This is why I hate liberals

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

[MagsJ]

..either it should be permissible to criticize every race, no race...

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.

There's far too many immigrants, and way too much development.

Leading to a false economy.

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.

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.

[MagsJ]

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.

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.

..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.

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.

..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.

[Ecmandu]

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.

That wasn't my quote, it was gibs quote.

It's a misquote

[MagsJ]

It should correctly read as:

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.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

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.

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.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

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

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.
That's not to say there isn't also a non-Jewish white establishment, there is one, they just don't give a damn about us, they only care about the bottom line, and I'm not on their side.
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.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

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.

1) If you applied your principle consistently, the Canadian and US governments should be entirely made up of Native Americans.

That's your principle; not mine. You said "This is a majority white country, it belongs first and foremost to whites." Well, this country was majority Red, so it belonged first and foremost to the redskins before the whites broke your principle.

2) North America was almost entirely wilderness before whites settled it.
Wilderness does not a country make.

True, but so what? We have the right to steal property because the owners are not developing it to our liking?

3) But even if whites had no right to settle centuries ago, the reality is we're here today, and we're the majority.

You don't see that as hypocritical as hell? "We had no right to take it, but we have the right to keep it!"

The government should reflect contemporary demographics, not historical ones.

Contemporary demographics include brown people. Antiquated demographics included white people. Change is the only thing that stays the same.

Whites shouldn't be punished for what their ancestors may, or mayn't've done centuries ago.

Arrogant whites are being punished for their arrogance today. Be nice and everything is cool.

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.

Whatever you say. Genetics doesn't mean that much to me. People are people.

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.

Good for you! I'm not righteous and I judge based on race, but I can't go on record saying someone doesn't have a right to be here when, by the same criteria, I also have no right to be here.

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.

Ah... protection of the oppressed (weak), so you do it too. Nothing wrong with that!

Perhaps I was overreacting when I said she should be deported.

You're a good man!

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.

Laws against hate speech scare me. I think the people issuing the hate speech should knock it off, but we don't need a law lest hate speech become a slippery slope to any speech.

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.

Idk, I honestly think a brown woman would represent my interests and the interests of people I care about better than an old white dude in government.. unless that old white dude is Bernie, but there aren't many of them. Who is more likely to focus on the poor? Who will resolve the healthcare situation? Who will address wealth disparity better? Who will have more empathy? Yeah, a white man may correlate to those attributes, but if we have nothing else to go on, then voting for the brown woman is a better play on the odds.

How do I make MY life better? My life is better if people in general aren't sick and deep in debt and slaving for low wages in the spirit of capitalism. I have to worry about people I love because some bumpkins are more worried about how much money the rich get to keep because they can't stand the fact that someone might get something for nothing unless that someone is already rich and doesn't need it; then rooms get comped, banks do favors, cops let them go, they find tax shelters, live in coddled nests in protected neighborhoods, but giving them a tax cut is preferable to giving to the poor because the poor are lazy brats who don't deserve to live.

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.

Slavery used to not be criminal, so in those days if one were to complain about slavery, he would be demonized for criticizing the system that was legal. What is legal now is not necessarily a yard stick to determine what is right and I'm assuming that the ones complaining are complaining about something that is not right, but legal.

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.

One form of discrimination is the cash bail system that favors the rich (and whites by extension). White republicans want to retain the system while brown democrats want to reform it to not be so unfairly biased against poor people. The republicans say the democrats want to let criminals out onto the streets, but they're not criminals until convicted and republicans refuse to see that. So in frustration, a war on white people is launched because republicans are almost exclusively white. A "kill all the whites and sort em out later" mentality develops because of the dogmatism and ignorance of the ones in power. If they would just see reason, everything would be cool. But when people have renounced the use of reason, what recourse is there? Why would anyone advocate a cash bail system???

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.

The problem is if you allow that discrimination, then crime results and it becomes a self-sustaining problem: discrimination causes poverty which forces people into crime which causes discrimination. Where on the circle do we break the cycle?

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.

Yes, like Japan.

If you don't like it, you can leave.

That has no intellectual relevance. If you buy a house and it has the wrong color of paint, then changing the color is out of the question and you must leave if you don't like it. If this place is home, I think you have a right to fight for changes you would like to see and shouldn't be conveniently dismissed by a short-sighted "Love it or leave it".

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.

Blacks commit more crime than whites, but whites more than asians.

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.

I don't think we need laws. It's hard to imagine that in 50 years anyone will give a hoot about color.

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.

So you're pro-slavery? Forcing people who can work to work is slavery. We live in a world that can bestow upon everyone the right not to work without facing impoverishment thanks to the army of machines toiling away, yet incentivize those who want to work to be better than the Joneses. Why should the fruits of the machinery be hoarded by the few? A person has a right to a minimum standard of living and to deny that is to punish the poor in order to reward the rich.

Hatred of the poor is deeply indoctrinated and subtle; you may not know you harbor it.

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.

I don't know why it's so hard to post pics here, but http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... 44/2_3.png

Blacks are 84/8 democrat. Hispanics are 63/28 democrat. So if almost no blacks and very few hispanics are republican, then who are the republicans? (Whites)

And here we can see they are old people http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... 52/2_8.png

And here we can see they are uneducated http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... 48/2_6.png

So old + white + uneducated = republican.

As the great Max Planck, himself the originator of the quantum theory in physics, has said, science makes progress funeral by funeral: the old are never converted by the new doctrines, they simply are replaced by a new generation. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/09/25/progress/

There is no way to convince old people who are set in their ways.
There is no way to convince uneducated people they are wrong (see Dunning-Kruger).
As long as those people have the right to vote, then death is the only solution... and according to Pew, nature is taking care of that for us (though some leftists appear to be in a violent hurry).

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

the 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.

For the same reason that it's more permissible to punch a man than a woman:

It ought to be permissible for a man to punch a woman in defense of himself, others, his or their property, or as retribution for attacking such things.

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.
They also try to forbid you from ever criticizing them, meanwhile permitting themselves to criticize yours.
Of course they should be happy with whatever you give them, since you don't owe them anything, and if they don't like it, they ought to leave.

It will peter-out when enough of the old codgers finally kick the bucket.

We shall see, man is a restless animal, he can't maintain the exact same course for too, too long.

[Serendipper]

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.

I don't know where your vitriol is coming from.

What expectations are ridiculous?

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???

Oh I get your point now: she should be grateful to exist in this country and should take indignity with stride. That would be ok if someone were presented with that option at the border so they could have the choice to agree. "Hello Mr. Brownperson! Here's the deal: you can come in and enjoy the fruits, but you have to eat our shit too. Do you accept these terms?" I guess it's even worse if you're born here because then you don't get a choice; you're born into indignity and expected to be grateful. "I may be eating shit, but at least I'm eating high-quality american shit and I'm grateful for that!" All this because why?

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?

Maybe she is exaggerating her speech, but I'm not sure she's exaggerating her plight. Obviously something is bugging her that she is having difficultly conveying to anyone who can resonate, so she may be (understandably) dramatizing.

Her feelings are disproportionate to the facts.

We all do that.

They are disproportionate because she's spoiled and selfish.

Spoiled by what measurement? Just existing in the US is being spoiled? When I think of spoiled, I think Trump who was born with a silver spoon up his butt; not some brown woman ranting on youtube.

She and her ilk demand far more than they deserve.

What's deserve got to do with it? How do you earn a right?

They should be accommodating us in our homeland, if anything, not vice versa.

I agree they should learn our language and ways, but they shouldn't have to kiss our butts. There is a difference.

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.

Citing other evil doesn't justify evil. That's a Tu Quoque argument. We do X, but Japan and China does X too, therefore it must be ok.

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.

A lot of immigrants are smarter because the smarter ones come here for school. In engineering school they were all asian or indian, including professors who I couldn't understand.

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.

We need to focus on one issue rather than these vague generalities. The correlation of IQ to success is about 16%, which is not a correlation.

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.

Jews are white. Many, if not most, have blue eyes!

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.

I don't know why you're not more pissed at old white dudes then.

[Serendipper]

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.

Actually, you should treat guests better than your own family. You tell the ole lady to go cook em supper instead of making them cook supper for the ole lady lol.

But that's a dire and temporary situation. It's like "Hey our house was destroyed and we're starving and cold and would be happy living in the barn" vs "We were born here and this is our home."

[Karpel Tunnel]

@Serendipper

the 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.

This is something I've mulled and I agree and disagree. I will focus on the disagree part.
I notice a pattern. There are people who game things by being partial people. They cut out their empathy. Or they treat themselves poorly - this can be via stupid risktaking or through incredibly limited social connections (not in number but in connection). Or they pretend they are not afraid, when they are. (note I am not making a rule. Sometimes you have to take risks, not feel empathy, put yourself through hardship, etc. But here they have a tendency in these directions I consider pathological.)
These patterns can appear strong, certianly in the short term. Being a partial human works. It can work in the business world. it can work in many social communities. You seem strong. You do things. You get there first. You take credit perhaps when it is not due. You use people. You put your body in harm's way and wiht a little luck then you are a tough guy. These patterns work really well in the criminal world, but they also work in the police world.

So when I look at many of the people considered strong, out there in society, I see these partial humans, who did effectively gamble, given the specific and incredibly limited goals they had considering they are social mammals, and who are successful. They look strong, at least to most people.

But they look like cardboard cutouts to me. And weak. See what happens when their narcissism is challenged. Out front they may continue fronting the strong image, but they will take enraged and terrified steps in secret to punish and elimnate threats.

The crash of 2008 was caused by a lot of alpha strong even very smart people. Winners. Winners who via risktaking, especially with other people's money, but also pesonal risktaking, a very limited sense of what success is, often a lack of empathy, were able to lunge into successful roles and performances in the finance industry.

And the vast majority was never punished for what htis caused, in fact they were rewarded and are out there continuing to partial human their way through reality.

A lot of the 'strong' look like this to me.

I say they are weak because I don't see much introspective courage or much faith in themselves as creative or deep people. Once you pare yourself down you can accomplish a lot, but you sold your soul, not in any literal sense, but in a real one.

So when we look out at the strong, I would like to see something more nuanced considered strong. Otherwise what rises to the top is poop not cream.

[Jakob]

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]

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.

Like I said earlier, the founders clearly stated that without an informed populace, democracy cannot work.

[Gloominary]

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.

Unlike Serendipper, I don't want to live in a classless society.
However, I would like to see the white working class, as opposed to the capitalist class, possess the majority of the wealth and resources in Canada and the US, by syndicating more mass production, and socializing more essential services and banks.
In my view, you can't have a democracy without the majority possessing most of the wealth, because wealth purchases politicians.

[Gloominary]

@Mags

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.

I agree, people shouldn't be able to use racial slurs in public.
However, we should be allowed to criticize races in public, including whites, which of course isn't the same as using racial slurs, but there's a time and a place, only if the people you're talking to want to hear it, or you've been given permission to demonstrate/protest.
Of course you shouldn't be able to go up to a black, or white man and say blacks are like this or whites are like that. That is not feasible, no one would stand for it, and it would lead to brawls, and even riots.
However, in the privacy of our own home, or on our website, we should be able to say whatever we please.

Again, it's not that I want to be oppressive or abusive, I don't, it's just that I don't want to give other races special treatment.
I am not a libertarian, in that I don't think I can go around freely insulting whomever I please without consequence.
That is not how human nature works.

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.

Yes, we need to reduce immigration, and raising awareness of other races weaknesses will help us achieve that.

Leading to a false economy.

Agreed.

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.

Right, I think it's an excuse, at least in part.
The elite have an agenda, they want to create a globalist, transhumanist corporatocracy, and nationalism, among other things, stands in the way of it.
They can't bring about this new world order if people aren't ready to surrender their national sovereignty, sufficiency and completely open up their borders to the rest of the world.
Continuous mass immigration will lead to a one world government.

[Jakob]

Comparing what went for populism a few years back, with all the focus on a mythically omnipotent Rothschild family and none on the day to day of accountable and leverageable politicians, and how nuanced and comprehensive it has become now, I see things moving in the right direction. The scapegoat no longer suffices, people are realizing that it is an evolutionary crossroads, something much bigger than a few clans conspiring. It is one type of people vs another, even though the majority of people that fights for that other is deceived, that capacity for being deceived makes them belong to that second type which we now seem to be seeing in some slipping action. Populism on the other hand is limited by the term that was given to it by the relativists. Populism really just means strong leadership. Not just popular values, but the sort of values that can be carried with integrity. It is probably good to refer to oneself as belonging to a politics of integrity, disqualifying the other in terms of its lack of integrity, rather than in terms of its elitism. Elitism isn't bad per se, philosophy is a matter of a small elite, nationalist warrior hood is elitists, so its not good to have the enemy own that term. The antagonist is the politics of value-relativity, the protagonists carry the politics of value integrity. A question of the value of values. Do they have value? The natural human would never doubt it. Socrates, the first Globalist, started the presence that every value is equal and ultimately pointless.

[Gloominary]

@Mags

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.

I agree, we should treat everyone irrespective of race and religion with respect, but that includes white people.
I'm sick of the one way racism.
Don't be racist, except against whitey, they deserve it cause slavery, etcetera, as if whites invented slavery.
No we didn't invent slavery, but we did more than any other race to outlaw it.
White people aren't perfect, some of us can be hateful, some times, but so can every race, we shouldn't be held to ridiculously high standards, and we shouldn't show other races special treatment in our homeland.
And if we want to eliminate immigration so we can keep this country majority white, that's okay too.
Or say Merry Christmas instead of happy holidays, etcetera, little things like that, this is our homeland.
It's absolutely ludicrous we've gotten to the point where wishing people merry Christmas is a subversive act.

..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.

I don't have a problem with Caribbean people, or any people, so long as they don't have a problem with me.

Yea she's probably middle eastern.

..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 again, I don't want my government giving minorities any kind of special treatment.

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.

I have no idea who she is.

[gib]

You know, people, I used to be a stinky liberal and I didn't even know it. Then I started this thread. The kind conservative folks of this board showed me what a horrible person I was--trying to fix the world's problems and all--so I abandoned all hope of reforming democracy and started hating liberals. I tried to be a good conservative for a good long while, but like a Christian homo trying to be straight, I guess I still "smelt" like a liberal to the conservatives, so I was never really accepted. Then I remembered why conservatives are such assholes, why liberals exist in the first place. So now I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place--hating all humanity (I guess)--both liberals and conservatives alike.

But that's not fair, is it now? No, no, no, I don't hate all humanity, just those who see fit to label themselves with an "ism"--if you're polarized enough to call yourself a lefty or a righty, you crossed the point of no return. You are now fighting a cause for which reason will never do. Reason is only useful if you've got no qualms with the truth. But burden yourself with the yoke of a political agenda, and you serve only a half-truth. The other half--coming in loud and clear from the other side--you can blissfully ignore--or worse, putty it up with ad homs and straw men (like the bitch in the video). Why use reason when it only leads to a more balanced view? No why, Jose! You're polarized!

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.

[Serendipper]

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.

Look at him settling into the saddle atop his high horse in condemnation of the considerate.

Yep, beating the ole lady will have to wait until the guests are fed and in bed.

You have a habit of delineating the world into good and bad: people who do X are good and people who do Y aren't human and the presumption that you're worthy to judge who is alive and dead makes you a monster ignorant of his own idol's proclamation: Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster.

[Serendipper]

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.

I have no problem with people wanting to preserve their heritage and I encourage them to do so if they want, but also there is no problem if people want to intermarry. Just like I can't impose egalitarianism on you, you cannot impose your genetic purity on me. Why can't all-white families live next to all-brown families who live next to zebra families? You don't have to share dna you know.

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.

Some of those whites in that majority do not like the situation. It's not like the brownies are sneaking in and quietly taking over like roach bugs, but some whites are inviting them in and letting them take over because that's what they want or what they feel is right.

This political philosophy of mine could be called populism.
It ought to be the predominant political philosophy of the future.

Populism is the division of "us" from "them". Why would you do that if "us" is not better than "them"? So it's a manifestation of arrogance. "We are better than you because we're white, we're smart, and we're here first." And it's not a meritocracy because none of that is anything that you did; it's all genetic and luck.

[Serendipper]

Unlike Serendipper, I don't want to live in a classless society.

I don't want to live in a classless society, but I think there should be a minimum standard of living... a minimum class. Poverty should be illegal. Beyond that, I don't give a hoot how rich people get or whose throats they cut to get there. I'm not trying to undermine meritocracy or incentives to succeed nor rewards for success. I'm just saying the bottom rung shouldn't be on the ground and the only reason it is on the ground is to enrich the rich in order to have disparity of wealth and power.

[Serendipper]

@Mags

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.

I agree, people shouldn't be able to use racial slurs in public.

Why not? There goes rap music and all the Polish jokes. Pejoratives aren't a problem and you guys are getting carried away imo. Calling someone names has intent and that will manifest in all sorts of ways to skirt the law. We need to address the underlying problem so that people will stop intending to hurt other people rather than banning the ways that intent can manifest.

[Serendipper]

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.

I don't believe that. Politics is a dualism: Do you assert moral absolutes or do you not? Do you believe adversity engenders prosperity or do you not? Are you an individualist or collectivist?

If you're an individualist, what's best for you? Is it better for you if the population is sick, poor, and stupid so that a few lucky souls can be unimaginably wealthy? Is it better for you to dodge buckets of feces flung from windows or if undeserving people have toilets? It boils down to making one's own life miserable in order to punish those who don't deserve because they didn't earn. Is your own prosperity more important or is the punishment of the undeserving more important?

Start at 10:22 and it might fall into place for you:



In the video, the older kids didn't get philanthropic, but realized what a camera means (realized being generous is another form of social comparison).