Paris Attack

[Chomsky]

Re: Paris Attack

"freedom of the press"

https://storify.com/tometty/staunch-...end-solidarity

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Paris Attack

Very unfair, We had a war not too long ago where the Christians sent Muslim boys and men to concentration camps and killed them.
Also we have a big state sponsored Army that kills in the name of freedom, I'm sure the people of Iraq are not happy with the state we left their country in.

I disagree. I would expect that the Shiite and Kurdish portion of Iraq's population much prefer the state Iraq is in now to the days when Saddam was driving road paving machines over Shiites he forced to lie in the road or gassing Kurds with chemical weapons. I imagine the Sunnis aren't as excited about their current situation, but for all I know a lot of them may be glad Saddam, Uday, and Qusay Hussein are dead and gone.

[vt]

Re: Paris Attack

A Global War on Radical Islam

Atrocities like those in Paris won’t stop until the civilized world mobilizes to wipe out the forces of violent jihad.

By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

Jan. 12, 2015 6:51 p.m. ET27 COMMENTS

A few important questions, following the terrorist atrocities in Paris last week: We are all Charlie now, but are we ready to fight to protect freedom of expression before another cartoonist is killed by Islamist extremists? Are we ready to do what is necessary to stop the killing of another police officer just because she is a police officer, and more Jews just because they are Jews?
In other words, can the inspiring unity that filled the streets of Paris on Sunday in defense of freedom be transformed into the mighty unity that is necessary now to defeat radical Islam before it kills more people and takes away more freedom?
In rapid order, the three attacks in France last week showed more clearly than ever that the international movement of violent Islamist extremism has declared war on Western civilization’s foundational values, which are embraced by so many people throughout the world. The murders of police officers, cartoonists and Jews were attacks against the West’s most central values and aspirations—the rule of law, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Radical Islam will continue to threaten what we hold dear unless it is fought and eventually defeated.
Since 9/11, the U.S. has inflicted severe damage on Osama bin Laden ’s al Qaeda. But al Qaeda has divided and reconstituted itself throughout the world under groups with new names like Islamic State, but with the same evil purposes.
ENLARGE
Protesters during the march of the republic on the Place de la Nation in Paris on Sunday. ZUMA PRESS


The truth is that the enemy is stronger today in more places than it was on 9/11 and is gaining more ground than ever. It is also true that homeland defenses are significantly better in the U.S. and elsewhere, which has helped thwart many planned terrorist attacks. But wars aren’t won on defense.
After the three attacks in France, which so touched the hearts and fears of people everywhere, the world must go on the offensive. The radical Islamists long ago declared war on the West, but most of the nations targeted or threatened have not yet declared war against them.
The spirit that brought millions together in France on Sunday in support of the values of freedom and law should now bring those millions and tens of millions like them in other countries together to support a program like the following:
First, the civilized nations of the world must acknowledge that we are at war with violent Islamist extremism and that as long as these extremists continue to recruit, attack and expand territorially, the civilized world will continue to lose and the number and frequency of attacks like those in France will increase.
Second, every nation whose government or people have been attacked or threatened by Islamist terrorists should formally declare war against them. Congress should update the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed in the wake of 9/11 to grant the president broad authority to take action.
Third, the U.S., along with the world’s other great powers, should form and lead a global alliance against radical Islam. That alliance must include leading Islamic nations—Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, to name a few—because Muslims who do not share the extremist views of the terrorists constitute the largest number of its victims.
Combining military, intelligence, economic and diplomatic assets, the goal of this Alliance Against Islamist Extremism should be nothing less than total destruction of the enemy—beginning with Islamic State, AQAP in Yemen, al-Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria. These groups are not interested in accommodation; they will not be diplomatically contained. They must be eliminated. As long as they exist, they will continue to radicalize followers, in person and online. They will provide training for terrorists who will attack us where we live, work and worship. That will stop only when they are destroyed.
Fourth, we must use our values as a weapon instead of allowing the enemy to exploit and target those values. The world war against Islamist terrorism is as much an ideological conflict as were the world wars against fascism and communism. The rule of law and the freedom of expression and religion that were attacked in France last week should be championed and spread by the alliance because where there is law and freedom, radical Islamists cannot flourish.
In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls on Saturday declared that France was “at war” with radical Islam. If that conclusion takes root, there is every reason for confidence that the civilized world can defeat the latest threat to its existence.
The White House has now admitted that it made a mistake on Sunday by not sending a high-ranking representative to the remarkable march in Paris. But a much greater, history-changing opportunity still awaits President Obama : to lead a global alliance to destroy violent Islamist extremism.
Mr. Lieberman, a former four-term U.S. senator from Connecticut, is senior counsel at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman.

[aaron]

Re: Paris Attack

I would like him and his children to be the first to fly into Africa to fight the current bad guy/dictator/warlord/evil Muslim... 'cause Lieberman can change thousands of years of history.

Lieberman has always been a warmonger. We would be nuking it out with Iran by now if we listened to that POS.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Paris Attack

Lieberman's bluster could not be more simplistic or depressing.

[Techdread]

Re: Paris Attack

The Shiite and Kurdish portions which are now having to fight ISIS and have daily bombings by Sunnis?

Do you think ISIS would be running around the country chopping heads off if Saddam was still running the country?

You are just as deluded as the Neocons who thought the Iraqis would welcome western soldiers with open arms.

And reading some of your posts your views on People who are different are no better than Nazis I'd say worse because you should know better.

[Woodsman]

Re: Paris Attack

A Global War on Radical Islam

Atrocities like those in Paris won’t stop until the civilized world mobilizes to wipe out the forces of violent jihad.

By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

Jan. 12, 2015 6:51 p.m. ET...

Oh do shut up, Mr. Lieberman and please take your chicken hawk droppings with you as you exit.

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

Ignoring the insults, you raise some great points that I think really get towards the heart of the issues here.

Maybe the most basic principle we're supposed to follow on this forum is to discuss not how things should be, but how they are. "Is", not "Ought".

I contend that the world really does operate according to "might makes right." And you ignore that at your civilization's peril.

You are outraged by such an idea because you are operating from an "ought" perspective. The world "ought" not be like that, and you are outraged that someone is suggesting our nation behave accordingly.

Except for one thing. My argument isn't based on an "ought" perspective. Yours is. And you misunderstand the source of my outrage.

You see, you are making your assertion of ideological bias as though there is no logical way to tell the difference. That your assertion of bias is just as good as anyone else's. This is not the case. There IS a way to identify bias objectively.

Let me demonstrate:

An ethical system is constructed from axiomatic principles. From these, inferences are made, until actionable ideals arise. But for the most part, the causality of inferences are not reversible. That's because A -> B (A implies B) does not mean B -> A.

Thus, close inspection of the arguments can reveal which of the statements in a set of beliefs is in fact driving the logic (axiomatic) and which is the consequence. (The order one presents points in doesn't have to be the order of the logical reasoning.)

An ideologue begins an argument by including an uneccessary axiom that contains their bias, and proceeds from there. A post-enlightenment rationalist knows to begin with a minimum set of axioms, carefully vetted to remove as many traces of bias as possible.

The system with the most bias (in this case, "ought" perspective) is the one that contains the axioms that hold the most extra or subjective information in that area. And we can look at a given dispute and identify which side that is.

So when you say I am beginning with what the world ought to be, and working from there, that is a provably incorrect statement.

The pertinent axiom in my ethical system is that it is desirable to minimize suffering. The pertinent axiom in yours is that it is desirable to further the advantage of white people over others. Yours is intrinsically more subjective, and specific. It is dependent on who you are, and where you stand.

You also claim that I am advancing the following logical chain: It is desirable that people are equal -> people are equal.

I'm not. That would be a stupid and pointless argument. Others may have made it, but I haven't, and I won't defend it. Your suggestion of it is a straw man.

The claim I am making is the following: It is desirable to minimize suffering. -> it is desirable to decrease cultural conflicts -> it makes sense to assign cultures the same rights. (Note, this doesn't imply that they are equal in their stage of development, as you pretend I'm claiming, only that they have the same rights.)

You want humanity to come together and mutually agree never to operate according to "might makes right". To never invade another, weaker, people's land and take it. That's a nice idea, and I am in favor of our (American/Western) people operating according to that principle going forward and leaving Africa to the Africans, Latin America to the Latinos, etc. And leaving Muslim lands to the Muslims.

Hmm. I honestly didn't think you'd come out and say it plainly. Ghettoization of the world. So African-Americans presumably get sent to Africa as well? Asian-americans get sent back to "where they belong?" Why be shy? Come out and say it. You've already abandoned your earlier euphemisms of "European heritage" and "white christian culture" when you denounced the philosophies that the heritage and culture actually represent, such as enlightenment-era humanism. So the pretense is already gone, and you may as well just say what you really think.

Do you believe that the United States should be a white nation of and for white people?

But I also am a realist and recognize that whether *we* think everyone should leave everyone else alone, there are people and ideologies in the world that have no interest in doing so. Islam is an ideology that commands its adherents to conquer the world for Allah.

Ah, and white supremacy is an ideology of peace, right? You just want to be left alone? For what purpose? To exterminate whatever Native Americans are left? After all, "might makes right!" Your logic demands that the "right" (prescriptive) way to deal with them is to exterminate them, since you are stronger than they. And the logic hasn't changed, so the response can't either, right? Those who thought like you conducted past genocides, and you are asking to be left alone, and in charge, with the same Native Americans around? Or other minorities? Or any white people who disagree with you? It would be stupid of the rest of us to permit that. It would be trusting you to not do exactly what your philosophy demands you do. (Recognize any similarities with muslim terrorists? I do.)

Do you genuinely not see the inconsistency? That NO AXIOMS AT ALL are required for me to demonstrate that your argument is internally LOGICALLY inconsistent if it is taken at face value? That treating "might makes right" as a prescriptive truth rather than a descriptive truth leads to a fallacy? Your argument is "wrong" in the purely mathematical/logical sense, long before any notion of moral sensibility is even invoked! The fact that it is also morally repugnant comes in addition to that fact, not as an axiomatic idealistic interpretation. And because your suggested plan cannot be reconciled logically without an axiomatic demand for superiority, it is intrinsically bigoted.

So no, my reasoning is NOT based on "ought", even though I do think that prescriptive conclusions follow from it.

Your reasoning, however, IS. You require a white supremacist assumption before you even begin to reason, if your positions are to be retained. In short, you assume that you OUGHT to be superior, even though all evidence shows that the inverse is true, and to an absolutely staggering extent.

An inability to perform basic reasoning is colloquially referred to as "stupid." And that's why your conception of reality is in fact, stupid. It is not the personal insult you perceived. It is merely the correct classification for your demonstrably fallacious reasoning.

It also happens to be evil. You state:

It seems to me common sense not to allow people who think like that to settle in your people's lands. But to starry-eyed, well-meaning progressive universalists, it's not a matter of common sense - it's a matter of immorality, practically of evil, to think of some other group of people in the world as different and incompatible with our people. If your highest moral principle is universal human equality, then it is a violation of that highest moral principle to suggest that there are people who are not equal, not compatible. And people get really mad and start flinging insults or trying to get you fired from your job or otherwise punish you for the sin of violating their highest moral value.

Nope, as I've said, affording people equal rights is derivable from the desire to minimize suffering. Equality is NOT a fundamental axiom, nor should it be treated as such. But equality of rights is an inescapable consequence. It can reasonably be argued what priority it receives compared to other conclusions, but it cannot be treated as though it were not a consequence.

I think universal human equality is a nice idea but it's not the way the world actually is. All the various human groups are not equal.

No. But to minimize the harm to all concerned, it is preferable to grant them equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as several other rights. I'm hoping you know of these, or we're even further back in this discussion than I thought.

The best possible solution I can see is every significant identity group has its own country and we all try to mutually agree not to conquer one another's countries. I'd like to see a world with hundreds of small countries, one for every significant identity group in the world. That would be REAL diversity. That would give a real chance for world peace, because conflict almost always occurs within countries between identity groups competing for control.

Ah yes. Send everyone "home" to where they "belong". To honestly think that is the best possible solution, requires that one have no understanding of history, psychology, human nature ... or practically anything else. A true attitude of willful ignorance, across the board! If this culture of hate and ignorance is what you prize, then I am very glad to see that culture dying in the US today.

That there exist people who honestly believe that this depth of ignorance can be "superior" is ludicrous, and mind-boggling. Such ignorance represents by far the least, not the most, advanced part of any society.

That is why white superiority is so laughable. In order to believe it, one must first follow logic that is demonstrably stupid, and choose to remain ignorant of an absolutely vast array of facts. The only way to do so is by placing the ideology of "superiority" beyond all logic, in an axiom.

It is really funny how silly the attempt looks. If the consequences weren't so dire, it would be hard to stop laughing at these ideas, and the self-important people who imagine them to be viable on the same playing field as actual thinking.

I am also realistic enough to recognize that there is a built-in imperative into all forms of life, including humans, to reproduce and acquire new and better resources. And that means eventually taking someone else's resources one way or another, whether through conquest or by outcompeting them and buying them out. We can voluntarily forgo the conquest that we (up to now, anyway) have been fully capable of carrying out, but we would be idiots to assume that other peoples in the world won't take our land and resources if they see a way to do it.

Well, at least you're consistent. You really do believe that "might is right" is the best prescriptive model (not just a descriptive one). And I don't.

So that leaves us in a bind. We need to pick a way to resolve our dispute. But the dispute is about how to resolve disputes! (Enlightenment-based reasoning? or force?)

The enlightenment philosophy that you despise says that we both have the same right to be here, and that we can and should try (whenever possible) to discuss the question's pros and cons.

But you are disdainful of this enlightenment philosophy. So let's just agree that we will settle this matter with your paradigm, and that my notions won't take effect unless I win. I consider it a very large concession, but go along anyway, as long as you agree to meet me for the conflict.

So let's see how to do this: might-is-right means not only that I am able, but also justified in coming to you, and fighting you. And that it is prescriptive, that we should strive to follow this paradigm, since it will be descriptive in any event.

When the rules themselves are in dispute, it is force that MUST be the decider, right?

So your "realistic" philosophy of might-is-right says that I am fully justified to, if I wish, shoot you, or beat you until your views are eliminated from the scene, either by death or recantation.

And your argument concerning culture's need to defend itself actively is that if you aren't willing to escalate the conflict to assert your views, I will by default win.

Fair enough.

Post your home address here.

I'm guessing I'm younger than you. I work out. More importantly, I have access to and use firearms. I think I can probably take you. I also have like-minded friends across the country, so heck, I won't even have to show up. Or I don't have to tell my friends, I don't have to do anything at all. Someday, someone else reading this might decide that you should be made to live by your own philosophy, and drop by your place, to find out if you're right.

So, do you want to live by your philosophy in this circumstance? You can do so at any moment. You say it is the best philosophy available to us! You have the choice to throw aside the filthy enlightenment principles you despise, and live your way. Given the hateful things you've said, post your address, and you'll probably get your chance at some point to prove that you are right.

And even better, you'll get to prove it in your way, the one you know is best, a show of force. That should be a pretty attractive proposition. After all, if you are right (which you are, right?) then whatever we say here can't make any difference. If it could, then enlightenment ideals might have a point. The only way you can make a difference is through force.

I certainly won't come to your door. But I wonder if anyone among the quite lurkers on this site might?

And that's why you won't post your address (if you aren't entirely dim).

It is easy to say you believe that a barbaric world is the best of all possible worlds in the abstract. It is much harder when it might actually come to your door, and you are vastly outnumbered.

And that's exactly the position the United States will be in with regard to terrorism, as technology continues to increase the kill ratio capabilities of individual terrorist actors.

Anyone will be able to come to our door. They'll all know the address. And that fact DOES change the computation of how loudly we can spout racist ideas on the internet, and expect to get away with it.

But if I'm wrong, you can post your address, and you'll be following the best possible path available to you, and to the nation as a whole!

(Come to think of it, if you're right, you shouldn't have joined this discussion. It would have no value to you at all. I wonder why you're doing it anyway?)


[I think it's obvious enough, but I'd better say for the sake of clarity and safety that the above was a thought demonstration, that I don't actually intend Mn_Mark to post an address, or for anyone to show up at his door with violent intent if he does. I don't subscribe to an idea that badly formed.]

You are wrong when you say my ideology is the same as the jihadists. I am not recommending conquering anyone else. I am saying we should not allow ourselves to be conquered. But for a progressive universalist like you, it appears that saying we should not allow ourselves to be conquered is a stupid, insane, evil idea...because to you, it is stupid and insane and evil to suggest that all human identity groups are not universally equal and all equally interested in peace and love and getting along.

You know, now that you're coming out and being more explicit about what you were content to only hint at before, I'm beginning to agree that you are not identical to the jihadists. I now see that you are actually worse. You are advocating driving the world toward a state of endless cultural wars while our nation is in a position of strength, while we still have the option to consider a different path. The terrorists are driving in that direction while it is their only real option to hit us where it has an impact on the average US citizen, but you are choosing the path of the monster when you have more and better alternatives available to you than they have.

To my mind, what's really stupid and insane is not judging a group like Muslims by their track record, by the words of their holy book and prophet, and allowing them into our countries in any significant numbers at all.

I do judge Muslims by their track record. The vast majority of them (23% of the planet) have a pretty good one. What I don't do is judge them all by the actions, or even beliefs, of the few. Your logic that the majority must be held responsible for minority fanatics, no matter how unrepresentative or decried, demands that the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda is how we should judge Christians. So we are forced to judge your Christian religion as being identical or worse than Islam. It too, should be extirpated. To where do you plan to move? I'd like to avoid vacationing there.

Right. Well, since you're coming out and being more explicit anyway, why don't you go for it and just state that non-whites are lesser people. It is implicit in your logic, and the admission will save me the time of repeating and expanding on my explanation of how your tortured logic is based on that premise.

It certainly isn't hard to show. But it will be tedious to read. More importantly, I suspect you are just dying to come out and announce it anyway. Are non-white individuals lesser people than white ones?

There is no reason they can't stay in their own lands and, if the mass of them are unhappy with how their countries are run and want them to be more like the West, they can change their own countries. Let THEM struggle with Islam, let THEM reform Islam and make it "modern". There is no obligation, moral or otherwise, that we take the risk of losing our own civilization (and we've already lost thousands of our people, murdered and maimed, to Muslim attacks) in order to provide a space for Muslims to get away from their own civilization. The dissatisfied ones are the very ones who should stay there and change their primitive society.

Who is losing which civilization?

From where I sit, the only "civilization" you are mourning the loss of is the white-supremacist ideology. (Your vigorously repudiated the other ethical and moral achievements of your euphemism "European culture" leaves little else to defend.)

Good riddance to THAT civilization! The sooner the better! That conception of white supremacy has never been worth saving! It is simply based on a false premise, leads to increased risk of attacks, presents an immoral conclusion, and adds nothing whatsoever to society. It rejects the genuinely significant contributions of world heritage, and embraces only the trivial, or backwards, ones. I cheer at the loss you mourn, as does any sensible person. The multicultural society that remains, becomes a better one with the absence of people who hold white-supremecist ideals. Nothing is lost, and much is gained.

I do, however, mourn the collateral damage that your ideology has caused, and will cause. Unfortunately, it is usually people who DON'T share your vision that are the victims of your escalations. Convenient, for you, isn't it? And again, just like ...? What a surprise.

That's why I'm looking forward to the day when people who think as you do no longer exist. Right now, they exist in terrorist training camps, and apparently your home. I feel the same way about the people in both places, for precisely identical reasons.

I'd like to expunge them by convincing them where I can, before they escalate the violence. You are certain that the only way they can change, is through force. You might wind up being right. But if so, please do the rest of us a favor and make sure you are first to be the recipient of force. Because in spite of your denial and willful ignorance of the fact, you DO rely on precisely the same logic.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Paris Attack

...snip...

That's why I'm looking forward to the day when people who think as you do no longer exist

...snip...

I don't have the energy to go through this whole thing line-by-line. I think the challenge to fight you was over the top, but I've been known to say some over the top things so I will chalk that up to your passion in defending your beliefs.

In the face of all your fury and passion and contempt, I am going to just try to sum up my position as simply as I can. I really don't think it's remarkable or despicable or anything else shocking or horrible.

I am a white American with all the typical white American middle class cultural affinities. These are my people. I want us to have a country where we can go on being us. I like us. I like our ways. I think we are something unique and good and I think we deserve a place in the world to be us, and not simply to serve as a universal economic space where idealistic white progressives try out their theories on universal human equality. I do not apologize for being fond of "whiteness" or "Americanness" and identifying with it and wanting to see it survive and prosper. If that makes me a "bigot", then fine, I'm a bigot.

I don't want us to conquer anyone else; I want the world to be full of countries of people who all identify and like their own people and their own ways, or work to change their own people. I want a world where no one conquers anyone else's land.

I also recognize that you can't trust that everyone will observe those rules, so you have to try to be a very strong and wealthy and confident people so you can hold onto your own.

Those are my core beliefs. Believing I belong to a particular "people", affection for my people, and realism about the competitive (and often violent) nature of life. If you want to characterize those very natural feelings as "white supremacy" and "evil" and what-all, well, you're right in step with the people running the West. I guess we'll just disagree and watch how things evolve.

[Woodsman]

Re: Paris Attack

...I am a white American with all the typical white American middle class cultural affinities. These are my people. I want us to have a country where we can go on being us. I like us. I like our ways. I think we are something unique and good and I think we deserve a place in the world to be us, and not simply to serve as a universal economic space where idealistic white progressives try out their theories on universal human equality. I do not apologize for being fond of "whiteness" or "Americanness" and identifying with it and wanting to see it survive and prosper. If that makes me a "bigot", then fine, I'm a bigot...

Whiteness...Okay, now can we move this to Political Abyss?

[jk]

Re: Paris Attack

Whiteness...Okay, now can we move this to Political Abyss?

+1


fred?? are you there fred? it's me, jk.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Paris Attack

Whiteness...Okay, now can we move this to Political Abyss?

The whole discussion probably should have been in Political Abyss from the first posting. As soon as you talk about Islam and free speech and attacks you're going to get into the same fundamental political/moral discussions people always seem to have. Not really finance-related.

[vinoveri]

Re: Paris Attack

There IS a way to identify bias objectively.

Let me demonstrate:

An ethical system is constructed from axiomatic principles. From these, inferences are made, until actionable ideals arise. But for the most part, the causality of inferences are not reversible. That's because A -> B (A implies B) does not mean B -> A.

Thus, close inspection of the arguments can reveal which of the statements in a set of beliefs is in fact driving the logic (axiomatic) and which is the consequence. (The order one presents points in doesn't have to be the order of the logical reasoning.)

An ideologue begins an argument by including an uneccessary axiom that contains their bias, and proceeds from there. A post-enlightenment rationalist knows to begin with a minimum set of axioms, carefully vetted to remove as many traces of bias as possible.

The system with the most bias (in this case, "ought" perspective) is the one that contains the axioms that hold the most extra or subjective information in that area. And we can look at a given dispute and identify which side that is.

Thank you, astonas. The axioms or first principles are key as you point out. If folks can't agree on ANY first principles (which is rarely the case) or they are unwilling to engage and accept the truth revealed via logical reasoning starting from those principles, it is a challenge to make progress toward consensus.
In dialoguing with individuals, I have found that in response to an unsupported assertion a simple query of "why do you say/believe that" carried out repeatedly will reveal the lack of basis for the unsupported claim/opinion; mostly however, except with honest individuals actively pursuing truth, it results in overt frustration, or a "whatever" attitude and disengagement.
Unfortunately in many cases, human decision and action is not based on reason.

[jk]

Re: Paris Attack

Unfortunately in many cases, human decision and action is not based on reason.

reason can only guide decisions relative to established goals. goals are ultimately not logical choices but value judgements.

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

I don't have the energy to go through this whole thing line-by-line.

Of course not. Your views would never survive elementary logic. And your entire worldview relies on keeping your eyes shut when that logic is placed before them.

I think the challenge to fight you was over the top, but I've been known to say some over the top things so I will chalk that up to your passion in defending your beliefs.

The challenge to fight was a thought demonstration. But it IS the only rational consequence of your views.

In the face of all your fury and passion and contempt, I am going to just try to sum up my position as simply as I can. I really don't think it's remarkable or despicable or anything else shocking or horrible.

This is a delusion that can exist only as long as one refuses to look at the logic.. It IS that bad, you just close your eyes and pretend it's not.

I am a white American with all the typical white American middle class cultural affinities.

Sorry, you're not. Your ideology is NOT shared by the vast majority of America.

These are my people. I want us to have a country where we can go on being us. I like us. I like our ways. I think we are something unique and good and I think we deserve a place in the world to be us, and not simply to serve as a universal economic space where idealistic white progressives try out their theories on universal human equality. I do not apologize for being fond of "whiteness" or "Americanness" and identifying with it and wanting to see it survive and prosper. If that makes me a "bigot", then fine, I'm a bigot.

Thank you for acknowledging what is now obvious. And here's why that deserves not only my contempt, but the contempt of this whole community:

You're the first one I've encountered here.

A lot of people get defensive about using the word bigot. And with good reason. The word is over-used:

Raz has to worry about being called a bigot when he points to cultural differences between American communities. He's not a bigot. I'm sure that even Woodsman (who I'm sure loses no sleep wondering whether he and Raz are friends) would agree that if someone of a different race showed up at Raz's door asking about Orthodoxy, Raz would be thrilled to invite him in and share his understanding. But because people with your attitude exist, Raz has to worry about being called a bigot, for trying to understand sub-cultures.

lektrode has to deal with the possibility of being called a bigot every time he voices his understandable frustration over a system that no longer seems fair, while he tries to wrestle with the question of why this might be, and how to fix it. His ability to think this through without suspicion is also hampered by the fact that there are real, genuine-article bigots around, espousing the views you do.

There are other members of religious groups who are interested in expanding their circle of adherents. I'll use the blanket term evangelicals. These reject your notion that the spread of ideas requires force, and are not bigots. But because your views still exist, THEY have to deal with being accused of cultural imperialism, and yes, even bigotry. Some people confuse their ideas with yours.

lakedaemonian is not a bigot either. He genuinely is struggling with very valid and difficult questions about how to balance protection of people he is tasked to serve, with the rights of those who threaten them. His job involves questioning the line where "might-is-right" MUST be applied, because there is no other option. (Descriptive "might-is-right".) He is not a bigot, as he too appears to rest his thinking on a principle of minimization of suffering.

The list goes on and on.

So everyone here, whether they have espoused ideas that appear superficially close to your yours or not, has it in their best interest if your ideas are socially shamed, and shunned. Because unlike you, we DON'T think "If that makes me a bigot, then I'm ok with that." is an acceptable conciliation. It's been said before, but ironically. In this case, it fits exactly.

I don't want us to conquer anyone else; I want the world to be full of countries of people who all identify and like their own people and their own ways, or work to change their own people. I want a world where no one conquers anyone else's land.

Then you haven't examined your belief structure enough to realize that this interest is not advanced by it, but dragged down by it.

I also recognize that you can't trust that everyone will observe those rules, so you have to try to be a very strong and wealthy and confident people so you can hold onto your own.

I have never advocated, nor do I believe others have seriously advocated, that we should stand down all our defenses unilaterally. This one is just irrelevant.

Those are my core beliefs. Believing I belong to a particular "people", affection for my people, and realism about the competitive (and often violent) nature of life. If you want to characterize those very natural feelings as "white supremacy" and "evil" and what-all, well, you're right in step with the people running the West. I guess we'll just disagree and watch how things evolve.

Just because one can push the evils of a philosophy into the "implied" part of speech, and leave behind relatively innocuous-sounding statements does not mean that it isn't evil.

I have said before that an idea, accompanied with respect for people, is not dangerous.

But your ideas BEGIN by ACTIVE disrespect for people. They ARE inherently dangerous. For people within the US. For people oversees. For people of EVERY race.

And I will stand by my statement that you have highlighted, out of the totality of my post, presumably because you think it is a weak point or shameful point in my argument.

But it is neither weak (meaning unsupported) nor shameful.

It is the safest way we may proceed as a nation, and a world. Racial supremacism must be fought on all fronts. IT is what is incompatible with western civilization.