Would love to continue this later.

@Da_Fish You physically cannot win an argument against Zexy, she will not allow it wether your stance is correct or incorrect,

Submit to her dominance

<@&452955176354054172> : DDDD

*I’m not the one who asked my boyfriend to get socialists allowed as staff so I could me staff, now am I?*