Declare A National Emergency

[Invisible Man]

There is. It's been done many, many, times before, throughout history, and it will be done again

Instead of conceivable, I should have said feasible.

 

[acptulsa]

I've found it's a lot easier

In a way, slavery is hard, but in another way slavery is easy. It's certainly easier to fall into it than to fight your way out of it.

 

[acptulsa]

Instead of conceivable, I should have said feasible.

No, you should have said acceptable. As in, I'm a man, not a big, fat Texas mouse, and I will not be chained without fighting like one.

 

[TheTexan]

In a way, slavery is hard, but in another way slavery is easy. It's certainly easier to fall into it than to fight your way out of it.

Pretty much everyone on this board except me, fails my own personal "purity test" on the subject of slavery.

Anyone who supports prisons for example, supports slavery.

(And if you say otherwise, you're redefining slavery!!)

 

[TheTexan]

Instead of conceivable, I should have said feasible.

As with most things that are historically significant, it's infeasible until it's not

 

[acptulsa]

Anyone who supports prisons for example, supports slavery.

So get out in the world, get on your soapbox, and preach about how both work release and the H1B system are slavery, getting multinationals labor at a discount.

But don't stop talking because some brown person is listening.

 

[TheTexan]

But don't stop talking because some brown person is listening.

I can assure you I will never stop talking

 

[69360]

 

[Okie RP fan]

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115206570863756188 (I guess TruthSocial posts don't work with the "media" tags?)


I think they should have a website to document what the "National Emergency" of the day is. Maybe the best they can do though, is to get the National Guard in the streets informing everyone.

Playing the imperial theme behind national guard soldiers...

This is why the left aren't real people. Everything is Disney and Marvel to them. EVERYTHING is seen through the lens of Star Wars, Disney, Marvel "good and evil." It's incredibly infantile.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Pretty much everyone on this board except me, fails my own personal "purity test" on the subject of slavery.

Anyone who supports prisons for example, supports slavery.

(And if you say otherwise, you're redefining slavery!!)

me: *raises hand*

I support the forced sequestration (such as imprisonment) of violent recidivist criminals (serial rapists/killers and the like). (IOW: caged slaves.)

So I definitely fail TheTexan's "purity test".

In fact, I'll go even further: I also support involuntary indenturement - i.e., literal enslavement (as most people understand the term) - of other criminals (including even violent non-recidivists) for purposes of restitution and making their victims whole. (IOW: uncaged slaves.)

 

[TheTexan]

me: *raises hand*

I support the forced sequestration (such as imprisonment) of violent recidivist criminals (serial rapists/killers and the like). (IOW: caged slaves.)

If a deterrent is needed for violent crime, besides defenestrative deportation, I'm not opposed to capital punishment.

Brand them with a mark, cut off a hand, or kill them, these are all fine in my book.

None of these things violate self determination / right of association.

Prison on the other hand is obviously designed to violate self determination. That's the whole point.

So I definitely fail TheTexan's "purity test".

In fact, I'll go even further: I also support involuntary indenturement - i.e., literal enslavement (as most people understand the term) - of other criminals (including even violent non-recidivists) for purposes of restitution and making their victims whole. (IOW: uncaged slaves.)

Definitely failing the purity test with this one yep.

Purity test is super failed considering that you support enslavement of non-violent criminals.

One of the many reasons that I'm against it, is that secessions are very rarely a clean break. There's usually a lot of shouting, throwing chairs in each other's direction, before separation. This typical strife does not justify violent crime against either party, but civil crimes are to be expected to some degree.

If people are allowed to enslave others for the breaking of non-violent crimes, it strongly encourages the enslavement of people who are attempting secession. And it would be "justified" because they were a "voluntary member of the organization" -- except they weren't still a voluntary member of the organization. They were trying to leave.

As for general restitution, I think people should be allowed to pursue restitution but I do not think they should be allowed to violate the freedom of association in doing so. The freedom of association is paramount and if it's not held in the highest regard, it will be abused, lost, and forgotten as it is now. Letting people enslave others for any reason is a slippery slope that must not be tolerated in the slightest.

To any extent this results in some people not able to recover civil damages because the perpetrator ran off into the sunset, well, maybe they should have thought about how they got into that situation to begin. They bear some responsibility to ensure they are insured against damages and take precautions not to enter into relationships with other people that they could not recover from should the other party cause damages.

 

[Anti Federalist]

defenestrative deportation

Throwing them out of high windows at the border wall?

 

[TheTexan]

Throwing them out of high windows at the border wall?

High or low either works fine

 

[jmdrake]

 

[Anti Federalist]

There is one demographic in this country that commits murder and mayhem at rates many times that of all other demographics.

There is a second demographic that encourages that murder and mayhem, that supports, funds and brings more of it into the country.

Separate from those demographics and you will have a nation at peace, with maximum liberty and with no need for authoritarian government measures.

Your choice.

Chad Crowley @CCrowley100

Forced integration leads to nothing but conflict, for mankind is not a uniform mass but an order of distinct peoples, each carrying inherited marks that give rise to their ways of life.

From the first dawn of history, every civilization has been the flowering of a particular stock, whose inner character shaped its law, its art, and its understanding of the world. To recognize this is not to indulge in the bizarre contemporary notion of “prejudice” but to accept the most evident truth of human existence. Men are bound by loyalty to their own kind, a bond that begins with blood and extends outward through family, community, and nation.

The modern order has sought to cast suspicion upon this instinct, as though to prefer one’s own were nothing more than hatred of another. Yet the father who cherishes his child above all others is not guilty of malice. The patriot who loves his homeland above foreign lands is not animated by spite. Preference does not imply enmity. It is the acknowledgment that love and loyalty are not distributed equally, that there is a natural order of attachments, and that to deny this order is to sever man from his very foundations.

Conflict arises not from separation but from enforced proximity. When distinct peoples remain apart, they may regard one another without rancor, sometimes even with curiosity or respect. But when they are compelled to live under the same government, to share the same territory, and to bear one another’s habits in the small details of daily life, tension becomes inevitable. What begins as irritation grows into resentment, and resentment hardens into hostility. Distance preserves peace; proximity breeds antagonism.

No society that has attempted to bind disparate peoples under one roof has long remained stable. Trust withers, solidarity dissolves, and each group retreats into its own defenses. The louder the official proclamations of harmony, the more bitter the quarrels that follow. Even men of gentle temperament find themselves transformed, for the instinct to survive presses them into partisanship whether they will it or not.

Separation, therefore, is not a summons to strife but the only foundation of peace. A people left to itself will still know conflict, yet it will not suffer the ceaseless antagonism that arises when incompatible ways of life are crowded together. Nations apart may still exchange goods, share in learning, and converse across distance, but they cannot inhabit the same civic body without decay.

The present order condemns loyalty to one’s own as if it were hatred, yet it does not abolish hatred; it only redirects it. The system openly cultivates contempt for those who resist its demands, particularly those who remain rooted in soil and memory. The hostility poured upon them proves that hatred is not banished, only disguised, and used against the very people who affirm the oldest and most natural bonds.

What follows is clear. To live apart is to preserve the possibility of peace. To force peoples into unwanted nearness is to invite discord without end. The man who wishes to remain whole must seek the company of his own, not from malice toward others, but from fidelity to himself. This truth cannot be erased by decree, for it is written into life itself.

 

[Invisible Man]

mankind is not a uniform mass but an order of distinct peoples, each carrying inherited marks that give rise to their ways of life.

And each one of these distinct peoples came about by a process of integration of groups that in times past were also distinct peoples from one another living in a world order totally different from the current one. And each one of those previous, and no longer existing, distinct peoples also came about by a process of integration of other even older groups of distinct peoples from an even more distant past, and this reaches back through many generations of people groups throughout the existence of the human race. Ethnicities and races are not travelling around on the earth bouncing off each other like billiard balls. They are always mixing, changing, and becoming new things. And it's foolish to think that now, at last after so many millennia, the human race has finally found its perfect order of distinct ethnic groups, and so that now we need to freeze and preserve this order somehow.

 

[TheTexan]

And each one of these distinct peoples came about by a process of integration of groups that in times past were also distinct peoples from one another living in a world order totally different from the current one. And each one of those previous, and no longer existing, distinct peoples also came about by a process of integration of other even older groups of distinct peoples from an even more distant past, and this reaches back through many generations of people groups throughout the existence of the human race. Ethnicities and races are not travelling around on the earth bouncing off each other like billiard balls. They are always mixing, changing, and becoming new things. And it's foolish to think that now, at last after so many millennia, the human race has finally found its perfect order of distinct ethnic groups, and so that now we need to freeze and preserve this order somehow.

It's also foolish to compare the slow integration of the past with the massive influx of the present.

It's quantitatively and qualitatively different.

 

[Invisible Man]

It's also foolish to compare the slow integration of the past with the massive influx of the present.

It's quantitatively and qualitatively different.

The integration we are currently undergoing will also be slow and take centuries. And there will be conflicts along the way, as there always have been. But it will happen. New identities will be formed by the descendants of the old groups mixing together. The old groups won't exist any more. And it won't be due to genocide, just like the Saxons don't exist today, and not because of genocide. Their descendants are all around us.

 

[TheTexan]

The integration we are currently undergoing will also be slow and take centuries. And there will be conflicts along the way, as there always have been. But it will happen. New identities will be formed by the descendants of the old groups mixing together. The old groups won't exist any more. And it won't be due to genocide, just like the Saxons don't exist today, and not because of genocide. Their descendants are all around us.

Another way to say the same thing is that there are going to be winners and losers. ('the old groups").

Forgive me, if I don't want to become a living participant of the cultural eradication of my own "old group".

I would also point out that it's foolish to think genocide won't be part of this process. It often is.

 

[Invisible Man]

Another way to say the same thing is that there are going to be winners and losers. ('the old groups").

Forgive me, if I don't want to become a living participant of the cultural eradication of my own "old group".

I would also point out that it's foolish to think genocide won't be part of this process. It often is.

My considering myself something other than a Celt doesn't constitute a loss for my Celtic ancestors. They won by having descendants of theirs like me go on to be Americans and other things. They won even more by having me and others of their descendants become Christians, which is something far better than what they were, if we go back far enough. Similarly, I, by voluntarily having kids with a wife of a different ethnicity, am not losing anything. I am winning just as much as I would be if I had chosen to preserve my ethnicity by marrying inside it.

On your last point, I'm glad to see that you recognize a difference between this process and genocide. Far too many white nationalists cannot grasp that.