Ah, the purist hate there is. I bask.gib wrote:Ecmandu wrote:And maybe a shout out to Karpel is in order: I hate you too pal, but for no goddam reason whatsoever. :
Ah, the purist hate there is. I bask.gib wrote:Ecmandu wrote:And maybe a shout out to Karpel is in order: I hate you too pal, but for no goddam reason whatsoever. :
Gloominary wrote:..either it should be permissible to criticize every race, no race...
There's far too many immigrants, and way too much development.
Western civilizations 'vices' have been greatly exaggerated in some instances, and lied about in others, while its virtues have been downplayed and denied, in order to shame us into allowing ourselves to be annihilated, and increasingly whites are waking up to it, resulting in a surging backlash.
The election of Donald Trump in the US, Giuseppe Conte in Italy and Brexit could be just the very beginning of this backlash.
Gloominary wrote:A couple of other points:
She said criticism of races can lead to violence against races.
white men will end up slaves on what used to be their soil.
MagsJ wrote:Gloominary wrote:GTFO, go back to the Caribbean or wherever the fuck you came from.
Oi!
She insulted my race by saying we failed to live up to her expectations.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Ah, the purist hate there is. I bask.gib wrote:Ecmandu wrote:And maybe a shout out to Karpel is in order: I hate you too pal, but for no goddam reason whatsoever. :
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Ah, the purist hate there is. I bask.gib wrote:And maybe a shout out to Karpel is in order: I hate you too pal, but for no goddam reason whatsoever. :
It may be majority white, but that doesn't mean it belongs to them. If population meant anything, then the first whites would have recognized and respected that the country belonged to the redskins before turning their boats around and heading back to Europe.
If you're illegal, then you should be deported, but brown people who are born here shouldn't be treated as if they are illegals nor told to go home when they are home; that's an egregious insult and especially because of the hypocrisy that the whites are also not indigenous.
So pointing out a crime is a crime because it's hate speech against the criminal?
It's not the white man that's the problem, but the old white man in power promulgating dogmatic reverence for a set of ideals specific to white caste culture (christian/family values, capitalism, conservatism, contempt for the poor, etc).
01:08
like, what does it take for
01:12
folks on your end of the aisle
01:14
to understand that people have lived
01:16
experiences, and who wake up every day,
01:18
every single day in this country, whether
01:21
you think their victimhood complex is
01:23
real or not, and they don't feel like a
01:26
part of this country, and you can sit and
01:28
blame them all you want, but this campus
01:31
is a great example right here when we
01:33
have people on this campus who are
01:34
claiming that it is all sunshine and
01:36
rainbows, and they have the
01:37
administration on their side, and then
01:39
the reality is that biased incidence
01:41
reports and hate crimes have gone up.
01:43
yeah so and people have been spit on and
01:46
people have been threatened and people
01:47
have been told to go home to their
01:49
country even though they were born in
01:50
fucking New Jersey
How do you know she is illegal?
How do you know their plight is exaggerated?
And you want to hog it all. Wealth disparity. Afterall, we can't have the rich unless we have the poor, so the poor must be impoverished in order to maintain the disparity for the rich. In order for the US to be powerful, other places must be shitholes, so tell the woman "Go back to your shithole and start making Nikes and iphones at $2/hr so I can go on living like a king." Why not just tell her the truth? "Get to work brownie! Those iphones won't make themselves!"
Jews and Asians are smarter than the host population.
Because you refuse to recognize what your brethren are doing, so you're part of the problem and why all whites are being targeted. As long as you maintain loyalty, you're on the side of the oppressors whether you are actively oppressing or not.
Gloominary wrote:@SerendipperIt may be majority white, but that doesn't mean it belongs to them. If population meant anything, then the first whites would have recognized and respected that the country belonged to the redskins before turning their boats around and heading back to Europe.
1) If you applied your principle consistently, the Canadian and US governments should be entirely made up of Native Americans.
2) North America was almost entirely wilderness before whites settled it.
Wilderness does not a country make.
3) But even if whites had no right to settle centuries ago, the reality is we're here today, and we're the majority.
The government should reflect contemporary demographics, not historical ones.
Whites shouldn't be punished for what their ancestors may, or mayn't've done centuries ago.
4) In the main, Native Americans don't really exist anymore, culturally and even genetically, they're partly European.
It's not accurate to call them Native Americans, they're mestizos.
If you're illegal, then you should be deported, but brown people who are born here shouldn't be treated as if they are illegals nor told to go home when they are home; that's an egregious insult and especially because of the hypocrisy that the whites are also not indigenous.
I'm kind of divided on this.
I don't want to come off as hateful to minorities.
I don't believe my race is superior, nor do I have any desire whatsoever to oppress anyone.
I'm very respectful to everyone I meet, regardless of race, religion and so on.
Part of me is libertarian minded regarding racial matters, the other part of me wants to protect whites from what I see as the dissemination of anti-white propaganda.
Perhaps I was overreacting when I said she should be deported.
Still if we are to have protections from racism at all, there ought to be laws protecting whites from hate speech made by non-whites and their advocates (which's what 'liberals', 'progressives' or whatever you want to call them in fact do, disseminate anti-white propaganda), just as there're laws protecting non-whites from hate speech.
And the laws ought to be evenly enforced across the board, not just enforced for non-whites.
And if government is to show favoritism to one race over others, which's not necessarily what I'm advocating we do, if anything it should show favoritism to whites, because this's our homeland.
So pointing out a crime is a crime because it's hate speech against the criminal?
If a white person has committed a crime, like theft, rape or murder of a non-white person, they have the right to report it and seek justice.
But that's not what this person and progressives are saying.
They're saying whites systemically discriminate (Meaning mistreatment non-whites by whites is rampant and widespread. And as far as I know, systemic is arbitrarily defined, at what point does something move from being rare or occasional to systemic? It boils down to them just hating on whitey) against non-whites, which is itself racism.
Firstly, I don't think there's anything wrong with (small) businesses favoring white employees and customers over non-white employees and customers.
Secondly, I don't think there's anything wrong with police honing in on non-white population groups who've earned their reputation for being violent.
Thirdly, races are going to show a little favoritism towards other members of their race now and then, as long as it isn't taken to extremes, there's nothing wrong with this, and it's to be expected.
Mulattos, mestizos and so on do the same thing, and if you went to India or China they would sometimes show favoritism, in fact far more than we do I'm sure.
If you don't like it, you can leave.
If you want to criticize us for it, than we have the right to criticize you for things we don't like about you, like if your race disproportionately commits crimes, is racist, or whatever weaknesses they (appear) to have.
It is anti-white to say only whites can be corrupt, or that whites are uniquely corrupt, or to make laws preventing whites from being racist, but not laws preventing non-whites from being racist against whites.
It's not the white man that's the problem, but the old white man in power promulgating dogmatic reverence for a set of ideals specific to white caste culture (christian/family values, capitalism, conservatism, contempt for the poor, etc).
I'm an agnostic, and as for family values, capitalism and conservatism, I have mixed thoughts about such things.
I don't have any contempt for the poor, so long as people that can work, work.
Many working class white men are Christians, Capitalists and Conservatives, and now many Mulatto and Mestizo Americans are too, so these values aren't exclusively the values of rich white men, and there's nothing necessarily wrong, or illegitimate about maintaining or adopting them.
the weak must be defended.
For the same reason that it's more permissible to punch a man than a woman:
It will peter-out when enough of the old codgers finally kick the bucket.
Gloominary wrote:Of course some people are going to tell her to go back where she came from, if all she can do is complain about how we, as a collective, as a majority white, (Christian) nation, failed to live up to her ridiculous expectations.
All she does is spew hate towards the white, (Christians) men, and women of this nation.
Of course she's going to get hate back, in fact she deserves a hell of a lot more.
How do you know she is illegal?
The point is if this government threatened to deport her back to her country of origin, they would have to drag her kicking and screaming.
If she felt like she wasn't a part of this country, she wouldn't care all that much.
No country, at no point in time is perfectly anything, but we've been relatively great to her.
You don't see white people lined up to go to Cuba, or wherever she's from, or Israel, the UAE, India, China or Japan for that matter.
How bout showing a lil friggin gratitude, or at least a lil appreciation???
How do you know their plight is exaggerated?
She gets to vote, go to college, attain a prestigious career and enjoy a higher standard of living than anywhere else in the world, yet she says she and her ilk feel like they're not a part of this country.
I mean I could see them saying they don't feel as much a part of this country as as they imagine they'd feel if there was absolutely no racism whatsoever (which is an impossibility, there'll always be some), but to say she doesn't feel like a part of this country, at all?
Her feelings are disproportionate to the facts.
They are disproportionate because she's spoiled and selfish.
She and her ilk demand far more than they deserve.
They should be accommodating us in our homeland, if anything, not vice versa.
And you want to hog it all. Wealth disparity. Afterall, we can't have the rich unless we have the poor, so the poor must be impoverished in order to maintain the disparity for the rich. In order for the US to be powerful, other places must be shitholes, so tell the woman "Go back to your shithole and start making Nikes and iphones at $2/hr so I can go on living like a king." Why not just tell her the truth? "Get to work brownie! Those iphones won't make themselves!"
Right, I want to keep most of our wealth for ourselves, just like Israelis, the UAE, East Indians, Chinese and Japanese do.
Jews and Asians are smarter than the host population.
Jews, some Asian, and African (see Nigerian Americans) immigrant groups appear to be smarter than whites.
Anyway that's besides the point, the point is some minorities are faring better than whites, some minorities are faring the same, and some are faring worse, which's exactly what we should expect to find if we live in a by and large post-racist society.
If we lived in a meaningfully racist society, you would expect whites to be faring better than everyone, even the ones who have superior iQs and work ethic, but instead what we find is whites are only faring better than the ones with inferior iQs and work ethic.
No two demographics are going to fare identically, because just as individuals differ, demographics differ culturally, and biologically.
We should expect variation, and the fact that the variation often disfavors whites, proves race is no longer a significant determiner of success in our society.
Because you refuse to recognize what your brethren are doing, so you're part of the problem and why all whites are being targeted. As long as you maintain loyalty, you're on the side of the oppressors whether you are actively oppressing or not.
The establishment doesn't give a damn about whites, they threw us under a bus ages ago.
The Jewish powers that be want to undermine and destroy whites.
I'm a national democratic socialist and syndicalist.
I'd like to see significantly more socialism and syndicalism, as well as the banks turned over to good government.
Gloominary wrote:A better analogy would be a family loses their home, so you they ask to stay with your family.
Instead of showing gratitude, they complain that you don't treat them quite as good as your family.
This is something I've mulled and I agree and disagree. I will focus on the disagree part.Gloominary wrote:@Serendipperthe weak must be defended.
No it depends on context.
Of course this's all very subjective, but I think the weak should be defended, unless it significantly detriments the strong.
The weak shouldn't have the same standard of living as the strong either.
Gloominary wrote:Here's the bottom line:
Just as preferring myself and my family doesn't mean I think we're superior to, hate, want to oppress or obliterate other families, preferring, preserving and protecting my race and its customs doesn't mean I think we're superior to and so on other races.
And in a democracy (majority rule), either we should have libertarianism, and/or if we're to prioritize the interests of one demographic over others, it should be the demographic the majority belong to, which in Canada and the US means Christian/secular, conservative, white, working class men and women, not minorities on the one hand, nor the elite on the other, who've forgotten or else are deliberately trying to undermine and destroy us.
This political philosophy of mine could be called populism.
It ought to be the predominant political philosophy of the future.
Gloominary wrote:Here's the bottom line:
Just as preferring myself and my family doesn't mean I think we're superior to, hate, want to oppress or obliterate other families, preferring, preserving and protecting my race and some of its customs doesn't mean I think we're superior to and so on other races.
And in a democracy (majority rule), either we should have libertarianism, and/or if we're to prioritize the interests of one demographic over others, it should be the demographic the majority belong to, which in Canada and the US means Christian/Secular, conservative, white, working class men and women, not minorities on the one hand, nor the elite on the other, who've forgotten or else are deliberately trying to undermine and destroy us.
This political philosophy of mine could be called populism.
It ought to be the predominant political philosophy of the future.
I meant racial slurs/abuse in the public arena.. regardless of the agitator's background, as such scenes became an everyday occurrence on public transport and in public places.. sometimes leading to the agitators turning to physical attacks when their racial abuse was ignored like they didn't exist - the public complained.. the Government listened.. new policing policy was made, and a public nuisance act disappeared over night.
Criticism of races made on the back of government legislation should be aimed at that government, so that legislation can be revisited and amended, to reflect new acceptable immigration quotas.
Leading to a false economy.
All civilisations have vices.. one vice not being anymore worse than the other's, but is that really the underlying factor in the overly-enforced immigration quotas? seems like more of an excuse, rather than a factor, for enforcement.
When will this racial madness end? It's all very school-playground and leads to school-playground outcomes, resulting in adult forms of bullying.. be it public attacks or personal infringements on one's human rights.. in all its current televised and reported forms...countries fail their own too.. are those failed nationals not allowed to express their view? and knowing why she felt failed by her host country would have given less room for insult to be felt, but the reasons why were not asked.
Sure...she's free to express her view, but I don't want my government giving minorities any kind of special treatment.
..I thought enslaving other nations was so passé, but tell that to the Libyans.. depending on whether the footage going round is real or not.
..glad you didn't remember my Caribbean roots, and that her country of origin was a random wild guess My guess would have been Middle Eastern.. or there abouts.
..countries fail their own too.. are those failed nationals not allowed to express their view? and knowing why she felt failed by her host country would have given less room for insult to be felt, but the reasons why were not asked.
I guess her sass didn't go down as well as she thought it would.. don't you know who she is? she never revealed.. though she revealed a hint of a prior exchange. Perhaps she had an ulterior motive in making her documented presence an assured one.
Jakob wrote:Who honestly treats guests better than their own women?
If that seems normal or even good to you, you're already dead. You weren't even ever alive.
Gloominary wrote:Here's the bottom line:
Just as preferring myself and my family doesn't mean I think we're superior to, hate, want to oppress or obliterate other families, preferring, preserving and protecting my race and some of its customs doesn't mean I think we're superior to and so on other races.
And in a democracy (majority rule), either we should have libertarianism, and/or if we're to prioritize the interests of one demographic over others, it should be the demographic the majority belong to, which in Canada and the US means Christian/Secular, conservative, white, working class men and women, not minorities on the one hand, nor the elite on the other, who've forgotten or else are deliberately trying to undermine and destroy us.
This political philosophy of mine could be called populism.
It ought to be the predominant political philosophy of the future.
Gloominary wrote:Unlike Serendipper, I don't want to live in a classless society.
Gloominary wrote:@MagsI meant racial slurs/abuse in the public arena.. regardless of the agitator's background, as such scenes became an everyday occurrence on public transport and in public places.. sometimes leading to the agitators turning to physical attacks when their racial abuse was ignored like they didn't exist - the public complained.. the Government listened.. new policing policy was made, and a public nuisance act disappeared over night.
I agree, people shouldn't be able to use racial slurs in public.
gib wrote:I think Karpel is right. This belongs in rant. I'm not intelligent enough to have a sensical political thought. And I'm not invested enough to actually have a conversation with any of you.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users