You keep using the word "superior" when describing colonialism when instead you know you should say something like "more advanced". This is quite deliberate because you're staying just within the margin of racial superiority.

Do you really want to play the game of going back in time to before the 40's, and finding all the great men who were also racist or slavers? Because my sense is we'll waste a day discovering the answer is: nearly all of them



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/o...aristotle.html

Should We Cancel Aristotle?
He defended slavery and opposed the notion of human equality. But he is not our enemy.


This mad game you guys want to do revisiting the old world with 2024 leftists ideas is kind of peverse tbh. At a minimum, it's stupid.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but I think the actual argument is some "races" have come up with better ideas than others. For example, western liberalism is superior to Marxism or Islamism. And the progressive lens not only obfuscates this, but inverts reality by supporting bad ideas over good ones, using revisionist history and racial equity logic.

And while the left is busy moralizing about how immoral liberalism is; horrible leftist ideologies are actively destroying the world, which in a sane world would be much worse.

I would take the other side of that bet if we get to say....2050. Starting with a Trump win this year, I'd feel that much more confident.

The puzzling take is the left holding all of us to the impossible standards, WHILE denying the total absence of them in the places they so support. THEN trying to make that whole puzzle fit together when the behavior arrives here. It's definitely a juggling act.

We're slogging our way through workplace micro-aggressions. Afghanistan is working on women being actually allowed at school or work. I actually can't blame the Taliban for wanting no part of the West. They see where it leads, lol.

Marxism as a memeplex originated literally in the same place as what we tend to call western liberalism currently.

I'm not revising anything. My country was definitely most certainly colonised.
My issue is that you seem to think I have zero justification having an unsavoury view on Churchill. I've plenty of justification. I can understand aspects of his actions which makes you admire him. But you don't get to tell me that my and lots of other Irish people's viewpoint is akin to 9/11 truther conspiracies while your view is entirely justified with no caveats at all. You do not get to dismiss my people's plight as 9/11 tinfoil hattery. That's simply extraordinary arrogance on your part. If you can be so dismissive of the grievances and suffering of others, then why should anyone take you seriously if you highlight Israeli or Jewish suffering?
To clarify I think you're right to highlight Jewish and Israeli suffering. But the point remains.

The endgame those people have in mind in always the same since mid 800: to immantentize the socialist eschaton.

Which requires a complete upheaval of all tradition, all culture, and a profound denial of fundamental human biology.

They tried many times, costing the world hundreds of millions of lives and billions of man-years spent in misery, but it wasnt true socialism so they have to try again.

Denying the basis of western thought and vilifying western history is necessary for them as they (correctly) see capitalism as the outcome of all that history

I don't like Churchill for contextual reasons as my country suffered under his actions. I never mentioned socialism. Do you see now how you're on the opposite end of the spectrum, every bit an ideologue as the far leftists you despise?

I didnt have you in mind, rather the people discussing "canceling" aristotle

Lucio's really going to flip his **** if he ever discovers what the eugenics crowd thought about Italians.

You don't think there are still effects of the Celts coming to Ireland?

Look if you wanted Swastika flags hanging all over Irish cities, I'm not going to begrudge you.

I'm learning more about that now actually

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/b...tory-1.3076579

Ireland and the Nazis: a troubled history

I dunno. I think it will be commonly recognsied that the capitalist era as we knew it has been succeeded by the automation era

Ya I dunno. The IRA was pro-Nazi. Today Ireland is one of the most pro Hamas countries outside the middle east. Maybe the reality is that's a good model for them? I can't say, I'm not the Ireland expert. I'm the "grateful to the guys who saved the world" expert, I guess.

I live in a country that did send people to beat Hitler. I grew up living beside veterans of D-day (on both sides of my house), just absolute beauties, all of them. Ireland wanted to let the world burn. I'm ok with it. But don't begrudge one of the guys that saved it while you sat on your hands neutral. That's weaksauce, to me.

Btw the 42k Irish who volunteered to fight? All beauties to me. Their families drink free when I'm at the bar.

We already automatized a great deal in agriculture and manufacturing and we keep automatizing some in services (with a wide range of different opportunities depending on the specific service), what makes you think capitalism would cease with even more automation? You envision a world without many jobs? Even in a world where most people are unoccupied you can still have capitalism

Automation has been around for a long time. IT for instance is about automation essentially. It's still been a capitalist era.

Capitalism is fundamentally founded on the basis that the masses can add value by working.

The automation era is rising as that is ending. Automating jobs as we have known is not comparable to automating human abilities - that's game over for capitaism as we have known it. The idea it will create new jobs like 'it dun in the past' is nonsense because it's abilities not jobs being automated.

There's a lot of denialism but the only real dispute is over whether it will be called the 'automation era' or somethign else.

Imagine a very rich country where citizens get a check by the state (+ they own a lot of assets privately and get a rent from them) and buy their goods and services mostly from private companies in competition between them, and the profit of those companies stay in private hands.

Think of Qatar right now, imagine substituting all the cheap imported labor with robots, citizens mostly don't work anyway even now.

How would that not be capitalism anyway if the robots are privately owned?

Citizens have money to allocate as consumers, private capital competes to get a share of that money and make profit on it

Show me where cv has said anything pro-Nazi. You ought to take that back.

Aside from the Qatar example, just think of pensioners who exited the labor force.

They are full participants in the capitalist economy even if their contribution to value added is 0.

What makes them participants is their capacity as consumers , provided by their monthly check + whatever extra assets they might have.

And they are a growing percentage of the population in every developed country.

I have never heard people saying that having too many pensioners would be the end of capitalism.

I'm saying the neutral country that had very little issue with Hitler winning the war, probably was ok with a world where that flag hung in their streets. That's typically why you'd be neutral. So if that's why one would hate WC, I get it. It's consistent with the country's history. At very best, Ireland was very very chill with the Nazis.

Not the 42k beauties who fought. As discussed, legends every one. Reminds me of those who volunteered to go to Ukraine. I can't imagine the balls it takes.

Is this snipper from wiki completely false? Looks like the IRA in 1941 was actually allied with the Nazis.

Serious question as this is something I had no knowledge of previously

a new sort of feudal system with overlords and almost no-one working is definitely a possibility. That's not going to be capitalism as we have known it.

I think it will quickly tend to authoratarianism unless the people own these companies (which is my preferred option)

A) The IRA was a proscribed paramilitary group who didn't represent the Irish government.
B) The IRA had Jewish members
C)Former IRA members trained Ze'ev Jabotinsky and the Irgun in guerilla warfare tactics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...oe_(politician)

D) You're clueless on history.

Also nobody at that time knew about the Holocaust and the IRA operated under the enemy of my enemy is my friend policy.
Kinda like Israel did when they helped Nazi war criminal and mass butcher Walter Rauff, post Holocaust (as in less than five goddamn years after the Holocaust,) as he was spying for them on Syria. So by that rationale, Israel must be pro Nazi...
https://www.haaretz.com/2007-03-29/t...f-e6f7ee420000
https://www.haaretz.com/magazine/202...e-773a75190000

...right? Or is that different because reasons?

You have no sense of context.

And as for this bollocks:
Now I'm a pro nazi as I've legit issues with Churchill? Piss off with that $hite. Wasn't my government who employed mass murdering nazis as spies.