Rohingya crisis: Seeing through the official story in Myanma

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41222210

We're going to see a lot more of this as the Pax Americana fades I think. Every tribe for itself in the years to come.

Pax Americana is a myth. The last few decades have not been peaceful. Look at what America did in Central America during the latter half of the 20th century. Those years just seem peaceful to us because the victims of imperialism had no means of striking back.

When 9/11 happened exactly 16 years ago, average people were shocked. Political experts were not shocked. That was bound to happen eventually.

This stuff will become less common in the coming years as the working class awakens from its long slumber.

During the Paleolithic era, there was intermixing between different tribes all the time. Additionally, no tribe had any means of supressing another. If you live in a world in which there is more than enough food to go around and more than enough land to go around, it is impossible for anyone to oppress anyone else. Oppression happens when earth's natural resources are privately owned by individuals or small organizations.

During the Paleolithic era, racism, as we know it, was not a thing. Racism is a product of modern private tyranny.

You alt-righters keep telling yourselves that human beings are naturally hateful and racist. In reality, racism is created by tyrants who want to draw attention away from class antagonism.

Your world of artificial segregation is coming to an end. You'll see bucko.

The historical "Pax" periods don't refer to absolute peacefulness, just relative peacefulness.


Yeah yeah yeah and this time socialism will turn out differently for sure, we just had the wrong people in charge, again.



Which Marxist tumblr blog do you get this stuff from?
Violence is a means of suppressing one another (very much available to our distant ancestors).
Genocide and warfare in general is absolutely endemic in human history - there is evidence of mass killings long before we planted our first crops and formalised the idea of property.
Your point about intermixing is amusing, since it is likely much of that was due to the rape of captured women after an enjoyable tribal raid.



The quickest google search will pull up studies of racism in infants. You either have to believe that babies can be taught racism before they can even use a potty, or, far more likely: it's innate, not taught and you cannot get rid of it with rhetoric and laws.



Au contraire, this is a world of artificial desegregation, no matter what happens to the Western Europeans, natural segregations and imposing monocultures will reassert themselves once more. To quote Douglas Murray, who put it better than I could when talking about London boroughs that are now totally foreign:

This story – like the Tower Hamlets one – seems to have amazed some people. But why should it? What did people think would happen in Tower Hamlets once it reached the demographic situation it’s now in? Tower Hamlets is the end-point of diversity, where you have a different mono-culture asserting itself in the way it knows how.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/t ... diversity/

It's a good read, if you have the stomach for it.

I would say, pretty much, that racism is a "learned" thing, rather than something innate.

I don't know too many 3-4 year olds who are acutely aware that they are "white" or "black"---unless the parents constantly mention it.

Kids usually become aware of racism when they are about in the third grade or so.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=babies+are+racist

They might notice that somebody is of a different skin color---but that doesn't translate into racism.

As I recall babies who are very young (6 months ish) associate happy music with their own race, sad music with other races, pay more attention to faces of their own race, take cues from their own race more than others. In a "property" study I vaguely remember, babies are quite happy to share toys with other races, unless there is a contrived toy shortage, in which case they share with their own race. Sounds alarmingly familiar to the behaviour of adult humans, historical and present.

The left-leaning researchers accepted (with some sadness I imagine - these studies are likely funded to prove the opposite) that racism is the default setting in humans. The best politically correct theory they could come up with, one that does not give children some instinctual awareness of their own race, is that it is due to babies spending most of their time growing up with their biological parents. Which, if true, means there is no sane solution, you can't take children away from parents just to cure racism.

While the explanation sounds somewhat satisfactory, they weren't tested with pictures of their mothers or fathers I believe, but just random pictures of one race or another. So they can instinctively make some kind of link between "looks more like mommy" and "looks less like mommy", rather than imprinting more precisely - if you see what I mean.

Um, even Varg admits leftists have more common sense than blind defenders of capitalism. I mean, how much sense does it make to b***h about brown people taking white people's jobs when it's the capitalists who came up with the scheme of having the third world make all the s**t consumed by westerners for dirt cheap, even at the expense of western workers. It doesn't take a genius to see that the system will fail at some point. When automation hits in earnest there will be even bigger problems. Capitalists don't give be a s**t about "saving the white race".

I also want to say it's stupid to think people can't get along merely because of skin color. The real problem is not skin color or even "culture".

The problem in the UK is fundamentalist Islam. It's the same thing in Turkey. People who aren't religious fanatics get along with others just fine. The problem is completely with the people who vote for Erdogan. Nothing to do with f*****g skin color.

You're confusing globalist with capitalist. Capitalists can be nationalist or globalist, in the same way a socialist can be nationalist or internationalist.



It was Darth who brought up racism and said something stupid about it. I merely corrected him. I was not necessarily linking it to the Myanmar troubles, which I know very little about, or the everyday Islamic atrocities.

Capitalist societies all inevitably become internationalist. Big businesses love globalization because they profit off it, so they lobby for it.

Paleoconservative capitalism is an economic chimera. It simply can't sustain itself for very long.

Perhaps, but to solve that I would attempt to limit the lobbying power of businesses rather than trying something more radical.



As opposed to the noted longevity of socialist economic experiments?

I agree that lobbying is extremely dangerous. You're getting it. Now we're getting somewhere.

However, one of the mods on this site told me that lobbying is a very organic phenomenon. It's hard to have capitalism without it.

Are there any capitalist countries without lobbying? Does that even exist?



True socialism can only come from the bottom up. We need to tell poor people about the nature of the corporate monster in which they live. That's real progress. This is already happening, given that Clinton has experienced a massive popularity dip recently. People are becoming increasingly aware of the suppression of Bernie. The internet is largely responsible for this.

The failed "socialist" states in the past were examples of top-down socialism. Bottom-up socialism is what we get when the poor create the new system.

Bottom-up socialism has been proposed by libertarian socialists and anarchists for centuries, but it never really took off because the poor were too misinformed. There was no way to spread libertarian socialist philosophy effectively.

This is changing since we are still approaching the peak of the information age. Ever year, more people have high-speed internet access. Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders have a huge online fanbase. YouTube channels with libertarian socialist leanings are experiencing a boom in popularity. Socialist meme sites like r/completeanarchy are becoming increasingly popular.

In other words, those socialist experiments failed due to technological limitations, not human nature. The poor aren't as easy to bamboozle nowadays.

Fun Fact: Democracy was tried in Ancient Greece. It failed due to technological limitations. Plato and Socrates hated democracy because it wasn't working. Was Plato a fool? No. The printing press was just outside of his imagination.

So-called "globalism" IS modern capitalism. Investors need perpetual GROWTH of markets. They need growing infrastructure and growing population. The West is largely stagnant because it's pretty much reached the limit of it's consumption potential and its population is not growing substantially anymore. I suspect most domestic GDP growth is now simply due to people piggybacking off the growth of multinationals in the developing world. That kind of explains why it's almost exclusively going to the wealthy classes these days. Without globalism the economy in the West will collapse.

It's also really stupid to think the CEOs of multinationals and other members of the investor class care about things like preserving culture. They don't care about countries or national identity. They live in an entirely different world from normal people. The earth is just a giant ant colony to them. They laugh when right-wing so-called-nationalists vote for parties that give them tax cuts on the backs of the poor, the ill, the disabled, etc...




You post all kinds of things attacking "multiculturalism" in general when the actual problem is a subgroup of one particular culture subscribing to a particular fundamentalist brand of idiocy.

Bernie may have described himself as a Socialist at one point, but the policies he's actually putting forward are more in line with European style Social Democracy. There is literally no way in hell he will be able to put forward anything remotely socialist in the way you are thinking. He will never get enough congressional Democrats on board with anything truly "radical". Of course that won't stop the right from going into a "literally Stalin" hysteria over him. In the 30s the right were so afraid of FDR they actually had a plot to assassinate him.