Hi jumpy64, so you're starting another thread like this one: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1636&p=2386618&hilit=ethnicities#p2386618
Or do you think it's important to explicitly lead a new topic on it with the "let's play as a White team sometimes" theme?
It will be interesting to see where the present membership takes this topic, since earlier, moderators have been quite "liberal"/"left-wing"/"progressive" in the sense that multiculturalism is seen as a more-or-less okay thing, but with occasional acknowledgment of the obvious agenda to "open the borders" of various legitimate nations in order to drown out the culture within with a sort of globalist agenda that serves its masters — whomever they may be. Hmm, a heady topic indeed, and one that touches right on the core issue with the problem with the world. Maybe.
Is it worth exploring? Always! Is this site the best place for it? I still am not sure.
Anyway, my personal view, before I go into your post, is that I have seen many researchers say "the culprit" is either rich nationalists, rich anti-nationalists, rich religious fanatics or just some kind of religious fanatical movement — and I have yet to look into it much myself since I am still trying to listen very carefully to a wide variety of "teams" as you call them, which organize both as races and as cultures that go beyond "race"; I look at it this way to see if a "team of teams" might be able to contribute delegates to a multicultural effort to root out the problem — even if that problem ends up being, indeed, a particular ethnicity. I have the sense it may be a culture that explicitly develops out of a combination of wealth, privilege and psychopathy, however, and not any particular genetics — since I am also so skeptical of so many prevailing theories and rumors. And yet we all seem to favor some of them, eventually, given each of us practices our own science.
Anyway, here are my answers to your cornucopia of fascinating questions, which are worthy of being answered by not just CluesForum "believers" but by all people living in this world. Again, still not sure if it helps
us unpack media fakery to give good people (rather than insane pro-colonialist arrogant self-righteous types) control of it, or if it makes sense for our site, but since you are seeming thoughtful about it ...
jumpy64 wrote:I think multiculturalism is a key issue of our time and is central in media propaganda. But other than this I will not expound a thesis in this first post, as I did in the “Open Conspiracy” thread. I will leave the issue open, with (a lot of) questions that everybody here is invited to answer. Or anybody can ask other questions, of course, and make other examples.
Starting from the “media fakery” angle, which this forum specializes in, do media hoaxes like the Charleston Church shooting or the Utoya (fake) massacre (or others you can name) promote multiculturalism, directly or indirectly?
I think they promote both multiculturalism and its antithesis in various cultures. In general, it seems to incite various extremisms and apathies in pacifists and warhawks — in both nationalists and racists and cultural vagabonds alike. It promotes strife. It creates fictional problems for which "legal" answers are proffered.
Is the Utoya (fake) incident, for example, in any way connected with the (future at the time) invasion of immigrants in Scandinavia?
Yes, it is. I also think that because of the immigration issues all over the world they both had to and delighted
in incorporating it into the story. I think this is because there is a Venn Diagram overlap between the media hoax writers and those controlling cultures and nations, though they are not always exactly one and the same groups — person for person.
And do media hoaxes like the ones I’ve just mentioned, or others, imply something negative about nationalistic movements or ideologies?
They both do and don't. They seem to target specific nationalist movements. The Europeans seem to love targeting their own nationalistic groups without outside help, however. In fact, it seems that the fascinating fiction of some unifying "White"-ness has been the bane of European culture for some time, given all the tribal in-fighting and group vs. group fighting within the hopelessly divided Europe. It actually resembles, to me, much of the human race.
We know better than most other people how prevalent media fakery is. Does this mean that everything the media insistently promote is fake or wrong or negative?
No, indeed. I would say a "great deal" (but not necessarily the majority) of what the media promotes is "true" either as an accurate reflection of people's beliefs (be they wrong or right — accurate or inaccurate about some one true reality) both when you chop up the sentences into constituent parts and if you simply take the "thrust" of the argument as an artistic depiction of the world. The problem is the way those parts are arranged to create mental programs that manage various populations by appealing to their basic core beliefs and/or irritations without actually helping to inform those people of the intention behind those freaky programs. An even weirder problem is the sheer amount of blatant lies, non-facts and fictions promoted as reality by those little samples of truth.
That is how simulation works. It samples from familiar reality and remixes it to make fiction. In the case of mainstream media, fictions designed to program our brains based on our own prejudices
For example, how do the media portray different ethnic groups?
A combination of the those ethnic groups' pressure on the population, on the media and artistic fictions and truths.
Is how the media portray White people real or fake?
As a whole, largely fake, but catered to a particular reading by various cultures being programmed to view things in a particular way that we are trying to decode.
Is how the media portray Black or Colored people real or fake?
Same as above. As a whole, largely fake, but catered to a particular reading by various cultures being programmed to view things in a particular way that we are trying to decode.
Is how the media portray White or "Colored" people biased in favor of one or the other?
It really depends who you ask. It seems the media is really good at making everyone think that they are being targeted by the rest of the human race, but cultures which push and whine and bully and/or "fight" it seem to gain control in that media.
Is how the media portray Muslims real or fake?
Extraordinarily invented and fake, it seems to me, based on any and all Muslims I know. But again, it's targeting us all for mind control on our own particular demographic basis.
Are Whites as dumb as television portrays and other ethnicities as intelligent as the television portrays, especially in America?
This is a question that is loaded with a preconceived opinion that Whites are portrayed as dumb and ethnicities intelligent for some reason other than protection against racism. We have been trained to believe that Whites are okay to "pick on" because they have historically been very nasty to other peoples in the world. Which, in fact, is somewhat true — though it doesn't quite "fix" the issue of many other medias and national programming around the world being rather nasty to everyone as well.
And is how the media portray Jews real or fake?
Somewhat real and somewhat fake, I believe, since Jews have a great deal of power in the media and they flaunt it by painting both "pretty" and "ugly" pictures of themselves in it.
Talking about Jews, Barbara Spectre - the Jewish activist and academic who founded and directs Paideia, the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden - declared:
I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.
Do you agree with what she says about this "necessary" transformation of Europe?
Yes, I think that it's going to happen. No, I don't think it's necessary. I think some people in key positions of power have deemed it necessary and positioned the Jews in this role. It probably has a lot to do with Jewish bullying and bullying by their allies such as other power circles.
Do you agree with her statement that Jews have a leading role in the multicultural transformation of Europe, as also the very influential "Kalergi Plan" seems to demonstrate?
And is it a legitimate thing for them to do? Or is it a blatant case of double standards on their part, since they advocate for DNA tests as a prerequisite for Israeli citizenship and refuse to take in Middle Eastern refugee in Israel but actively promote their (forced?) reception in Europe?
It's not legitimate. It's a totally blatant case of double-standards as you've astutely pointed out.
Back to multiculturalism, is how the media portray it real or fake?
It's so complex that no one person — let alone culture — can possibly know what is "real" about it, but the media is undoubtedly biased more towards those which control it — not to mention the faulty idea that capitalism or some other weird "market" force is going to make the real facts come out.
Are multiculturalism and the idea of race as a "social construct" connected?
Yes, they are. Of course. They are part of a similar discussion, if not excuses/justifications for one another.
And if they are, do the media generally promote multiculturalism and this idea of race as a "social construct"?
Generally, yes. There is clearly a dominant force trying to push its ideas of race through the people. Specifically, it's more complicated.
And if they do, as it seems to me, why?
To promote the agenda of those in control.
Can it be a good thing?
All abstract things can be "good" things in theory, but even things beyond our control can seem to be in our control when they are abstracted.
And if it is, can you make other examples of “good things” promoted by the mainstream media?
Yes, each person including myself could innumerate the number of things which we have seen in the media that we consider good things depicted by an abstract simulation of those things. This is where distinguishing various media becomes key, and which is why I don't think it's so important to put on our site, since this site is a valued refuge from the worldwide religion of media worship.
Do you think multiculturalism can facilitate respect for other cultures more than incite hate between different cultures forced through immigration to co-exist in the same places?
I think the media does both, and the whole subjects of Public Relations, propaganda and media analysis are about the very methods of doing so for various reasons.
And in any case, why would the media promote it?
You already asked this, but my answer is the same. To promote the agenda of those that control the media — be it as conciliation or purpose.
Do you think multicultural ideals are rigged against White European people or not?
It depends on which multicultural ideals. All cultures are multicultural. In fact, I think instead of pushing for more multiculturalism forced by the media, the media could do well to help each culture explore its past and history by serving as an open vessel for various world views instead of the world view of its present zealous controllers. I think the various "White" European peoples could sincerely do with some understanding between and amongst themselves, if not just to help reach back into their indigeneity and recognize the various lands they have been colonized in, kicked from, moved to and/or connected to in various ways. We "White" descendants who have so often traded in our indigeneity for serfdom in the latest empire (by force, choice or otherwise) have not really taken a lot of time to look at where each of us has come from, and connected with it. Instead, we seem swept up in a huge program to turn the entire world into a single "White" (really: gray) super-State. By this, I mean we are too disconnected from our roots and from reality itself to understand anything but an abstract pathetic "reconstruction" of what's really going on — hence the development and endorsement of any cultural (multi- or otherwise) worship of total fictions.
Do they deprive White European people of their basic right of “freedom of association” by forcing them to coexist with other races?
Does the media
force people to coexist with other races? Not exactly. Our own governments and their real controllers seem to do it. It just so happens those controllers also have near perfect influence on the media (probably through bribes, bullying, common owners, etc.), and if you want to be employed by the mainstream or "alternative" media — as many do — you better goose-step with them.
Is this really inevitable, as people like the former French president Francois Sarkozy said?
It seems fairly inevitable, because the problems of the world are very complex and I don't think White Nationalism has manifested a great self-sustaining culture. Europeans have been colonized and re-colonized for so many centuries, it seems the only thing "they" (really "we" and many other groups, including Europeans who are "people of color" such as southern Italians, southern Spaniards, or otherwise) are good at is being colonized and helping the colonizers colonize further. European religions don't seem to be helpful either, not that it's a wonderful idea to just invent a religion.
Are these multicultural ideals fairly applied to all ethnic groups, or to the advantage of some groups and to the detriment of others?
Ask groups of every type. That's what I've been doing. In America, that's surprisingly easy, despite myths about a so-called "melting pot". There is a very complex series of different understandings and misunderstandings. Some the media help, others they attack. Others they can't or won't attack because the understandings are strong and therefore seen as useful.
Some see multiculturalism as an attempt at "White genocide". Do you agree with this perspective?
No. Not really. But just because I don't see an anti-White hate movement that would use multiculturalism for such a purpose doesn't mean the result of multiculturalism doesn't achieve what an anti-White hate movement would want to accomplish.
Do you perceive multiculturalism as more protective of certain races and more accusatory towards others?
It really depends on the form of multiculturalism. Even "pro-White" movements are comprised of different cultures and hierarchies. In general, the collective versions of multicultural movements — if they promote the races leading those movements — would not be pro-White because most races are not "White", and even ones that some would consider "White" would rather call themselves something else like Caucasian or European or Celtic or other names.
Do you think it promotes the idea that all races should merge into one? And if so, do you agree with this idea?
Multiculturalism in its American/globalist/imperial form definitely promotes the idea that all races will inevitably
merge into one. That is different from the multiculturalism which various actual ethnic groups, peoples and nations tell me about — which neither predicts nor promotes such an idea that is so close to "transhumanism". I agree the idea might be a possibility but I have no idea when that could happen or if humans will all die out before that happens or if certain races — even if they are "multicultural" — should survive a little longer or much longer.
Do you see any exception to this idea, any race that is portrayed by the media as worthy of a special protection?
Yes, I have seen "special protection" invoked for every single race, culture, even sexualities. Different protections for different peoples and groups. American media seems to delight in new forms of "protection" for every kind of person that has a single outspoken critic against a so-called stereotype. Arabian people lately have been portrayed as an expendable commodity that you get brownie points for destroying, "White" people have been portrayed as an inevitable imperial superior force that shyly dumps its technological achievements into the hands of Asian people. And there are many other ways it's "okayed" to destroy and undermine various sovereign people. But the "sanctioned" ways of destroying and undermining people shifts constantly based on various media powers and seemingly (promoted) artistic interpretations — for good or ill.
A race whose extinction we should be worried about?
I don't know if I am really all that concerned about "extinction" as much as genetic variety and strength — and this discussion becomes very sexual too since it deals directly with how and why people are attracted — sexually and otherwise — to others.
And are we allowed to worry about the possible extinction of other races too?
I am not really worried about the "extinction" of any races but perhaps I am just too aloof for people concerned with such things.
Can the creation of the “islamic terrorist” boogeyman be interpreted also as a warning against the dangers of nationalisms and religious beliefs?
It is meant to be interpreted that way, absolutely. I don't necessarily agree that is the best interpretation of the "Islamic terrorist" fictions lately.
Why is the media telling us to distrust such phenomena?
This question doesn't quite make sense to me, based on the site you are on. Are you asking why the media is telling us to distrust Arabs?
Are they saying this to their benefit or to ours, or both?
Both. Neither. Whatever keeps the powermongers in power, I imagine.
Are there cases in which what benefits the media controllers can also benefit us?
Presumably, the media controllers are human. I believe all people deserve respect and can be entrusted with responsibilities; but if they abuse those responsibilities we should be able to remove those people from power and redesign our makeshift system if necessary.
Is how the media portray White nationalism or other forms of nationalism real or fake?
Largely fake. It is like everything else used to divide everyone along controllable demographics.
Do they promote it or oppose it?
They do both in different ways, for different people.
Do you see multiculturalism as something that has roots in the past, or arising only from the 20th century onward?
It has deep roots in the past, but there are modern variations constantly being born, and new forms will be born tomorrow and so on. As long as there are different cultures trying to figure out how to coexist on our planet, multiculturalism will be a subject.
Can you name thinkers, philosophers or intellectuals who, before the 20th century, spoke in favor of multiculturalism?
I can't really think of any thinkers, philosophers or intellectuals before the 20th century who would know how to talk as well as we do in 21st century terms. So this is a bit of a loaded question. There have always been progressives and conservatives in every political branch, though. Is that a safe (if modern) way to say that you would find people to disagree with you and agree with you in every age? I suspect the particular "anti-White" multiculturalism you rightfully distrust has its roots in something very current. And we might be able to stop it too, if we can identify a more specific source than "some Jewish culture in the media." I especially think if we first broaden it to "some people in the media" and then add to it the various branches of suspects including Zionists and Talmudists, like Masons and so forth, we would be getting closer. However, perhaps the source of the "anti-White" agenda is from Black Panthers and anti-European Zionist pests and others.
And from the 20th century onward, did these promoters of multiculturalism belong equally to different ethnic groups or to one in particular?
Whoops, it seems I preempted this question a bit. It has belonged to a huge variety of groups, especially those that benefit from any kind of foothold in the aggressively "Euro" (especially "Anglo") colonialist culture/empire. However, there is the largest population of concentrated Jews in America — even more than Israel, right? And in New York, which was once considered for a Capitol for the United States, so you can expect that group to have a huge sway in the globalist Statist media promoted by the empire.
Do you think multiculturalism could benefit a particular ethnic group?
It has the potential to be used, like any tool, to benefit a particular group that uses it for domination. I think it also has the potential to be used to benefit many groups when we discuss it as intricately as we are discussing here. As I mentioned before, I think European cultures could very much benefit from multicultural understandings, especially before making specific decisions that act to create multiculturalism.
Did it arise in concomitance with the rise to international power of any particular ethnic group?
Yes, sort of: the latest Anglo power, the U.S.A., which even broadly states in its founding documents that "all men" should be treated equally (even though slaves were explicitly considered only 3/5 ("three fifths") of a human being.) No, in another sense. Power seems to have gravitated largely to the traditional religious powers, the gnostic "opposite" (which may be secretly leading the former), the strange success and proliferation of pathetic "fraternities", the conflation of royalty and sacredness, and particular nations which harbor values deemed "universal" by the globalists — and the optimistic force that came from the few things that came of European-Iroquois (among other) multicultural (or perhaps "coexisting") understandings, which even White supremacists might even classify as "good" (except for those extreme ones which hope to subjugate and colonize other cultures, as aforementioned "sweeping movement" brings up).
And finally, do you think it's important to try and find answers to these questions, or at least some of them?
Personally, I am not sure if any of these questions are the
right direction to solve the world's problems with media fakery. However, they are certainly close to the hearts of people concerned with these questions. To me, I find them absolutely fascinating and important. I think they are as important as the question of the true (and truly mysterious) history of the world, of humanity, and/or ideas. They are almost as big as ontology.
However, since ontology and other subjects are the most interesting to me, I can only view these questions as specifically related to your particular culture that you share with ... well, those that share it. And I don't see "majority rules" being the most important determinant of any given world view.