Generational Dynamics World View News

[Guest]

There are serious problems in law enforcement, and this has been true for a VERY long time. We do need to change the "culture" of law enforcement in the United States. Defunding the police in urban areas is NOT an option. But we need to change how we conduct law enforcement.

A very close friend of mine is a British Army officer. He served in the Special Operations command in Florida on an exchange assignment. Before going there, he was repeatedly warned by his embassies senior officers that American police were NOT British police, and that he should never interact with them in that way. We could learn a lot of British policing techniques and procedures.

Law enforcement is not the problem. The problem is using Western law enforcement (rule of law and order, belief in written law) on a changing American population. The demographics of America today are not the demographics of 1950's America.

You couldn't use the American justice system in the third world it just doesn't work. No different then giving a third would country a copy of the U.S. constitution to copy and expecting them to create a little America.

Look at the Chauvin trial. Its already come out that one of the jurors was at a BLM rally wearing a George Floyd t-shirt. When this country was still the U.S. that would be a problem. Today, we appease the growing mob of people incompatible with Western civilization. Would you expect a fair trial in South Africa if you killed a black man in self defense even if you were within your legal rights? I guess it would depend on how much media exposure your trial would get.

We now have selective enforcement of the law. The law clearly does not apply to all people the same. The police will not go after the left the same as they would the right.

[Guest]

There are serious problems in law enforcement, and this has been true for a VERY long time. We do need to change the "culture" of law enforcement in the United States. Defunding the police in urban areas is NOT an option. But we need to change how we conduct law enforcement.

A very close friend of mine is a British Army officer. He served in the Special Operations command in Florida on an exchange assignment. Before going there, he was repeatedly warned by his embassies senior officers that American police were NOT British police, and that he should never interact with them in that way. We could learn a lot of British policing techniques and procedures.

Law enforcement is not the problem. The problem is using Western law enforcement (rule of law and order, belief in written law) on a changing American population. The demographics of America today are not the demographics of 1950's America.

You couldn't use the American justice system in the third world it just doesn't work. No different then giving a third would country a copy of the U.S. constitution to copy and expecting them to create a little America.

Look at the Chauvin trial. Its already come out that one of the jurors was at a BLM rally wearing a George Floyd t-shirt. When this country was still the U.S. that would be a problem. Today, we appease the growing mob of people incompatible with Western civilization. Would you expect a fair trial in South Africa if you killed a black man in self defense even if you were within your legal rights? I guess it would depend on how much media exposure your trial would get.

We now have selective enforcement of the law. The law clearly does not apply to all people the same. The police will not go after the left the same as they would the right.

THIS. This is the situation we are in. And it is getting worse by the day. Fight or flight. The choice is yours.

[DaKardii]

No. You have no idea what you are talking about.

How about this?

The US is as tied to the Enlightenment as the Vatican is tied to Catholicism.

Ideas that run contrary to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and limited government are supposed to be as anathema in the US as non-Catholic teachings are in the Vatican.

[Cool Breeze]

From a purely ethno-nationalist perspective, America had no reason to break away from Britain. But the Founders saw differently.

To them, America was about the idea. An idea centered around life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Common ethnicity was not enough, and in the grand scheme of things was irrelevant.

Ah, no. You're wrong.

Why is talking with you always have to be a case of reinventing the wheel?

Guest is right. We have done the experiments. Because you are European, no, it doesn't mean that you are guaranteed success or to be free from collectivism and the demshevik influence. But to act like you and build and sustain a culture of this type (American) without Europeans, or at least Eurasians, is blatantly stupid. People have a history and a memory and certain aptitudes. Once these people (3rd worlders) are a majority in a formerly orderly and economically prosperous society, as we have seen, those traits of the country will go away. Period. Sorry to bring the bad news, but it's a fact.

[Cool Breeze]

No. You have no idea what you are talking about.

How about this?

The US is as tied to the Enlightenment as the Vatican is tied to Catholicism.

Ideas that run contrary to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and limited government are supposed to be as anathema in the US as non-Catholic teachings are in the Vatican.

Yes, and for an ideal (not unlike that of leftists) you believe that increasing numbers of peoples who can more easily be manipulated (3rd worlders, Guest's point) don't matter, only their acceptance of Thomas Jefferson's ideals. But you fail to understand that for them blood is thicker than water, base instincts for all men are hard to overcome, and they are no match for it en masse or in any way that it matters. That's why the jewish pols at the time with Ted Kennedy (another jesuit in league) lied to the people and opened the country up to be non european. They proved, in essence, that you are wrong, DaKardii. Emboldening the opposition with numbers allows GREATER manipulation by leftists tactics. If you again don't want to believe us, just look at South America. Or South Africa. Etc. Our points are irrefutable if you are honest.

[Guest 2]

No. You have no idea what you are talking about.

How about this?

The US is as tied to the Enlightenment as the Vatican is tied to Catholicism.

Ideas that run contrary to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and limited government are supposed to be as anathema in the US as non-Catholic teachings are in the Vatican.

Yes, and for an ideal (not unlike that of leftists) you believe that increasing numbers of peoples who can more easily be manipulated (3rd worlders, Guest's point) don't matter, only their acceptance of Thomas Jefferson's ideals. But you fail to understand that for them blood is thicker than water, base instincts for all men are hard to overcome, and they are no match for it en masse or in any way that it matters. That's why the jewish pols at the time with Ted Kennedy (another jesuit in league) lied to the people and opened the country up to be non european. They proved, in essence, that you are wrong, DaKardii. Emboldening the opposition with numbers allows GREATER manipulation by leftists tactics. If you again don't want to believe us, just look at South America. Or South Africa. Etc. Our points are irrefutable if you are honest.

Look at Zimbabwe.

[DaKardii]

Guest is right. We have done the experiments.

It seems you believe the "experiments" are ongoing. They are not.

It's debatable when exactly the "experiments" ceased, but I've seen arguments that it was as early as during the Andrew Jackson administration (1829-37). If you're interested in looking into that debate, I would recommend two sources:

1) "9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America: And Four Who Tried to Save Her" by Brion T. McClanahan;
2) McClanahan's "10 Worst and Best Presidents" course on Liberty Classroom (which further analyzes other "bad" and "good" presidencies that didn't make the cut in his book, and is also absolutely free).

[DaKardii]

On another note, when I think about modern America, multiculturalism, and the ongoing ethno-religious unrest, I think back to some of the great multicultural civilizations of the past. There were many of them throughout history, from ancient Rome to Austria-Hungary.

Of course it can be difficult to hold such civilizations together, and sometimes it would be impossible to do so without resorting to state violence. Abraham Lincoln knew that well. But then again it is uncertain that the American people at large would tolerate the emergence of another Lincoln, for one reason or another.

[Cool Breeze]

On another note, when I think about modern America, multiculturalism, and the ongoing ethno-religious unrest, I think back to some of the great multicultural civilizations of the past. There were many of them throughout history, from ancient Rome to Austria-Hungary.

Of course it can be difficult to hold such civilizations together, and sometimes it would be impossible to do so without resorting to state violence. Abraham Lincoln knew that well. But then again it is uncertain that the American people at large would tolerate the emergence of another Lincoln, for one reason or another.

I love the injection of what you think "multiculturalism" is into today's reality. You can only have a dominant class and culture (and that must be Eurasian) to have an advanced civilization and economy, at least the way that you know it. And the culture generally has to have an appropriate religion too, pretty much only christianity. Smaller ethnic enclaves can exist in those, but they know their place and if reversed (what happens in america now) chaos reigns.

I also note that all of your examples STILL are European, though you keep saying "multicultural".

[DaKardii]

I love the injection of what you think "multiculturalism" is into today's reality. You can only have a dominant class and culture (and that must be Eurasian) to have an advanced civilization and economy, at least the way that you know it. And the culture generally has to have an appropriate religion too, pretty much only christianity. Smaller ethnic enclaves can exist in those, but they know their place and if reversed (what happens in america now) chaos reigns.

I also note that all of your examples STILL are European, though you keep saying "multicultural".

Austria-Hungary was ruled by an ethnic German monarchy that practiced Roman Catholicism. However, that monarchy (the Hapsburgs) over a very diverse set of ethno-religious groups.

In addition to Germans, the Hapsburgs ruled over Bosnians, Croatians, Czechs, Friulians, Hungarians, Istro-Romanians, Italians, Jews, Ladins, Poles, Romani, Romanians, Rusyns, Ruthenians, Serbs, Slovaks, and Slovenes.

And in addition to Roman Catholics, the Hapsburgs ruled over Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, Lutherans, Muslims, Reformed, and Unitarians.

That may not seem diverse from a modern American perspective, but if one takes into account European history, it's in fact extremely diverse. And in a sense, it's actually more diverse than the modern US on the basis of language and religion.