You can't be for Israel and defend them and deny the White Supremacists their Ethnostate. That's hypocritical.

Stefan, an ethostate with values which align more with the west than most other places in the middle east

I disagree. Even muslims in Israel are treated better than jews in muslim countries

Stefan, well - when you say ethnostate - it's not really about ethnicity as much as it is about being jewish

Palestenians from annexed areas are allowed to join the millitary

Stefan, which while some may view it an ethnicity - its a bit more complicated

Stefan, it is much more of a cultural identity

why are you not @ people @xaivei ?

Yes and in Cases like Ben Shapiro, their alligeance with Israel is more important than the place they were born.

TheLost, I don't want to ping them

Stefan, I dunno - I'm not sure this is my view - but maybe

you may be too polite to be on shitposting haha

meh

People will know who you are referring to

BAck to what I was saying. No I wouldnt call Israel an ethnostate, much like Id call any country with a government supported relligion

an ethnostate.

yeah

Stefan, https://youtu.be/WmvPfbfzX4U?t=7846 < with timecode to very good part

Douglas Murray makes a very good case for why culture matters - as does many other people

Even Soros' hero Karl Popper makes a good case for it: "Conjectures and Refutations ~ Karl Popper - 17 - Public Opinion and Liberal Principles" - https://gist.github.com/anonymous/27b646ea06786047f77956b795cc6def

> (5) Institutions alone are never sufficient if not tempered by
traditions. Institutions are always ambivalent in the sense that, in the
absence of a strong tradition, they also may serve the opposite purpose
to the one intended. For example, a parliamentary opposition is, roughly
speaking, supposed to prevent the majority from stealing the taxpayer’s
money. But I well remember an affair in a south-eastern European country
which illustrates the ambivalence of this institution. There, the
opposition shared the spoils with the majority.

> (6) A Liberal Utopia—that is, a state rationally designed on a
traditionless tabula rasa—is an impossibility. For the Liberal principle
demands that the limitations to the freedom of each which are made
necessary by social life should be minimized and equalized as much as
possible (Kant). But how can we apply such an a priori principle in real
life? Should we prevent a pianist from practising, or prevent his
neighbour from enjoying a quiet afternoon? All such problems can be
solved in practice only by an appeal to existing traditions and customs
and to a traditional sense of justice; to common law, as it is called in
Britain, and to an impartial judge’s appreciation of equity. All laws,
being universal principles, have to be interpreted in order to be
applied; and an interpretation needs some principles of concrete
practice, which can be supplied only by a living tradition. And this
holds more especially for the highly abstract and universal principles
of Liberalism.

```Douglas Murray makes a very good case for why culture matters - as does many other people```
Yes and not all cultures are equal.

> (7) Principles of Liberalism may be described (at least today) as
principles of assessing, and if necessary of modifying or changing,
existing institutions, rather than of replacing existing institutions.
One can express this also by saying that Liberalism is an evolutionary
rather than a revolutionary creed (unless it is confronted by a
tyrannical regime).

but Multi-kulti works

> (8) Among the traditions we must count as the most important is what we
may call the ‘moral framework’ (corresponding to the institutional
‘legal framework’) of a society. This incorporates the society’s
traditional sense of justice or fairness, or the degree of moral
sensitivity it has reached. This moral framework serves as the basis
which makes it possible to reach a fair or equitable compromise between
conflicting interests where this is necessary. It is, of course, itself
not unchangeable, but it changes comparatively slowly. Nothing could be
more dangerous than the destruction of this traditional framework, as it
was consciously aimed at by Nazism. In the end its destruction will lead
to cynicism and nihilism, i.e. to the disregard and the dissolution of
all human values.

Stefan, depends on what you mean by works

The thing that's most important are the values of the others and the basic values have to be the same as ours.

But is values not cultural?

Correct

so then multi culturalism works to the extent where cultures are sufficently similar

In the core Values, yes

for example: Men and Women are equal. Nobody is better than the other. Hard Work you must to eat.

stefan, well anyway - I mean - I agree with you here - but judaism - the way Isreal sees it - is quite a broad temple - but to me it seems like their aim is to maintain a core set of values in this broad temple

or what they see as core

and I don't really mind that

Russia or eastern europe I presume

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl4XFnkU8AAOdW4.jpg:large

btw, tim was wrong about y'all - we should use it because it reminds us of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auLBLk4ibAk

NWO Shill