BruceVC

Also, do you think there's some collective group think where a person is shot and killed, a criminal record a mile long and possibly a child molester, depending on the colour of their skin will determine if there's community outrage or not? If it's a white guy, other white people may declare good riddance, scum, etc. if it's a black guy, then black people will point the finger at the cops with outrage? When I saw the video of the guy selling cd's, that was murder. But if it was a white guy with the same criminal record, would there have been so much outrage by white people? Or would we have seen white people say things like 'no loss'. I think had it been a white guy it wouldn't have even hit the media. But if it did, it would have been like most white killings by police, a combo of decrying the police for overreacting, and a "well, if he didn't have an illegal weapon..."Oerwinde you are deep thinker, you research stuff and I appreciate your perspective on topics even if we differ on some things, i would like to share something with you about this BLM movement This whole BLM is more complex but also more simpler on some levels than it may appear but I would like to ask you an important question, at the end of this current wave of BLM there are two main views (and I mean the people like us who do debate these things )most white people will have You can feel highly annoyed, possibly resentful and concerned about certain societal inconsistencies around the overall behavior of BLM You can be at ease because you understand the greater narrative of a movement like BLM, this doesnt mean you justify bad behavior it just means you have an understanding Which one would you prefer? I don't like BLM. They attack their allies, vandalize, attack charitable events and rallies, and if people don't submit to their bullying and intimidation, try to brand them as racist. They have done more to erode race relations than any other entity since the KKK. I can understand this may be your view, I'm not going to try to change your views as I consider you a reasonable person My view is about an understanding of aspects of history and the current reality of certain social conditions. But please consider this, BLM will be with us forever. Going forward it will become one of the various SJ initiatives we see and people support Dont see this as bad thing, its just a reality. So going forward as BLM gets representation in its own way throughout the world especially in Western Democracies you will be confronted by it....do you really want to constantly think about in the same light as the KKK?

You raise some good points, to be honest its better to be one or the other because certain fundamental views are necessary to believe one or the other and these things are mutually exclusive But of course there are some similarities

It isn't anything that I haven't heard in past 21 years multiple times, even from people that know better. But it isn't really different from any other political discussion. It isn't optimal but one learns to live with it. Okay the reason is I can dispute some of what people are saying but its not worth doing unless people like you are upset So I wouldn't want you getting negative about the EU just because of some of the comments. But I know you know a lot about the EU so I would assume you wouldnt believe the negative views

Also, do you think there's some collective group think where a person is shot and killed, a criminal record a mile long and possibly a child molester, depending on the colour of their skin will determine if there's community outrage or not? If it's a white guy, other white people may declare good riddance, scum, etc. if it's a black guy, then black people will point the finger at the cops with outrage? When I saw the video of the guy selling cd's, that was murder. But if it was a white guy with the same criminal record, would there have been so much outrage by white people? Or would we have seen white people say things like 'no loss'. I think had it been a white guy it wouldn't have even hit the media. But if it did, it would have been like most white killings by police, a combo of decrying the police for overreacting, and a "well, if he didn't have an illegal weapon..." Oerwinde you are deep thinker, you research stuff and I appreciate your perspective on topics even if we differ on some things, i would like to share something with you about this BLM movement This whole BLM is more complex but also more simpler on some levels than it may appear but I would like to ask you an important question, at the end of this current wave of BLM there are two main views (and I mean the people like us who do debate these things )most white people will have You can feel highly annoyed, possibly resentful and concerned about certain societal inconsistencies around the overall behavior of BLM You can be at ease because you understand the greater narrative of a movement like BLM, this doesnt mean you justify bad behavior it just means you have an understanding Which one would you prefer?

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states? Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other. That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently. If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically. Finland isn't really a nation state, because we are federacy of multiple nations. Elerond can I ask you two questions What laws and control exactly would you have restored to the Finnish government, you guys keep saying you have lost sovereignty so what specifically do you mean? Who are these " elites " people keep referring to...where do they live ? You ask me question that I don't know answers. You probably should aim them towards those who make those claims. Elerond on this thread there is a fair amount about of negative and incorrect information about the EU, you not getting concerned or a little depressed by the comments are you?

I was watching this earlier, it is more complex than it may appear so they need to investigate So I will say this guy was suffering from some form of PTSD, he couldn't differentiate a societal problem from some apparent orchestrated campaign that the police are actively pursing, so in other words he believed the latter

GD how would you address this type of racism? Watch the video https://www.jacarandafm.com/shows/the-complimentary-breakfast-with-rian-van-heerden/sodwana-bay-guest-house-owner-refuses-apologise-racist-comments/ You know I thought about this more and more as I was enjoying an adult beverage while watching the rain fall on my front porch last night. I think the thing that bother's me the most about this isn't that they are racist. There are racists all over the the place. You just avoid them. It's that they actually try to couch their racism in religious terms by referencing a bible verse. Anyone who really thinks the bible promotes racism isn't reading it. I guess that must be how the non violent Muslims feel when the see the BS ISIS is spouting. 100 %, I have said this several times but I dont ever judge any religion on the deeds of man As this guy is particularly reprehensible, he absolutely doesn't represent Christian values.

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states? Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other. That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently. If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically. Finland isn't really a nation state, because we are federacy of multiple nations. Elerond can I ask you two questions What laws and control exactly would you have restored to the Finnish government, you guys keep saying you have lost sovereignty so what specifically do you mean? Who are these " elites " people keep referring to...where do they live ?

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable. As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset. What, exactly, is pitiable about the idea that the positive benefits they have on our lives is not just "in our heads", but actually tangible, measurable and provable? You're arguing with a vast body of research that says human relationships and human contact are good for you; why? To score points in a debate by letting you claim that this is some sort of abstract and fuzzy benefit that can't be quantified? ? Alum whats your view on the EU? Do you support it ....wants changes etc. ?

There is a shocking amount of misinformation from the average South African about BLM and state of racial tension in USA...well there was last night on this one talk show People think there is a state sponsored initiative to kill African Americans, so black South Africans phone in and say things like " I'm scared to go on holiday to the USA because I may get killed "

Volo I dont think you want to even try to understand BLM They are not like the KKK, lets not be silly now

Guys I am surprised people are questioning the validity and reason for BLM Its is movement that has some reasonable objectives, like all social movements it has good elements and bad elements in it Some African Americans feel marginalized within US society and BLM is a expression of this frustration, my advice is dont stress too much and let it run its course

He definitely had a very controversial past, you not wrong there

You misunderstand me, Im not apologizing for Apartheid I am not responsible but that doesn't mean I cant be part of the solution and just for the record there is much more positive stories in SA than negative so Im not claiming things are terrible at all. Sorry if I created that impression

I hear you and I have heard similar views from other US members But I still think you guys misunderstand the SA reality and our history and how Apartheid still resonates in our society Apartheid wasn't just a legal system that marginalized black people, it was a psychological social experiment and it attempted to do something almost inhuman. No race in this world could go through 50 years of what black South Africans went through without some kind of mental consequences....you cant be told everyday " you are inferior because of the color of your skin" without that impacting you I'm not sure there is another example in the recent history that is similar ?

http://ewn.co.za/2016/07/01/Ahmed-Kathrada-Foundation-reacts-to-racist-Andre-Slade They also refused service, I wish I didnt care but these types of events cause national consternation in SA People get very upset, I understand sometimes you guys think Im perhaps over-reacting but due to Apartheid we are very sensitive to this type of commentary

They basically said " in the bible its clearly stated black people are inferior to white people "...and they refused to allow any black people to stay at there guest house Again, who cares what they think? As for the guest house, do people have some kind of right to the guest house? Yes but you cant deny people services based on there race and they werent allowing black people to stay there...this would be illegal in the USA I'm sure?

GD how would you address this type of racism? Watch the video https://www.jacarandafm.com/shows/the-complimentary-breakfast-with-rian-van-heerden/sodwana-bay-guest-house-owner-refuses-apologise-racist-comments/ I'm not GD, but I'll answer anyway. What exactly is the problem? They don't approve of race mixing, so what? Is there more to this story I'm missing? They basically said " in the bible its clearly stated black people are inferior to white people "...and they refused to allow any black people to stay at there guest house

GD how would you address this type of racism? Watch the video https://www.jacarandafm.com/shows/the-complimentary-breakfast-with-rian-van-heerden/sodwana-bay-guest-house-owner-refuses-apologise-racist-comments/

Volo you not suggesting Kim Kardashian is a rapist are you? Thought it was obvious Kim Kardashian was a rapist. First time I would heard of it

Yet you seem to be quite dismayed at the thought of a unified European culture growing, expanding and subsuming national identities. Why can't we just let national identity die in peace naturally? That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable. Two reasons: 1) It's being replaced by something lower in principle, of which no one is willing defend to the death. It will not satisfy anyone and give rise to real marching right/left-wing parties and another war, which is what i want to avoid for the next generation. 2) The power is centralised if national governments shift their power to Brussels, which will end with continental size warfare unlike anything seen before. Don't fool yourself just because we currently live in relatively peaceful times that it will continue forever if you give up on nations. Both are destructive in the design and i wish to move away from it for a better future. Nation states might erode, but power has to shift to locally with their own laws, hierarchies and armies. That kind of "death" we can all get behind; I would even call it rebirth. As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset. It seems to me that you think their is some kind of spiritual benefit of a nation state. Namutree whats your ideal system of government in 2016, lets so you can implement anything. What would you go for ?

Yes but you clearly believe what you post so why cant you just use a link? If the type of member who never uses links I would understand but its inconsistent to not use links when someone asks, I can produce links if you ask?

What a nice and honest post Well played Indira, I always appreciate your insight because I find you to be very reasonable and you have accurate views on certain topics

Volo I may be mistaken but you seem to have issues producing links whenever you make certain statements? Why is that because sometimes you make a point with a link from the beginning?

Volo you not suggesting Kim Kardashian is a rapist are you?