PDA

View Full Version : Join the Revolution for Peace?



Akasha
Wednesday, September 21st, 2011, 05:15 PM
ivcsZ38KMUU

Are you pro war or against war?

Oslaf
Wednesday, September 21st, 2011, 05:38 PM
What kind of war?

Lew Skannon
Wednesday, September 21st, 2011, 05:43 PM
Its a stupid infantile question. How can anybody be pro war? And against war at what cost?

This is a typical modus operandi by the main stream media to divide people into camps. Those fighting for their rights, also by violent means are put in the "pro war" camp, while those who sell the globalist agenda through gay parades, flowers and anti violence slogans are considered the moral "anti war" camp.
But who are the worst perpetrators of violence, death and destruction in this world? The nationialist movement or the liberal democratic globalist capitalist/communist quasi movement?

Pro war my ass! I am pro civil rights and willing to fight to the death for it if that is required! The power trying to take away my rights as an individual or people decides how the struggle is to be conducted, peaceful or violent! I have seen war and I hate it, but there are things I hate even more!

Akasha
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 10:27 AM
Thank you Wright B. Hindya for a fantastic post...

I do agree 100% with you on this one... I'm so stressed out these days because of the genocide we bring upon Libya ...

I hate wars that are based on greed...

BritishLad
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 10:40 AM
depends on the kind of war, if its a war to defend me country then i am pro-war otherwise i dunno - depends on the circumstances

Lew Skannon
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 12:28 PM
Thank you Wright B. Hindya for a fantastic post...

I do agree 100% with you on this one... I'm so stressed out these days because of the genocide we bring upon Libya ...

I hate wars that are based on greed...

I know and share your sentiment. We're like pawn being played on the great chessboard of greed and injustice.
The players destroying Libya, Afghanistan and Palestine are telling us to join the peace/gay/whatever parade do destroy ourselves.

Its like a nightmare, only its real!

Horagalles
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 01:19 PM
Its a stupid infantile question. How can anybody be pro war? And against war at what cost?

This is a typical modus operandi by the main stream media to divide people into camps. ...!
And conveniently assigning a good sounding name to one campl, while a bad sounding name is assigned to the other. We know this from South Africa were "liberals" were called "verligtes", while conservatives were called "verkrampte".

Lew Skannon
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 02:22 PM
And conveniently assigning a good sounding name to one campl, while a bad sounding name is assigned to the other. We know this from South Africa were "liberals" were called "verligtes", while conservatives were called "verkrampte".

The fate of the Boer/Afrikaaner people goes straight into the book of plutocrat driven anglo saxon injustices. How many people know that the land where they established their Boer republics were bought and paid for. Or that they were on good terms with the locals conducting friendly trade with the blacks over mutually agreed borders?

The ignorance, indifference and cowardice that renders people incapable of seeing through this tower of lies that our world is built on is really depressing.

Horagalles
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 07:32 PM
The fate of the Boer/Afrikaaner people goes straight into the book of plutocrat driven anglo saxon injustices. How many people know that the land where they established their Boer republics were bought and paid for. Or that they were on good terms with the locals conducting friendly trade with the blacks over mutually agreed borders?....What you say applies to certain areas at the borders to bantu settled areas. The central Highlands were scarcely populated. So you could take or buy it from nobody, you only could homestead it.

The verlig/verkramp labels are however the creation of an Afrikaner: Willem de Klerk, the brother of F.W. de Klerk. But that doesn't mean that the Anglo-Jewish media in South Africa didn't resort to similar tactics. They too painted the right-wingers as silly, low-class and backward. While liberals were shown as intelligent, handsome and successful - one just needs to think of Frederik van Zyl Slabbert of the predecessors of the DA.

Something similar you get with the hawks and doves allegedly representing pro-war and pro-peace factions. Needless to say that this is actually a division between more thought-through/vigilant politicians as opposed to smooth-talking appeasers. Those words you just don't hear that often.

Olavssønn
Saturday, August 4th, 2012, 07:57 PM
I'm against wars that do not serve the genuine interests and well-being of my people, wars that only serve the sinister, narrow interests of an elite. Afghanistan and Libya are good examples of the latter kind. I wouldn't hesitate to join the ranks of the soldiers if it was to defend the sovereignty and freedom of my people against a genuine, offensive threat, but I don't believe in these wars for spreading "democracy" and "human rights" (or so they say :blueroll:) that are becoming all the more common in the times we are living in. I'm against this imperialism that primarily serves some agenda of the political and economic elites, and does not in the very least have anything to do with the people...

Horagalles
Saturday, August 4th, 2012, 11:26 PM
I'm against wars that do not serve the genuine interests and well-being of my people, wars that only serve the sinister, narrow interests of an elite. Afghanistan and Libya are good examples of the latter kind. I wouldn't hesitate to join the ranks of the soldiers if it was to defend the sovereignty and freedom of my people against a genuine, offensive threat, but I don't believe in these wars for spreading "democracy" and "human rights" (or so they say :blueroll:) that are becoming all the more common in the times we are living in. I'm against this imperialism that primarily serves some agenda of the political and economic elites, and does not in the very least have anything to do with the people...
Exactly my sentiment on this. These are wars for the benefit of some special interest groups and have the form of some global political engineering, that has nothing to do with "defense" or ius ad bellum. So they are illegitimate to begin with.

Still there are some people to defend that. A good reply to them is to ask, if they consider Hitler's war against Poland legitimate. Most likely they will say "No, (this was an agressive war of conquest against a peaceful country)!" In that case one should confront them with the ,widely ignored, facts. That were the pretext and context for this military intervention.

Kiel
Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 01:13 AM
How many people know that the land where they established their Boer republics were bought and paid for. Or that they were on good terms with the locals conducting friendly trade with the blacks over mutually agreed borders?

That goes to show you that no matter how long in the past Whites were on non-warring terms with Negroes, the Negroes can be radicalized in a short period of time and wreak havoc and genocide on any White population. Also, Negroes cannot produce White babies and have no business anywhere near a White population.

Finn
Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 02:06 AM
Empires and Imperialists are a fact of history. Be happy you live in these times, under the greatest and most pro-western one since the fall of Great Britain. An empire that has only asked for enough territories to lay to rest its fallen soliders. Sure as hell dont see any tankers full of oil coming out of iraq or kuwait as payment for our loss of men and dollars spent !!! But dont worry.. If the yoke of American Imperialism is to heavy, give it a few years the way things are going won't be long and you can try one "MADE IN CHINA" on for size...

Sawyer
Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 05:51 AM
If the yoke of American Imperialism is to heavy, give it a few years the way things are going won't be long and you can try one "MADE IN CHINA" on for size...

This one fits all sizes.
http://patrick.wagstrom.net/resources/images/blog/effHatTag.jpg

But I don't see what's so pro-Western or even 'the greatest' about the current 'Empire' we live under.

Ingvaeonic
Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 07:15 AM
Let's be realistic: You really don't want the Chinese as your ruler, master, and overlord. At the end of the Second World War when the French re-entered Indochina, Ho Chi Minh said to his compatriots: "Better to eat French shit for ten years than Chinese shit for a thousand." That says it all. The Chinese are not nice people.

If you want to be enslaved, the Chinese will happily oblige you; and once you are under the Chinese heel you are under it for a very, very long time. Personally, I'd rather be dead than live in a new dark age ruled and overseen by the Chinese.

No, you really don't want the Chinese as your ruler, master, and overlord.


This one fits all sizes.
http://patrick.wagstrom.net/resources/images/blog/effHatTag.jpg

But I don't see what's so pro-Western or even 'the greatest' about the current 'Empire' we live under.

Well, that's a good point. I don't see anything that is particularly beneficial or advantageous to the white peoples of the "Western world" of "Western" governments and "Western" foreign policy. Western countries, their governments and societies, are too weak, mentally and morally soft, and cowardly to stand up for and defend their own people and continually betray them with their policies, e.g. alien immigration. If this is "human rights" or "democracy" or "democratic capitalism" or "Western liberalism" or "personal liberty" or "the rights and primacy of the individual over the collective", I'd be fighting like hell to stop this drivel from being imposed on me, too.

If centuries of "liberalisation" in the West and "liberalism" has resulted in nothing more constructive than some militant dike and assorted militant queer vermin disrupting a peaceful and completely inoffensive Lutheran church meeting in Stockholm screaming "We're here, we're queer. We're gonna f**k your children" into the faces of some middle-aged Lutheran church members and tearing up these church members' signs and placards, an offence under Swedish law, with the Swedish cops doing absolutely nothing to stop this outrage, then "Western liberalism" is clearly a destructive and retrograde process and an abysmal failure. Anyone in their right mind would resist, or try to resist, their country and society becoming so sick, sick with the disease of "Western liberalism". There's nothing liberal about "Western liberalism". If this is the epitome of centuries and generations of "Western liberalism", then no-one will mourn its end, with the possible exception of militant queers.

As I was talking of China, here's what Mao Tse-tung had to say about "liberalism":

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency."

"Combat Liberalism" (September 7th, 1937) (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm)

Liberalism is as extremely harmful to white, Germanic peoples, their countries, and their societies as it was for the Chinese Communist Party's revolutionary collectives, and for exactly the same reasons.

Sindig_og_stoisk
Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 08:57 AM
I think my sentiments have already been expressed by others: War is a gruesome and heinous affair, utterly devoid of the idealistic notions of valour and honour expressed in poetry and song.

However, wars are occasionally necessary. And when a war becomes necessary it does nobody any good for the men who should be stepping forward to defend their country and their cause to get philosophical about being "against war". This only makes the enemies job easier and ensures that there will be fewer "philosophically" inclined people around in the future. Who in their right mind would be "in favour of war" in general and what do these two things even mean in a real world?


"We are not interested in generals who win victories without bloodshed. The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms." - Carl von Clausewitz

Juthunge
Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 11:44 AM
Empires and Imperialists are a fact of history. Be happy you live in these times, under the greatest and most pro-western one since the fall of Great Britain. An empire that has only asked for enough territories to lay to rest its fallen soliders. Sure as hell dont see any tankers full of oil coming out of iraq or kuwait as payment for our loss of men and dollars spent !!! But dont worry.. If the yoke of American Imperialism is to heavy, give it a few years the way things are going won't be long and you can try one "MADE IN CHINA" on for size...

You cannot be serious. How exactly does it benefit my people if my country is flooded with rubbish invented in the USA? McDonalds, Rap music, TV shows and films promoting all sorts of degenerated culture, lax morals, promiscuity, exaggerated materialism.
You don't see the benefits of occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, or "liberating" Kuwait? Well, I guess minerals, oil, companies making money out of the war as well as strategic location count for nothing.

It really is quite unimportant to me under which tyranny I live, it is still tyranny. Perhaps it's even worse to live under American rule as you're undoubtedly much closer to us than the Chinese, who logically are quite indifferent towards our fate.
I prefer an open oppressor to the deceiver, who kills my people slowly and secretly, at first mentally but on which physical death follows only logically.

Before the question resurfaces again: No, I'm not against the Germanic part of the American people. I don't think anyone of you would deem the things I've just mentioned part of authentic American culture either. That these things are from the USA is mostly a "coincidence" but it has definitely to do with the spread of "your" Empire and everything else is simply untrue.

Primus
Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 02:32 PM
Ron Paul is a bit delusion when he thinks that if the US disengages from overseas affairs that everyone that's pissed off at the US now will simply stop being pissed off and leave Americans alone. :-O That's more than a bit naive to me.

Olavssønn
Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 03:47 PM
I agree that China is potentially a great threat, but how does the current American global super-power protect the European peoples in any way (perhaps by warring in the Middle East and creating new waves of refugees who escape to Europe)? How do they protect the European borders from waves of non-European immigration? How do they respect our culture and heritage? Even though America does have important European roots - and the White Americans can be looked upon as our kin peoples - the American empire can hardly be said to be pro-European in any way. European Americans may be a potential ally of Europe in the future, but the American empire is an adversary that have only influenced Europe in a very negative way...
It may in fact be necessary to create a European imperium in the future, a super-power which may be more cabable of countering the new East Asian empires and other adversaries and potential threats to Europe. It doesn't seem like the U.S. will start helping us any time in the near future...
The American empire (and those who control it) doesn't want to see a strong Europe. It wants a weak Europe that is easy to control and manipulate.

Vindefense
Monday, August 6th, 2012, 03:53 AM
But dont worry.. If the yoke of American Imperialism is to heavy, give it a few years the way things are going won't be long and you can try one "MADE IN CHINA" on for size...


That would be interesting.. We find that those states who contest to American supremacy would either replace its leadership with nothing or with themselves at the helm and neither is a viable option because no state is capable of conducting itself in the interest of world affairs, except that which represents the “world in miniature”.

The state of the world is as it is today primarily because of the conditions it has developed under and these can only favor a U.S. leadership. Where, all auxiliary veins and capillaries must subordinate themselves to the main artery and the regulation of the heart, this great artery is subordinate to them all. And since it is a virtue to serve that which is great because it is great, it is better yet to serve what is greater. And this principle is equally valid for small states as it is for great ones. Here, the U.S. offers its service to the world through its military and industries and so long as this continues, secures its own preservation.

Horagalles
Monday, August 6th, 2012, 10:14 AM
I hope you didn't buy into that "They had Americans for their freedoms" BS promulgated by several Neocohns.

Ron Paul is a bit delusion when he thinks that if the US disengages from overseas affairs that everyone that's pissed off at the US now will simply stop being pissed off and leave Americans alone. :-O That's more than a bit naive to me.
Does he say that or even imply it? (Please quote).
All a general retreat from overseas wars of occupation or intervention engagements would mean, is that the victims of intervention won't have that much reasons to hate Americans anymore. Of course the former victims would still carry some grudge against Americans. But why not ban people out of those regions / ethnic groups from the US or at least give them a few more hurdles?!

The present and previous interventionist policies of the US and the carnage and mass murder that went along with it are the chief motivator for people in the world to hate Americans above the level they'd usually do. So except for budgetary reasons, there is a foreign policy and security reason to abstain from bullying turd worlders at some place that isn't really capable of being a threat to America.

The real problem is however that vast vested interests have a stake in Americas military interventions, especially in the middle East, but also elsewhere.

Ingvaeonic
Monday, August 6th, 2012, 10:20 AM
...Are you pro war or against war?

[Please do not interpret or understand the following as literal. It is meant as facetiously jocular.] I'm for it.

Primus
Monday, August 6th, 2012, 02:15 PM
I hope you didn't buy into that "They had Americans for their freedoms" BS promulgated by several Neocohns.

Does he say that or even imply it? (Please quote).

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/ron_pauls_foreign_policy_exposed.html

He's largely out-of-touch. He'd be a good treasury official but not Secretary of State.

Imagine Pelagius of Asturias with a similar attitude:

"Oh if we mind our own affairs the Moors will leave us alone; they're all largely peaceful and the radicals are the ones overrunning Spain, killing Christians, and so on. If we show them they're not aggressive they'll leave us alone, yeah."

Or the Carthaginians:

"Oh if we show the Romans that we're not a threat to them they'll leave us alone; its written into our Constitution that aggressive foreign policy isn't allowable except with a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate and the agreement of the two sophets and even then we can only use our military for peacekeeping activities via an international mandate from the Mediterranean Nations. The Romans have nothing to worry about from us, yeah."

Sorry, just illustrating some of the absurd kind of thought, satircally, that the Paulites tend to operate under. :) Such people assume a rather naive and utopian world wherein everyone is a good guy, every nation is peaceful and law-abiding, and where every national leader obeys jus gentium.

Ingvaeonic
Monday, August 6th, 2012, 03:31 PM
...The real problem is however that vast vested interests have a stake in America's military interventions, especially in the Middle East, but also elsewhere.

There are manifold vested interests in keeping the US a militarily interventionist state.

Oski
Wednesday, August 15th, 2012, 03:20 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/ron_pauls_foreign_policy_exposed.html

He's largely out-of-touch. He'd be a good treasury official but not Secretary of State.

Imagine Pelagius of Asturias with a similar attitude:

"Oh if we mind our own affairs the Moors will leave us alone; they're all largely peaceful and the radicals are the ones overrunning Spain, killing Christians, and so on. If we show them they're not aggressive they'll leave us alone, yeah."

Or the Carthaginians:

"Oh if we show the Romans that we're not a threat to them they'll leave us alone; its written into our Constitution that aggressive foreign policy isn't allowable except with a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate and the agreement of the two sophets and even then we can only use our military for peacekeeping activities via an international mandate from the Mediterranean Nations. The Romans have nothing to worry about from us, yeah."

Sorry, just illustrating some of the absurd kind of thought, satircally, that the Paulites tend to operate under. :) Such people assume a rather naive and utopian world wherein everyone is a good guy, every nation is peaceful and law-abiding, and where every national leader obeys jus gentium.

I think you misunderstand Ron Paul, he understands that liberty is not safety and that our foreign policy of being the world police (and Israel's big brother on the playground) radicalizes more anti-american terrorists. He wants a strong national defense, the strongest in the world to be on guard, not on a war path doomed to bankrupt us. His advocating for liberty would allow us to really own our property and to be separatists if we please. He is systematically exposing and fighting the banking cabals. He wants to shut down the welfare state (imagine this event much like watching a dog shit after being given dewormer).

You know of any american politician that can top that? Please share.