The Secret Border Patrol Facebook Group Where Agents Joke About Migrant Deaths and Post Sexist Memes

Tempting, but now you're proposing to do something 'worse' to those small countries than "11" million are doing here.

~30 million Americans moving to Europe will probably sink the EU.

Spoiler :
The other problem is that you don't want them to leave either, but that's a bit harder to acknowledge.




No more so than saying poverty is associated with crime.

Please, you all would be returning home! After generations of oppression in America with its ideals of humanity and progress towards a better future for all people you can finally return to your lands of blood and soil. Idk, I'm pretty sure unless you changed your mind fundamentally on what I'm betting is a whole bevy of issues I'd just rather you leave.


I'm pretty sure poverty doesn't justify crime.
 
What's left for the thread is rectifying perceptions of apathy with perceptions of fascism and/or terrorism.

Apathy is generally the lifeblood of fascism. Not everyone has the temperament to be a stormtrooper but fascism certainly could never succeed without millions of people indifferent to the activities of the stormtroopers and sufficiently cynical about existing institutions to ask how things could be worse with the stormtroopers in charge.
 
Please, you all would be returning home! After generations of oppression in America with its ideals of humanity and progress towards a better future for all people you can finally return to your lands of blood and soil. Idk, I'm pretty sure unless you changed your mind fundamentally on what I'm betting is a whole bevy of issues I'd just rather you leave.
Progressivism pursues neither of those ideals. I'm not a fan of blood and soil either.

As for people leaving, what's your particular attachment to the land they're on? (That you suggest displacing their current residents in favor of a new populace, asserting a dubious sovereignty over the land in question)

I'm pretty sure poverty doesn't justify crime.
I'm pretty sure you missed the point.

Apathy is generally the lifeblood of fascism. Not everyone has the temperament to be a stormtrooper but fascism certainly could never succeed without millions of people indifferent to the activities of the stormtroopers and sufficiently cynical about existing institutions to ask how things could be worse with the stormtroopers in charge.

I think the concern is move over which jackboots get to be in charge if the option to not have jackboots is no longer tenable. Existing institutions not functioning appropriately* (eg: border control) is what prompts the cynicism.

*If the state's institutions can(/should) never function according to earnest intent, then anarchism is the general response.

In contrast, the lifeblood of fascism is order reinforced by hierarchy (and where liberty becomes deviance).

Evolutionarily, technocracy is a reformation of fascism. Elimination is replaced by conditioning. If a person can be re-educated into a good citizen, there's no need for that citizen to be excluded. In fact, they cannot even have the option of not being included.
 
Last edited:
Apathy is generally the lifeblood of fascism. Not everyone has the temperament to be a stormtrooper but fascism certainly could never succeed without millions of people indifferent to the activities of the stormtroopers and sufficiently cynical about existing institutions to ask how things could be worse with the stormtroopers in charge.

I thought the Nazis rose to power as a result of post wwi sanctions and extreme inflation, apathetic is not how I'd describe Germans.
 
Progressivism pursues neither of those ideals. I'm not a fan of blood and soil either.

As for people leaving, what's your particular attachment to the land they're on? (That you suggest displacing their current residents in favor of a new populace, asserting a dubious sovereignty over the land in question)

I'm pretty sure you missed the point.



I think the concern is move over which jackboots get to be in charge if the option to not have jackboots is no longer tenable. Existing institutions not functioning appropriately* (eg: border control) is what prompts the cynicism.

*If the state's institutions can(/should) never function according to earnest intent, then anarchism is the general response.

In contrast, the lifeblood of fascism is order reinforced by hierarchy (and where liberty becomes deviance).

Evolutionarily, technocracy is a reformation of fascism. Elimination is replaced by conditioning. If a person can be re-educated into a good citizen, there's no need for that citizen to be excluded. In fact, they cannot even have the option of not being included.

To be clear this is functionally a call for technocratic fascism.

If you are a fascist you are on my land. You can get the #$%^ off it. tyvm.
 
I could solve the immigration at the border real easy and cheep, 2 bucks a head or less.
Give every immigrant ready to cross the border a MAGA hat to wear. Get the press to take photos and Trump will figure out a way to make them citizens overnight.
 
I could solve the immigration at the border real easy and cheep, 2 bucks a head or less.
Give every immigrant ready to cross the border a MAGA hat to wear. Get the press to take photos and Trump will figure out a way to make them citizens overnight.

Ahh, but is the bad juju of wearing that hat really worth it?
 
beats the concentration camp.
 
Do you honestly believe that being hispanic somehow makes you unable to be a racist against other hispanics?
 
yes

racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
 
What complicates your stance is the fact that there are both white Hispanics and darker skinned Hispanics, never mind internalised racism
 
yes

racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

What about Tomas de Torquimada, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Charles Manson, Eddie Long or that other preacher from Colorado, Mark Something (though those two were sexual orientation), or, even technically, by Jewish matrilineal decendancy tracing, Adolf Hitler?
 
I'd agree with that

The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race" and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.

so its possible for a Hispanic to be racist against other Hispanics
 
Top Bottom