Scott Mayers

Progress also includes not obliterating culture unlike the same kind of disrespect that particular cultures have done time and again in the past. Traditional cultures demand keeping what was or should be "dead and buried" alive. I can accept this in respect to treating all cultures and traditions owned by ALL, not some specific group. These don't need laws other than to those which respect the individual or the whole, not groups based on some ancestor's lifestyle. If one expects they should own the benefits of culture but also demand outsiders not notice the faults, both of which are stereotypes, this is hypocritical. I'm guessing you are more just favorable to the economic parts of conservatism, not any particular mono-cultural impositions by those most Capitalistically endowed?

I like and respect Trump's personality and understand that he appears 'sincere' in his convictions. But it IS the rhetoric to which those most Nationalistic on the right appeal to of which others are most concerned with. Even his 'wall' is not necessarily intending to be realized should he have the chance to become President. As to Trudeau, you know that the last meet of significant effort was his own father in the mid-seventies? (I was actually on the White House lawn at the meet but too young to make much sense of politics.) Yes, I agree to some of this. But you only kept in the optimistic points of 'competition'. Competition includes losers. And for many of us everywhere in Western Democracies, we forget that 'competition' isn't like playing a sport or some video game. If you lose in real life, you cannot actually play more than one life (or game). That's at least indicating you are more of a "patriot" of the American system and do not have the "nationalism" I'm referring to in this respect.

Additional note from my previous post on this: In a very real sense, yes, progressives do have an 'inherent' right in that progress is initiated in the present with people in the present and looks forward when considering the laws of its citizens. Or perhaps you'd think we can dispense with government altogether as one extreme on the basis that something like the Bible is sufficient to govern us all?

Okay, I'm not in disagreement here. It is what I was pointing to is a strong 'conservative' ideal. Whether for some MONO-culture or some select MULTI-cultures, they are still the nationalisms that cause the problems within all parties and within all countries. I'm one of those who does not define myself in not-American terms as I understand many do here. I promote the ideals of the U.S. origins and its intentional ideals for ALL people. But when YOU say that you are a "nationalist", are you not just referencing "patriotism" or are you more specifically extending this to a belief in specific ethnicities or traditions? Are you Christian, for example, and one who believes that the 'true' American IS those who are Christian? Do you believe that the Mexicans coming into the U.S. in violation are all doing so as prior criminals of Mexico as opposed to being equally of those escaping a bad form of government? Do you defend an American abroad as requiring to be treated as though their American inheritance entitles them to exceptional laws even in places that oppose American ideals?

This is the false stereotype of Canada here. We are not less conservative but more so in many ways. Cultural preservation through our Multiculturalism is of this kind. We are 'conservative' in still having an official 'royalty' and this entity alone is enough to demonstrate our more conservative ideals. "Progressives" simply refers to one opting to choose their present associations. That is, they opt to PROGRESS by adapting to changes. But it is NOT a means to utterly destroy traditions. Traditions through culture should be available to all to be permitted to 'choose'. But the conservatives to the nationalistic ideals with respect to trying to attempt to entrench laws for the sake of some single or set of ethnicities is highly discriminatory and dictotorial (commanding). I like traditions to still exist. But progress should not require FORCING traditional ideals with respect to law. [your first amendment] As to your own view, I think you as a conservative would at least likely favor the nationalism of the Old South where people of such inherent factors were intrinsically believed to 'own' or deserve their benefits even at the expense of those that are disfavored by them. And I'm guessing you'd thus favor this factor of our system to prefer laws that segregate laws for certain cultures or groups based on ethnic stereotypes.

I already recognize that Nationalists exist in all parties. See my thread "Why voting NDP is better..." as this expands on my concern to Nationalism but why it is still better to vote for a social democratic government for the best hope of defeating this tendency. The same goes with the Democrats and why I'd support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Minor distinction in politics within the same parties are often about nationalistic differences or differences in how to deal with those who believe in intervening using laws to favor certain group interests. Many strict feminists would vote for Sanders because he'd support laws that grant exceptional interests based on a belief that there exists intrinsic cultural 'ownership' of people based on similar genetics. Here the class "women" are assumed by some as either all sharing in some genetic liability of which "men" as a whole class are assumed to be women's oppressors. While there IS true discrimination that occurs, this kind of "nationalism" is what I believe distinguishes a major difference between Hillary and Bernie. But right-wingers most dominate those forms of Nationalisms that lack even more connection to reality. A 'feminist' type of conservative would often be like a Christian women's group who believe in the traditional means of women being submissive to men. This form of nationalism is worse as it defeats progressive society's liberal views with less of a real logical connection of some culture of 'women' or 'men' and their actual genetic nature of BEING women or men.

What is you're implied understanding of "why"? Your process of thought here sounds like you support those who assert, "You're either FOR us, or FOR the terrorists." As this is the case in context of who you support, it's understandable why you'd think boycotting the U.S. should be our rational response. But unlike you, many do not interpret the political support by the U.S. as a black-or-white thing.

Rue said, "If it is even true that Jews are disproportionately represented in business, one must be careful to note that correlation does not equal causation." I haven't bothered to read all he's had to say yet but to this one point one has to reasonably raise interest to investigate in something that has circumstantial evidence to suggest bias. It doesn't mean that ALL people who are Jews are targeted with suspicion. But even Rue's apparent extreme to do what it takes to prevent people from even questioning any potential bias of Jewish Nationalism is itself suspicious when he hypocritically finds it alright to assume all others as default to be Anti-Jewish for questioning SOME JEWS who DO this just as other groups do. You cannot presume that somehow Jews are perfectly innocent while only those who could potentially be conspiratorial are non-Jews. What IS unusual circumstantially is that with respect to powerful pivotal industries, like communication and entertainment (or finance), while Jews are of a severe minority in most given populations, their presence in these are inversely proportional. This IS a severe circumstantial oddity that suggests that at least SOME potential conspiracy exists. It requires sincere investigation but is most severely opposed and prevented, especially when the very suspects hold the reigns of dominant power in the industries we use to relay information among one another. It is too paramount to dismiss regardless because media ownership represents the ownership of the very air we breathe between individuals anywhere. As such, unlike other concerns, where PIVOTAL industries are concerned, we DO have to look at being sure these have balanced representation of the populations in reality. Ownership of media and finance are two most significant industries we require being sure to prevent any one culture of dominating, regardless of any sincerity or default trust we should apply in most other areas. And for this reason alone, we'd still be reasonable to question the dominance of ANY one group that deviates so far from their population as represented in reality.

If anyone has seen or heard what I've written or spoken, you'd know that I have an issue against Multiculturalism here in Canada since I disagree with ANY cultural type laws because they ALWAYS lead to some form of discrimination no matter how 'well-intentioned' it could be. All parties here support culture because those WITH culture always have more intense interest to be actively participant in politics, especially where their concerns are stronger. Those cultural groups who have the 'normal' power presently, prefer conservative politics because it preserves their cultural interests best. In contrast, those cultural groups who have less present power, can't compete in isolation and so require giving leniency towards other groups in similar 'weakness' if only to get the power through collective cultural coalitions. This does not mean that any of each of these cultural groups lacks 'conservative' interests. I've called the interest of those who most prefer some cultural interest WITH one's associative inheritances, "Nationalism", since this collectively covers the idea that they FAVOR some aspect of conserving one's ethnic beliefs, not simply culture per se. That is, with respect to culture, a Nationalist is one who favors at least SOME form of ethnic preservation in opposition to contemporary PROGRESSIVE cultures in which people voluntarily form or opt into without concern for any ethnic bias. As such, ALL parties of any political persuasion will inevitably have Nationalists among them. So what do we do if we believe we are 'free' to choose our culture but all parties in politics tend to be some force against this? If you are 'white', this accidental inheritance tends to be favored by our present conservatives where they are more predominantly 'white'. In contrast, the more non-conservative interests tends towards favoring those Nationalist groups who are most in opposition to those who ARE 'white', even if those parties do not necessarily intend this bias. This is because for the collective Nationalists disenfranchised, they lack the essential compassion to favor those they intrinsically believe are defaulted to be favored regardless of any potential flaw in this thinking. Any compassion threatens their own purposes where they interpret the nature of others to prefer the same KIND of Nationalistic thinking they intrinsically hold 'true' of themselves. It makes it difficult for those of us without Nationalistic interests but belong to some group of which those Nationalists of one side of the political spectrum interpret us to belong to. Given that I'm social democratic in principle, my preference is to vote NDP here in Saskatchewan in our upcoming election. But what I DO fear is that should this party become empowered, all the collective Nationalists among them will likely push for laws that will tend to posit special laws that empower their groups and in such a way that also prevents at least some groups from having the same privilege. Such laws are often proposed to only appear to FAVOR some in-group rather than to NEGATE some out-group. The problem is that this WILL occur in such a way that ALWAYS discriminates. Also, while it is relatively 'true' that at present our 'white' cultural Nationalists will continue to foster favor for those who are 'white', the ones who are white who are NOT Nationalists and NOT with power in fact, will be the only ones who lose to any Multicultural laws. That is, if one is white AND supports present liberalisms (NDP or Liberal party), those of us who do not belong to the Nationalists of most interest in these parties will become the sacrifices. It is this reasonable fear which makes those of us to be most confused at who to vote for. If we vote for what we believe, we are doomed as sacrificial lambs FOR those Nationalists in a majority there. And if we vote for the present conservative mono-cultural parties, or, as with the Liberals, a small subset of specific groups, we lose in that we don't get what we want, BUT we at least don't also get sacrificed or harmed the more 'white' we are and the more mono-culturally favorable parties favoring 'whites'. Conservatives are not necessarily biased in principle either by many. In fact, the ones who ARE of the present 'non-white' status who also favor the more capitalistic ideals of the right-wing parties ALSO have a similar problem but in reverse. This makes non-whites at present who are preferentially leaning to the right damned too regardless of how they vote. These particular non-whites though will more likely be at least more economically 'safe' as this is usually why ones tend to favor capitalistic economic liberal views with priority. Given these facts, the sacrifices of ones who are white and more liberal, will still be potentially penalized for voting more left-wing, in a worse way than those non-whites sacrificing who opt to favor non-liberal party views. What are we then supposed to do? I hope at least you could see why I'm so adamantly against Nationalism. But I believe that our NDP, while still likely to have more Nationalists against whites, the nature of multiple groups competing will have a better means to defeat the Nationalists of any parties. This is because those of us disenfranchised still have a potential to at least overcome the biases against us by exposing the logic I'm presenting here. I DO NOT believe in creating another posited group FOR some 'whiteness' as this only amplifies (or feedbacks) the very causes of Nationalism that threaten all of us in a renewed cycle of social abuses. So I believe our best chances are to still vote for NDP if we favor more liberal beliefs. But we also need to be clear to also vocalize this concern I present very LOUDLY! We need people of all backgrounds who believe in sincere PROGRESSIVE views, to make a stance against ANY form of Nationalisms and also in a way that doesn't foster FAVOR FOR ethnic preservation. "Ethnicity" is the combined connection of one's genetic as well as cultural inheritances. I am not against one choosing culture. But if one believes one's ethnicity entitles them to some kind of 'ownership' right in law because of this accidental factor, it IS Nationalism, even if they don't or won't acknowledge it. Let's fight to defeat Nationalistic views regardless of which political persuasion you hold based on economics. But, we have the best chance to be successful if we favor the NDP for those of us voting in the upcoming elections since right-wing parties have a natural tendency to foster Nationalism with more fervor. It is in the nature of "conservatives" to do whatever it takes to conserve the ethnicity of the majority to the extreme when those Nationalists among them are most empowered to make this happen. And don't be fooled by our Liberal party's apparent modesty to be partially kinder. Their favor is for a Catholic (Anglican or French-Roman) Nationalism of our founding established powers and their acceptance of other groups is limited to the ones which most enables them to keep power and distribute their past faults they 'own' among the general population instead. So they attempt to foster Nationalisms of targeted disenfranchised groups sufficient for their more 'liberal' ethnic, but biased interests. Thank you. Scott.

No, the "Nationalism" that I'm referring to is not of the 'border' limited type. Although this is nationalism, only if it is ALSO culturally biased to favor some ethnicity or group of ethnicities, is this a problem and not restricted to one's borders, but to some assumed 'people' in a genetic way.....like favoring Zionism, for instance, as Israel does. The type of "nationalism" you are including as "American" is more appropriately defined as "patriotism". While both Democrats and Republicans have the non-patriotic forms of Nationalists among them, it is to the Republican forms that foster the contemporary cults that already dominate, mostly 'white' ethnic related ones. Your point of the fact that we have more interest in the U.S. should be a good point. It is hypocritical of you to presume American-dominant interest as a justification to ignore other countries because the U.S. ideal principles are then just 'right' for Americans but 'wrong' if you are not. At least the Democrats lack this form of hypocrisy in such clear extremes.

If we are damned if we do or damned if we don't to be concerned, then what does it matter for those like yourself to even be here? Trump would also still be bad for even the Americans in contrast to the Democrats regardless. Acts to promote more segregated nationalism only equally promotes more dissent AGAINST the U.S.. "Terrorism" is a direct result of nationalists with interests to conserve their power over others. AND they ARE the sincere "terrorists" because it is they who actually require those terrorists to justify their own acts of deliberate abuses to BE the actual 'terrorists' in disguise of opponents of them. Extremes beget extremes. Those like Trump (or right-wing politics in general) CAPITALIZE most opportunistically with clear divisiveness in terms of blacks-and-whites.

Then he would be consistent with many U.S. presidents past. A President Trump should be more concerned with American interests. The leaders of Canada and Mexico should make choices in their own nations' interests as well. Perhaps. But then it IS in our interest to prevent him from succeeding isn't it? Especially since his degree of interest is to be more Nationalistic and demanding walls to be built. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/donald-trump-canada-president-south-park-1.3244926for a humorous take on this!

I like Trudeau but agree he has a degree of the Nationalism I despise that exists in most politicians that actually get in power here. Trump's Nationality is a bit uncertain in that he seems to be pandering to whatever works. He has admitted to being pragmatic and to behave in a business mindset that optimizes success at whatever cost. Even bad press is good press to him. But I liked his candor and is also to some degree shared by Trudeau. Both have interesting personalities. Trudeau appears to be a 'dreamer' and so comes across as at least 'sincere' to his intentions. Trump is a no-nonsense speaker acting on the principle of being 'bold' regardless of whether it is or is not necessarily correct. The qualities of both have appeal and I don't buy the necessary fears of either. To me, all I am concerned of is to what degree their nationalism exists to which may or may not cause irreversible harm. I didn't approve of Trudeau Senior's approach to foster our "Multiculturalism " as this is still a Nationalistic belief. It is MORE open to others by contrast since it isn't a belief in just ONE single group's culture. Yet is is still limited to discriminate those external to his own preferred group interests [Anglican and French Catholics, and the Indigenous most prominently]. Justin, I believe, has inherited what his father set up and due to his own fortunes has had a secularized-type interpretation of his father's more strict intents for a Nationalistic take. But I agree with people here on both sides to some degree on each take. Justin is likely good for us and still compassionate for the Americans in this way; Trump would likely be BAD for us Canadians though potentially 'good' for Americans given his form of "Nationalism" is more 'patriotic'. His own apparent faults at being prejudice appear as more of a front and addiction to his own expected behavior. It is what gave him his success and why he would (and maybe, should) be arrogant or sincerely confident of his behavior. People prop him up as much as he himself and why he continues to maintain that behavior. But for Canadians, as with the Mexicans, politically and economically, this could be troublesome as regardless, he appears to be more strictly adamant to preserve American-only interests at ANY means. And this can be very dangerous for those he counts on to exploit for profit.

I've already covered this above and explained this false perspective. If Israel is permitted 'victory' its at the expense of those losing to them. Of course you'd appreciate such 'victory' being on the winning side. And so why should you complain should the opposition treat you too like this as some sporting event? You can't declare foul play to the Palestinians if all that matters is winning to you. Then those acts you'd refer to as "terrorism" are just normal expected means to compete. Is this a justification true or not to offend them? If you disrespect them for their quality of standards you believe defines their religion, you ignore that perhaps religious conviction is itself at fault, not just some particular religion. My response was to something claimed of someone else and I don't have context to determine what you find so shocking (a whopper)? [i wish we had access here to easily quote and quote within quotes. This was already more than a week ago and appears distracting of what the conversation has evolved to. I gave a comparison to a bully holstering a gun whose confidence with his deterrent makes him walk without concern to respect others without requiring to be OVERTLY violent, even where he may be. If it helps, think of David and Goliath of my response above. I coincidentally had just reused this analogy their to which you referenced the same from a week and a half ago. Read that and respond there since you might follow better.

I think these are all your own PROJECTIONS of me based on your own way of thinking, not mine. I argue this issue without any discontent with you or others here. I don't know you nor could even identify you nor "Dog on the Porch". My argument is based on logical grounds of which I only postulate what even you would assume as some standard moral virtue/vice and then try to show how the combined facts involved demonstrate inconsistency. You and not me, are the one acting with intentional disgust towards me and my views as a person. You are basing it on mere emotions. While I can try to empathize with you from any assumed background abuses you may personally have experienced, I don't own any emotional baggage nor have any hidden motives to trick you or others in my words. And what do you think you are doing if not imposing your 'beliefs' of me (that I'm supposedly some hater here), attempting to 'hurt' me (by asserting but not proving or actually demonstrating that I hold some Anti-Semitic view), and to define me as 'inferior' (by asserting I have some mental defect of character)? I already challenged you on your lack of ability to interpret my comparison appropriately above. But you HAVE acted to defend Zionism as if you speak for all Jews globally in defense of some feigned presumption of me being against even ONE Jew. My disapproval is to the fact that Israel is state purposely designed to foster a racial-based system of which they happen to particularly BE and FAVOR Jews in a globally specific belief about ALL JEWS themselves. No. I'm saying that in the relative disadvantaged community of Palestinians, who ARE variable, the minor minority of those you assert as "terrorists" is transferred in fact to the penalty of the WHOLE of all Palestinians by Israel. Also, while the minority of Palestinians may or may not commit acts of which you could define "terrorism", this is a relative term and to the reality, the actual whole of the Israeli FORCES act in unison as one LARGE group who act as a "terrorist" organ because the Israelis here are the Goliath to the Palestinian's David. Note how David, in the story, used an advanced weapon for its day? That since David was sufficiently smaller relative to the Giant Philistine (Goliath), who in turn did not wield a weapon but was just sufficiently too big for tiny David to competitively beat otherwise, that the story makes David into a HERO? I'd imagine the Philistines interpreting David's act as a form of 'cheating' or, what you presume about the present Palestinian's acts to rebel, as "terrorism". To me as to many others, David's act is 'justified' given the story's means to show how those Philistines acting as "Goliaths (= Giants)" who did not necessarily have to overtly violate others when they behave since their less apparent violent means was defaulted unnecessary since they were simply to big and powerful to prevent them from getting their way regardless. Can you see if you reverse this simple moral to which I assume you'd agree was 'fair' is similar to the Palestinian 'terrorists' today representing David while Israel represents those Goliaths. The Goliaths don't require acting with similar extreme because they ARE the natively stronger force. But their acts still do not make their actions any less violent. They are just indirect or hidden. If you have two people walking down a crowded street with one holstering a large gun while the other without, the one with the gun often begins to simply walk straight without voluntarily moving out of the way of others expecting the weaker to maneuver around them with caution. The bully is the gun-holder as he is counting on the fact of his present power to threaten others acts as a 'deterrent' and disrespects their own behavior. Who in these examples are the real abusers here? I am not supporting "suicide bombers". I am arguing that their desperation makes them relatively likely to opt this. If their economy was reversed, the same person may be the one who either simply joins the army in power OR ends up being one of those (also in the army often) who personally commits suicide for some personal reasons. That is, a David would not even have had a NEED to use a sling shot had he been as competently as large as Goliath. I am saying the 'apparent' subtle acts we think are harmless or not worthy of being considered as demeaning as "terrorism" is false because the hidden and indirect forms of violation actually makes those capable of being 'terrorist' but being able to hide their accountability, makes them more suspect. Would you prefer someone who is direct and assaults you with a punch in the face OR do you think it respectful to have someone cleverly use a tactic to harm you, pretend they are your 'friend' and then lose accountability for it as you can't determine who or what directly just hit you behind the head and knocked you out?

Yes, I agree with this. Perhaps this is the first thing (other than to actually spell my last name correctly in the last post to me....thank you at least for that, btw). I demonstrated Zionism is racist because it is no different that asserting one is an "Aryanist". When you define yourself based significantly on ethnic grounds, this cannot logically be interpreted as anything else because the Zionist, like the Aryanist, bases themselves on establishing some specific nationality based foremost on their genetic ancestral relationships. You even admitted before that a 'Jew' doesn't require being one who believes in Judaism but to their genetic relationship. Because this also implies the State in mind to be created is to be DOMINATED of genetically-related Jews, this proves Zionism is "racist". "Race" is just a subgroup of one species often presumed to be sufficiently assumed to be believed as standing apart from others of the same species. So if you favor Jews based on ancestral connection, this is appropriately understood as "racist". If this wasn't the case, then Israel wouldn't be defined as a "Jewish" state other than by some possible accident, just as some define Canada or America as "Christian" since they represent the majority by accident. But unlike Israel, the rest of the 'democratic' world favors no specific ethnicity. I clearly stated that both are equally wrong for their actions but that Israel is the initiator of the present conflict as they came to Palestine; the Palestinians did not go to Palestine as they were already there! I did NOT use the comparison of child molesting of a criminal versus one with some lessor relative crime as any one-to-one mapping of either the Israelis or the Palestinians because each is relatively perceived as one by the other. And it was an indirect comparison to demonstrate how it is NOT appropriate to assert that one prison inmate for such comparative crimes is MORE justified for their behavior over the other REGARDLESS of which one is the pedophile or not. That is, just because you or others may attempt to argue that Palestinians are somehow most terroristic in comparison to the Israelis [the Palestinians are the assumed Pedophile relative to this example pretending agreement with the Israeli view of them], this does not justify Israel to offend with more force against the Palestinians nor makes the Israelis 'innocent' of criminal behavior. Your perception is skewed and how you responded here just shows how you jumping to conclusions of me is more about your own inability to interpret the logic here. And, I'm guessing that had you actually interpreted the opposite, that I was somehow accusing the Palestinians of being "Pedophiles", you'd not have said a word! I see that for what else you wrote (besides the Ad Hominem) is dependent upon your clear misunderstanding (or is this just you playing dumb again so that you can accuse me with purpose?). So those further comments by you don't follow. Note that you may be verging on behavior that may be potentially in violation of this forum. If you want to maintain credibility to your accusations, do it non-anonymously or volunteer more caution. At least, if I said something here, I'm not here anonymous and could be held ACCOUNTABLE publicly for such abuses. You lack credibility if you opt to be more risky with your words.

If you support Team A over Team B, other than some particular favor you might have for the letter A over the letter B, unless there is no other qualifying distinction you have to judge from, it suggests you are biased for SOME reason at least. I argued the invalidity of the excuse to qualify one team as any more 'right' over the other because both are 'wrong'. Thus, any support remaining of one team over the other MUST be of ones' personal bias, and not of one logically consistent to some moral high ground position. Note my assertion is a hypothetical too. AND...it goes without saying, my opinion otherwise (if it weren't miraculously logical enough).

Western media exists in a region of the world less hostile to ethnic, political, and economic differences. We just have more variation and relative peace by contrast. The Israeli media is even worse. Check out http://www.jewishpress.com/multimedia/land-of-israel/ari-and-jeremy/why-does-obama-call-isis-isil-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-israel/2015/12/17/ and look at their requirements for feedback allowed. There they define this press and its site as absolutely intolerant to any non-Jewish defenses and particularly favor Judaism without an allowance for opinion remotely in question of them. And... No, it was to dismiss the story as absurdly one-sided, which it was. False. You didn't declare any specific view about the article and only spoke of its media source as a whole to be questionable. If you have sincere concern to that particular article, I challenge you to re-read it and point out specifically how their rhetoric was biased. The U.N. sanctioned it? The problem here is that Palestinians were not of this organ, were not even recognized as having political justice since they didn't even have the time to organize upon the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. This act is exploitive of their present disadvantage at the time in contrast to the Zionists AND no one remotely considered them even as justified 'victims' of the Ottoman regime. Also, why is the U.N. given recognized 'authority' when in favors the Zionists but later ignored when it disfavors them? If the U.N. is an arbitrary means to selectively choose when or where their authority matters, it makes this body with respect to the Zionists insignificant except as a convenient tool. The U.N. divided the state? Why? Why do you think they SEGREGATED the population rather than set up or sanction a common DEMOCRATIC state so that the people could all participate in what happens there? False and misleading comparison. My argument is that you cannot accept that the Jews legitimately bought land to a system considered illegitimate. If you knew a friend who was a Mafia character who promised you some other people's land based on their 'authority' by means of their power to enforce such a contract contrary to those the land belongs to, you are as much criminal if you don't give that land back when it was realized (if not already known) the friend who legitimized such a contract IS a criminal. Compare: if I even buy something from someone only to discover that the person selling me this product had stole it, I am obliged (at least morally, if not legally), to give the property back and either absorb the losses or sue the criminal who sold me the property deceptively. You also can't assert comparative crime differences that make one crime somehow more 'fair' by contrast to another in such a case. The Germans also BEGAN in the same kind of illegitimate land seizures of the Jews prior to the escalation that lead to the Holocaust. In fact, had Hitler's successes been not as waning as it was, even the Holocaust may possibly have not happened. But history proved the escalation to more extremes can and DOES matter. So, my comparison to the hypocrisy of the Jews to purchase ANY land is suspect. They also KNEW they were taking advantage of the Palestinians there by merely internalizing that the Palestinians there had no 'claim' or prior ownership to those lands on official record. I happened to look up the demographics of the territories comparing Arab, Christian, and Jew. At ALL times up to 1948, the Palestinians had a drastic majority. And the Jews were at most half of the Palestinians and were mostly of a significant minority for most of the pre-established State of Israel. But notice what I underlined above. You specifically pointed out what I was concerned about. If the Palestinians were NOT a country, is this not because of the recent fall of the Ottoman Empire? Did anyone not think, let's ask the Palestinians there if they'd like to now form a country? Did anyone ask if the Palestinians there would be welcome to a democratic state? No, the decision external to their DEMOCRATIC interest was to forcefully stage a coup for the land and to favor the political dominance of the Jews OVER the Muslims there.

Israel is selectively "democratic". That's the "nationalist" part:...that one must be Jewish to be granted priority in law-making. Had they been sincerely 'democratic', they'd not have been interested in creating a Zionistic State for Jews but to establish a friendly democracy collectively among ALL people in that region. The "National" part of "National Socialism" means that one believes in a selective socialist system specifically for some favored 'nationality' (the ethnic-intensive meaning).

Wait a second. You still miss the logic. I don't support any "Nationalism" where such is defined on some specific ethnicity, regardless of whether it is from Muslims or not. Palestine was NOT a political state of the Jews prior to their relatively recent takeover of this region. As such, if the Jews had this land, even still disagreeing with their ethnocentric racism, in a reversed condition such that the Muslims had forced a state instead, I'd disagree with those Muslims for overtaking the Jews who would have been there before. So it is NOT about which Nationalism is better or worse because BOTH forms are racist and unworthy of supporting (Unless those like you have a belief in your own 'race' and simply agree to such Nationalism). The point of the matter is that those who ARE Zionists ("Jewish Zionists" is redundant here) used their racism to redefine Palestine in disrespect of the political STATE of those there before them. It wouldn't matter if the people living in Palestine for the last two thousand years were German Nazis. To simply say that those people are evil does not justify replacing them just with another form of Nazism. Two wrongs don't make a right. So we have to look to the logic of the secondary conditions as outsiders looking in on these different peoples OBJECTIVELY. This is like if we had to judge two inmates of some prison who are both violent criminals to determine whether one is acting in ways that are relatively more unjust than the other. That is, we still don't think it appropriate for one criminal inmate to kill another inmate. We don't excuse the fact that one of them did some other heinous crime as justification to allow the lessor of the two evils to have carte blanche justice to offend the other. Note, I DO get that many peole DO think this type of behavior is alright. If one is a child predator while the other is simply a predator of an adult, one may interpret the offender against adults as "justified" in murdering the child predator in prison. But for that matter, outsiders may simply interpret both as equally deserving whatever evolves in those prisons regardless of who is more or less abusive. So, if you think Israel earns their right because of might in light that both are evil but you think Israel's crimes are lessor than the Palestinians before them, why not close off your concern for BOTH sides? Why support even Israel's existence at all even if you think they were simply "lessor" of the evils? Shouldn't you just stay out of the issue altogether? Should WE, the rest of the World, ignore problems altogether in the Middle East? If you still think the Israeli side should be supported, I then have to question whether you yourself have some personal Nationalistic belief too. While you do NOT have to be a Jew to support Israel, if you support their 'right' over the Palestinians, it indicates you have some other personal belief in your own form of Nationalism and only side with Israel out of a better affinity to their culture over the Palestinians. It would be like favoring one violent gang over another simply because you might prefer the appearance of one over the other. You treat the dispute like a sports event in which you are entertained by the competition but happen to have loyalty to one side simply because they have uniforms with colors you like (that is, relate to).

A "Nation" may be regional bound but since it has been understood to apply to some set of people based on their belief in a right to some COMMON political right regardless of where they are, a "nation" refers to the POLITICAL reality of some group either based on some region (a 'country', for example) or to some group loyal to some sovereignty, as in one's ethnic group one associates with. The "Nationalism" I'm referring to of concern is not the form based on region ALONE, like the United States, because they do not discriminate those of its political association to be based on some particular (arbitrary) ethnicity or specific set of ethnicities. In contrast, most non-American "Nationalism" refers to ones ethnicity (race, religion, genetic, or cultural connections/associations). In Canada, for instance, the "First Nations" concept believes Aboriginals (all throughout North America) are a "Nations" of people not bound to the POLITICAL REGIONAL relationship associated with the Canadian politic or to its fixed borders. It is also "ethnic" since the prequalifying (prerequisite) factor is that you MUST be genetically an ancestor of someone defined relatively "Aboriginal". [i say 'relatively' since we are ALL related somewhere in some time to some common ancestor.] Israel, is BOTH a "Nationality" of its state (region of Palestine) and to those who are ethnically, "Jewish", as a minimal, regardless of where you live on Earth. This is because they believe intrinsically in a "Jewish" specific classification that binds those who are genetically related (you don't have to believe in the religion of Judaism) AND to those especially who DO believe there is a combined link of ones genetics and culture (ethnicity). The ethnic factor is what bothers me since it is just an indirect misleading reference to a belief in one's as a distinct "species" (== RACE), contrary to what many falsely attempt to distance others from recognizing with clarity. One defining themselves "nationalistic" to reference a loyalty to ones political constitution without reference or concern to ethnicity, is NOT what bothers me nor matters. One can be "patriotic" without being biased to some particular association to their genes.

I wouldn't assert that your son's left-handedness IS culture. It is a genetic factor. But now consider say, fifty years back in time when some teachers often forced left-handed people to use their right hand to write regardless of this factor. To such a teacher, he/she might interpret left-handedness as something arbitrary and an accidentally learned behavior, right? Now if the teacher presumed that all kids who were left-handed were of some similar neglectful parents,perhaps, this could be interpreted as some type of preferential behavior these parents had in common and so might misappropriate left-handedness as a trait of some 'cultural' [traditional pattern of behavior]. In kind, while also 'accidental', left-handed kids who have this kind of treatment by teachers develop a common thread of experience related to how society treats left-handedness. So they themselves too may also misappropriate their left-handedness with something they each have in common behaviorally. If similar left-handed kids got together out of such common neglect by other kids for thinking them 'odd', they may also 'accidentally' bond with each other for their similar isolation. Without going too much further, just let your imagination flow and you should be able to see that the mistake to connect ones genetic factor to their behavior can lead to an element of 'culture'. But as you note, left-handedness doesn't actually relate to culture. And so should some future group of left-handed people assert a common 'culture', while partially true by accident, ALL left-handed people do not "own" some natural common behavior in kind. And should they then demand that political action be created to conserve some culture correlating to what we know is genetic, does ALL left-handed people require having such 'culture' imposed upon them? Since ethnicity is just culture plus ones genetic inheritances, should we preserve this 'ethnicity' that evolved as if this connection (a stereotype) were true? What if the stereotype were positive? What if it were negative? Do the positive or negative factors matter since they are still stereotypes? And if one 'embraces' one, granting them legal status, does this allow them to dismiss the other form?

Zionism and its attempts to overtake Palestine began in the mid-to-late 1800s, not merely 1948. But you need to simply question the logic for which you keep overlooking. The nature of the belief of Zionism is intrinsically National Socialist since it restricts its political structure to be of Jewish people, both of Judaic beliefs AND to their genetic ancestral relations...AND that it also EXCLUDES the non-Jew, with most high disrespect, of the very Palestinians of which was the 'host' to any Jewish immigration. It disrespected the local population and depended on dealing with external sovereign places to force their way in at the expense of the DEMOCRATIC concerns of the Palestinians living there. Thus, Zionism is a Jewish form of ANTI-Palestinian or ANTI-(any others who threaten their resolve) kind of cult. So the Zionists were the ones initiating the harms FIRST and continue to this day.

Listen up, Rue, I'm fine with who I am regardless of what you think. Perhaps you could try to have respect yourself before you judge me. As for others I speak with here, not everyone takes dissenting views with personal insult as you do. I've asked you to treat me with respect here (like to appropriately use my name) and to at least give me the charity to which I did with you initially. So if you don't like me, don't bother speaking to me. I won't respond to your own abusive behavior and lack of responding to what I actually say rather than to fake something I didn't say (or mean). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1c2OfAzDTI

I'd like to see the Middle East and many old world areas evolve to be universally of everyone's. I agree with the giant theme park idea but would like to see the whole area as one embracing an economy of museum-towns (like Upper-Canada Village, for instance). People could embrace their cultures but treat them as 'owned' by everyone. Perhaps, a 'Folk-fest' type of park. I'd even suggest rebuilding old monuments where possible, like the pyramids in Egypt, rather than simply keep things untouched. For the Temple in Jerusalem, create a combination structure (so not to destroy those structures there already). As it is now though, OUR human history is being destroyed for economics, religion, and ethnicities.