yah, pretty much.I like the concept of Anarchism but, in reality, it would just be an endless stream of meetings with some hierarchical class inevitably being formed. Back to square one![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
US Politics the 2025 trump presidency thread
- Thread starter alasdairm
- Start date
At the root of what you're saying, you're making a sociocultural argument but trying to ground it in a biological basis. As a scientist, your tangent into natural selection is cringe worthy. You say you don't want to indulge tangents about race when your racist remarks are brought up, but then go on to make biologically deterministic arguments that are not actually rooted in science but social darwinism.
Immigration is about individuals being let into countries, natural selection is about population level distribution of genetic alleles that survive based on fitness. Whether an African person has alleles that predispose them to being more muscular or a better runner according to what their ancestors did is irrelevant to their nurtured characteristics in this life. It has zero to do with whether they are a good person.
What does this have to do with whether someone qualifies for immigration? Immigration is about our rules, not their culture. Even if your argument were correct, and I don't believe it is, it's still the government's fault for letting them in and not their fault for being the people they are. Humans will go anywhere that they are allowed to go. Yet your grievances are all about how inferior they are as a people, which I just don't understand. Every single nation on earth has a dominance hierarchy that stratifies society into weaker and more elite people. The immigration vetting process originally tried to pick the elite people because they are less troublesome to take care of. Now we are doing that less.
What about the low birth rates and why the government is letting more low-skilled labour in? You didn't address that part of my post at all.
Again, you gloss over the differences in African nations. Africa is a huge continent, you know? There are completely civilized countries that are overwhelmingly black majority, not "jungle peoples" at all but are economic contenders in the region with high levels of education and social organization. Democracies that are not corrupt. Maybe they are not as "advanced as us" but they are striving to be, unlike some other African nations that are mired in despotism, poverty and corruption.
The advancement of many black African nations really disproves your point, on the whole.
Again, I have no problem with talk about culture war and social divides, but racism here or anywhere is unacceptable. I'm not going to get into wordsmithing about whether your posts are racist or not. You know what racism is and I will not elucidate that for you. Honestly I wish you would just talk about anything other than race because you are normally quite informed on a broad range of topics. You have good points about culture clashes... but when you start talking about natural selection and biological determinism vis a vis stereotyping an entire nation of people, it's just super cringe.
Last edited:
It is a biological argument. Environment shapes who we are. That is basic evolutionary science, not social Darwinism. By trying to disparage what I've said you're insinuating that all humans are equal in terms of psychology, whether they be 20 generations deep in societal constructs since the Roman-Greek empires or only 5 removed from brutal tribalism. That is clearly rubbish. Even as white people there is a huge amount of our own behaviour and sub-conscious patterns that is directly correlated to our evolutionary past, that stuff doesn't just wash out in 1 generation..
The notion we are all equal psychologically and physiologically is just plain wrong. Nowhere have I introduced "social Darwinism" into the equation, not once have I said anything about being superior or inferior. I have clearly introduced the opposite argument in fact: "Give it a few more generations and the right environmental conditions, and things can change. And the opposite is also true mind you, we can all go back the other way if the lights go out."
And individuals are not wholly unique are they. No. They have constructs from family, community, religion, nation state, race, and other influences. Yes you have to examine every case on its own merit, as I have said already, but if you're picking from a pool of people which have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.. then you're a fool if you give equal measure when compared against say a pool of Japanese people.
And so what happens when you invite a bunch of people here who don't give a fuck about our rules and commit to industrial levels of rape against the native white girls. Is it "just who they are"? Or when they stand up in Parliament and try to claim that first cousin marriage is alright, while adding strain to the NHS because they have high levels of inbreeding complications in their community that contributes to lowered IQ? Is it "just who they are"?
No sorry, it takes two to tango. The government left the door open but people still have to walk through it. I'm well within my rights to criticise both parties thank you very much.
I'm bored of this. Goodbye.
It's social darwinism when you attribute sociocultural traits to biodeterministic ones, especially on a cultural hierarchy of inferiors/superiors.
It's interesting because in some ways, you don't tease apart nature vs nurture enough when you should, while in other ways you seem completely convinced that you know which is absolutely nature and which is nurture when the reality is more complex.
Nowhere did I say we are all equal psychologically or physiologically. In fact I'm pretty sure I said the opposite when I spoke to the dominance hierarchy. Some people are more elite than others in their capabilities, but we are equal in our humanity.
Correct, constructs... things that are socioculturally and socioeconomically determined, that have nothing to do with racial destiny. Which is why you can have high quality, civilized people and violent savages in the same racial population. Precluding inborn mental disorders, the differences are going to be how they were raised.
The pool doesn't matter as long as the vetting process is good. If your pool from South Africa is well-educated people with no known criminal histories, you're going to get different average propensities than people who grew up in slums and have family members involved in crime. It's got nothing to do with race.
You keep talking about equal measures. I never said anything about equal measures. Vetting processes have to be dynamic and catered to the countries of origins, which is the whole reason for the visa hierarchy. The vetting process is more stringent for people coming from nations that have higher crime indexes and social problems, but that doesn't mean the people of those countries are pre-destined to be violent or that they can't be vetted.
Those things don't align with my values either, but you have to ask yourself why the UK is devaluing its own culture by letting these types of values proliferate. It used to be that immigrants who came in had to assimilate, but now there is cultural displacement. Who benefits?
We can look down on culture, but you can't make it about inborn race. Every human is born with a clean slate and nurture determines a lot about the values they will one day believe in. You just can't make it about racial destiny.
That's probably for the best. Take care.
notsmokeymcpot42088
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2025
- Messages
- 431
This was my whole point -- what variable are we looking at other than race when we allow white south Africans but not Blacks --- How is that not racism I ask again. Also I get asked to name "one racist policy" all of the time - there you go.
You do know Trump was sued for racism in 1963 (I highly encourage you to read the case - couldn't be more clearcut).
This is race based prosecution. Perhaps even weaponization of the justice system. (Which I think is hilarious Republicans accuse Biden of with the shit going on).
Going after the people that were attempting to prosecute you is clearly weaponization of the justice system. I don't think Trump makes it through his term I really don't. (maybe I'm just an optimist)
**edit, not fair dude never engaged with me, I BROUGHT RACE INTO IT -- ME!** because it umm belongs?
Last edited:
People in the west are appalled by the turnabout violence against white people in SA that is being stoked by black political leaders there. I think offering refugee status to white SAs makes sense and is not discriminatory. I know SA folks in Canada who got refugee status here in the 80s because of the persecution they received for being white after apartheid ended.
However... that's different than changing policy to bar black South Africans as a matter of course. Seems like an entire demographic is being punished without rational basis. But it's Trump, what do you expect. This is the same guy who, in his first term, banned entire Mid-East nations from coming to the US.
notsmokeymcpot42088
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2025
- Messages
- 431
I am less appalled about the turnaround violence than most in the west I guess. About the same amount I am appalled by the French revolution (poor aristocrats). Now as a fairly geo-politically ignorant person I do not know as much as I should about either of these situations to make such statement perhaps...
Racism is exactly what I expect from Trump and this is just the perfect example with the only isolated variable being race...
Are white people subject to violence at a higher rate per Capita? I think offering refugee status to all SA's makes sense but to only give it to the white people is clearly racist? (White SA's are generally better off than black SA's? What am I missing.
I ask honestly as you have been dead on in this thread IMO (foreigner)
Racism is exactly what I expect from Trump and this is just the perfect example with the only isolated variable being race...
Are white people subject to violence at a higher rate per Capita? I think offering refugee status to all SA's makes sense but to only give it to the white people is clearly racist? (White SA's are generally better off than black SA's? What am I missing.
I ask honestly as you have been dead on in this thread IMO (foreigner)
during apartheid were black south Africans able to seek asylum or refugee status?
I suppose I can pose the same question for Palestinians now, genuine question I don't know much about which countries were allowed when and for what reason
I suppose I can pose the same question for Palestinians now, genuine question I don't know much about which countries were allowed when and for what reason
it's hard to identify the trump administration secretary who's the least qualified to hold their position but pete hegseth is surely near the top of many lists?
this is a blistering takedown:
fwiw, tammy duckworth is not a mtg, mace or boebert-style rep. who seem mostly focused on performative stunts for clicks.
she served as a commissioned officer in the u.s. army reserve. she served in iraq in 2004 and lost both legs when a helicopter she was (co)piloting was hit by an rpg. she has received the purple heart, the air medal and the army commendation medal.
she knows more about military service - and sacrifice - than trump and hegseth will ever know.
alasdair
this is a blistering takedown:
fwiw, tammy duckworth is not a mtg, mace or boebert-style rep. who seem mostly focused on performative stunts for clicks.
she served as a commissioned officer in the u.s. army reserve. she served in iraq in 2004 and lost both legs when a helicopter she was (co)piloting was hit by an rpg. she has received the purple heart, the air medal and the army commendation medal.
she knows more about military service - and sacrifice - than trump and hegseth will ever know.
alasdair
Whites are currently facing extreme violence. Having their farmlands and homes burned in a targeted way. Being dragged into the streets and beaten, maimed and killed; and it's all being encouraged by polemic black leaders, some of whom are elected officials.
You're missing that the violence is currently one-way racism.
It was hard to get refugee status in general back then if you were from SA because it was not seen as a country torn by war or sectarian violence. Emigration away from SA was also tightly controlled by their government, and apartheid was not an internationally recognized reason for refugee status because it did not automatically mean you were subject to violence.
Also it was just a different time, politically. Since apartheid was a British policy (and exit strategy from SA, like in many of their dominions), countries didn't want to alienate Britain by accepting refugees simply because of apartheid. Instead, many chose to isolate SA (sanctions, etc) hoping that SA itself would change its policies. It took them until the mid-90s to do so.
The white SAs I know who were able to get refugee status in the 80s were some of the first (and only), and it was only during the 1985 economic collapse of SA when race riots were particularly bad. If they didn't flee when they did they absolutely would've died. Imagine people with machetes and AK-47s coming into your place of work in broad daylight, throwing you into the back of a van, and taking you to the black-majority districts to face brutality or mob justice, even though you aren't a member of government. Or having your home ransacked and burned to the ground. It was at that level.
A lot of countries are currently accepting Palestinian refugees and have been this entire time, so it's not really comparable to SA during apartheid.
Last edited:
Just A Guy
Bluelight Crew
During the systematic oppression of apartheid, which reigned from 1948 to the early 1990s, Black South Africans facing persecution, violence, and the stripping of their basic human rights were indeed able to seek asylum and refugee status. However, this was a perilous journey, not facilitated by the apartheid regime itself, but rather through escape to neighboring nations and the eventual, though often complex, recognition by the international community.
The apartheid government, which built its foundation on racial segregation and the subjugation of the Black majority, had no intention of providing a legal pathway for its Black citizens to claim asylum. Internally, the regime's policies were designed to control and restrict the movement of Black people, not to offer them protection. The infamous "pass laws" required Black South Africans to carry internal passports, and failure to produce one on demand led to immediate arrest. Millions were arrested under these laws, which effectively criminalized freedom of movement within their own country.
Furthermore, the creation of "Bantustans" or "homelands" was a cornerstone of grand apartheid, stripping Black South Africans of their citizenship and forcibly relocating them to nominally independent, but economically non-viable, states. This act of denationalization was a clear violation of international norms and created a population of internal refugees within their own land.
For those who actively resisted the regime, the consequences were severe. Political activists, students, artists, and intellectuals faced banning orders, which prohibited them from working, speaking publicly, or being quoted. Many, like the acclaimed writer Es'kia Mphahlele, were forced into exile to continue their work and advocacy against apartheid. Others faced detention without trial, torture, and assassination at the hands of state security forces and their proxies.
Faced with such brutal repression, many Black South Africans chose to flee the country. Their primary destinations were the newly independent nations bordering South Africa, which came to be known as the Frontline States. These nations—Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, and later Zimbabwe—played a crucial role in the anti-apartheid struggle by providing sanctuary to political exiles and allowing liberation movements like the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) to establish operational headquarters and military training camps.
The journey to these countries was fraught with danger, often involving clandestine border crossings to evade South African security forces. Those who made it were generally recognized as refugees by their host countries, which, despite their own economic and political vulnerabilities, bore a significant burden in supporting the South African liberation struggle.
On the international stage, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the broader international community were unequivocal in their condemnation of apartheid as a crime against humanity. The UNHCR expanded its mandate and activities in Africa during the era of decolonization. However, its direct involvement within South Africa was non-existent until the dying days of apartheid, with a formal agreement being signed only in 1993.
While the apartheid government did not recognize the refugee status of its own Black citizens fleeing persecution, the international legal framework, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, provided the basis for other countries to grant them asylum. The political nature of their flight, directly linked to the injustices of apartheid, often made their claims for asylum compelling.
There are countless individual stories of those who sought refuge. For instance, the writer Dugmore Boetie fled on foot to Bechuanaland (modern-day Botswana) in the wake of the Sharpeville Massacre. The family of one activist was given an ultimatum: testify against Nelson Mandela or leave the country. They chose exile, receiving only an exit permit, not a passport, and were warned they would receive no consular assistance abroad.
In conclusion, while the apartheid state itself offered no recourse for its Black citizens to seek asylum, the act of fleeing persecution and seeking refuge in other nations was a significant and necessary path for many. The support of the Frontline States and the principles of international refugee law provided a lifeline for those escaping the brutalities of a regime that had declared them aliens in their own land.
The apartheid government, which built its foundation on racial segregation and the subjugation of the Black majority, had no intention of providing a legal pathway for its Black citizens to claim asylum. Internally, the regime's policies were designed to control and restrict the movement of Black people, not to offer them protection. The infamous "pass laws" required Black South Africans to carry internal passports, and failure to produce one on demand led to immediate arrest. Millions were arrested under these laws, which effectively criminalized freedom of movement within their own country.
Furthermore, the creation of "Bantustans" or "homelands" was a cornerstone of grand apartheid, stripping Black South Africans of their citizenship and forcibly relocating them to nominally independent, but economically non-viable, states. This act of denationalization was a clear violation of international norms and created a population of internal refugees within their own land.
For those who actively resisted the regime, the consequences were severe. Political activists, students, artists, and intellectuals faced banning orders, which prohibited them from working, speaking publicly, or being quoted. Many, like the acclaimed writer Es'kia Mphahlele, were forced into exile to continue their work and advocacy against apartheid. Others faced detention without trial, torture, and assassination at the hands of state security forces and their proxies.
Faced with such brutal repression, many Black South Africans chose to flee the country. Their primary destinations were the newly independent nations bordering South Africa, which came to be known as the Frontline States. These nations—Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, and later Zimbabwe—played a crucial role in the anti-apartheid struggle by providing sanctuary to political exiles and allowing liberation movements like the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) to establish operational headquarters and military training camps.
The journey to these countries was fraught with danger, often involving clandestine border crossings to evade South African security forces. Those who made it were generally recognized as refugees by their host countries, which, despite their own economic and political vulnerabilities, bore a significant burden in supporting the South African liberation struggle.
On the international stage, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the broader international community were unequivocal in their condemnation of apartheid as a crime against humanity. The UNHCR expanded its mandate and activities in Africa during the era of decolonization. However, its direct involvement within South Africa was non-existent until the dying days of apartheid, with a formal agreement being signed only in 1993.
While the apartheid government did not recognize the refugee status of its own Black citizens fleeing persecution, the international legal framework, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, provided the basis for other countries to grant them asylum. The political nature of their flight, directly linked to the injustices of apartheid, often made their claims for asylum compelling.
There are countless individual stories of those who sought refuge. For instance, the writer Dugmore Boetie fled on foot to Bechuanaland (modern-day Botswana) in the wake of the Sharpeville Massacre. The family of one activist was given an ultimatum: testify against Nelson Mandela or leave the country. They chose exile, receiving only an exit permit, not a passport, and were warned they would receive no consular assistance abroad.
In conclusion, while the apartheid state itself offered no recourse for its Black citizens to seek asylum, the act of fleeing persecution and seeking refuge in other nations was a significant and necessary path for many. The support of the Frontline States and the principles of international refugee law provided a lifeline for those escaping the brutalities of a regime that had declared them aliens in their own land.
notsmokeymcpot42088
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2025
- Messages
- 431
Foreigner
JustaGuy
Grazi for the additional context -- I still don't know that I agree but I'm smart enough to know that I don't know.
Foreigner first---
--- let me try and wrap my ethnocentric head around this so despite more crimes (per Capita) against black SA's, a higher poverty rate (Generally a worse life than white SA's -- after Apartheid ended than "One way racism" towards white SA's began? (I don't think I need to argue apartheid was one way racism in the other direction). ---- If "Automatically subject to violence" is the bar for refugee status (and apartheid didn't meet the criteria somehow) ---- How does "White SA" mean you will 'automatically' be subject to violence and why do the statistics not paint that picture at all? I guess what I am asking for is evidence of this "one way racism" -- FTR this is not a "Got ya moment" as much as an "Im still missing some context" moment.
Just a guy-- "Frontline states" ok that is helping contextually. That last paragraph is a great summary (I hope because I am basing what I say on it haha) So long story short the subjegated majority are offered little recourse other than fleeing (almost underground railroad style) to other nearby African countries. So apartheid ended --- the whites still have most of the money and suffer far less in general. Obviously some people are going to have some feelings toward them for all those years reading they boot label against their necks...
I guess what I ask for is evidence of this "One sided racism is SA on a level that makes being white **automatically** subject you to violence"
JustaGuy
Grazi for the additional context -- I still don't know that I agree but I'm smart enough to know that I don't know.
Foreigner first---
--- let me try and wrap my ethnocentric head around this so despite more crimes (per Capita) against black SA's, a higher poverty rate (Generally a worse life than white SA's -- after Apartheid ended than "One way racism" towards white SA's began? (I don't think I need to argue apartheid was one way racism in the other direction). ---- If "Automatically subject to violence" is the bar for refugee status (and apartheid didn't meet the criteria somehow) ---- How does "White SA" mean you will 'automatically' be subject to violence and why do the statistics not paint that picture at all? I guess what I am asking for is evidence of this "one way racism" -- FTR this is not a "Got ya moment" as much as an "Im still missing some context" moment.
Just a guy-- "Frontline states" ok that is helping contextually. That last paragraph is a great summary (I hope because I am basing what I say on it haha) So long story short the subjegated majority are offered little recourse other than fleeing (almost underground railroad style) to other nearby African countries. So apartheid ended --- the whites still have most of the money and suffer far less in general. Obviously some people are going to have some feelings toward them for all those years reading they boot label against their necks...
I guess what I ask for is evidence of this "One sided racism is SA on a level that makes being white **automatically** subject you to violence"
Last edited:
jasperkent
Bluelighter
Once again, Trae nails it.
4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 1,297
notsmokeymcpot42088
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2025
- Messages
- 431
^ Do you go back and kill Hitler or go back and be his psychiatrist or some damn thing to try and push him down another path. (How much is human life worth in its most vile form?) lol
brokedownpalace10
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 2,727
Saw a comedian, Myk Kaplan(?) who had a bit where the Jews had made a time machine to go back and kill younger Hitler. He escapes over and over and the only thing they accomplish is to make him fearful of and hate Jews.
notsmokeymcpot42088
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2025
- Messages
- 431
I have seen a few versions of this -- so in fact they were the ones that set him on the path and now ww2 is they fault --- ahhh all I wanted to do is read and my glasses are broke!! (Points for getting that reference).
Fly that mofo out of Germany and dedicate my life to being his shadow / mentor. (Don't I think highly of myself) lol. You see the shioot I think it was a the "Mike Tyson Mystery Squad" cartoon -- he keeps saying he'd kill baby Hitler if he had the chance than somehow he ends up time traveling -- hitler in a cradle just punches the baby to death relentlessly -- giant black dude in a tracksuit just appears. Good shit.
(Good cartoon, he is haunted by the marquees of queensberry(Sp's) and Norm McDonald voiced the talking pidgeon.)
4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 1,297
jasperkent
Bluelighter
Elect a clown, expect a circus
There's a lot of MAGA infighting going on. I guess when one's core "strengths" are ignorance, immaturity, resentment, & spite, one is bound to have problems with cooperation & clear goals.
There's a lot of MAGA infighting going on. I guess when one's core "strengths" are ignorance, immaturity, resentment, & spite, one is bound to have problems with cooperation & clear goals.
fascism is built around excluding outsiders from the ingroup. the only drive in fascism is to continue this and if taken to its logical extreme infighting happens as the in group gets ever smaller