give it a day i reckon i ordered off zaza and even messaged them with no reply back

Basically it derives from the same origins. There are certain laws of ethnic relations in history of humankind, such as:

1. law of percentage: lets say a black person somewhere in gothenburg or copenhagen would trigger an amused curiosity and the outpouring of sincere sympathy, however, if you "inject" immigrant workers up to the fateful threshold of 4-8 percent and you will already have a racial situation - the nature of social relationships changes, engendering ethnic tensions, global reflexes painful to describe. The more the percentage increases, the more class struggle transforms itself into racial confrontation. Basically, this percentage is sufficient to make racial discrimination appear spontaneously in people who previously believed itself wholesome and devoid of any racist sentiment.

2. The law of assimilability: If majority and the minority belong to the same large ethnic group (all are white, or all a asian), then assimilation occurs progressively. For example, Spanish or Portuguese workers despised in France not so long ago, integrated themselves into population within the space of one generation; same for descendants of corsicans and the poles during napoleonic era, same for bambara minority living in senegal. But if the ethnic and cultural gap is too big, tensions are exacerbated with time. Like African Blacks and Arabs find themselves in this situation in Europe. Coexistance basically becomes possible only in a truly Socialist state or a state that has adopted a high morality philosophy.

3. the law of distance: like two ethnic groups that are not fighting over the same living space or same market and occupy different territories separated by space can enter into normal relationships. Like that an alliance can be explained during world war 2 between hitlers germany and japan. or relationship of pretoria with israel state.

4. the law of phenotype: basically physical appearance. It would matter little tgat botha and zulu in africa have the same genotype (same genes in the chromosomes) and it would have no influence on their daily lives because their external features are so different.
Laws of class struggle according to history applies only to societies previously made homogeneous by violence. Funny, that the most modern nations actually went through this bestial struggles before (Americas, australia, new zealand, good part of asia, greenland, huge part of pacific, scandinavia, etc, etc).For example Blacks of Americas were brough over to work the land, while the indigenous races were being destroyed. So, the "more advanced" barbarious conquerors exterminated/drove out whole populations, devastated or abandoned productive forces they they simply did not know how to use. This specific law is one of my favourite... how spartan domination ended by crumbling particularly because of the great numeric weakness of their REAL citizens. Because their society consisting of spartan conquerors and lowly helots both belonged to the same large white-skinned 'race', ethnic differences became blurred and it allowed class differences appeared only in an economic sense.
Same goes for Rome and Carthage, Rwanda-Burundi, Francs and Gallo-Romans.
Have a look at the american immigration laws and how it progressed throghout 19-20 centuries. This law also gave birth to so called intra-european racism, etc.

We forget that the passage from a clan to a monolingual tribe and to ethnic group and to nationality historically was a result, a consequences of clans exogamy. It is still widely discussed by specialists. But it marked starting point of the current civilization.
Endogamy was prohibited and we, humans, just started fucking people from the outside kkk several neibourhing clans contracted marriage ties that led them eventually to speak same languages despite that their original idioms were different.
The number of clans to gather together to work a more or less powerful tribe didnt follow any rules and depended mostly on the fertility and extent of the lands occupied by the group. Thus was born nationality.

In the course of history, when two groups of people argued over a vital economic space, the slightest ethnic difference can be magnified, temporarily serving as a pretext for social and political cleavage: differences in physical appearances, colour of your passport, language, religions, morals and customs.

We forget that basically future generations must forget about the dead so that the conquering people can undergo a rebirth with an angelic consience.
Why do we almost idolise, for example, conquistadors, holy crusaders and vikings? Pillagers, rapists, murderers and worse.

Most of the things we learn and follow, most of the times, blindly, things we consider as truths and solid facts, the very foundation of our personal universes - it was predominantly build based on someones ideologies.

Books, that our kids and us read, are also written under certain circumstances, conditions, requirements, with certain motivations. Dictated by an ideology.

Sooo.... sorry for the massive message. It just questions like this trigger something inside me, something that i consciously try to understand and overcome. For before we are races or nationalities, boys or girls, gays or straight, we are humans.

Peace yo.

Interesting points. I just came across this forum and will make a contribution. Meanwhile, on the topic of Scottish Nationalism, I have myself proposed Independence For England! We English (whatever that means through consensus) vote in a referendum to dissolve the union of England and Scotland. Never mind what they want, how about what we want, which may be to separate from them, along with the subject nation of Wales. We'll have our own oven ready breakfast and our own national covid death toll, while we surrender the last shreds of our integrity to the fucking Yanks and the fucking Chinese whose government leaders wouldn't make the groove as a couple of Pox Doctor's clerks.

Please dont have the idea that all Scots want independence
. Plenty are and always will be happy to be part of the union. There is more at play than just Scottish Independence, certain elements see Scottish independence as a means to help another cause. Understand that Independence of Scotland is not the endgame for a lot of SNP supporters.

The whole SNP "independence" thing is a facade.

The SNP want to leave our union and join the EU club because they'll give them more money than Westminster does.

They still want to be financially "dependent", just a more generous sugar daddy.

I'm talking about the SNP, not all Scots :)

High Raskolnikov. Your post showed as a comment on mine so You're addressing me, then. I have no intention of stating anything about what Scots want. My point is that I consider an English Independence Referendum is incumbent on ourselves to determine our Englishness without the input of the other three nations. Devolution, revolution, phooey! We want ablution. Wash our hands of the lot of you. Do we? Who does? Has anyone got this underway? Sturgeon and Salmond? Something fishy about those two!

Interesting points Vikosh. I feel that England is a pretty tribal place.

Being born and growing up in the North, spending the last 2 decades in the South, and finally relocating back to the North of England, i’d say there are even considerable cultural and economic differences between different areas of this country.

There was a political movement that started a few years ago, that seems to now be on the back burner, for northern independence. While this is a lofty pursuit, and i’m unsure how successful it might be if implemented, I think it suggests that certain areas of our country define themselves not on a national footing but a regional one.

Personally I consider myself English and Irish, rather than British, but more crucially, being Northern trumps ‘Englishness’ for me…. race doesn’t come into it for me. Social class plays a large factor too.

I’d take a working class community in the North populated with English South Asians, Roma, and West African people over a predominantly white, middle class community in rural Hampshire- this is down to personal experience and unscientific, just my preference having lived in both places.

Great topic!

I certainly don’t need a referendum to establish my Scottishness.

I wouldn’t blame the English people if they started to see things this way but we are still all better as a union and I think you know this. Sturgeon and Salmond are just typical politicians mate who lying is a big part of the job description. There has been a huge change in Scotland in my lifetime where the working class vote has moved away from labour to the snp. Labour has shot themselves in the foot so many times but also the snp politics has changed. I have been on this earth a long time and the snp have changed so much. Sturgeon is still using her bloody daily briefing up here to try to indoctrinate the nation. I’m going to stop here as I am ranting.

British here too. I feel like the silent majority of my country are the same

Not English, then. To be born an Englishman is to win first prize in the lottery of life. That life being the infliction of Imperialism on 25% of the world's population. Nothing wrong with that, was there?

Cool. What were you born?

Obviously, not britain. Tiocfaidh ár lá.

Get your Brits out!!

I am British not Scottish or Welsh or Irish or English but British.
So the idea of England going on its own is kind of laughable.
I prefer this great country as one nation,I have lived all over UK so I class myself as British. Ever since devolved countries we had loads of petty arguments enough of the arguments and do there jobs.
The Scottish independence route will end up like n ireland scottish people are divided straight down the middle so can see issues battle grounds comes to mind bombings etc etc just like n ireland AND its not going to happen anyway thank god.:D
Or you english going be invaded of all the people that do not want there countries independent lol.

Plus the Queen will never allow it to happen she is still the most powerful lady in this country and can override any laws in the UK set by government it is in the small print when she signed it over to the government. She has her palaces all over the UK.

She wants to send to her son to America to answer for the crimes he is guilty as fk otherwise he would have gone over and answered there questions on very serious sex crimes.
Guilty as fk he is by dodging the request of the FBI and CIA law to himself hiding behind mummy he is.

I am British loud and proud !!!

I’m British and Scottish mate. Think it is possible to be both. I’m not interested in Independence and believe it will not happen and will be a disaster if it does. In Scotland Salmond courted a certain block vote and got it. That is what has got the snp to where they are. That and shortbread tin thinking. They will soon want to let over 14 s vote. As I said in another post, Scottish Independence is not the endgame for a lot of snp.

Just curious, what do you believe to be the SNP's ultimate goal?

Wait do Scotts not have bangers and mash?

I always thought this, we are taught to be separate and see our differences constantly, great way for a small percentage of people to control us with concepts like "nationalism" and this your "land" blah blah.

What an outstanding post thank you

this bigga

Not necessarily, Scottish nationalism is an attempt to escape racism

good one, i guess that goes for any anti colonial movement like vietnam for example

It was a joke mate but fuck, Vietnam. Is that what you are comparing Scottish Independence to?

Are you talking about Arab supremacists like Hamza Yousaf ? I'm unaware of any other racists in Scotland .

Sounds like something a Scottish nationalist would say.

Scotland's nationalist party don't want to exclude races, they want independence from another countries rule. It's not about racism.

Unless is the European Union.

lol. ok, i'll bite...

nationalism is a term for those with common interests as citizens of the same country working together for mutual benefit and/or pride.

racism is a hatred of one or more person/s where skin colour is the basis used for the defining attribute.

neither is mandatory last I heard.

a lot of nationalists aren't so much racists as exclusionary. they believe in a social contact that only exists amongst members. outsiders are not part of the deal.

Just like you would naturally have a preference for feeding your own family in your own home, before you concerned yourself with feeding anyone else.

This would not mean you hated other people, or didn't wish the best for them.

I think Nationalism is often confused with extreme Right wing ideologies, when it could be Left or Right really.

Sounds kinda like racism.

The national front! They were nationalists that says all you need to know!!!

national socialists also skew a little right

Look into snp and the past. They have changed a lot.

Yes you could look into the SNPs distant past or alternatively you could look at what the Tories are doing right now as we speak under your very nose.
It is funny how a conversation about nationalism is related to the SNP when anyone with eyes can see that British nationalism is the one being pushed everywhere in Britain.
The SNP didn't spend 2 million quid on a set of blue curtains and two Union Jacks and it is not the SNP who are plastering everything with the Butcher's apron either!

Not even Ethno nationalism is racist . You can love your own ethnicity more than others without hating them .

Because we can change our nationality as it’s make believe. You cannot change your DNA which is real

nationalism is more like greed, racism is more like hate.

Nationalism has more positive range for example promoting culture. Racism is usually associated with negative feelings about other races.

They both seem doomed if you ask me.

only in touchy feely places like the uk ... not in most other countrys ... too much self hatred in this country ...

Not synonymous, but it's an interesting point.
In some sense, I think it is an individual and academic choice to be patriotic (even that is turned into a dirty word now), root for your country or be proud of it voxally. It's OK to like your country if you really do. You do live there after all. It's just a country. Other countries are not minorities in their own country as the British are not here.
As you allude to, it is a lottery, not a skill, being British (or Irish for that matter). There is little merit to being "proud" I agree. But it doesn't oppress anyone or anything in itself. It is a way to preserving culture and way of life. You can't pick who you think should be able to do that.
Otherwise, the takeaway is, only the oppressed are allowed to be proud of anything and preserve culture. What kind of world is that?
I do think that no matter what, being proud of your race is pointless, stupid and divisive.
It suggests a nexus between a superiority or exceptionality and racial group.
After all, skin colour is decided only by a few alleles in the genome and indicates very little about one's charachter.
E

Racism is necessarily exclusionary. But Nationalism isn't.

In general I am wary of nationalism, but there are times when it has achieved positives.

I'm a nationalist. I want England and all our major cities to be English and not resemble Bangladesh. That makes one a racist nowadays.

If the reason you give for those cities resembling Bangladesh is people of other races, that's kinda the definition of racism. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a closet racist.

The people make the nation. Change the people and the nation changes with it. Very simple concept to understand that is being proved everyday in this country. Natives are being demographically replaced in our homeland, but because we're white native displacement is considered a moral good. Soon British children are going to grow up as hated minorities in their own country. The clock is ticking...

the fruits of being a coloniser

So it's about revenge? Not exactly on to a winner with that argument. 99.99% of Britons had nothing to do with the British Empire. Just say you have an anti-white bloodlust and shut up

no, its just a result of a worldwide empire. i love whites and certianly wont shut up in the face of an ignorant one.

Nonsense answer. It's happening in Ireland as well. They didn't have an Empire and were subjugated by us.

I was just watching this video of Nick Shirley in Ireland . https://youtu.be/WfJggeIw_94?si=53bYT9Vv6eHP90wL

I think Ireland might be in even bigger trouble than Britain. There doesn't seem to be any political representation for them at all.

I think you're right . However , they do community a lot better over there . I reckon they're more likely to fight back sooner . We've already seen it in places like Coolock .
It really is awful what they've done to Ireland .

Yeah grassroots support is there in greater numbers than Britain

I have two lefties in my DMs threatening to post my address and do violence against me because I called out the violence of Islam . These lefties are truly disgusting

by bigger trouble do you mean vastly more successful?

The reason certain areas of Britain look like Bangladesh now is because we've let in too many people from other cultures without giving them a chance to assimilate .
I have no hate towards Bangladesh . I'd love to visit some day , but when I go to London , I don't want to be surrounded by Bangladeshis , I want to be surrounded by Londoners and their culture . London is lost now . The culture of London can never recover from the insane amount of immigrants we've allowed to move there . It's very sad for anyone who loves British culture . Of course racists like yourself who hate whites and Brits can't see the problem .

London never had any 'culture'? Means one thing that was ever cultural about London, that you don't see now.

How can you say such a thing ?
Is London the only city that never had any culture ? What about Tokyo , Rome , or Paris ?
Does culture even exist in your world view ?
London used to be the capital of British culture . The British people are the one thing that made London a cultural hub . Those people are being pushed out at an alarming rate . 40% of London are now foreign born . These people have brought their own culture with them . This is why some parts of London feel more like Bangladesh these days .
Bangladesh is a very apt example as It's a region which has recently had it's own culture eradicated by fundamentalist expansionist Islamists . Bangladesh should be a warning to us about the dangers of uncontrolled immigration .
I don't know about you but I love my people . I don't want to see them replaced by people from the third world . I think that would be extremely racist .

Even through that lengthy rant, at no point did you mention any examples of London culture that no longer survive to this day. Why is that?

If you calm down and read more critically , you will see that I offered the British people themselves as the one cultural asset which no longer survives in London . Now answer my questions .

So you don't know. Just say that. British people are not a CULTURAL TRADITION. That and, they are still in London. Your issue is just plain racism, you don't like seeing people that aren't white in your country. Here's a few examples of culture that still exist in London. Pie and Mash, Cockney slang, Shakespeares globe, the museums, the cathedrals, the monarchy. I'd go on, but what's the point. You're a loser Pete. I'm a proud Scottish Nationalist, and we Love our culture, we also love new cultures and people's that have settled in Scotland and consider it home. You know why? Because we aren't like you. We're accepting. We want the best for Scotland, not for Whites, because fuck that stupid bigotry racist shite. You can be Brown, Black, Green or Blue, we don't care, as long as you love Scotland too, and contribute to the nation. Whether that be through paying taxes, or education. People make Scotland. Not just white people. Guess what? The only country that tried to destroy our cultural traditions is now our friends. Well, some of you.

You get racists in every country, the UK is no exception, but the way you talk is frankly disgusting.

What a nasty and unfounded rant . You know we can disagree and still be friendly .
My best and oldest friend is half Ghanaian . I love all ethnicities but I have a duty to protect my own .
I don't want to see any ethnicity replaced in their own lands , but I have a special obligation to the replacement happening here .

The British people are the ones who carry the British tradition . The people who replace us will not carry on the culture in our place .
Who is going to be speaking cockney or eating pie and mash once there are no Brits left in London ? The shocking speed of the replacement means there is no hope for new comers to assimilate .
You are being very short sighted if you consider yourself a proud nationalist yet can't see the danger your culture is in .
Are you not shocked that 40% of London are now foreign born ? These people bring their own cultures . At that concentration , they couldn't assimilate even if they wanted to .
How would you feel about replacing 40% of Tokyo with Americans ? Would it still be Japanese or would it ruin the culture ?

So you're best and oldest friend is not your own, because he's Ghanaian? What an absurd view.

"Who is going to be speaking cockney or eating pie and mash once there are no Brits left in London?" why, are all those non whites going to commit genocide and Take Urr Cuntray?

"You are being very short sighted if you consider yourself a proud nationalist yet can't see the danger your culture is in" our cultural heritage has never been stronger, not since you lot tried to destroy our culture by banning our language, banning our kilts, removing us from the highlands, but, we forgave you sad little people.

"Are you not shocked that 40% of London are now foreign born?" I don't understand where the problem is here?

"How would you feel about replacing 40% of Tokyo with Americans ? Would it still be Japanese or would it ruin the culture?" Considering that the Japanese are very western leaning, they still have a fantastic historical heritage and legacy, that will never go away. Just like how Londons heritage is very much alive to this day.

Again, you're just a racist Pete.

I never said my Ghanaian friend wasn't my own . Why are you misrepresenting me ?
He is a very British black man . He also understands this problem . Would you call him a racist for holding the same views as me or does he get a free pass for being black ?

If you replace all the British people with foreigners then obviously the culture will be lost . It hasn't taken a genocide to replace 40% , but violence is certainly not off the table for incoming cultures . Look at what the Muslims recently did to the Hindus in Bangladesh for example .

If the Japanese are replaced by Brits , they will obviously lose their strong culture . This goes without saying .
You're being unreasonable and actually absurd in your denial . It's basic maths . I think I'll leave it there . Please stop calling me a racist without a shred of evidence for it .

British people are ''culture'' because culture is simply the expression of your national character and personality. You live and breathe culture simply by being who you are. Only small numbers of foreigners can be integrated into that. You change the people and the culture changes with it

lmao

Both people in this conversation should yeet themselves of the nearest cliff.

Your IQ is less than the number of toes you have.

Threats and insults are all you have .
Get an actual argument before you talk about other's IQ .
I scored 133 on the Stanford Binet myself . That puts me in the 98th percentile . How about you ?

If it's the colour of people's skin you're referring to, and you're suggesting you have to be white to be regarded as english, then yes, you are. Not just nowadays, always.

So you deny the English of their genetic heritage ? For you to understand how racist that it , I want you to apply your reasoning to any other ethnicity ?
Are the Japanese , Chinese , and Africans racist for holding these ethno nationalist views or does it only apply to white people ? If you're only applying this standard to white people then you are the racist .
Of course it's possible to be civically British and ethnically foreign , but like any foreigner who moves to another country , we should respect the people we are trying to join . That includes the ethnicity and the culture of the natives . There's nothing racist about respecting the countries that take us in .

English genetic heritage? Which one? The ones that originate from Germania? The Vikings? The Norman's? Your genetic heritage has more influence from other nationalities, not just the Angles. Who were German.

As is true for every single ethnicity on Earth . Yes , we are a mix , just like everyone else , but I don't think you're denying the existence of ethnicity , are you ?

Just a little helpful guidance for you there Petey boy.

No, I'm not. Ethnicity has nothing to do with skin colour.

Race is extremely important to the ethnicity of the Japanese , Chinese , Africans , etc .
Ethno nationalism is the norm in the rest of the world .
Do you think the rest of the world are all racist too ?

I had to repeat myself because you didn't address this point the first time I made it . Instead you chose to argue about semantics . I don't think you have an actual argument

Your lot do nothing but give the normal populace a headache.

You can't engage me on this argument because it would expose your double standard and prove that you are the racist one here .
That's why all you can do is dodge and insult .

I'm racist because I have no issue with immigration and multiple cultures? That's new. I'm very happy to welcome people who want to make a life here, that want to work and contribute, I couldn't give a flying fuck what nationality someone is, or what skin colour they are, as long as they aren't like you Petey boyyo. You really should reread this entire conversation.

You're a racist because you deny the British of their culture and genetics . Unless you hold this view consistently for all people , Africans , Asians , etc , then you are being racist .

Genetics, really? So you must be white too be British? Nobody is destroying British culture you fuckwit Pete. You couldn't even give an example of British culture that no longer exists.

Nonsense . Please try harder to track our conversations

Still no argument . I really don't think you have one . It's all baseless insults with you lot .

My argument has already been covered. Nobody is taking away Londons culture. You're a fool for thinking it.

Different argument . We had to give up on that one because you were denying the obvious . 40% and growing fast is obviously going to impact the culture. I will argue no more with you about that .

Let me copy and paste the question you are dodging :
Race is extremely important to the ethnicity of the Japanese , Chinese , Africans , etc .
Ethno nationalism is the norm in the rest of the world .
Do you think the rest of the world are all racist too ?


Please try to keep track .

Ethno nationalism is only the norm in your world pal, not in the world of the less ignorant.

Ethno nationalism is the norm in China , Japan , and most African countries .
This is an objectively true fact . Do you think they're racist too ?

Seeing as no-one's answered you Pete, and you keep asking. Yes, of course they are. All ethno-nationalism is racist.

Then racism really isn't that bad , and for some reason only white people are supposed to feel guilty about it .
Racism is kinda racist like that .

english is a race mate just like indian im english if i move to india im not an indian ? same thing should apply in the uk

has india conquered and assimilated england in this scenario?

India did it's own conquering and assimilating . Every country has . The UK was just the best at it . The people who are still practicing this expansionism are the fundamentalist Islamists . Islamists are the only genuine far right threat yet they're championed by you lefties because they happen to be foreign . If you want to fight racism , you should oppose Islamist expansionists . You can ask your Indian friends all about this . They know all too well the dangers of fundamentalist Islam . I think you'll find they prefer the British to the Islamists these days .

Was Christian expansion ism ok though? Cos they were white, right?

No , it was wrong . But there's a big difference . Christian expansionists went against the teachings of Jesus . Islamic expansionists are doing exactly what Muhammad did .
I have many non white and Muslim friends who I love dearly . I think you've got the wrong idea here . Who told you I was racist ?

Since when were the Crusades against the teachings of Jesus? Your rants show your true colours Pete. Nobody admits they're racist, I'm telling you, you are.

I don't consider the Crusades to be expansionism . That's a poor example .
Actually , racists do admit they're racist . That's just hateful woke rhetoric so you don't have to engage . You label and other your political opponents because you don't have an argument . It's bigoted and hateful . I assure you , you are far more racist than I am .

Hilarious. You're an embarrassment Pete, I'm glad most people don't share your views.

You'd be surprised . My view is on the rise in the West . Just look at the US . I was an ignorant lefty like yourself until about August of last year when the riots started and I spent time doing some independent research on the topics raised .
I change my mind based on facts and logic .

Yep, it's like Nazi Germany all over again. They were Nationalists too you know. If you changed your mind based on facts and logic, I'd expect you did your research through Musk and GB News.

I also don't subscribe to this whole lefty/righty pish. People that use the term Woke are just a walking talking embarrassment to themselves and others.

Earlier you told me that you were a nationalist , so are you also a Nazi now ?

Keep living in the past mate and thing will comeback to haunt you

Bet you sing God Save the Nonces like a good little John Bull innit.

There seem to be a prevailing perspective of an individualistic view on what racism is, i.e. the hatred or superiority of another race, nation, or ethnicity, however this view is overly simplistic as racism is structural and systemic and is only dependent on the individual when their actions are supported by the larger system.
One can be xenophobic, discriminatory and/or prejudiced against others from other places without it being racism if they are not the dominant race/ethnicity/or culture.
Racism = power + prejudice. That is the current understanding and definition of racism in social sciences and some dictionaries (as with Merriam Webster, which was updated two or three years ago). That is not to say that racial prejudice or discrimination is allowable or tolerable. It's not. However to quantify both types of prejudice (the one that is solely individual and the one that is supported by systemic structures) as the same thing or equivalent is false.
One is an individual opinion and has no greater repurcussions than that person's world's or actions, the other however plays into a wider narrative of oppression that reinforces the structural oppression and contributes to and reinforces societal and structural discrimination.
Nationalism is different in several ways.
Firstly, pride in ones nation does not mean an inherent prejudice or discrimination against those that come from other nations (although all too often it does manifest in such a way).
Secondly, if those expressing nationalist sentiment are not the dominant authority over said nation, then it is not racism but discrimination and prejudice as they lack the power to manifest that discrimination through institutions or on a structural scale. This type of nationalism often manifests as a resistance to colonial and imperial forces. In those cases the nationalism is not being the of an ideological superiority or innate belief in the dominance of one nation over another, but rather a resistance to such.
Therefore nationalism and racism only become the same when said nation propogates their dominance and superiority over others while simultaneously systemically oppressing other nations or supporting existing structural oppression and prejudice.

https://www.dismantlingracism.org/racism-defined.html

That's the woke idea of racism . It's not useful for anything but justifying woke racism .
Racism is a universal principle . Once you start adding caveats it becomes a self defeating philosophy . Racism under the new woke definition is itself racist .

As soon as you use the word "woke"

your entire comment gets disregarded as clearly you are just another wanker who calls everything they don't like woke.

They're called 'Woke ' ironically because they're actually asleep . It's the name we've given to all the violent bigots on the left who haven't done any research into the causes they champion .
You'll often hear them mindlessly chanting the opposite of truth . Free speech is undemocratic . Israel are committing genocide rather than defending against one , Women can be men , Jews are Nazis , UK patriots are Nazis . Everyones a Nazi apart from the actual Nazis in Ukraine or the Islamo Nazis who have the same genocidal goals . It goes on and on .
'Woke ' is the name given to the lefty movement that is so ignorant and twisted that it's almost satanic .
These people are useful idiots for the Globalists . They can never defend their stance , so they always refuse to debate and often turn violent when challenged .

i don't celebrate anyone's murder, and this escalation of political violence is really concerning to me.

but - what is it that you're all mourning about charlie kirk? i'm sure he was a nice guy when he was in his pyjamas, but publicly he seemed like a toxic and intolerant person, wilfully spreading lies and misinformation and encouraging the dire political situation they have now in the US.

or am i missing something?

Totally agree with this, feel terrible for his family especially his children, no child should lose their father in such a horrific manner. However stirring conflict while being unashamedly bigoted and pushing a pro gun agenda is inevitably risky and incredibly irresponsible. There are consequences to endlessly stirring the pot for personal gain.

He also preached that he wouldn't allow his daughter an abortion even if she had been raped...

unfortunately not a niche opinion in magaland.

So does a woman have any rights over her own body?

you are right he was a POS

What lies and misinformation exactly?

a few examples . . . .

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/website-reviews/politifact/user-reviews/adult

The fact that it cites the news as sources for fact checking tells me all I need to know.

actually mostly it's referencing his own twitter feed.

Still, saying his opinions are wrong because the news says so is not very credible. Sure he's said some BS, like every other person on this planet.
If wanting to conserve sovereignty, freedom, secularism and family values is so wrong, who in their right mind wants to be right?
He died for what he believed in which is way more than anyone here will ever do, so get off your high horse with the finger pointing like he's not worthy of mourning because you disagree with him.
I'm more interested in the things he said during the last couple of days before his assassination, like during his interview with Ben Shapiro, and him now conveniently taking over his non-profit organisation.

How was he protecting secularism when he preached there should be no seperation between church and state?

"There is no separation of church and state, it’s a fabrication. It’s a fiction. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists." In his own words. Not very secular.

"In a 2018 interview with the Rubin Report, he argued that politics should be advanced through a secular worldview and there should be a separation of church and state. He said the imposition of a Christian version of morality through government policy, was wrong"

Yes but he revised that viewpoint. That is why he made the comment I quoted in 2022 on his own podcast.

I wasn't aware he changed his mind on that subject, my apologies.
However, without delving too far into conspiracy theories, it seems many funders of TPUSA appear to support forms of political and legal work that weaken or reinterpret traditional notions of strict church-state separation, especially where they believe certain Christian values should inform public policy, or where religious institutions should receive public support.
Even so, I fail to see how he's said anything to warrant getting shot in the neck in front of his family as well as many others.
It's disgusting how so many here are keen to piss on his memory for disagreeing with him. I thought we were better than this, but apparently not.

actually i think i was pretty clear from the outset that i was never going to celebrate someone getting murdered. and i never said he had it coming.

i just didn't understand why he seemed to be held up as some kind of hero, when he seemed to be a person that was invested in societal division. that seemed to be a strange kind of hero to me.

and, as i already said, much of what is reported came straight from his own twitter feed. not sure why that's contentious to then be relaying here.

i actually think the LB community is, in general, a place of great compassion. some of us are perhaps a little more wary than others of celebrating the life of someone who seemed to be invested in creating division and amplifying hatred.

anyhoo, i'm not here to get into a pointless argument. ciao for now :-)

Didn't know we were arguing.
There's not a huge difference between celebrating someone's murder and jumping at the opportunity to voice your negative opinions and questioning people's justification to mourn a person in a thread about mourning said person. Maybe people's wishes for society differ from your own and he gave a voice to many such opinions, good and bad? There's a time and a place, and you had to butt in here to spew negativity as if it adds good to the world. You're coming off as self-righteous and intolerant - exactly how you portray what you're criticising. It's obviously contentious to relay that in a thread titled RIP Charlie Kirk, and I think you understand that perfect well.
He did many heroic things, especially the one that got him killed - wether he's a hero or not though is entirely subjective, so serve little purpose in this discussion.
I couldn't care less about the left/right drama, I just want peace, quiet and prosperity for all. He gave everyone who wanted to speak a platform to do that, that is heroic, especially when mass media is doing the exact opposite. He had some controversial opinions sure, but that doesn’t mean he's not worthy of mourning. In addition, this is an attack on free speech, not just Charlie Kirk - and in a sense he was martyred for us all to remember the thin thread we're walking in today's society, for we may all get shot in the neck for simply speaking, metaphorically as well.
If you're not up for debate then why reply at all?

aahhh of course, now the personal attacks begin.

this is why there's no point in continuing this convo. that's not a debate, that's you trying to demean me.

i never said i wasn't up for debate, i said i wasn't up for argument. your tone was aggressive from the start, and you've shown yourself now as someone who actually just wants to squash me, rather than debate.

my initial question about whether i was missing something wasn't disingenous, it was an honest one. but so far no-one has offered anything other than - oh he was actually really great, or, the news sources i'm reading are wrong (seemingly compared to the other ones that must be entirely correct).

'debating' people doesn't give you carte blanche to be rude. it just makes you rude, and your language becomes weaponised. that doesn't sound like someone who wants peace for all (unless that doesn't include me).

if you want a debate, then keep it civil.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. If you find it demeaning then don't throw stones in a glass house? You're pissing on someone's grave while being too sensitive to be criticised for it?
I've informed you of what you were missing, but you're being dismissing because you can't deal with being wrong.
He died defending freedom, is that not heroism to you? It's the objective definition of the word. Facts are facts - your feelings are not. You can't claim to want debate and to be exempt from criticism at the same time, what is this?
And yes, I want peace for you, as well as all the other people I disagree with.
I will never give you anything but words, and if you don't want them, don't engage.

it's amazing how often people here refer to 'facts', as if that somehow ends every debate. it's only your opinion that he died defending freedom. he died, that's the only fact here that can't be debated or considered.

I've asked an honest question about why he's so highly thought of here, and so far no-one has been able to say why.