Nationalism in Europe [Controversial]

Pedram wrote:

futbol wrote:
I also have no sympathy for the Palis. The Jews were occupied with developing Quantum Mechanics more than 100 years ago, the arabs in 2024 knock their head against the ground 5 times a day, put their women in full body clothing because someone else might look at their hair and go mass suiciding at 50° Celcius during Mekka pilgrimage. No wonder one has the technological and political might to fuck over the other. That's how Darwin works in a nutshell.

"Chauvinism is the unreasonable belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak, unworthy, or inferior."

@Myesyats You're simply blind if you can't see what the far-right advocate for.

When you take this dangerous ideology to its logical conclusion you get eugenics and mass genocide of "inferiors". last time it was the Jews who people like Futbol blamed for their economic shortcomings, now it's Arabs and brown people taking their jobs, lowering their wages, stealing their social security, committing crimes etc etc. same also applies to incels blaming women for not getting sex, like i said direct pipelines between these groups.

Truth is people on the far-right can never see the root cause of their problems which is the broken capitalist system, they are only capable of punching down and blaming minorities for their own failures.

Im against colonization lol, its obviously wrong. Im just saying it's not the root cause of all evil in the world, and people still make conscious, independent choices. And europeans didn't "invent" colonization either. Countries have been invaded and subjugated by others throughout all history, including European nations by other European nations. And examples of thriving countries that were colonized are living proof, colonization doesnt define them entirely

sportsczy wrote:

McLewis wrote:Regarding Britain's colonization in the East. Colonization that yields positive results is still the result of something being forced on the native population. I mean, Japan rapidly modernized under Meiji and that came after nearly 2 centuries of Europeans (then Americans) casually and openly threatening them to open themselves up to trade or be destroyed and then colonized. It's a real instructive that the net result of the "positive" colonization becomes the dominant narrative yet this isn't the case when the net results have been decidedly negative. That's when blame starts to get shifted and the defensiveness sets in.

And let me be clear about something - The reality is back then (as it was in the centuries and millennia before) is might made right and if you were strong enough to fight off colonization, you did and you could write your own story about it. If not, the best you could hope for was to become like Hong Kong (as you mentioned Sports) and then deal with the revisionist history of the victors. At worst? Well that's why we're talking about this subject.

There's more nuance. The only time "occupation" becomes a concern is when the people are oppressed... such as the Uyghur in China, Kurds in Turkey, etc. Otherwise, these geographies become a region within a country.

Hong Kong never saw the British as occupiers. In fact, the people of Hong Kong did not want the UK administration to leave. Not a single one of them. I was there during the handoff and Hong Kong citizens were terrified of their future under Chinese rule.... and rightfully so as we now know.

Another example is Bangladesh. If the people had a choice, all of them would have remained part of India (Bengal Province under British rule). Bangladesh remains a disaster while West Bengal is now one of the fastest-growing economic provinces of India. People from Bangladesh are going to India searching for a better life.

As with everything, I'd be very careful labeling things simply without full knowledge.

To this, I'll say: A gilded shackle worn willfully, is still a shackle.

HKers have never, in their history, had the power to self-determine their own future without the influence of the UK or China. I want that for them, but it'll never happen in our lifetimes.

HUGE BREAKING NEWS from France, as the Left-Green Alliance takes the lead over Macron's Centrists with the fascist right in third place. pic.twitter.com/PaZsXSfuHO

— Sam (@CounsellingSam) July 7, 2024

france tonight:
far left/far right split screen pic.twitter.com/FEhWkGtVnP

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) July 7, 2024

Lmao

Le Pen won't be in power but they got the most % of votes

This is how the results translate into seats:

Le Pen's National Rally —— 37.05% —— 143 seats
New People's Front —— 25.95% —— 182 seats
Macron —— 24.54% —— 168 seats
Republicans —— 5.41% —— 45 seats


Its a stupid electoral system if you ask me. In the end it's probably for the best because Le Pen is way too pro-russian.

A bit of a derailing from the thread topic, but it makes you wonder why not everyone is vegan, with all of the ever present vegan propaganda suggesting that everything will be great as long as we don't eat red meat, dairy and eggs.

Every time an adverse health effect claim related to red meat is debunked, another 2-3 appear out of nowhere and supposedly have a ton of epidemiological studies behind them that later turn out to have been fundamentally flawed.

Growth hormone doesn't actually cause cancer? Well, the heme iron will age you faster and it will cause heart disease. Heme iron doesn't actually age you faster and the heart disease claim is based on vague science? Well, it will surely cause intestinal cancer and hasten global warming. The arguments against it is never-ending.

And despite the suggestions that a vegan diet is superior in every category, all vegans I've ever known have ended the diet within 10 years due to health issues that gradually start creeping up, even among the ones who are very conscious about which nutrients they need to supplement with.

If you follow a "nose to tail" principle of eating, you won't need to supplement with any vitamins and minerals at all, but that's the diet that's stigmatized, not only in mainstream media, but also by doctors and dieticians. It makes no sense to me, especially considering that the vast majority of evidence suggesting that red meat is bad, is based on probable cause at best. And yet, they're all commonly presented as hard evidence in the media.

On topic: I'm not sure how legitimate this is or how well performed the study is, but I would not have been able to predict these results at all.

The media is not about informing the public but about pushing agendas, from health/nutrition, education, culture to environmental issues, renewable energy, social justice, entertainment etc etc....

The goalposts shift all the time depending on what the corporate interests are at a given moment in time. Its always about money and power when it comes to promotion of specific narratives or distraction from the real issues