Why is nazism popular today?

[Gary Childress]

now that i took the time to inform myself (no thanks to -1) i know who commands the armed forces of Canada.

Arising, i'd like to become more informed I'm an ignorant American, who commands the Royal Armed forces? curious.

i could work via google - as i had to with Canada, but lazy, if you could inform me i appreciate it.

thanks!

Depends what you mean by 'command' but the 'commander-in-chief' of the Armed Forces in the UK is the monarch. The UK is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy.

A monarchy and a democracy at the same time, sounds kind of contradictory. if push came to shove, which is it really; a monarchy or a democracy? Can the people elect to defy the Queen or can the Queen overrule the Parliament?

[FlashDangerpants]

now that i took the time to inform myself (no thanks to -1) i know who commands the armed forces of Canada.

Arising, i'd like to become more informed I'm an ignorant American, who commands the Royal Armed forces? curious.

i could work via google - as i had to with Canada, but lazy, if you could inform me i appreciate it.

thanks!

Depends what you mean by 'command' but the 'commander-in-chief' of the Armed Forces in the UK is the monarch. The UK is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy.

A monarchy and a democracy at the same time, sounds kind of contradictory. if push came to shove, which is it really; a monarchy or a democracy? Can the people elect to defy the Queen or can the Queen overrule the Parliament?

Like most countries, we grant only very limited powers to our head of state. Most countries in Europe have a president, a handful have kings, in the majority of cases these are virtually powerless roles (excluding France which grants even more powers to their president than America does). The main task falling to all these presidents and kings is to follow some rules about whom to invite to form a government after an election.

In Britain's case, the actual locus of sovereignty is parliament, and specifically the House of Commons. Some stuff remains nominally in the Queen's name, but those are minor powers delegated to the Queen by parliament, not the other way round. There is in short, no way for the Queen to actually issue an order to the British armed forces. The soldiers just line up once in a while for her to hand them badges.

[Gary Childress]

Depends what you mean by 'command' but the 'commander-in-chief' of the Armed Forces in the UK is the monarch. The UK is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy.

A monarchy and a democracy at the same time, sounds kind of contradictory. if push came to shove, which is it really; a monarchy or a democracy? Can the people elect to defy the Queen or can the Queen overrule the Parliament?

Like most countries, we grant only very limited powers to our head of state. Most countries in Europe have a president, a handful have kings, in the majority of cases these are virtually powerless roles (excluding France which grants even more powers to their president than America does). The main task falling to all these presidents and kings is to follow some rules about whom to invite to form a government after an election.

In Britain's case, the actual locus of sovereignty is parliament, and specifically the House of Commons. Some stuff remains nominally in the Queen's name, but those are minor powers delegated to the Queen by parliament, not the other way round. There is in short, no way for the Queen to actually issue an order to the British armed forces. The soldiers just line up once in a while for her to hand them badges.

I see. You might want to relay that news to Dachshund, then. He seems to think that everyone answers directly to the wishes of the Queen--even to the point were it to involve beastiality.

[FlashDangerpants]

I see. You might want to relay that news to Dachshund, then. He seems to think that everyone answers directly to the wishes of the Queen--even to the point were it to involve beastiality.

That mockney bullshitting tourist? If you are reading his posts that's your problem, I'm bored of watching racists play the how much can I get away with before a mod bans me game, why wouldn't anyone else be?

[Gary Childress]

I see. You might want to relay that news to Dachshund, then. He seems to think that everyone answers directly to the wishes of the Queen--even to the point were it to involve beastiality.

That mockney bullshitting tourist? If you are reading his posts that's your problem, I'm bored of watching racists play the how much can I get away with before a mod bans me game, why wouldn't anyone else be?

What is a "racism"? And is "racism" completely unfounded? Is banning people from expressing themselves openly the best way to "solve" an issue in dispute? What does it say of the prevailing "wisdom" concerning an issue if the only way to uphold it is to ban or refuse to engage dissenting opinions on the prevailing "wisdom"?

It seems to me that engagement (even with the uncomfortable) is ultimately the philosophical answer. Is it not?

[FlashDangerpants]

I see. You might want to relay that news to Dachshund, then. He seems to think that everyone answers directly to the wishes of the Queen--even to the point were it to involve beastiality.

That mockney bullshitting tourist? If you are reading his posts that's your problem, I'm bored of watching racists play the how much can I get away with before a mod bans me game, why wouldn't anyone else be?

What is a "racism"? And is "racism" completely unfounded? Is banning people from expressing themselves openly the best way to "solve" an issue in dispute? What does it say of the prevailing wisdom concerning an issue if the only way to solve it is to ban or refuse to engage dissenting opinions on the prevailing "wisdom"?

It seems to me that engagement (even with the uncomfortable) is ultimately the philosophical answer. Is it not?

The guy wrote only one page ago...
"the citizens of the state of Israel are, by and large intelligent, civilsed human beings, whereas the shit-holes like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine are populated with ANIMALS, and nasty animals at that."
He refers to the black population of South Africa as "low IQ monkeys".
If you think I need a debate with you about whether that's racism at all, you are a quite preposterous pissant. He's written enough of this stuff that there's no possible value in a discussion on whether or not the man is a racist. I don't honestly care much whether you are as well.

Putting "random" words in 'quotation marks' and demanding an explanation for what is perfectly obvious and understood by all is not the same thing as actually doing philosophy. You are not in any position to lecture me on that sort of thing.

Do you think you could present any sort of worthwhile argument to the effect that skin colour determines or predicts a person's moral or intellectual capacities? If you really want to go down that road, be my guest.

I don't understand why you think there is some issue in dispute here. I am not bothering with him specifically because it is a dialogue of the deaf. I'm not wasting my time to persuade a doddery old racist that racism is nasty any more than he wants to persuade me of anything. He's just peacocking. The point for him is to go back to wherever he hangs out with his nazi crowd and tell them how wickedly he owned some libtards on a philosophy forum who couldn't cope with his awesomeness. He can take advantage of you that way if he likes, you can be the fool.

[Gary Childress]

That mockney bullshitting tourist? If you are reading his posts that's your problem, I'm bored of watching racists play the how much can I get away with before a mod bans me game, why wouldn't anyone else be?

What is a "racism"? And is "racism" completely unfounded? Is banning people from expressing themselves openly the best way to "solve" an issue in dispute? What does it say of the prevailing wisdom concerning an issue if the only way to solve it is to ban or refuse to engage dissenting opinions on the prevailing "wisdom"?

It seems to me that engagement (even with the uncomfortable) is ultimately the philosophical answer. Is it not?

The guy wrote only one page ago...
"the citizens of the state of Israel are, by and large intelligent, civilsed human beings, whereas the shit-holes like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine are populated with ANIMALS, and nasty animals at that."
He refers to the black population of South Africa as "low IQ monkeys".
If you think I need a debate with you about whether that's racism at all, you are a quite preposterous pissant. He's written enough of this stuff that there's no possible value in a discussion on whether or not the man is a racist. I don't honestly care much whether you are as well.

Putting "random" words in 'quotation marks' and demanding an explanation for what is perfectly obvious and understood by all is not the same thing as actually doing philosophy. You are not in any position to lecture me on that sort of thing.

Do you think you could present any sort of worthwhile argument to the effect that skin colour determines or predicts a person's moral or intellectual capacities? If you really want to go down that road, be my guest.

I don't understand why you think there is some issue in dispute here. I am not bothering with him specifically because it is a dialogue of the deaf. I'm not wasting my time to persuade a doddery old racist that racism is nasty any more than he wants to persuade me of anything. He's just peacocking. The point for him is to go back to wherever he hangs out with his nazi crowd and tell them how wickedly he owned some libtards on a philosophy forum who couldn't cope with his awesomeness. He can take advantage of you that way if he likes, you can be the fool.

I'm sorry if you percieve my asking of perfectly honest questions and expressing MY views is "lecturing". I assure you it is only the posing of questions, and sharing my views.

[FlashDangerpants]

What is a "racism"? And is "racism" completely unfounded? Is banning people from expressing themselves openly the best way to "solve" an issue in dispute? What does it say of the prevailing wisdom concerning an issue if the only way to solve it is to ban or refuse to engage dissenting opinions on the prevailing "wisdom"?

It seems to me that engagement (even with the uncomfortable) is ultimately the philosophical answer. Is it not?

The guy wrote only one page ago...
"the citizens of the state of Israel are, by and large intelligent, civilsed human beings, whereas the shit-holes like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine are populated with ANIMALS, and nasty animals at that."
He refers to the black population of South Africa as "low IQ monkeys".
If you think I need a debate with you about whether that's racism at all, you are a quite preposterous pissant. He's written enough of this stuff that there's no possible value in a discussion on whether or not the man is a racist. I don't honestly care much whether you are as well.

Putting "random" words in 'quotation marks' and demanding an explanation for what is perfectly obvious and understood by all is not the same thing as actually doing philosophy. You are not in any position to lecture me on that sort of thing.

Do you think you could present any sort of worthwhile argument to the effect that skin colour determines or predicts a person's moral or intellectual capacities? If you really want to go down that road, be my guest.

I don't understand why you think there is some issue in dispute here. I am not bothering with him specifically because it is a dialogue of the deaf. I'm not wasting my time to persuade a doddery old racist that racism is nasty any more than he wants to persuade me of anything. He's just peacocking. The point for him is to go back to wherever he hangs out with his nazi crowd and tell them how wickedly he owned some libtards on a philosophy forum who couldn't cope with his awesomeness. He can take advantage of you that way if he likes, you can be the fool.

I'm sorry if you percieve my asking of perfectly honest questions and expressing MY views is "lecturing". I assure you it is only the posing of questions, and sharing my views.

Oh I'm sorry. You wanted to me to actually explain why it's racist to call black people "low IQ monkeys" did you? Or do you need my help establishing whether it's not true? Those were your perfectly honest questions were they?

[Gary Childress]

The guy wrote only one page ago...
"the citizens of the state of Israel are, by and large intelligent, civilsed human beings, whereas the shit-holes like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine are populated with ANIMALS, and nasty animals at that."
He refers to the black population of South Africa as "low IQ monkeys".
If you think I need a debate with you about whether that's racism at all, you are a quite preposterous pissant. He's written enough of this stuff that there's no possible value in a discussion on whether or not the man is a racist. I don't honestly care much whether you are as well.

Putting "random" words in 'quotation marks' and demanding an explanation for what is perfectly obvious and understood by all is not the same thing as actually doing philosophy. You are not in any position to lecture me on that sort of thing.

Do you think you could present any sort of worthwhile argument to the effect that skin colour determines or predicts a person's moral or intellectual capacities? If you really want to go down that road, be my guest.

I don't understand why you think there is some issue in dispute here. I am not bothering with him specifically because it is a dialogue of the deaf. I'm not wasting my time to persuade a doddery old racist that racism is nasty any more than he wants to persuade me of anything. He's just peacocking. The point for him is to go back to wherever he hangs out with his nazi crowd and tell them how wickedly he owned some libtards on a philosophy forum who couldn't cope with his awesomeness. He can take advantage of you that way if he likes, you can be the fool.

I'm sorry if you percieve my asking of perfectly honest questions and expressing MY views is "lecturing". I assure you it is only the posing of questions, and sharing my views.

Oh I'm sorry. You wanted to me to actually explain why it's racist to call black people "low IQ monkeys" did you? Or do you need my help establishing whether it's not true? Those were your perfectly honest questions were they?

When I posted my questions, I hadn't seen his comments such as black people in South Africa being "low IQ monkeys". But fair enough. I suppose if anything is "racist", then to call people "low IQ monkeys" based on the color of their skin and nationality, is the paramount example.

But what about other whites--whites who don't run around barking such overt insults. Are we racists too? According to some theories of what constitutes being a "racist", we are--just by virtue of being white and living in a society that generally favors whites over POC. (Hence my question of "what is racism".) Do you think that is the case? Or do you think it's just the overt bigots who get that moniker?

I also asked whether "racism" is completely unfounded. So for example, knowing what happened to their ancestors at the hands of other peoples who invaded their territories, are aboriginal peoples of the Americas and South Pacific (Australia and NZ) not justified to be wary of racial strangers to their tribes. I mean, even today, to live on an American Indian reservation in North America you generally have to have some American Indian DNA in you. If you don't, then you generally can't just up and decide to join their tribe. Is that unjustified or is that "racism"?

What about we whites? If it came to the point where our predominately white societies were inundated by non-whites to the point where we didn't represent a voting majority but rather a small minority, should we be concerned--in case we were to become victims of their "racism" in the future? I mean, speaking of South Africa, I've heard a few horror stories concerning being white in some countries in Africa. I don't know how true they are but the ones I've heard sound pretty scary.

Maybe it's very easy for you to discern answers to these things but for me I'm a little unsure sometimes.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't have direct access to your inner working Gary. Of course you can be a racist without using naughty words or burning any crosses at all, all you have to do is believe that you know what a person is like before finding out using skin colour as a determinant.

I'm not sure how some hand-wringing excercise about society and prejudice on a universal scale beyond the cognition of mere mortals was ever supposed to be a critique of me calling a cranky old race-warrior a racist. There's plenty to unpack in the legacy of the many bigotries we have inherited through ancestry that we aren't, and probably can't, perfectly dismount from. But that's a complaint about history and as such not terribly relevant to an essay on Daschund, who is just a boring old nazi passing himself off rather clumsily as a jovial uncle Fuhrer.

Your comments on racism being unfounded are misguided. You are talking about it being understandable under the circumstances, which is very different to being supported by facts about dna and heritable traits.

I would suggest you sit down with yourself and think through what you really want to do with that inundation thing. I can't tell what you are after here. Daschund has a fix for your anxieties - he predictably doesn't believe races should mix at all and would like there to be whites only nations. But he doesn't think black and brown people deserve to live in democracies at all. You seem to be concerned that people want to reflect historical injustices back at us. Perhaps all these people of colour would prefer to just live their lives like everyone else, and aren't all that obsessed with getting back at you for old stuff. There comes a point at which you need to consider these are people, not hordes.

As for the Africa stuff. We seem to have discussed Frantz Fanon a few times already. Perhaps it is finally time for you take the plunge and actually read the wretched of the earth. The gloomy description of the left over violence at the end of the decolonization process, along with who it puts in power and how they will cope with governing has proven rather accurate. That doesn't mean it's the end of the story, it just describes the next set of problems that require addressing.

[-1-]

correct me if i an wrong Sir.

Get me a stick, you rapscallion. I'll correct you you'll never forget.

[-1-]

who controls the Armed Forces in the UK (or Canada for that matter)?

I don't know about the UK. In Canada the armed forces are under the direct control of Shlomo Goldstein, the local shakter from Dohány Utca.

ignoring your flippant answer and to answer my inquary about YOUR Nation's gov (I guess i know more about Canada then you do Sir - though I'm an American and you are Canadian!).

The Governor General of Canada is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.

that being:

Julie Payette

----------

good day.

Julie? She couldn't order a mosquito to be squashed.

She's impotent as far as war-things are concerned.

There is NOMINAL power and ACTUAL power.

To be honest, I don't know who in Canada holds the actual power to, for instance, order an invasion of Lesotho or of Bhutan or of Andorra.

[Gary Childress]

I don't have direct access to your inner working Gary. Of course you can be a racist without using naughty words or burning any crosses at all, all you have to do is believe that you know what a person is like before finding out using skin colour as a determinant.

I'm not sure how some hand-wringing excercise about society and prejudice on a universal scale beyond the cognition of mere mortals was ever supposed to be a critique of me calling a cranky old race-warrior a racist. There's plenty to unpack in the legacy of the many bigotries we have inherited through ancestry that we aren't, and probably can't, perfectly dismount from. But that's a complaint about history and as such not terribly relevant to an essay on Daschund, who is just a boring old nazi passing himself off rather clumsily as a jovial uncle Fuhrer.

Your comments on racism being unfounded are misguided. You are talking about it being understandable under the circumstances, which is very different to being supported by facts about dna and heritable traits.

I would suggest you sit down with yourself and think through what you really want to do with that inundation thing. I can't tell what you are after here. Daschund has a fix for your anxieties - he predictably doesn't believe races should mix at all and would like there to be whites only nations. But he doesn't think black and brown people deserve to live in democracies at all. You seem to be concerned that people want to reflect historical injustices back at us. Perhaps all these people of colour would prefer to just live their lives like everyone else, and aren't all that obsessed with getting back at you for old stuff. There comes a point at which you need to consider these are people, not hordes.

As for the Africa stuff. We seem to have discussed Frantz Fanon a few times already. Perhaps it is finally time for you take the plunge and actually read the wretched of the earth. The gloomy description of the left over violence at the end of the decolonization process, along with who it puts in power and how they will cope with governing has proven rather accurate. That doesn't mean it's the end of the story, it just describes the next set of problems that require addressing.

Thank you for taking some of your precious time to answer. You're a far better and more upstanding human being than I am. I guess I'm too easily confused. Thank goodness humanity has you. At least there's hope for the species.

[FlashDangerpants]

I guess I'm too easily confused.

You may have only managed it as an accident in the middle of one of your passive agressive little whine festivals, but you sort of got there I suppose. You aren't very analytical by nature, but you really really wish a hodge-podge of disorderly thoughts can count as the same thing.

Don't bother taking your frustrations out on me, learn to assess your own ideas critically before getting emotionally attached to them, or just don't present your unconsidered opinions as philosophy. The fix for your problems is within your grasp if you can just stop blaming them on me.

[Dachshund]

I don't have direct access to your inner working Gary. Of course you can be a racist without using naughty words or burning any crosses at all, all you have to do is believe that you know what a person is like before finding out using skin colour as a determinant.

I'm not sure how some hand-wringing excercise about society and prejudice on a universal scale beyond the cognition of mere mortals was ever supposed to be a critique of me calling a cranky old race-warrior a racist. There's plenty to unpack in the legacy of the many bigotries we have inherited through ancestry that we aren't, and probably can't, perfectly dismount from. But that's a complaint about history and as such not terribly relevant to an essay on Daschund, who is just a boring old nazi passing himself off rather clumsily as a jovial uncle Fuhrer.

Your comments on racism being unfounded are misguided. You are talking about it being understandable under the circumstances, which is very different to being supported by facts about dna and heritable traits.

I would suggest you sit down with yourself and think through what you really want to do with that inundation thing. I can't tell what you are after here. Daschund has a fix for your anxieties - he predictably doesn't believe races should mix at all and would like there to be whites only nations. But he doesn't think black and brown people deserve to live in democracies at all. You seem to be concerned that people want to reflect historical injustices back at us. Perhaps all these people of colour would prefer to just live their lives like everyone else, and aren't all that obsessed with getting back at you for old stuff. There comes a point at which you need to consider these are people, not hordes.

As for the Africa stuff. We seem to have discussed Frantz Fanon a few times already. Perhaps it is finally time for you take the plunge and actually read the wretched of the earth. The gloomy description of the left over violence at the end of the decolonization process, along with who it puts in power and how they will cope with governing has proven rather accurate. That doesn't mean it's the end of the story, it just describes the next set of problems that require addressing.

If you want to criticize anything I have said to date about race such as: (1) the fact that race is a biological construct, not a social construct;(2) that substantial to dramatic differences in average IQ are found across the main racial groups (and IQ predictes outcomes in all of the major human life activities) , (3) that that multiculturalism is a failed project in the West, (4) that policies of mass migration of non hite/European into Western societies like the UK and US has had disastrous social consequences; (5) that official crime rates in the US show an astronomic disproportion of crimes are committed by black Americans and this statistic cannot be accounted for by social/environmental factors; (6) that Western culture/civilization is objectively superior to any other human culture/civilization that has ever existed in human history and it has, for the past 1000 years been created by the White Western European race (that arose from the ancient aristocratic warrior Indo-European fair-skinned tribes of Europe); (7) that mass immigration of black/hispanic/latino/asian persons into the US has severely corrupted the traditional white Western culture/morality/institutions/social coherence and harmony that characterised the country in the 1960's, and so on and so forth, PLEASE POST YOUR ARGUMENT.

If you can actually formulate one that is. IT WILL BE MY PLEASURE TO "WIPE THE FLOOR" WITH YOU, so to speak.

In fact, as you have insulted me my condemning me as a NAZI, U think it behoves you to defend you position don't you?

Or are you content to do the standard libtard/crypto-socialist thing and use name-calling as your method of choice in debating the issues?


Dachshund