Gotchu lefties. Pwned.
I don't even understand what the argument is supposed to be on the face. Like what do you mean it has a "right to exist"? Can I just go ahead and invent a country and then take over half of Texas, because my country "has a right to exist"?
Thank you, it's an utterly meaningless concept used only to impose violence on others and claim it's magically a moral thing.
People have rights, abstract concepts like countries do (or at least should) not.
I wish I was as cool as an anarchist, I'm all for a central authority.
That central authority will have territorial claims, and have to defend its existence.
It might seem a pedantic difference, but that does not entail that that central authority has rights, or at least not an unconditional right to exist. One could say a group of people have a right to organize in such a way that there is a central authority IF they do not break some set of rules, like that group of people must have a morally sound claim to the territory they're going to administer, they must not use that authority to harm others without justification, so on and so forth. The 'rights' of the authority are entirely dependent on the rights of the people organizing and using it. Simply stating "Israel has a right to exist" is begging the question in a technical sense. It's refusing to engage with the qualifications necessary to morally justify authority and simply stating that that authority is legitimate without justification.
Precisely, thank you. The people who form said country and authority have rights, the concept of the country does not. It may be a bit of a pedantic differentiation on thinking about it, but I think it's important to come to the conclusion that you can justifiedly destroy the concept of a country without infringing on the rights of (and without (fundamentally) needing to harm) effectively 'innocent' people in said country.
Then the argument is usually "no, your country doesn't exist, you just made it up", same thing they use for Palestine. But you can bring up that Israel didn't exist until people decided it did and made it up. Then they'll talk about it being recognized. You can bring up numerous countries that are recognized by some, not others, and eventually the argument becomes "No, it only counts when I, the liberal currently speaking, decide that it counts as a country with a right to exist".
It's an eternal question really isn't it. Hundreds of situations, each unique: Abkhazia, East Turkestan, Kurdistan, Cornwall, Biafra.....
https://hexbear.net/comment/4255525
Ultimately it all comes down to what can be negotiated. It takes power to claim rights.
Nothing its just pure idealism. Half of the countries in europe were invented by feudal lords and are just offshots of larger ethnic groups. Its even worse because european jews claim an unbroken line with ALL of the population of roman judea (not everyone was expelled or jewish in the first place) from 2000 years ago, thats just not the reality, they werent just having a temporary hotel stay in europe and then came back and decided to kick out the squaters.
Can I just go ahead and invent a country and then take over half of Texas, because my country "has a right to exist"?
yes and you should do this
edit: but not stop at half you fucking coward
Okay okay I'm doing it!
Okay. Ahem. I declare the state of HEXLAND
It's weird remains of divine right ideology baked but not explained in the very core of liberalism. Scratched even minimally it is revealed to be just base and original function of emerging state, that is usage of military power.
It sure is funny that the nation famously founded on the belief that governments only have legitimacy by the consent of the governed is loudly arguing that states have an inherent and evidently extracorporeal right to exist.
Gotta read between the lines with that shit. What they meant was government derives its legitimacy by the consent of the slaveholder oligarchy. Easy mistake to make
Oh I know. Ironic detachment is how I deal with the white-hot rage I have inside me.
Typical nonsense from the looney left. If you followed that logic to its end, no racist etnostate would have the right to exist. Preposterous!
no
racist ethnostate would have the right to exist.The internationale will unite the human race
For myself I would have to argue that at least for us, Australia and....maybe a few others that aren't currently coming to me right now, at least we gave the indigenous population citizenship and full equal rights (theoretically); some random redneck moron for example can't just waltz up to a native American and murder them and then take their house/demolish their house; if they tried that then the next day at least a whole bunch of leftists will burn that person's home to the ground with them in it.
Obviously a monstrous amount of evil has been done to the indigenous population and frankly nothing short of
will ever make up for it (and I'm talking about evil not only prior to them getting citizenship, but also after it), but at least today the mass slaughter and expulsions are over, and they've been over for an extremely long time.Should white people pack up and go back to Europe? Ideally yes, but nothing short of an unprecedented, powerful new colonizing force (or unprecedented decolonizing force) is going to be able to pull that off; the native American nations have been given the short end of the stick absolutely; I won't pretend we've been fair to native Americans at all, but Gazans (and Palestinians in general) are still treated as this terrifying uncompromising force by Isn'traelis (which is ironic because Palestinians have been leagues more prepared to compromise given a ridiculously unfair situation than Isn'traelis ever were). I've read what Isn'traelis think, and I've seen how they're portrayed by some of their politicians (who by the way were former terrorists) like pirate captain Moshe Dayan who keep promising the zionist population that the people in places like Gaza are always waiting for an opportune moment to strike and kill them all. Isn'traelis also justify the killing of children by reasoning that once they're older they'll just be terrorists, which also makes me wonder if perhaps they view the entire adult population as terrorists.
Ridiculously the easiest solution to Isn'trael that I wholeheartedly believe even the Arab world would've accepted (I don't mean the governments, I mean the people) is that had the Palestinian population been granted full citizenship and equal rights (no matter how theoretically), they may have started with a grudging acceptance of Israel and then finally a full acceptance. History is full of muslim nations and christian nations invading one another without slaughtering the entire population of the nations they invaded, and I'm assuming they came to some middle ground after a time. I'm reminded of a bizarre story of a muslim area that was invaded by the crusaders (at least the Frankish) where the Frank in the story was on a first name basis with the shop owner (the bizarreness was in another aspect of the story and I'm not mentioning it unless people really want to know; it's really genuinely bizarre).
Of course Israel was born during a time of extremely violent nationalism and seems to have been frozen in time; adverts from South Africa prior to the end of apartheid also looked just as grim.
We haven't been good to the native American population (and it's impossible to be; we're colonizers, by the very nature of colonization it's impossible to be kind to your victims; kindness would have us leaving America back to Europe and engaging in reparations we could never hope to complete), and the least we've done still isn't good enough, but if the least we did for the native Americans was granted to the Palestinian people, every person involved in it would be getting a Nobel peace prize.
Can't speak to Australia but here in
the indigenous people only have "equal rights" (in reality they don't as they are still victims of genocide) because after multiple centuries of genocide they still persisted, and their militancy demanded full rights. They in no way had equal rights for the entirety of the colonial project, they couldn't even vote until the 60s, hundreds of years after the genocide began. I don't think this is anything worth bragging about, we are just at a later stage of the genocidal project than 
Yeah, seriously. I read
some random redneck moron for example can't just waltz up to a native American and murder them and then take their house/demolish their house;
and let out a pained chuckle because I'm pretty sure shit like that or close to it happens all the time. There's an initiative in Kkkanada calling for greater investigation and actually giving a shit about missing & murdered indigenous women. There was a thing a few years ago about the RCMP killing dogs in indigenous communities.
Death to this pathetic fucking failstate btw. Australia is just as bad afaik.
Sending whites back to europe also is a complicated process, will the millions of oh my "grandpa is irish but my mother's side family is swedish and german" americans go to Sweden, Ireland or Germany. Can you really shove 40 million americans into ireland, with no space left for them? no connection to the cultures and languages spoken there. The countries would be mini united states in no time, the population that did not become settlers essentially marginalized. Especially with a former colonized country like Ireland, why should they suffer the rulings of another country, when it wasnt a irish government that ordered the settlement of the americas.
The idea of large scale relocation of white populations from the americas into europe (especially from the big settler states) is pure ideology, it is way too late.
God, I have so many messy thoughts on this topic as the European-born child of a US-born immigrant, and I've channeled many of my thoughts into my future fiction project, but it's like........ Why do you think if there was a large-scale flight of Usonians to Europe, that these countries would "in no time" become a "mini USA"? Like really, why do you believe this? Do not take it for granted that this would happen, but actually stop and think about the systems already in place in these countries, and the rational interests of the European bourgeoisie vis-à-vis the Usonian bourgeoisie vis-à-vis the proletariat.
In short, what I would say is that if you don't fear millions of migrants and refugees from Muslim-majority countries leading to an "Islamization" of Europe, you should also not fear millions of migrants and refugees from the USA leading to an "Americanization" of Europe in a future hypothetical where this happens. The present-day Americanization of Europe without scare quotes is a very different beast indeed.
Edit: I mean, I don't want to argue that it is not pure ideology to say "all the whites need to go back to where their great-great-grandparents came from" in any settler-colony, especially one so thorough and enormous as the USA, or that it would not be an absolute world-altering catastrophe of epic proportions if hundreds of millions of people were forced to all at once move to a different part of the world where they have no ties. I'm just saying that this "mini USA" idea of yours rings to me of xenophobic brainworms masked by a more righteous disgust to Usonians. Also, it is my own personal belief that regardless of the revolutionary government's actions to the settlers, there will be a large-scale displacement of settlers before, during, and in the period immediately following decolonization, not necessarily to countries they have an ancestor from, and definitely not a total displacement of all settlers.
Well shoving 40 million americans into ireland would make it essentially a mini usa, or are they not allowed to get voting rights because that would kinda bigoted, would it not? Because I doubt too many of them would become based communists after they get kicked out of their homes (no matter how justified that action might be).
Unlike Muslims who arent a monolith, dont come from a single country, are not riled up white supremacists now displaced, wont be in double digit millions. To believe 40 million displaced angry american refugees won't change ireland on a fundamential level is certainly a take. Even worse in many other european countries where it will just bolster white supremacy ("see the west is under attack now" and all that). Maybe the word choice of "mini-usa" rings of chud language, but it would be true, similarly if said oh lets send 70 million germans to bolivia, then it would be logical to assume that they would create a "mini germany" there, would it not? Such an massive amount of people can not be given adequate homes, welfare, jobs, public housing/schooling/transportation in a humane enough time.Depending on the scale and the areas where . Given that in countries like the united states you cant not have an revolution without the euro-american population (its simply is too large), Canada, Australia or the US will never be Algeria, Rhodesia or Haiti, the issue how to deal with that is something that the local communists need to find a satisfying conclusion to, an conclusion will not lead to them to face millions of armed militants waging warfare against a central government trying to relocate them.
Europe has 700 million people (1/2x China) and 20% more moist land as China, (200% or 2x more if you include Greenland and Russia-west-of-Ural)
- and is becoming warmer (more farmable), and
- already has consistent rain throughout fall spring and winter instead of just summer monsoon,
- 30F temps warmer winter instead of -8F temps in winter, Northern Russia is warmer than Dongbei
- 70F (rising to 80F) temps cooler summer instead of 90F (rising to 105F) temps
- has higher soil quality/organic deposits
- no earthquakes
- no typhoons
- no monsoons
- no hurricanes
- no volcanoes (save italy)
- no tornadoes
It can't just fit all white Americans, it can fit that plus 400 million to potentially 1 billion more
and I didn't even count Siberia or Australia etc in this calculationI have written a longer reply but I will share it in a separate thread. For now I wish to say that I am disappointed by this exchange, and that the fault of this is on us both.
There are ways to dismantle settler colonial states without forcing all the settlers to move back. It’s about the state apparatus not the people
...the Frank in the story was on a first name basis with the shop owner (the bizarreness was in another aspect of the story and I'm not mentioning it unless people really want to know; it's really genuinely bizarre)...
I suppose you could say the situation was very ... bazaar.
- Akchually if you're using Latin grammar, the plural of apparatus is also apparatus (apparatūs). 4th declension is just goofy like that.
The -a plural is for nouns that end in -um. Like medium/media.
It's all good just remember: Latin is nerd shit for nerds and it literally doesn't matter.
