/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>253027
>Current projection is Conservative majority
Nice. I hope this will lead to a no deal Brexit, but I fear Britain will become a Vassal state in the EU link Norway.
But a broken Labour party is always a good sign no matter what.

>>253028
But the people voted on Brexit. The House of Windsor is just stalling to keep this "new world order" a float when banks across Europe are crashing. They House Windsor is about to fall.

Conservatives on pace to get 362 seats, and they only need 326 for a "fuck you we don't need anyone else's votes" majority.

It looks like British Trump might have just gotten the largest landslide victory in the UK since WW2.

>>253031
More like House Sinsor.
That Queen's a Jew. She's said and done nothing about the traitors in parliament, the muslim rapist and grooming gang machine on her street, or the replacement of "her" people.
I don't trust her.

>Labour are sub 200 seats.
>Corbyn resigned.
>Jo swinson lost her seat and resigned.
>Bunch of people screaming that remain parties had a greater vote share.
Going to be some interesting times, especially with next years american election probably playing into our trade talks and the looming european recession.

>>253076
If Trump was serious about a big deal with britain to replace the EU deal, they would have been negotiating it for years already. That shit takes time to set up, they should have done it so day 1 of Brexit you have an American deal go live. Not five years after.

>>253060
>"I'm going to judge people and a situation I know next to nothing about because I'm a Pleb!"
This is exactly what is wrong with the democratic experiment.
God save the Queen.

>>253091
*To elaborate, one can only ever guess at what is going on in State matters. All we can do as Plebs is make inferences, yet so many arrogant profligates are prone to stating X or Y as fact. "You do nothing, therefore you are one of them!" Indeed, perhaps the Queen is a corrupt harlot without an inkling of care for the Britons. But what if there were unseen elements to this inaction? Like the favor of the Masses, which even nobles must pay heed to in this barbaric modern society. What if there was fear of Plebeian retribution, that figures in the State could take hold of for selfish ambitions? Again, one can never know for certain. All we can do is make inferences with the bits and pieces we have. And this is one of the many reasons why I despise you Mass Men, that is, you are arrogant. Wicked. Self-indulgent. Weak.
Although she is a Queen, and I shouldn't have these feelings, I eagerly await any chance of ''something'' to happen in this static modern world, and this would mean her death and the ascension of Prince Charles. The same applies in other nations, as in my own, just with interesting political figures instead of nobles. This impatience is wrong, but it is what I feel.

>>253093
This is why you need to keep the population in debt, poorly housed, malnourished and poisoned. Otherwise all the available time and energy gets put into escalating chaos.

The elites did nothing wrong.

Today was a good day.

>>253091
More like "you sexually experiment", faggot.
The Queen has failed to save "her" country from Islam in a timely manner, or do anything about the Jewish support of Islam's caliphate quest.

>>253102
I am really happy for you. I hope Britain becomes Great again, and that the EU burns to the ground.

>>253102
>Spyro
My brother!
Speaking of Spyro, it's possible to make custom levels and mod existing levels on the PC Release. I'm thinking of getting some cash together and announcing a themed contest, like what SimpleFlips does.

>>253101
the constitution does not allow her to, because of liberal twats like you. if the monarchy was allowed to appoint cabinet like they rightfully should be able to, clement atlee would never have come to power and socialism would not have gained a foothold in this country. in addition, the destruction of the privy council in favor of a cabinet system that places absolute power in the hands of elected fucking officials ensures that not only does the monarch not get to advise on these matters, such as immigration, but the monarch also does not know what plans cabinet has for dealing with issues. furthermore, the monarch is forbidden by law to read the contents of statute that she is constitutionally forced to sign into law, so not only is the monarch not allowed to stop retarded laws, she isn't even aware of what she's fucking signing! is it any wonder that her majesty has acted like a retarded feminist when her every move is controlled by our jewish government? go fuck yourself you parliamentarian, puritan, dutch-cock-sucking liberal french pile of dog turd.

>>262567
Yeah, let's pretend the Queen doesn't have the power to execute any jew she wants in this land. Let's pretend the Queen doesn't have regular meetings with other powerful people in the govt who has to do what she says. Let's pretend the Queen isn't also a jew, let's pretend she's "just being forced" to act like a retarded feminist.
Let's pretend that if this jew queen had the power to appoint whoever she wanted, she wouldn't just appoint socialists anyway.

>>262573
Other than Diana can you name one other person the Queen has had executed in the last 50 years?

>>262698
Maybe I should exclude Maxwell as well but as he was Jewish it would not fit your argument anyway.

>>262698
Honestly, no. I can't name a single Muslim Pedophile or Jewish Conspirator the Queen has executed, either. I also can't think of any that have died in convenient car crashes.
She could fix this overnight. She could accelerate the fall of this regime overnight. She could speak out against the islamic rape of england and damage the narrative with a single tweet. If she wanted to save this country and sieze power doing so, she could easily piss off this country's "being british means loving the queen and watching royal family weddings on TV and buying their merch and action figures no matter what" royal-fanboy consoomerniggers by talking about how the Parliament has enabled the islamic rape of the united kingdom. She could easily frame it as "I'm the good jew, everyone who ever wanted to challenge my power is the bad jew!" and you have no idea how many dumbfucks would buy it.
House Windsor is corruption and rot.

>>262698
the monarchy has not had the authority to order a person's execution since 1689.
>>262709
her speeches are pre-approved by the government, she cannot say anything they do not approve of. as to whether she could throw off the shackles of liberal democracy and seize power, that's debatable. certainly such an effort would be applaudable, but since we live in a crowned republic with almost zero trace of respect for tradition and nationalism (as you demonstrated by bringing up those royal family fans who engage in celebrity worship over something that deserves much greater respect, and understanding that it's the institution, which represents the core importance of the family to our society, that matters, not the individuals holding the office), I imagine that not only would she and her family be summarily imprisoned, if none of the rest of the family decided to go along with the government line, then we could easily see their execution, and the rise of the most leftist, republican government the world has ever seen.
>House Windsor is corruption and rot.
Oh, very much agreed! It's succession to the throne is totally illegitimate, and provided that we solved our issues with our cucked government and parliamentary supremacy introduced by those 1689 jews, I'd prefer the return of the Jacobite succession with Duke Franz of Bavaria, or his brother Prince Max, succeeding to the throne after Her Majesty's death.

>>262573
>Yeah, let's pretend the Queen doesn't have the power to execute any jew she wants in this land.
That is called an assassination, not an execution. If you actually meant an execution, then I'm not entirely sure what to tell you, since you don't seem to understand royal prerogative and common law.
>Let's pretend the Queen doesn't have regular meetings with other powerful people in the govt who has to do what she says.
Of course she has regular meetings with the government, the idea that they have to do what she says though is not only stupid, it's demonstrateably false - Margaret Thatcher vehemently disagreed with Her Majesty, as her memoirs and other writing reveal.
>Let's pretend the Queen isn't also a jew, let's pretend she's "just being forced" to act like a retarded feminist.
If you are referring by her being Jewish to the royal family's connections to Freemasonry, it bears pointing out that abolishing monarchy would hardly displease that odious group. Marxism and Liberalism both grew out of the fertile dung that was Masonic Republicanism, that began with esoteric societies sparking the English Civil War, and you will note that your idol Cromwell was the one who returned the Jews to England, overthrowing the Royal Decree of Edward Longshanks with regards to that - and then the Freemasons, having removed the rightful heirs to our throne and imposed a puppet dynasty, then in quick succession caused the so-called glorious revolution, then the american revolution, then the french, then the paris commune, then the 1905 and 1917 revolutions in russia (and let's not forget the 1912 revolution in china). Both communism and democracy arose from the ashes of burning monarchy, and yet you would depose that selfsame institution which represented the strength of our culture, our race and our familial structure against those dogs. So ultimately whether the Queen is or is not a retarded feminist, the government requires her to be one, and that is what is reprehensible, the use of this ancient and noble institution to spout masonic garbage.
>Let's pretend that if this jew queen had the power to appoint whoever she wanted, she wouldn't just appoint socialists anyway.
Her actions do not appear to have suggested as such, but certainly her oddly friendly disposition to that most disgusting betrayal of western civilization known as democracy would result in her appointing people not exactly qualified to save this nation, but nonetheless I believe it would be a marked improvement over our current situation. In any case, her Majesty has no power in this situation whatever her views, and so it falls to us to fix the issue, which was the same situation as before - I, however, once this has been achieved, will fight to the death to stop your jewish, masonic, liberal, marxist, rosicrucian ideology of republicanism to succeed. Without monarchy, there is no britain at all, merely a rock in the middle of the sea.

>>262719
In theory the law still exists to execute a person for treason. However UK law is not fully codified and therefore any judge can change it if they want. I think one of the reasons police are now shooting terrorists is because they can justify the killing at scene better than in a court.
Therefore the Queen who signs in all laws has backdoored the killing of certain loonies. That might soon include people wilfully spreading corona as the police are getting two years of power to prevent that.

>>262812
>In theory the law still exists to execute a person for treason.
That's actually false, it ceased to exist as of 1998. That's a common misconception due to the fact that it was not initially exempt from the death penalty, but was only made so later.
> However UK law is not fully codified and therefore any judge can change it if they want.
You have a better understanding than that other person, who ashamedly despite living in this country knows less about it's legal system than you. Judges can't change statute, so any laws that are written are codified and are legally binding - they have the right to interpret them, however, which primarily means that where a loophole or area uncovered by the law arises, the judge can decide whether to rule based purely on the law(allowing the criminal to go unpunished until the flaw in the statute is addressed by parliament), or acts in the spirit of the law, referred to as the golden rule - and those are just the main two rules of judicial interpretation. So yes, Judges do have a lot of leeway, but they cannot contradict or overthrow the written law.
> I think one of the reasons police are now shooting terrorists is because they can justify the killing at scene better than in a court.
That's not actually an execution - the police are authorized to use deadly force against a target deemed dangerous enough, in the interests of their self-defence - if the terrorist were incapacitated by being knocked out, then they would almost certainly remain alive till the end of their days.
>Therefore the Queen who signs in all laws has backdoored the killing of certain loonies.
Royalty has been required to sign any law parliament presents to it since 1707. That is the last time any modicum of royal power was truly used.
>That might soon include people wilfully spreading corona as the police are getting two years of power to prevent that.
That sounds more like emergency or temporary powers, which falls entirely outside of royal prerogative and is the sole jurisdiction of cabinet.

>>262826
Huh.
Well, fuck.
If things went differently and we had better royals, do you think they would have tried to stop or slow marxism before it took over?

>>262949
Some say that King Edward VIII had this intention and was forced to abdicate with the whole playboy controversy being a façade.

>>262949
>If things went differently and we had better royals, do you think they would have tried to stop or slow marxism before it took over?
Absolutely(the greatest adversary of the bolsheviks was the monarchist white army, after all). Firstly, the way I see it monarchy is the antithesis of communism - it enshrines the idea of social stratification of not being an evil, nor the nuclear family small-minded, and makes them centrally important by having the royal family represent all of this. The way I see it, it's like mein kampf's "german democracy" but representing those values - and of course maintaining the purity of the family also makes clear the importance of racial purity, something which alone should discount any further succession within the house of windsor due to the marrying in of a certain mixed-race feminist. Secondly, a lot of fascist movements were monarchist - italian fascism did not threaten their monarchy, spain enshrined it, as did japan, mosley was a staunch monarchist, hungarians favoured the return of the habsburgs, and so on and so forth. And to be clear I wouldn't exactly call myself fascist, I'd say I'm a old-fashioned tory with the same aims as fascists, just preferring their achievement through older institutions and traditions. So basically the same, just with a love of my heritage that manifests more as a desire to restore rather than to replace, even if the replacement is better.
But, having said all of that, I think I might be in favour of removing the current royals even if they weren't replaced - better to remove a beautiful flower while it's still blooming rather than see it wilt and decay, or worse become an infectious weed (which I think is not possible for a flower, but metaphorical flowers ought to be given some leeway.)

>>263288
Not this anon >>262949 but which aims of Toryism do you believe are the most important and what advantages does Toryism have over Fascism? If the Anglo royals were purged and weren't replaced do you still believe Toryism would be a Better alternative to Fascism?
Also nice get.

>>263297
You are comparing apples to oranges. Just because something ends in ISM does not mean it is comparative. Unless you consider that both forms produce alot of jism.

>>263320
I am interested in his views and why he believes it to be better to Fascism.

>>263297
>which aims of Toryism do you believe are the most important
I'd say the aims of family and culture are central - race was regarded as important back in Toryism's heyday, but since it wasn't under threat back then it understandably was not the primary concern. The symbol of Toryism is a tree - which the modern conservatives very inappropriately still use, since it has a specific and important meaning. The idea is that society should not only be healthy, but organic - and that, I think is the core difference. Whereas fascism will happily tear down the old to supplement the new (see the futurists in italy) and construct a whole new social order (see natsoc plans to remove the class system), Toryism sees value in the old and so changes more gradually, an approach I prefer since I think with an overly revolutionary approach to society you may end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A people or a folk are not a group you can simply mold into being what you want, it works both ways - traditions that form the basis of what and who we are were not created by any government, after all, common people began them. While it may seem silly to do something merely because it has always been done that way, it helps connect us with our past, and gives us a true consciousness of our heritage, our culture, our history - it in many ways makes us what we are as a people. So I think so long as you ensure that you don't have a backwards value system like under cultural marxism, people will usually do the right thing left to their own devices, and over time the elements that made us great will re-emerge. I guess another way to phrase it is that if cultural marxism is digging yourself into a hole, and fascism is trying to fill the hole in, classical Toryism is like simply stopping digging yourself into a hole, and working on climbing out(for example, rather than relying on enforced morality, I think Toryism relies mostly on social pressure - behaviour that shows contempt for the public order like underdressing, dyed hair, body piercing and so on are frowned upon to an extent that for the most part people don't do that - which, though I don't have any way to prove it, I think is much more effective. our people are ultimately good inside once you've put them on the right path, and I reckon you can leave them to it once you have). And a lot of it is hard to really quantify because tradition is difficult to pin down - I've though of giving judges and lawyers wearing robes and wigs as a minor example of tradition that fascism might easily dismiss as just silly and old-fashioned, but then it's not exactly a concrete matter. But you feel that the robe and wig lend a legitimacy, one that wouldn't be there if they just came out in a suit, even though they'd look more professional. Everyone knows that judges and lawyers have used robes and wigs as long as anyone can remember, and everyone knows on some level that there's a significance in the long history behind them. It's a feeling, that kind you get in a cathedral, where you can feel the weight of history, feel the past and your ancestors and all the many generations who were english (or any other people). So in many ways it's more a preference based on feeling than logic (though I also should point out that there's quite a bit more philosophical literature on old Toryism, for example Thomas Carlyle, Burke, de Maistre and so on), but if you've ever stood on the bare earth, looked across the rolling hills and been overcome with emotion knowing that it's this very land where your ancestors lived, worked, fought, and died, that's my main attraction to it.
>If the Anglo royals were purged and weren't replaced do you still believe Toryism would be a Better alternative to Fasicm?
Right, the more practical side. For one, fascist economics draws a lot from corporatism and syndicalism, but I think that's a little too heavy-handed with economy, whilst I still believe in ensuring the common man isn't trodden down by an overly jewish materialistic capitalism - so I prefer distributism, a more traditionalist approach to economics that nonetheless maintains the third position advantages of fasist economics, at least in my opinion. In terms of national leadership I also think there's an advantage, since it retains the balance of power between the branches of government. The house of lords isn't only filled with peerages, appointments to it can come from individual merit (and the original meaning of aristocracy is rule by the most suited after all). I don't know much about spain or italy's systems, but my understanding is that natsoc leadership was a little chaotic, so I think some of that structure would be more beneficial. And finally in terms of dynastic and inherited aristocracy, again using the example of natsoc leadership we had many examples of extremely gifted people, most of whom were very pure. So to me at least it seems self-evident that the child of your average natsoc leader and a pure partner would lead to a very suitable heir to their position, and provided intermarrying was strictly not allowed and only pure and healthy people married in to the family, you could easily see a well-suited hereditary line of leadership, and I'd argue that the decline of ability in aristocracy is due to intermarrying and poor stock marrying in (also check out what de Maistre had to say about race and hereditary aristocracy, it's very interesting.)
>Also nice get.
Thanks!
I hope I didn't sound too pretentious. Anyway as I say I mostly agree with fascism, I just get a bit fired up when people attack monarchy, even though I'd be more concerned with treason against celestia than treason against the windsors.

>>263339
>but if you've ever stood on the bare earth, looked across the rolling hills and been overcome with emotion knowing that it's this very land where your ancestors lived, worked, fought, and died, that's my main attraction to it.
It is a very poetic feeling that is the manifestation of a mans appreciation of his birthplace and a certain sense of eternal bond that is unmatched in foreign lands, it is a feeling only men of whose blood derives from the old folk know of.

>I hope I didn't sound too pretentious.
Your views of Monarchy and your ideology had intrigued me, i wanted answers to my curiosity which have now been fulfilled, thanks for clarifying your viewpoints and giving a full explanation.

>>263350
>it is a feeling only men of whose blood derives from the old folk know of.
Indeed - and as a result I feel like "american nationalism" to be an oxymoron. How can there be a true national identity when it's merely derived from a mixing pot of celtic ancestry, english ideas, and german and italian stock? It's blood without the soil. When I look around I know that my people have been here for thousands of years, easily. An american looks around and sees a place they've been for only around 250 years, constantly aware that it's a new land and a foreign people were living in it first.
>i wanted answers to my curiosity which have now been fulfilled, thanks for clarifying your viewpoints and giving a full explanation.
you're very welcome, I'm flattered by your curiousity.

>>263365
>An american looks around and sees a place they've been for only around 250 years, constantly aware that it's a new land and a foreign people were living in it first.
I understand that. To me it's a land built on ideals, and myths (like every country, but they have the old ancestors blood).
The reason why people come to America is to become Americans (the hyphens to describe Americans irks me, but that's how it is for now). On the alter of America an immigrant will make a sacrifice, and a gift; They will be American, but lose loyalties to their precious country--The gift should be the best aspect of that culture, they recieve the benefits of being American. Now that isn't how it works, but theoretically the ideal. Besides the parasites that come for gibs, and to make America, that's been jewed for a very long time, into an inferior country... I would like to welcome new people that truly become American where it matters.
But, ethnicity, culture (what they chose to bring), and genetics is important to consider. To welcome traitors and invaders, and the ones that don't quite fit into the mix is a folly that has been a sticking point since the inception.
Blood, and battles have been spilt, perhaps not in the quantities, and for the length of time, but they have been spilt upon the land. Soaking the myths.
It may not have been the land since the birth of my ancestors' ancestors, but it is my land (an emphasis on might, holding onto ideals, yet knowing without the physical power to manifest those ideals anyone or anything can run roughshod over them) as is the case with all countries.
Then each state has its own identity built ftom the people that live there. A mini country/city state. Each town has a different feel, some are more alike than others.
With people from else where inside the USA moving there changing the town slightly for better or for worse (some of them change it for the worse despite thinking it's for the better).
Ect. Ect.
The mythos of the United States of America is one of the underdog. A relatively new country fighting the old powers. So the promise, and lure of America the potential for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Then through time the myths build on top of each other. The Wild West, and the spaghetti westerns bring nuance to the parts making it more whole.
The folk lore that is now being lost due to lack of education (and care) of what it ment to be an American to pave what it means to be American, then what being American will mean in the future.

>>263367
>The reason why people come to America is to become Americans (the hyphens to describe Americans irks me, but that's how it is for now).
Yes, civic nationalism is the backbone of the nation - it's interesting you point out the hyphens, they've been "for now" ever since the first world war, and criticized ever since then. It's not exactly something to laugh at though, since europeans are rapidly coming to terms with a similar situation (not that we even should have to have immigrants that need to assimilate in any case over here)
>Besides the parasites that come for gibs, and to make America, that's been jewed for a very long time, into an inferior country…
Well here is where despite the advantages of the admittedly somewhat good american ideal, the true evil at the core of the united states today emerges, at least in my opinion. I'll first give an example to show what I'm talking about - in Kyrgyzstan, the people are nomadic horse-breeders and riders, raising cattle in inhospitable mountains (incidentally this is the way of life the ancient aryans were thought to have lived, which I think might be part of why europe and then later by extension america grew it's desire for liberty) - and the central element of their culture is the tale of manas, a very long epic poem that defines who they are as a union of 40 tribes. while they may seem the same as mongolians or kazakhs to westerners, they are very different and unique to their neighbours, and then to complicate matters there are also big differences between the various tribes. but all this is changing as people move to cities and urbanize - not bad in and of itself but tribal affiliations begin to break down, and modern elements like smartphones, fast food, and - worryingly considering there is very little notice of this happening - feminism enter the country. Again (apart from feminism), not bad in and of itself. But then the younger generation begin to lose touch with their culture, and now a large number of them do not learn any of the tale of manas - which I cannot stress enough is the same thing as deciding not to be Kyrgyz at all, and in that absence people start to identify with america. Sorry for such a detailed example but I just wanted to illustrate how global this is. Here in England there's a scary trend, one I've noticed personally, of children so utterly mired in american culture that they speak with american accents, and if you talk to them they hate England and Englishness. None of this would be a problem if they were just immigrating to america, as you point out, but they aren't. There are more and more little americans all over the world, eating away at what makes a people what they are. Apologies if this seems a little silly, but it does deeply concern me - replacing culture and tradition virally on a global scale is the sort of thing the soviets could only dream of.
> I would like to welcome new people that truly become American where it matters.
I can certainly understand that. The upside of america is that it can go anywhere and do anything without being tied down to age-old tradition and culture.
>Blood, and battles have been spilt, perhaps not in the quantities, and for the length of time, but they have been spilt upon the land. Soaking the myths.
It may not have been the land since the birth of my ancestors' ancestors, but it is my land (an emphasis on might, holding onto ideals, yet knowing without the physical power to manifest those ideals anyone or anything can run roughshod over them)
This reminds me of Sparta, actually. The Spartans were foreign to their land, and held it by force, and they constantly reminded themselves of their foreign origin to the land so that they always knew they had to hold onto it with all they had.
>Then each state has its own identity built ftom the people that live there. A mini country/city state. Each town has a different feel, some are more alike than others.
This is interesting in that this used to be slightly more the case in europe - especially germany. In that sense it was nationalism that got rid of it, uniting italy and germany, and strengthening national spirit elsewhere such as france and britain.
>The mythos of the United States of America is one of the underdog. A relatively new country fighting the old powers.
I think the irony is that you guys were more of an underdog in 1812. Thing is, with the war of independence you seem very proud of beating us, but I think part of that is that you're associating the empire with what it was soon to become - britain was nothing like as strong back then, and you even had the aid of france, which was arguably stronger than us at the time. Furthermore the founding fathers were mostly wealthy freemasons, and while masons may seem like silly old men today, back then the power they wielded was no joke. And of course I'm not saying that one shouldn't be proud of the war of independence or the founding fathers (our founding father king alfred was hardly perfect - he lost a war, after all), I'm just saying I think it was a little easier than is sometimes given credit. And that's another interesting thing, that prior to the war of independence that americans saw themselves as brits, at least to my understanding. But if I think about it, in many ways americans are less different to the rest of england than the people of yorkshire or cornwall, same goes for australians, canadians and new zealanders.
>life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
that cheeky underline on pursuit could give mr sanders a fit.
>The folk lore that is now being lost due to lack of education (and care) of what it ment to be an American to pave what it means to be American, then what being American will mean in the future.
Sadly it seems like the american viralism I was talking about earlier works both ways. It's a weird cultural decay that I suppose should be blamed on the real (((causes))) rather than you guys.

>>263392
(oh and just to clarify, civic nationalism is the backbone of your nation is what I meant - the way I see it, nationalism should be civic, cultural and ethnic, which I meant to say but forgot to

>>263365
>country of the indus
>indud goes well around it
lmao

>>263392
I agree with every point you've made.
>Here in England there's a scary trend, one I've noticed personally, of children so utterly mired in american culture that they speak with american accents, and if you talk to them they hate England and Englishness. None of this would be a problem if they were just immigrating to america, as you point out, but they aren't. There are more and more little americans all over the world, eating away at what makes a people what they are. Apologies if this seems a little silly, but it does deeply concern me - replacing culture and tradition virally on a global scale is the sort of thing the soviets could only dream of.
Fuck, that is really problematic. They would (could) break apart the country. With the (((keepers))) of entertainment, and the high dose of internet personalities the osmosis of culture is going at an insane rate.
That's not great, and there should be more local (city, national) culture being served than abroad so the children have a cultural framework to explore with. Out right denying them the chance to see those cultures will for the most part have them rebel, there should be emphasis on the essential components and ideals, but have the culture be in the community.
The Globalhomo trying to kill cultures around the world, and some parents/people/entertainment not giving enough time to go through the culture. It's a clusterfuck, some jewtubers and e-celebrities exacerbate the situation as some of them are not like the kiked media.
I love my parents, but they didn't instill the historic culture into me purposefully. The everyday things like stories, and such before the internet...
But it was supplemented by mainstream media (cartoons), that's what I tried to emulate. It's only now that I'm older I get that my dad says lines from those places as well. I understand why, and how his previous job could have required that.
Every type of media formed the mismash culture I inhabit. Hell, I didn't know what a stereotypical American/British? sandwich snack was before a few years ago (cucumber finger sandwiches with mayonnaise, or something... it was really good).
The NPC cunts that say others should move here to just bring their food are... lacking in many aspects, but good food is at the core of what I believe in. Seems a bit silly, but I've been very fortunate.
It's a little selfish the cuisines and people would not have been possible without the original culture, or the bastardized culture that make the dish different. The difference between Mexican food, and New Mexican food and the offshoot types that spread through the country.
I couldn't find an Amerimutt meme in my folders, but I do have this.
I want cultures to be separate, but maintain friendly relations. Pure culture not being ruined by hostile take over, and little pockets of other culture to serve what can't be normally found individually they can be tried at home without foreign influence. I want the cake, and to eat it too.
I'd much rather have everyone be distinctly separate and ethnically homogeneous than the long shot kumbayah everyone can be everywhere despite the data proving otherwise. At least there still will be culture to be had, and people that truly live.
I want people to be able to actually live in safe homes, and friendly streets.
While the internet shows the best and worst of those possibilities.
Poking the really new internet culture is a slew of stuff I'm not quite sure how to quantify. It technically should be everything the kikes want, but holds all the values they despise.

>>263402
>Fuck, that is really problematic.
It makes me wonder if I was just really lucky - I did maypole dancing, breadmaking, hiking, beeswax candle-making and so on as a lad, but perhaps even then that wasn't especially common amongst others my age. Certainly the kids I knew with separated parents didn't, they were just sat in front of the tv and that brought them up.
>They would (could) break apart the country.
It's no accident that both fascism (I know national socialism is separate, but so is the iron guard from italian fascism, so I use it as an umbrella term) and communism focused so much on upbringing - Lenin's quote of "give me a child, and in 5 years the seed we have planted shall never be uprooted" is a perfect illustration. Indeed despite how much the modern establishment rails against how fascist and communist education as "brainwashing", they too retain control of the educational system, so it's a hypocritical criticism seeing as no ideology other than the anarchies or libertarianism opposes the state retaining that kind of control on education and upbringing (which is not a criticism of anarchy or libertarianism, I have immense respect for both). Ironic that brainwashing is performed in the modern day with the term "brainwashing", my history teacher used it to describe literally every positive thing the national socialists did.
>With the (((keepers))) of entertainment, and the high dose of internet personalities the osmosis of culture is going at an insane rate.
Indeed, we've entered an age of global culture - an age where in places like the phillipines the word "internet" is quite literally synonymous with "facebook" - something we could easily see happening in africa. And, shortly following it may be education - already standards in europe are being synced up and I know from library work that school libraries in the UK and US are beginning to use the same systems. And it makes sense, since that's the first goal of any would-be assimilator - the russians teach the karelians that they are russian and only teach them to speak russian, and so the world reaches a common cultural understanding with modern media, and shortly thereafter a potential universal education.
>That's not great, and there should be more local (city, national) culture being served than abroad so the children have a cultural framework to explore with.
Out here in the country we get annual fairs with woodwork, craftsmenship and a series of traditional songs and dances, and that sort of thing is fantastic, as well as scouts-type organizations and even tours for young people of their local area. Sadly I don't think that can ever exist with cities - though of course people can always take trips elsewhere. Perhaps a solution to the problem with cities can be reached, they've already improved massively, which is strange since most things seem to be getting progressively worse. Very few people remember it today but the cities of britain before the 60s were absolutely horrendous. If you've ever seen a picture of an old english house with blackened parts on it's walls - yeah. Whole cities of brick and mortar were turned black by smog and filth.
>I love my parents, but they didn't instill the historic culture into me purposefully.
And it's fair enough, most parents can't be expected to educate children themselves. All that would have to be done to fix this is for parents to bring up their children without any state involvement, which is the real genius of ZOG - they win through convenience. It's convenient just to send your kid to school and let them just sit with their phone all the time. And the parents are absolutely not in the wrong, they have to work in order to keep that child alive and properly brought up. Again it comes back to things like scouts (in fact there was an interesting organization like that here in the 20s that focused on ancient anglo-saxon culture and woodland activities for kids to do. It was connected to the social credit movement, an obscure movement that I see almost as a sort of real english fascism, as opposed to mosley's british fascism. some foreigners don't quite understand this but england and britain are two different things, britain is 4 different countries in one nation, and england is one of those countries. the only one with no parliament, flag or anthem. and whose taxes go to the other countries to pay for their social spending, which is why you get socialists in scotland and wales declaring that their policies work so well.)
>The NPC cunts that say others should move here to just bring their food are… lacking in many aspects, but good food is at the core of what I believe in.
It doesn't at first appear to apply to us, the nation famed for bad cuisine, but of course tea comes to mind. And I don't object to the presence of foreigners here, they certainly don't belong to the liberals that claim to represent them - the middle aged indian who owns the cornershop is always listening to nigel farage on the radio when I go in. But what they fail to realize is that it doesn't matter if every immigrant was the most perfect person in the world, eventually, given enough of them, they'd demand self-governance (in fact many here are already calling for sharia law). And they're right to demand it! It's intolerable that indians should be governed by english laws, and intolerable to everyone involved to develop some awful universal laws, which by necessity would be authoritarian. And it's not just us at threat either - if we took in all the syrian refugees, within a few generations they would be gone. It's a two-way genocide - as such I wouldn't even bother calling it white nationalism, it's just bloody common sense. But yes, having areas, like chinatowns, where small groups from other cultures live, and governing those areas a little differently to suit each, is fine by me...
(I am way too long-winded)

>>263416
... and I imagine would be to everyone else too, except for liberals, communists, and the type of white nationalist as the writer of racial holy war, the type that thinks every race other than whites should be exterminated in their entirety.
>I want cultures to be separate, but maintain friendly relations.
Of course. Ensuring that your people know what your culture even is ensures that there are cultures to have friendly relations between. And even if you don't end up rejecting your culture, a lot of people can end up alienated and misled by the whole system, which not only churns out the kind of mindset they want, but a reaction against their bullshit that provides the exact scapegoat they need to strengthen their position.
>At least there still will be culture to be had, and people that truly live.
Absolutely. And of course I'm hardly suggesting that we ban nonviolent behaviours - I think that if people are led by example, and taught well and properly, the vast majority will turn out alright. After all it's not the idea of homosexuality or transexuality that does harm, it's that people use it to reject common good (after all, even wearing clothes are a social construct. they reject social constructs purely because they want to destroy society itself, most likely due to a combination of partially indoctrinated alienation and self-hatred). If these people acted like your everyday person, no hair dye, piercings or screaming about pronouns, then much fewer people would have a problem with them. People with mental illnesses can integrate into society just fine, it's just a matter of not purposely rebelling against everything just for the sake of rebelling. And that's the core of the problem, the bad mental state and educational state - banning the symptoms won't do anything.
>Poking the really new internet culture is a slew of stuff I'm not quite sure how to quantify. It technically should be everything the kikes want, but holds all the values they despise.
They'll keep it around as long as it serves the purposes they want, but at the same time we can see they're prepared to quite literally shut it down. Even parts of the internet opposed to them can be subverted, they subvert everything. Even patriotism - see Darkest Hour for here, and parliament required schools to help make students proud of being british, but combine that with the anti-extremist movement in schools and you have a combination of patriotic and anti-"extremist" posters - the obvious message that sinks in as a result is britain has always been the way that it is and any suggestion otherwise, or that it should be changed, is unpatriotic. And that's why they teach the rise of hitler, not his deeds (and just to say the historicity of the holocaust is irrelevant, nobody's position on the national socialists changes if the holocaust is proved or disproved either way), because the point is not to explain why some things or bad, or why some things are evil, merely to say that they are evil. And so long as their opposition continues to appear evil (you could be the most liberal party in the world but if your symbol was a swastika you'd instantly be regarded as evil), (((they))) have the upper hand. Anyways, you were bringing up food, I think I'll go have some myself.