Dinh AaronMk

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dinh AaronMk
Balto-Slavs. Poles are largely Ruthenians not to mention, whilst Lithuanians have genetic similarity to Ruthenians. Slavs also are not really a race, at most a "sub-race" but really Slavic is more of a language group than an ethnic one.

@Andreyich

So then, why say Poles have a home only in Poland when they are brothers to Russians as you seem to be saying now? And the genetic similarity between the Balts and the Slavs is a relatively weak excuse, by this notion the Russians are also Swedish through the Varangians, and if the Russians are Swedish that means they are Germanic, and if they are Germanic they share inter-relations with the French and the English and by this point - save for the Italians and the Greeks - the entirety of Europe and on into Asia is one giant super-country united in party by genetic inter-relation with one another, and this ignores the entire linguistic and cultural differences arisen in this regions through the thousands of years of European development; they may share the same genotypes, but they all speak different languages, wear different clothes, worshiped different gods, fought different enemies, and so on.

If we really are going to hang around and pound on about genetic differences, then we might as throw our hands up in the air and admit barely a percent at best determines the wide-ranging differences in anatomy and all humanity is one race, so let's just give up and become one nation with the whole world as home.

So that leaves the second great spook: culture. Which is what you said:

They aren't Belarusians, their ancestors didn't fight the Marxists or Nazis, their ancestors were not part of Szlachta or Hristyanstvo, they do not look like me and my kinsmen, they do not act like me and my kinsmen and they are not Belarusians, never will be and that's really that. They have their own countries but to mine they can only come as a tourist. People in Poland and Balkans understand this; visit, but you shall never properly assimilate so don't try.

Arguing genes is irrelevant. We're all the same base human with some cosmetic changes along the way.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dinh AaronMk
REEEEE RUTHENIANS WERE ALSO WINGED HUSSARS

@Andreyich

But tell me, how does a nation mostly constituted of Poles and Lithuanians fit within the narrative of "every race has its own nation" as you exposed before. Now, I can see Belorussia to Russia, Ukraine, or Poland since they're all East Slavs so by some extension all of one race. But Lithuanians are not slav, they are Balts. They are like Estonians.

So by the philosophy you have so discussed earlier, the notion of joining in commonwealth with non-members of your race (the slavs) to form a nation not entirely your own is contradictory.

By this, you should quietly slip back through the backdoor of Russia and apologize for leaving while Yeltsin was home.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dinh AaronMk
being winged hussars and all again.

@Andreyich

Son.

I don't know how to tell you this...

But those are Poles.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Someday Balt Lithuanians will reconstitute Belorussia as a province in #TheGrandestOfDuchies

Stellvia Reboot - a freeform Sci-Fi/Near-future NRP

I'm going to be posting when I'm either not a wheezing mess or I'm not busy.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>

Okay, so here is the problem with "Racialism." And the inherent problem with racism to boot.

You find a genetic difference that says blacks have a five point lower IQ range than whites. Okay, that's interesting. But that doesn't meant that therefore all black people are stupider than all white people. Saying that this five point difference makes the entirety of one race inferior and the entirety of the other race superior is saying that statistics is first past the post, which is fucking bizarre. A five point difference, or even a ten point difference, means the IQs overlap, and there a shit-loads of high IQ black people and low IQ white people.

If you want to get all eugenic, race doesn't seem to be a good technical basis because it's following these secondary characteristics. If you want to get rid of stupid people, don't trace it to race, just get rid of stupid people point blank. That's evil too, but fuck it, if you are going to be evil, at least be evil with some precision.

Of course, no White Supremacist is going to make this step because, as Sleeping Silence said above (Woo! We're all on the same side this time!), racists are often fairly stupid and it's pretty damn likely that a purge of the stupids would tear through their ranks.

It is notable too that race is something of an arbitrary definition. I always loved the story about how, in the 1890's after the Battle of Adwa the NAACP fell in love with the fact that the Emperor of Ethiopia had defeated a European army, so they went to visit him. They asked him his opinions about the struggle of blacks in America and he was all like, "I appreciate you coming, but I don't know why you are asking me, because I'm not black." The guy, mind you, looked like this. It made sense in his mind because to him, black people were the darker skinned people south of Ethiopia, and he was part of another race entirely. Shit, if anybody here has ever dated a black girl, the light-skin dark-skin thing division exists to some extent in America too, because lord knows you'll hear about it.

This isn't to say that race doesn't exist at all, but it runs together a lot since in evolutionary time we aren't that far removed from the other races. We can draw circles around places that are divided from each other, but what that actually tells is pretty limited.

@Vilageidiotx

To sort of add to, expand on, or whatever to Vilage's point: material conditions may have more an impact on the individual than anything. The environment on an individual plays a considerably impact on one's development and less so the fact their ancestors came from the Niger Delta, New Zealand, or were Comanche. Human behavior and society adapts to the environmental and material conditions in which it is placed; it stands to reason an individual unremoved from an impoverished society where the total income the person is to receive can not fully match the cost of independent living that the individual will of course may turn to non-violent crime like drug sales to make ends meet. But that can be a whole other issue.

On an interesting note, typing this out reminds me of the time Ironicus decides to start reading from American Apartheid during the middle of a semi-relevant LP, and I am compelled to link it, despite earlier bitching.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dinh AaronMk People can be articulate on youtube. Just because it's online doesn't mean its any less valid than intellectuals going to a speech. It helps to actually listen to people and it's easier than books. (though I showed a piece of that too...)

Like really all of the people telling me "i can't watch a good point" because it's totally bad, because video, and I said so. Just doesn't hold much weight. The sixth swing state thing (or five) doesn't really have much to do with anything. But showing voting probability. Don't know what's that trying to say really...

I reason I say it, is because it's often used as an argument and the whole "i want meaningless pandering" and just how messed up that sentiment actually is...and how it's legit screwed people from doing anything about the real issues they might have.

@SleepingSilence

>Conflating historical analysis of political trends across all states and regions with present-day swing state tactics.

You see, this is why your pundents are wrong.

To further it, they're only beating the drum and like MDK's article willfully ignoring other points to favor their own narrative to maintain their belief that, "Anyone not the Republican party bloc is bad" so they get more like it and they get viewers, and they get money. It's a self-confirming attitude reinforcing political bias because YouTube makes it easy. People in these circles will only ever get people within those circles.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

I wish!

@Penny

Clearly you haven't been to Ann Arbor on May Day.

The town is lit up in bright red as we try to summon comrades of the past.

This year we summoned J. Posadas and we went with it and ayy lmao'd.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dinh AaronMk So they got better with pandering in ads. I suppose I agree that's a thing. xP

I don't mean to go in such divisive things. But since I know about it, I feel like I have to bring it up. Because it's important to me to note it.

Another video.

https://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2013/3/29/history-lesson/

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Debunking-the-Myth-GOP-and-Democrats-Switched-Positions-on-Race

Written by Francis Rice-"Contains things, for sensitive eyes to not read'

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. The Democratic Party is the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands. Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans. Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans. In his book, "Dreams From My Father," Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as "plantation politics."

The racist Democrats of the 1950's and 1960's that Republicans were fighting died Democrats. One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white. Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate."

Byrd, Hillary Clinton's "Mentor", was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter: "I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds."

Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond. However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment." Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats.

While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.

President Lyndon Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama's Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said: "These *******, they're getting uppity these days. That's a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we've got to do something about this. We've got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don't move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there'll be no way to stop them. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation and Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called "Southern Strategy." These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party.
The "Southern Strategy" that began in the 1970's was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007. As the co-architect of Nixon's "Southern Strategy", Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article posted on the Internet. Buchanan wrote that Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense. Nixon said he would leave it to the Democratic Party to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.

@SleepingSilence

All this conjecture validating party identity fails to account for what Vilage has invoked, in his posts: those trends where voting blocs can and do change. But I doubt in listening to people rant and rave on YouTube and who believe the DNC makes secret necromantic rituals to summon the ghost of Karl Marx or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon you would have heard of it.

We may be in a sixth swing. Or still in the New Deal Born Fifth.

It's kind of like saying Rome was a Republic when it was an Empire because Rome was a Republic before it was an Empire.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dinh AaronMk
I'm not absolutely stating that person's intentions, though I highly doubt someone could say that without some hedonistic angle to it, especially since he was often a liar, though I am with many of the other people that have said similar things that are completely glossed over. Just noting I already posted a video about this, but the parties didn't switch ideologies or sides. Maybe you just mean people can change their opinion and you're implying that's what he did. And I agree with that sentiment, but in this day of irrational political belief, you cannot change yourself or the evils of racism. (As I had already discussed once before.)

Also now suddenly people are actually siting sources for things while talking? Better late than never...

@SleepingSilence

No, parties can and do change. It's in the historical record that the Democratic part was - at least in the South - the party of slavery, where as the Republican Party was what would be today's civil rights party. But since Kennedy and the alienation of southern voters via the Civil Rights act the South switched to the Republican party and picked up the mannerisms and coarse of action of the old-party Democratic conservatives in the regions.

The whole dichotomy is easily visually expressed in comparative ads.

1860's Democrats:



1960's Democrats:



In the space of a century the party changed considerably in a north-lead re-alignment and in a matter of speaking became what the Republican Party under Lincoln and Grant.