HOME | DD
BoopDiBoop — Truth Ignored
#aldoushuxley #cease #exist #false #lie #real #stop #truth #facts #humanity #ignorant #ignore #information #quote #truthcontest
Published: 2017-05-25 11:43:20 +0000 UTC; Views: 3423; Favourites: 104; Downloads: 20
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 32
Favorited this. For those not in the know, several of my favorites are simply places where I got into long comment chains: one hilarious because of how stupid the other side was, one where the other side was disgusting and eventually banned by the site after I reported them for being the scum of the earth, and now this one, with a surprisingly reasonable National Socialist. That's surprisingly reasonable for the Internet in general; I can now use "I've talked to an actual card-carrying Nazi on the topic of multiculturalism, and if he can stick to the part of his views that aren't totally insane, then you can at least try to do the same" as a response to future nutcases.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I just witnessed this mainstream delusion a few minutes
ago, talking to a person who supports multiculturalism.
That person's best argument was;
"People who reject multiculturalism are satanists!"
Priceless.
Facts, admissions, statistics, history don't matter.
Conditioning to its finest. Even when the entire world
will go in flames around them, they will still claim all
is fine, or could be worse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's funny that the same people who think different, opposed cultures should live together without any degree of integration rationalize their craziness by crying "cultural appropriation" as if cultures mixing is wrong. Even though cultures evolving through what they gain from other cultures and making others' customs their own is how we got here today. Conquest and empire making cultures transform into amalgams of all within them. But no, they want all culture to stay exactly the same and never interact. Damn millennials and their short sighted reality will get us all into trouble for the foreseeable future. Kids who don't know where they came from and don't care where they're going.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It should still be noted tho, that technological acquirements
should not be confused with cultural identity theft. Also
cultural acquirement should not be confused with replacement
of culture. I doubt bringing in Sharia law as a "cultural enrichment",
would propel humanity into spacial colonization. Moreover, our
Western models didn't work out very well on the countries that
were colonized. This cultural lifestyle simply doesn't fit them.
More often than not, culture mixing leads to the destruction of it.
We might have taken some knowledge from other countries,
either by commerce, negotiations, or conquest, but that is hardly
comparable to being invaded by a foreign culture.
The claims that our current civilizational success is the result of
random cultural mixing is totally false, and most systematically,
it is the desire of resistance towards foreign culture that pushed
us to become better, or superior to these cultures that brought
us to the current levels of magnificence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, there's a difference between culture and technology; sharing and merging the latter is great, but sharing or merging the former should be done with a bit more caution. Quite often a culture is oriented around the needs of a given area and will fail outside it (trying to apply the Western model everywhere ended badly, as you noted).
Incidentally, that "desire of resistance towards foreign culture" has a much shorter name: war. I'll assume that's not something you're suggesting we do, although the blatant Nazi imagery gives me pause (note that both sides of WWII did some pretty nasty things; the Allies simply targeted the subset of their population of their enemy's nationalities rather than an unrelated subset chosen due to a Russian hoax, and the Axis were more insane than evil, particularly the probably-brain-damaged-by-a-WWI-gas-attack Hitler)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
War is not always a necessary end. Chauvinism is
usually enough, but in situations like today, where
we are being replaced in our own countries, I fear
that the prospect of having to fight will become
inevitable in the future, unless we accept to
disappear as a people, and with us, our culture,
our history, our technology.
Trust me, Hitler was everything excepts insane,
and neither are even half of the hoaxes propagated
about the National Socialist regime true. I often
read archive documents and the obvious lies in
anti-German propaganda portrayed as history is
all the more obvious. Ironically everyone believes
these lies because it is generally thought of in
society as fact. Flat earth mentality truly, when
one simply needs to read the original documents
to notice the blatant fraud. Unfortunately people
prefer to believe a few crazy testimonies of creating
soap out of human fat, and sausages out of their
flesh, just as people blindly believed fairy-tale
story telling of sailors about giant monsters, and
the sea falling from the border of the earth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Those testimonies do indeed sound kind of absurd, and I agree that the common portrayal of Nazis as evil incarnate is overblown. I should note that it was Hitler's overwhelming ambition that did him, and Germany, in in the end; he tried to conquer absolutely everything, only to find that there's too much everything for that to work even with modern technology, much less what he had. You simply can't have one person running the whole world, because the sheer amount of world involved means that you have to delegate to the point where it would be functionally identical to how things are now, and that wasn't enough for him. Hitler's goal was so blatantly impractical to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the world that I have no choice but to declare him insane, and I look forward to your rebuttal because it's damn hard to find someone willing to have a reasonable discussion on the Internet, and your username and avatar did less than nothing to convince me that you would be such a person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I bare an avatar and username in relation to my
political, economical, and geo-strategical finds.
One may think what he wishes to, but facts are
rather undeniable. The facts regarding the second
world war which I am going to explain hereafter,
are not disputed by anyone.
1) Hitler was elected by the German people to
retrieve the German stolen territories by the
treaty of Versailles. That includes the East Prussian
territories and the Sudetenland.
2) France and England declare war on Germany,
after it took back its territories.
3) Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway allow
English troops to pass through their territories
in order to attack Germany. Since the English
openly declare this on their radio broadcasts,
Germany decides to occupy these enemy territories,
effectively keeping the Allies in failure.
4) Germany flanks the Allied army, isolating it in
Belgium, taking Paris. France surrenders.
5) Germany drives the Allies away in Belgium
and Holland, letting them escape and providing
England with one of their numerous peace offers.
England's government will never accept peace.
6) England bombs Berlin for months. Germany
then bombs England. Taking England fails.
7) Time goes on and the Soviet army gathers
20+ divisions at the German East border,
building airfields and gathering millions of men.
Germany and the USSR both new it was only
a question of time before they attacked each
other. Germany decided to strike first, instead
of waiting to be struck by a fully prepared
Soviet army.
8) Mussolini fails his invasion of Greece.
Germany has to spend massive amounts of
its army to prevent England to invade through
Greece, while occupying all the countries in its path.
9) The US, while claiming to be neutral, massively
funds all Axis' enemies, namely Nationalist China
and England. The US fleet also provides men
and engines for England, while also sinking
German boats. Typical American neutrality.
10) Japan has enough of it and decides to attack
the US because of repeated diplomatic incivilities
by the US. Pearl Harbor occurs.
11) Germany needing a second front against
the USSR, follows its military alliance logic with
Japan and declares war to the US. Italy follows.
12) Japan will never provide this second front
against the USSR. The US sponsors the Soviets
through lend lease.
13) The Allies pass through their colonies in North
Africa to attack the Axis. The Axis send their
troops to stop them.
14) The Axis are overrun by their enemies and
they fall.
These are the facts. This is not exactly "world
domination". It is nothing more than the logical
outcomes of a world war. World domination is
a clumsy and blatant propaganda lie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, okay, I was probably being a bit hyperbolic there. What I meant was that he bit off way more than he could possibly chew, and refused to listen to the generals who said that maybe he should focus on defending the territories he actually started this whole war to get back, rather than invading basically the entire enemy side at the same time. There's also the, from my point of view, most likely reason England wouldn't accept peace: they'd already tried appeasement, and that pretty clearly didn't work because neither side was willing to budge from their stance. Politics are stupid, but unavoidable, and sometimes a politician is forced to do something they know will end badly because the alternative would destroy their reputation and that's basically the only thing they bring to the table.
Incidentally, I've referred to this conversation as "the most impossible thing ever" or some such, and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Really, a "reasonable discussion about Nazis" and "a reasonable discussion on the Internet" are two things that most people will tell you are fundamentally absurd, although they're mostly joking in the latter case. I'm doing both of those things with the same discussion and I'm hoping I don't explode the world that way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You do realize the German government didn't really
have a choice? To say Germany started this war is
not truly correct. After all it was not Germany which
declared war against France and England. Their
excuse to defend Poland was transparent. If they
waged this war to defend Poland, why did they
abandon it without remorse to the Soviet Union?
After all the USSR also invaded Poland. Apparently
that was fine with the French and English governments.
The real reason behind France's and England's
declaration of war to Germany alone, is because
they saw Germany as too powerful a concurrent
to their own colonial empires. Other third parties,
have on the other hand contributed to pushing
towards a world conflict. Initially Germany had
good relations with Poland under Pilsudski. Then
came Smigly Ridts, a fool easily manipulated by
the English diplomats, making an armed conflict
inevitable. They did not help Poland as promised,
but they certainly had what they truly aimed for;
an excuse for war under the guise of "protecting"
the very country they utilized, then left helpless
towards its annihilation, to ultimately deliver it
to the Bolsheviks, where initially Germany wished
to make an alliance with Poland, England and
France against the very serious Jewish-led
Soviet threat.
Instead, France and England decided to destroy
the middle powers of Europe, even if that meant
delivering half of Europe to the Communists.
Germany extended its hand in friendship from
the very beginning. It were the undemocratic
elites of England which were the blocking factor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, both sides of the war were almost cartoonishly terrible, because politics are almost cartoonishly terrible pretty much without exception.
I'm out of rebuttals, so let me just thank you for your time and lament how few are willing to listen. I'll also note that even fewer are willing to listen to Nazis, and you'd probably reach more people if you espouse the actual views of National Socialism without telling anyone who came up with them, and that most of the actual Nazis probably didn't believe in those views.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I thank you for your time as well. I will not need a
cover method for the doctrine. Time and truth will
make it inevitable once again. Exactly as it was
the result of a need, it shall rise again eventually.
As a Canadian, what do you think of these videos? :
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My computer has audio issues that would make it a pain in the ass to actually watch them, although I'm white and anti-white sentiments are fine with me. We had our turn; give them a chance for a bit.
Time and truth may be inevitable, but making things happen at the time they should rather than the time those in power are left with no choice but to concede to them would probably be desirable, and continuing to use imagery that will invariably result in political suicide... wait, Trump supporters were using the Swastika for him unironically, so your time may very well have come. Carry on, then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have more vision than most I suppose, but I
will not provide a chance to the invaders any longer.
We are reaching the point of no return. If we don't
act now there will be no more peaceful possible
outcome. I fear it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It should be noted that many of the "invaders" have nowhere else to go. Even the worst among us must concede that it is better to invade than die...
Also, you assume we haven't already reached the point of no return. Donald Trump getting elected POTUS is one thing, but what gets me is that he was actually the rational choice to vote for. You see, only the candidates chosen by the two main parties have any chance at all, and both of them would have done their best to ruin the country for their own benefit. Due to that, it's only logical to pick the one with the brains of a sack of doorknobs but half the political savvy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't agree. These are not refugees and are not
in any need to come to our countries. They have 360°
of direction in which they may go, many neighboring
countries are similar to them in any way, yet the
presumably "flee" to our countries thousands of
kilometers away in rich countries. What a coincidence.
Most people fail to see that our political elites have
planned a racial engineering for multinational profits.
Most people, I fear, lack the necessary vision to see
through the pseudo humanitarian manipulations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah yes, the many neighbouring countries that are similar to them in many ways, including the ways that are the reason they're fleeing in the first place. Face it, a lot of places suck, and a lot of people from those places have enough realization that they suck and decide to go to a country thousands of kilometers away that they've heard doesn't suck. Of course, when they get there they find out that it does suck, just in different ways and, occasionally, slightly less, but that's a different issue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That probably explains why they attempt to change
our societies into their own origin countries? No, I
don't think so.
Saudi Arabia is even sending huge sums of money
to build mosques in Europe instead of accepting them,
when they have all the space and money needed.
They simply find it more suitable to invade us and
spread Islam, rather than take responsibility for their
fellow citizens. How people cannot see how this is
a Trojan horse, simply baffles me.
Those who support this immigration are guilty of
complicity with the mass murderers, terrorists, and
rapists that are continuing to defile the face of the
Western world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Probably something to do with the fact that the actual tenets of Islam forbid basically all of those things (although the "rapist" part is done mainly be redefinition of the term and people do cry out about it for that reason), and far more people take others at their word than is probably wise. That said, religious hypocrisy has existed since at least the days of Christ, so that isn't actually a convincing rebuttal. Also note that there isn't a noticeably higher rate criminal activity among the "refugees" which your diagram forces me to put in scare quotes because yeah, that does seem like going a bit further for a better life than is strictly necessary to get it. At the very least, what increased rate there is was caused more by their situation than anything that's specific to Islam. Also, I should note that any culture which has such a hardline stance on acceptable religions as the Middle East probably shouldn't be preserved in this day and age, especially if they're in an almost non-stop state of war with each other.
That said, preserving a culture is one thing, but attempting to preserve a cultural practice that is actively harmful in your current circumstances is obviously idiotic, and even most religions don't try to do it; see the provisions given for Ramadan in places where "from dawn to dusk" can last a month or more and you'll see that everyone but the crazy people have realized that. So multiculturalism has probably gone too far nowadays, but that means dial it back and apply "keep with the times" to it first, not get rid of it entirely and isolate cultures who can probably provide something of use to us even if it's just delicious cuisine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
We're not ignoring them!
...
We just happen to have alternative ones.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll give you that one, although that fact has so few practical applications that it feasibly can be ignored without impacting your actual life at all (afterwards, that's a bit more debatable, although the rules in the Bible are so strict, and so at odds with modern-day law, that if there's any truth to them I'm pretty sure nobody's gotten into Heaven within living memory) There's also the question of which God, as each of the three main religions contains several interpretations each, although we can safely narrow that down to the versions of Him that wouldn't bother to provide ironclad proof of Their existence for rather obvious reasons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, very detailed reply and I see what you are saying. I have personal experiences that led me to be a Christian and I don't expect anyone to believe on my account. I will admit the rules in the bible are quite strict and sometimes difficult to apply to modern day but Jesus freed us of quite a bit of those do it's much easier to work with.
What truly bothers me is not the debate of different religions but the debate of wether there is a a God or not. Evolution has been disproved hundreds of times over and the seer proof that there is a God is difficult to ignore. Even Einstien himself could not deny to proof.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Could you point me to just one of the times that evolution has been disproven, as well as some of that proof of God's existence that is difficult to ignore yet somehow never brought up in these arguments? Also note that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive; the fact that the existence of each is absurdly obvious when you just think things through should be proof enough of that, and I'll even think things through for you, which most people apparently find preferable.
Evolution: the basics are that species change over time, and that some of those changes are inheritable. The more those inheritable changes cause a net increase in combined rate of survival and procreation, the more of that species with that trait will exist. The first sentence of that is proven by the existence of dogs, which humanity has been improving, at least from its own perspective, using evolutionary principles for thousands of years prior to Darwin's codification of said principles. The second is a tautology, meaning it literally can't be false due to the interaction of the words that compose it.
God: Now, most people agree that God either exists or does not (actually, most people cling to one or the other, but would concede that any situation besides those two would make even less sense than the opposed one, which they probably didn't realize was possible for a point of view to be) but my certainty that God exists is a bit nonstandard. You see, let's say that God didn't exist (this probably horrifies you, but it's just a thought experiment so play along.) Now, not existing is kind of a drag, but fortunately, omnipotence is so poorly defined that there's absolutely nothing stopping him from just making Himself exist. Given that God is supposedly love, He'd take one look at what we've been doing with ourselves and decide that existing is a moral imperative for Him. So while the question of whether He created the universe is legitimately debatable, the question of whether He exists is clearly answered in the affirmative. (It should be noted that the question of whether a literal reading of the book of Genesis is accurate is equally clearly answered in the negative, but most of the church considers most of the Bible allegorical anyway because unlike some of their followers, they've learned that science works.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The fact that there is milk in a glass on a counter will cease to exist if it is ignored as it will cease to be milk in time...always exceptions to every rule
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That and because this is a truth few want to except.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
