Conversation looks relevant to my interests.

Claiming the US has enemies is while likely true on a certain level is also false on a different level as it is internationalists that rule, not nationalists.

The enemies of the US would be whatever nationalists exist--but then they wouldn't be enemies to the US per se but rather enemies of the international system with which the US is seen as the figurehead of. This too can be a false paradigm though.
Then of course there is the whole West vs non-West divide.
And of course what is the "United States"? Would its enemies by the enemies of the rulers or the enemies of the people? The first part of this post looks at it from the former perspective and from the latter perspective, its enemies can be seen as its rulers.
Regardless of any of that or whatever perspective that Shandrax is taking--which from his other posts is likely really nationalist-centric, it seems like he should be allowed to make claims about enemies.

Sign that guy up for a werewolf game. Reading souls undervalued asset.

Can other people see these "enemies?"
Are these "enemies" trying to dirty our genes?
Are these "enemies" trying to steal our "culture?"
What planet are these enemies from?

Do these "internationalists" wear little caps when they go to church?

I assume that both this post and yours will get deleted, but don't you have your own forum to make trouble in?
(And from the looks of things over there you're doing a good job of that)

Can delete this post too since it won't make sense without context, but it is interesting the idea that any sort of system where power resides outside of Nation-states is seen as anti-semetic, when the very same people railing against nationalism are the ones constantly attempting to smear people as anti-semites.

It doesn't seem like you should be able to have it both ways.

We'll have to wait until the actual plan is revealed to dig into the details but the idea that Trump would produce a racist immigration policy isn't outlandish

I can see how you would be confused by something so simple. People who don't like the idea of a world government use code words for Jews to scare people into thinking it's a bad idea. People are "railing against" nationalism because Nationalists also tend to be white supremacists who don't care for Jews either, even the white ones.

So we're actually calling you out for being a horrible person, not because you are pro-nationalism or anti-world government. It is in fact the same way both times.

It seems to me that you're making an unwarranted assumption about luckbox there.

That's the point of using dog whistles, so the whistler has deniability.

It seems if you aren't going to allow language that claims all this are that, you should also require a little more rigor with claims such as "our enemies are internationalists."

tbh I'm not really interested in discussing either the moderation or luckbox's theories of "internationalism", but I know him well enough to know that he's not trying to dogwhistle anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and he hasn't said anything which warrants your reaction in my view.

That's enough said I hope

There wasn't anything normative in my post but you seem to be under the impression that had i said world government = good, nationalism = bad then I would be OK.

But saying that nationalism does not exist the way that Shandrax seems to think it exists makes me an an anti-semite.
So ironically it seems to be you who holds anti-semitic ideas about how the world works while trying to call me out for it. Which is the exact sort of projection that is expected. Your theories of religion don't really interest me that much though and the fact that power resides at a different level than the heads of nation-states is hardly a controversial proposition.
I do need to point out though that no where did I say anything about world government and calling the ruling class internationalists does not imply that world government is a thing in the works or in the cards. Instead of just trying to constantly race-bait you should attempt to take the time to learn about what people actually think.

Kerowo also isn't an anti-semite

If Trump believes that (a) low education/skill immigrants are a fiscal burden to the country and (b) high education/skill immigrants are a fiscal benefit, and he also believes (c) our immigration policies should be designed to maximize our economic wellbeing—is implanting something like that a “racist immigration policy” even if he also knew (d) doing so would produce more white and less non-white immigrants than our current policies? I don’t think so. I would agree that it causes a sort of disparate impact at the world level, though.

This seems moot because according to trump (as recently as an hour ago) our country is full. Like, so full that any consideration of allowing more in is "Crazy!"

Is pardoning war criminals while engaging in propaganda about mass baby murders an odd coincidence?

That’s a lot of murderous implications for a merely innocent executive branch of government.

Well, that's that then.

That is correct. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

You are very seriously and obviously and culpably mistaken.

I thought he would just delete kerowo's attempts to smear me but since he didn't perhaps you would like to elaborate?
(Although judging by your post perhaps elaboration isn't your strength)

I'll try to elaborate myself again:
As best as I can tell Shandrax believes that the rulers of nations have the interests of their respective populations in mind when they make policy. I do not believe this and instead believe that the ruling classes of the various nations--through their shared ties to MNCs amongst other things--have far more in common with each other than they do with their populations.
To this end I believe that they work together and can rightfully be called internationalists--although perhaps that isn't the best term to use--they certainly should not be thought of as nationalists. I don't know what other term to use though. At various other points I have called them the pro-business class. The existence of this class, through their various meetings held annually such as Davos, Bilderberg, the G20, etc is beyond dispute.
If someone wants to think this has anything to do with religion they should argue their points.

Would you say these internationalists have a cosmopolitan bias?

Where would you like to go with whatever this line of questioning is?

Just curious to see how far you’ll go in embracing dogwhistles.

If you have to explain the whistle to me it won't get you very far though. In this case I have no idea what "cosmopolitan bias" is supposed to mean.

I mean I understand the words but cosmololitan bias as opposed to rural or parochial bias or non-worldly-bias? Like they favor city people over country-folk? Where is the whistling? Link?

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/...n-bias/535746/
Looks like I found it.