An enquiry into the strange netherworld of thought-and-deed control in the collective West, exemplified by the persecution of innocent citizens whose thought-crime is to disagree with the mainstream
I've probably mentioned this before but denying a people it's language, history, culture and so on falls under the UN's definition of genocide. More specific, denying that a people exists as a distinct entity.
F.e. denying that Jews are a people in their own right would violate the UN definition (and probably some treaty or other), while denying that Palestinians are a distinct people would be tentative, given that the people "Palestinians" didn't exist until Western media started calling the arab residents of what is now Israel that. On the other hand, one gets around that by using the correct, objective and impartial "Arabs from Palestine" or "Palestinian Arabs".
The problem with the EU regulation and subsequent actions is of course that they are based in American logic on "race" rather than nation and Volk.
I mention the above because always when debating these issues, the cosmopolitan (who is by extension an enemy of the people, willing or unwittingly so) will try to draw you into a Xeno's Paradox of sorts: "What is actually an Austrian?" and then use historical references as to why no such thing as an "Austrian" actually exist. While it is an obvious bastardisation of the Sokratic method as well as sophistry of the highest order, it is also tremendously effective on your average normal citizen.
The counter must use the same method, all the while the one doing the countering remains unflinching in stance: "By your logic, [insert cherished token ethnicity here] do not exist, and have no claim to XYZ!".
Saying this will get an immediate emotional reaction, sometimes violent. Rather than letting the tantrum play out, one must instead keep attacking, trapping the opponent in their own ill-logic and with no other recourse than emotional outbursts, and the more child-like and child-ish the better, as the audience will reject them outright.
Also, drawing on well-known history ought to be included, in the following pattern:
"My grandfather started working in the mines when he was a teenager! How dare you claim he oppressed some [insert migrant ethnicity of choice]! How dare you say he has some kind of inherited "white guilt" when he risked life and limb for 14 hours or more six days of the week!".
Because most all Europeans have working class/farmer/labourer background, and evoking their family history/memory of this and juxtapositioning it with the detestable accusations of American and americanised progressives, liberals, et cetera is a great way to awaken their spirit, their sense of being of a people.
Of course, there are risks but since the only crime for an opponent of the regime is existing, we all already live with total risk.
Ah, but you and I very well know that these 'rules' only apply for certain people and not for everyone, which is also why the UN is such a scam by now (if it ever was something else).
As a regular practitioner of biting sarcasm, I frequently use the approach you mention; last time, at our departmental Christmas party, I got into a 'fun™' conversation with a colleague, which went like this:
Co-worker: Putin bad.
Me: I don't understand how language is the single, unchanging factor of identity; I mean, there's 72+ 'genders' that might change every second, but why language?
Co-worker: Ah, that's different in the case of Putin who is very bad.
Me: I'm Austria, but my mother tongue is German--what am I?
Sounds like when people around me used to claim the Sweden Democrats were racists or nazis.
"Which point in their programme is racist/national socialist?"
Silence followed by "But they /are/ racists/nazis!"
"I'm willing to concede that if you can show me proof. Their programme is public, it's on their homepage. Haven't you read it?"
Angry, sullen silence.
However, two things were and are won by this:
The person insisting on articles of faith being facts are made to feel like the fool they are acting as; and any other participant is shown counter-arguments are possible, easy and - eventually - that point&counter-point, pro et contra, and so on are the self-explanatory parts of Western intellectual discourse they've been for centuries.
A personal reflection: the progs, libs, pomos et cetera are very Oriental in their way of Reason - there's one Truth, it's top-down, it is absolute and the core tenet is adherence displayed as total obedience/conformity.
Re the 'Oriental' way of reasoning--I think you're onto something, and I'd merely add it's perhaps why topics such as 'Oriental despotism' are no longer taught in schools…
I've probably mentioned this before but denying a people it's language, history, culture and so on falls under the UN's definition of genocide. More specific, denying that a people exists as a distinct entity.
F.e. denying that Jews are a people in their own right would violate the UN definition (and probably some treaty or other), while denying that Palestinians are a distinct people would be tentative, given that the people "Palestinians" didn't exist until Western media started calling the arab residents of what is now Israel that. On the other hand, one gets around that by using the correct, objective and impartial "Arabs from Palestine" or "Palestinian Arabs".
The problem with the EU regulation and subsequent actions is of course that they are based in American logic on "race" rather than nation and Volk.
I mention the above because always when debating these issues, the cosmopolitan (who is by extension an enemy of the people, willing or unwittingly so) will try to draw you into a Xeno's Paradox of sorts: "What is actually an Austrian?" and then use historical references as to why no such thing as an "Austrian" actually exist. While it is an obvious bastardisation of the Sokratic method as well as sophistry of the highest order, it is also tremendously effective on your average normal citizen.
The counter must use the same method, all the while the one doing the countering remains unflinching in stance: "By your logic, [insert cherished token ethnicity here] do not exist, and have no claim to XYZ!".
Saying this will get an immediate emotional reaction, sometimes violent. Rather than letting the tantrum play out, one must instead keep attacking, trapping the opponent in their own ill-logic and with no other recourse than emotional outbursts, and the more child-like and child-ish the better, as the audience will reject them outright.
Also, drawing on well-known history ought to be included, in the following pattern:
"My grandfather started working in the mines when he was a teenager! How dare you claim he oppressed some [insert migrant ethnicity of choice]! How dare you say he has some kind of inherited "white guilt" when he risked life and limb for 14 hours or more six days of the week!".
Because most all Europeans have working class/farmer/labourer background, and evoking their family history/memory of this and juxtapositioning it with the detestable accusations of American and americanised progressives, liberals, et cetera is a great way to awaken their spirit, their sense of being of a people.
Of course, there are risks but since the only crime for an opponent of the regime is existing, we all already live with total risk.
Ah, but you and I very well know that these 'rules' only apply for certain people and not for everyone, which is also why the UN is such a scam by now (if it ever was something else).
As a regular practitioner of biting sarcasm, I frequently use the approach you mention; last time, at our departmental Christmas party, I got into a 'fun™' conversation with a colleague, which went like this:
Co-worker: Putin bad.
Me: I don't understand how language is the single, unchanging factor of identity; I mean, there's 72+ 'genders' that might change every second, but why language?
Co-worker: Ah, that's different in the case of Putin who is very bad.
Me: I'm Austria, but my mother tongue is German--what am I?
End of conversation.
Sounds like when people around me used to claim the Sweden Democrats were racists or nazis.
"Which point in their programme is racist/national socialist?"
Silence followed by "But they /are/ racists/nazis!"
"I'm willing to concede that if you can show me proof. Their programme is public, it's on their homepage. Haven't you read it?"
Angry, sullen silence.
However, two things were and are won by this:
The person insisting on articles of faith being facts are made to feel like the fool they are acting as; and any other participant is shown counter-arguments are possible, easy and - eventually - that point&counter-point, pro et contra, and so on are the self-explanatory parts of Western intellectual discourse they've been for centuries.
A personal reflection: the progs, libs, pomos et cetera are very Oriental in their way of Reason - there's one Truth, it's top-down, it is absolute and the core tenet is adherence displayed as total obedience/conformity.
Re the 'Oriental' way of reasoning--I think you're onto something, and I'd merely add it's perhaps why topics such as 'Oriental despotism' are no longer taught in schools…