Love bridges Dutch racial divide

[Susano]

"Oh noes, teh Darkies are taking away our womenz!!!111"

Really, people, get real. What they do is none but their own business. That is so regardless of circumstances.
However: Nobody is taking The racial makeup of the Netherlands may change, but the Dutch nation will remain regardless, and that is important.

[Menydh]

Susano, you are not likely to see much histerical alarms like that of "they are stealing our women!" over here. At least not to the point of the irrational. That is left for other forums.

However, how can you support the view that if the racial makeup of The Netherlands changes, the nation will still survive? The state, maybe. But nation is about ethnic composition, which in turn it depends on the racial element.

You will have a new Brazil or a new Colombia, perhaps a new Morocco or a new Algeria. But not The Netherlands anymore. What makes a nation is achieved through long centuries and even millenia of ethnic homogeneity.

If it is a new Maghreb or a new Brazil what you want, then you might as well move there and let those who want to preserve their own people and their own society to do it. Wouldn't you agree?

[Breydel]

Originally Posted by Susano

Really, people, get real. What they do is none but their own business. That is so regardless of circumstances.

if it would be true politics as notion would be absolutely unimportant and even more so unnecessary. a folk/people is family on a global level, decision by judgment considered unfavorable will and can be regarded as unwanted

[Strengthandhonour]

Susano you miss a very important point. Many of this "darkies" you speak of are muslims, so how can the Netherlands be the Netherlands if it turns into a Islamic nation?Obviously it is their business, but it becomes a problem when people start demanding rights,benefits,special status,etc. When they expect the citizens of the nation to adopt their foreign traditions.

[Susano]

But do they do that? I mean, not on the fringe, but on the large scale? The sensationalist media does highlight the fringe, of course, but I do not think the largest part of the muslim community in the Netherlands would want to "subvert", so to say, the Netherlands. Of course, what they do have a right to is equal treatment of their religion (to Christianity or whatever) etc. - that is a requirement of democracy.

if it would be true politics as notion would be absolutely unimportant and even more so unnecessary.

So politics is just there to dictate people? Oy vey... the less dictat there is, the better. If that makes politics uncessary - even better. Politics is just a necessary evil, after all.

You will have a new Brazil or a new Colombia, perhaps a new Morocco or a new Algeria. But not The Netherlands anymore. What makes a nation is achieved through long centuries and even millenia of ethnic homogeneity.

What makes a nation is, not suprisingly, nationality. Which is archieved by self-identfication and culture.

[Breydel]

Originally Posted by Susano

So politics is just there to dictate people? Oy vey... the less dictat there is, the better. If that makes politics uncessary - even better. Politics is just a necessary evil, after all.

i suspected you to say that, politics is an extension from the will of a people, if there wouldn't be dictated there wouldn't be society nor simply a "living together group", society is about interests and goals, that's what bind people in the first place, reaching a certain goal indicates rules and obeying

[Susano]

The basi crights of the individual trumps the will of the group. There ar esimply certain affairs which are not at all the business of the group. That does not somehow abolish society, buteven if so, then so be it!

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Susano

But do they do that? I mean, not on the fringe, but on the large scale? The sensationalist media does highlight the fringe, of course, but I do not think the largest part of the muslim community in the Netherlands would want to "subvert", so to say, the Netherlands. Of course, what they do have a right to is equal treatment of their religion (to Christianity or whatever) etc. - that is a requirement of democracy.

Subvert is not the right word here. Subdue is more exact and yet fails to define it in full.

I won't speak for The Netherlandas but, in general, for any country of the Christendom, Islam is an element strange to the native culture and an element of conflict.

This is so obvious that only being blind or a Muslim liar can anyone deny it. Blind here does not refer to physical blindness but to blind fanaticism. One such is the blind fanatic believe that democracy is above humanity, or multiculturalism above the preservation of peoples. With a Muslim it is easier to see why he must live in self-denial.

So politics is just there to dictate people? Oy vey... the less dictat there is, the better. If that makes politics uncessary - even better. Politics is just a necessary evil, after all.

Let us not divagate with terms and their possible parallel meanings, shall we?

Simply and generally speaking, politics are the realisation (through will, as Waarnemer says well) of ideologies. Or they should be. Ideologies are the theoretisation of human thoughts and ideals.

What makes a nation is, not suprisingly, nationality. Which is archieved by self-identfication and culture.

That is wrong. You are vaguely defining state and not nation, and citizenship and not nationality.

A nation is made up of a homogeneous ethnnic group or of a [limited] number of ethnic groups which share a sufficient degree of homogeneity for ethnic harmony to be.

Nations are not artificial constructs which surge from one day to the other. For such a required homogeneity to exist it requires hundreds and even thousands of years of common development, preceded for a momentum of ethnogenesis.

Now, this is not possible if the ethno-racial gap between the groups is considerable or the ethno-cultural gap too big. Both requirements must be met, velis nolis.

Failing to do so, instead of ethnic harmony you would obtain ethnic chaos which, undeniably, would lead to racial chaos and confrontation. See countries like Brazil or the United States of America. And I don't mean to go visit there like a tourist.

Further to this, multiculturalism in undeniably racist in that it aims to destroy races. And it aims to destroy them because multiculturalists are well aware of the above.. they know very well that only through the destruction of the identity of two (or more) people, can they assimilate each other. And yet this is a mad idea because it would require that absolutely every single individual's identity is destroyed.

When you start seeing the grave racial conflicts that will take place in your country, remember this and do not blame any of the groups in conflict. Blame yourself and those who think like you because only you will have brought about the conflict through irrational, unnatural and fanatical theories.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Susano

The basi crights of the individual trumps the will of the group. There ar esimply certain affairs which are not at all the business of the group. That does not somehow abolish society, buteven if so, then so be it!

Absolutely wrong.

The rights of the individual are not above the rights of the group. Your rights end there where my rights and the rights of the others of the group start.

That's a common sense principle.

[Susano]

I won't speak for The Netherlandas but, in general, for any country of the Christendom, Islam is an element strange to the native culture and an element of conflict.

Im no Christian, either. Does that make me less of a German? Of course not! Now if that beleif different from Christianity is Atheism or Islam is of no matter. Germany is Germany and not Christian-Land, and the Netehrlands are the Netherlands and, again, not Christian-Land. Their population is defined as "those who are German/who are Dutch", and not "those who are Christian".

When Christianity cme to Europe, it was a strange element to the native culture, too, so this all is rather hypocrite, IMO.

You can try to "preserve your people" all you want. Nobody will hinder you. Nobodyx will stop yoiu from choosing a wife of your what you define as your own nation,and nobody will stop you having children with her. Now, others will do other things. And their individual rights to do other things does trump your fascist wet dreams of forcing them to do what you want. Not necessarily democracy, but human rights do stand above everything. Anything else, having the belief it is right to force people to have your own belief, or to do what you want, is just blind arrogance.

That is wrong. You are vaguely defining state and not nation, and citizenship and not nationality.

Untrue. A state is a bueraucratic (in the neutral, historic and politcial sense of the word, not the perjatory sense) institution. Citizenship, took, is an institutionalsied, bureaucratic affair, and has nothing to do with self-identfication.

What you describe is a myth. Nations have constantly throughout histroy assimilated other peoples or single people, thus never having any clear-cut "ethno-racial" profile. Therefore, it is no different to milelnia of century if our nations now assimilate people, too. Sure, the Nation#s genepool will change accordingly, but a ssaid, that has always constantly happened in history. It is nothing new. And that in turn proves that nations are not racial constructs.

[Susano]

Absolutely wrong.

The rights of the individual are not above the rights of the group. Your rights end there where my rights and the rights of the others of the group start.

That's a common sense principle.

Yes, my rights ends where your rights begin. Your individual rights. There are only individual rights, after all (you can grant privileges to groups, of coruse, but those are not rights but indeed privileges then). The individual stands above society in that way, that theer are some rights of the indivdiual society, even as a whole, cannot meddle with. Which are off-limits to society.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Susano

Yes, my rights ends where your rights begin. Your individual rights. There are only individual rights, after all (you can grant privileges to groups, of coruse, but those are not rights but indeed privileges then).

Just as you can grant privileges to individuals, and therefore as per your own admittance those are no rights but privileges. Not that I agree with it, since there are moral and natural rights and acquired rights (privileges).

The rights of the group are the conjunction of all the individual rights of the group's components plus rights that protect the group as a whole. They extend to every and each individual.

The individual stands above society in that way, that theer are some rights of the indivdiual society, even as a whole, cannot meddle with. Which are off-limits to society.

The individual does not stand above or below society, but he is a part of society, of the group. His rights as an individual must be respected providing that they don't cause a harm to the group, to the society.

[Susano]

Lets come down from the abstract plane:
1) You have no right to what you perceive as the "purity of the nation". That is an absurd concept anyways - you could as well have people from the Loony Left demanding a "Right of the maximal possible Racial Diversity of the nation". Both would be equivalent points, and both are absurd. There are no rights for you that would dictate others how to live!

2) OTOH, there is a right to marry any consenting person you wish. Well, atm, only any consnting person of the opposite gender, but that is fortunately fading away. Not fast enough, but it is. Because that right does not dictate anybody else how to live - thus, it is a proper, real right.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Susano

2) OTOH, there is a right to marry any consenting person you wish. Well, atm, only any consnting person of the opposite gender, but that is fortunately fading away. Not fast enough, but it is. Because that right does not dictate anybody else how to live - thus, it is a proper, real right.

What you are doing here is creating a entirely new morality where the "moral right" is based on nothing more than mere consent (or rather mutual consent to engage in vice).

Thus you think anyone should be able to marry (or do anything else with/to each other, logically speaking) based on consent.
I assume you will support the Dutch Paedophile party too, who are now creating the same sophistical arguments to prove that children can consent to sexual relations with adults that the Homosexual lobby used to assert that same-sex relations were also morally correct. Make no mistake, they (or someone else later) will eventually succeed because you cannot accept one thing (homosexual rights and unions) on one hand, and then reject another thing (acceptable and lawful paedophilia) when it uses essentially the same argument - consent.
It is thus logical and only a matter of time before the door is now opened to all sorts of idiocy and degeneracy.

I could construct similar slick and superficially reasonable (but ultimately false) arguments for bestiality or just about anything else that I wished.

A morality based on the flimsy concept of consent is no morality at all

[Susano]

Hah! It is a morality based on logic! It is a superor morality to all "morality" based on archaic dogmata. If you cannot logcially uphold a moral stance, and can only tell something is "evil/unnatural/etc.", but not say why exactly it is bad - then that stance is void. Dogmata have enslaved mankind, in general, for millenia. Only since Enlightment that is slowly changing, but it is changing now!

I say, a moral is flimsy if it has no logic, only dogma, to back it up. And, who are you to tell others what is right and what is wrong? That is just plain arrogance, nothing more.

On the Dutch Pedophile Party: Of course, if one bases moral on the principle of consent, it is important to note the nature of consent. What consent is. A child can give consent, of course - however, a child also does not know what is best for itself. Elsewise, we would not have the legal distinction between chiild/adolescent and adult, no? A child's consent therefore is different to an adult's consent - that is just a matter of fact. And thus, I can coherently make a distinction between my support for general liebrty and support for sexual molestion and rape of children.