“The Forever War” is a great sci-fi novel. The author (Joe Haldeman) wrote it after he came back from Vietnam and saw how different the USA had become.
The protagonist in the book is a soldier who suffers time dilation effects from relativistic travel and every time he comes back to earth it’s even more f-ed up. At one point he’s the only straight guy on a warship filled with gay guy troopers. At the end humanity is kind of a I/we/he/she/them/Gaia bullshit collective.
Thankfully there is a planet for oldsters like the protagonist and he gets to live there with a hetero chick that he picked up during the course of the war.
The Progs did three things right: 1) they passed an income tax, which gave them infinite ammunition; 2) they grabbed the courts which means that they won all ties (or things even close to ties); 3) they began the long march through the institutions. Once you grab the college professoriate you create the new high school teachers. Once you grab the high school teachers you grab the impressionable female students. Once you grab them you grab the white knights. Then you’ve got 51% of the voters and you can do whatever you want.
Gibsmedat. We had segregation back then. Blacks were forced to behave according to white norms. They called this oppression. Far prior to this, blacks were forced to engage in productive labor. They called this slavery.
Now, blacks are freed and empowered to behave according to their own norms. Utopias have arisen in places like Camden and Detroit.
Rebelled but they were young and had a plan for something better.
You always get these fears from the Left ,like Oh know the Right is going to act up or rebel.
. If I were a Leftist who could think (and there are some like Chomsky) I wouldn’t worry at all. The Right is unable to take or give orders to any degree and has no plan for an alternate society that takes into account the real world conditions, re: technology and is so obsessed with economic liberalism they can’t see the forest for the trees anyway.
The are like in the words of on Italian Communist Michelle Armenelli barking dogs only concerned with their own yard nothing else. They are also so steeped in Libertarian, Leave Me Alone, Don’t Tread on me ideology as to be functionally unable to actually do the work to root out the Communist and Cultural Marxists in society and reverse the long march.
I read rebellious blogs from time to time and have to laugh, everyone there wants to be Cinncinatus, fight a little than run home and no one wants to do the work of rebuilding the infrastructure, rebuilding a Conservative society and putting a lot of boots on a lo of faces for short while. Putting down race riots, departing foreigners by the tens of millions , quashing Whiskey Rebellions and Communist subversion (or Cultural Marxism if you prefer) and Globalist Corporate rule isn’t very freedom-centric, or fun for any but the war born types but its what would have to be done.
Frankly the closest we get is the dis-unionist crowd like Hunter Wallace, the Southern Nationalists and the like. They have a good idea but one that’s easily defeated by the simple expedient of moving a few million immigrants in to dilute Whites or stirring up racial troubles. They are also few, though granted growing
Oh yeah and there is the Northwest Front guys who have an actual ideology and plan but they are most dysfunctional skinheads and Neo-Nazis and not a threat to the status quo.
To be fair I suppose if there really is the Provisional Government of National Restoration you eluded to that could work but y’all better have a real plan.
Otherwise since I highly doubt anyone has a real plan much less one worth fighting or dying for I’m going to keep my head down and as Cappy Cap puts it Enjoy the Decline
I wouldn’t waste my time quarrelling with a professional astroturfer, like “The Why Kay Dubya Within”, which is paid in fiat electrons. I.e. don’t bet against the casino when it’s impossible to bankrupt the casino.
STRONGLY DISAGREE! Must immediately RE-FRAME away from its turf [where it will in evitably win]. It is a parasite which Mother Nature created to be the Cultural/Civilizational EBOLA designed to eradicate Xtianity.
– “You didn’t build that” is a verbatim quote from Barack Obama in 2012.
– Allow me to go further; back in 1993 when Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked about the potential for negative consequences of her health care proposal on small business, she sneered “I can’t go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America.” A strange, and revealing comment from a woman whose own father was a small businessman, and whose sweat and hard work gave her a comfortable, upper middle class upbringing – and it could be argued – gave her the tools she needed to get where she is now.
– Agreed there was no shame in WPA or CCC jobs. That’s just the point, those were JOBS, not sitting on one’s ass cashing checks for doing nothing.
And yet YKW-Within is silent as a church mouse whenever the Woodpile Brigade never misses an opportunity, here at the chateau and elsewhere, to speak of “white privilege” and how even today’s whites are accountable for slavery in ante bellum Amurrica because they enjoy the fruits of those noble darkies having built the country.
One reason the Republifags do so poorly is that they DO honor the small business man,which is fine,but they shit on the muvvafukkazz that are WORKING for the small business man. SO many MF’s working for the gubmint–and that’s lots of white people voting Democratic–and the private sector worker is getting shat on by all the usual suspects.Women and minorities are the belly fat of corporate America.
but this one is absolute horseshit. I’ve never heard ANYBODY, of any age, denigrate the effort of small business owners.
you’re lying socialist. you applauded it when Warren and Obama said “you didn’t build that”. you thought it was the greatest thing you ever heard. oddly enough you can’t get Senatress Redskin or the bastard son of the legless deadbeat marxist drunk to actually build a business.
Back when I wasn’t personally running a small business, I was a corporate salary man working for a multinational. A regional manager there once told an assembled group of local engineering managers, “Don’t pursue work that some idiot working out of his garage can manage. Concentrate on the larger projects, especially the ones where you know you’re going to win the competitive selection process.” While there’s plenty specious about his argument, I’ve always been struck by his disdain for men who were self-employed, given that many local landmarks hereabouts were designed by engineers with particularly low overhead.
“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own… If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
The antecedent to “that” isn’t “business”. The antecedent to “that” is the list of public improvements providing support for small businesses.
Is that crystal f—ing clear?
If you Faux News sheep want to cherrypick and WILLFULLY MISINTERPRET what is clearly a full-throated support of the power that strong communities have as a collective to support small business owners, be my guest. But at least admit that you are engaging in a priori argument, that you are uninterested in the pursuit of accuracy, and that you’re just as blind as the MSNBC sheep bleating on the other side of the aisle.
Obama is right. Without public investment in roads, education, water, high-speed WiFi, and a host of other public measures … small businesses would be hobbled. Look at what happens to the middle class in countries WITHOUT such public infrastructure: it barely exists, and if it does, it never rises much above subsistence wages.
Gaze deep into the mirror, wingnuts, and tell me that’s wrong. Look at your own lives and think of the people who helped you along the way. Nobody is an island. That was simply the president’s point. Yes, his syntax slipped a little, which is very rare for him, and you haters pounced to score political and Internet debate points.
The non-paid, non-Joo, non-partisan,
Having just started reading Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse Five,” two thoughts crossed mind: why the hell haven’t I read it earlier? and that written in ybe mid-sixties, it is a perceptive interesting look at America at its height.
There is a startling bit of foreshadowing of our current state in the first chapter. Vonnegut briefly describes some American vistas and then reflects: “And I asked myself about the present: how wide it was, how deep it was, how much was mine to keep.”
Also, here is Ross Perot outlining what would become the subsequent quarter century’s game plan of the kleptocratic mercantilist-fascist nihilists for gutting our economy and eradicating the middle class:
Austro-hungarian style breakup is unimaginable since it implies that the USA’d be comprised of large blocks of homogenous people. It is now a geographical and demographic impossibility as the mingling has gone too far and is too widespread.
“Austro-hungarian style breakup is unimaginable since it implies that the USA’d be comprised of large blocks of homogenous people.”
History shows that people, if need be, can sort themselves out quite rapidly. In a sense, it’s just what people do, whether at a micro or macro scale. They break off, going their own way, which in time leads to the creation of new languages, cultures – peoples. That’s the history of the world.
Even today, different regions of the U.S. vary widely in terms of race, cultural values, and so forth. It is not terribly difficult to imagine a situation where the Great Sort accelerates, becoming self-aware and more or less explicit. If this happens, new political entities become highly likely.
An optimistic and relatively bloodless scenario: tax & diversity-pressured Whites move to friendlier areas, consolidating their numbers. Economic pressures intensify. Secession demands grow. A foreign power encourages such a development. USG lacks the will and critical numbers of competent people to hold on, and so it lets go.
Then: Blue collar manufacturing jobs plentiful and well paid.
Now: Manufacturing jobs shrinking.
Understatement of the year. Back in the 1960’s there were 60+ million people working in manufacturing. Now think about what percent of the total population that was back then!
Manufacturing is what men do. Nursing is what women do. What industry is growing like crazy while the other has been destroyed? The war on men by the left has succeeded. The idiot white knights run around defending the honor of women while their own livelihood is voted down the drain by those same women who really don’t want to fuck them now that they’re unemployed as well as being pedestal polishers.
Cancer is a malfunction in the body – are you saying we shouldn’t try to cure it? Or you think we focus too much on breast cancer? FWIW, I think at some point, we will be able to eliminate cancer entirely – we just don’t (yet) know enough…
Bango, the nursing profession is growing like crazy for two reasons:
1) The massive Baby Boomer generation is hitting their fifties. They’re needing more care.
2) Baby Boomer women were the first ones to be dissuaded from becoming nurses by the feminist movement. Since the Silent Generation nurses have been retiring in the last 5-10 years, there’s fewer women behind them to take their places. Hence the massive influx of nurses from Philippines, etc.
While there is a war on men, this ain’t it. Let’s swing our guns towards family law: a helluva lot more to shoot at there.
That job decline was inevitable no matter what. The fact is almost any somewhat stable sizable nation can pretty easily make more goods than the globe has a market for.
Throw in computers than can do a ton of things more efficiently (things like say Expedia basically killed the travel planner as a job) and you are looking at the situation we have now.
Even if regulation could recapture the outsourced jobs it wouldn’t matter.
We are quite close to automated well everything and that means the ability for people to make a living is over. Once we don’t even need kids to work the fryer stick a fork in it, modern society is done.
I have no idea how that will play out, a population crash is highly possible or a social crash or dystopia as the rich try to find some means to stay that way and not get wiped out , who knows
My guess would be something like Kunstler’s Long Emergency as the energy and easy resources run low and ingenuity is withheld but could be something else.
anybody who praises manufacturing has never been shit dumb bored in a lousy factory job. Fuck that shit – let the third world do that crap. start a blog, rent a room, open a bar, teach crossfit, anything really; the world has moved on. Deal with it
I look at the late 70’s- early 80’s in the Pittsburgh area as a Golden Age, earning 30K+ per year manufacturing seamless pipe for the petroleum industry, with only a high school education. Now J&L Steel is a fucking park.
It was during the Eisenhower Administration that Why Kay Dubya finally seized control of the not-new invention known as television [Sarnoff had kept the White inventor of TV tied up in the courts until the patent expired].
4,5,6 or more wars or military engagements have thinned out our bravest, strongest and best young men. and for what? fiat currency, red expansion, petro dollars… if ur of decent, moral upbringing get out of the military and dont join. find the youngest woman of good genetics and pump out the babies, keep her homeschoolin…
In the past, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out where the modern left came from. It is fairly obvious with the right but not so with the left. The left has a lot of bad about it and not much good. Some of the bad parts are unrelated, like corruption and eco-extremism. For the most part, I think the problem is an unrealistic idea about what humans are. They follow this sort of platonic idea that ironically was popular a long time ago with Christians. It is as if humans are some sort of abstract thing that makes them all equal. The extreme sensitivity comes from this belief I think. Either that or a desire to win votes, it is hard to trace. But I think for the most part irrational sensitivity to evil is one of a set of problems we are dealing with now like the love of single mothers.
Everyone is quick to blame Christianity for some imagined “equality” concept which applies to earthly living, rather than the spiritual state it truly describes.
And yet, how conveniently and quickly they forget the “fallen from grace” and “born in sin” realities of human weakness which are hammered home in Scripture again and again… especially as a warning that we cannot worship Man and his ideas of Right and Wrong.
Well to be fair the idea was a Greek one. But the point was that you can apply the same theory with maybe slightly different assumptions and get radically different conclusions about what equality means because certainly no Christians in distant past were encouraging single motherhood. It is simply too hard to sort out all these ideas and similar occurrences of things and come to a coherent conclusion so I ultimately stopped thinking that way. Right now, I think the left has nothing to do with morality as much as they say they do. I believe the left right now is a strange business whose profits come from law making.
Yes, if you assume free will. But that’s an unnecessary tangent, anyway. What differentiates the 5’4 fellow from the 6’8 fellow is “nature.” Nature is beyond either fellow’s control and random. Consequently, the 6’8 fellow’s “NBA advantage” is mostly unearned. And the same goes for our NASA IQ prodigy.
Suddenly “you didn’t build that” starts to make more sense…
It only makes sense to people who think that a height of 6’8″ automatically gets you into the NBA with little or no effort… and those with an IQ of 130+ are, ipso facto, all rocket scientists that never have to study.
In short, the losers of the world who nevva done nuffin’.
Yes, because genetics only determine IQ and height — not qualities such as athletic ability in the former case and intellectual curiosity/ambition in the latter case. Seems like you’re just creating some arbitrary cut-offs.
Even without the cut-offs, you have to concede that the advantages mentioned are both significant and unearned. So at least, a significant portion — necessary, even if not sufficient — of this success is unearned.
Would “you didn’t build X percent of that,” work better for you, Greg?
Yes, because genetics only determine IQ and height — not qualities such as athletic ability in the former case and intellectual curiosity/ambition in the latter case. Seems like you’re just creating some arbitrary cut-offs.
I’m pretty sure genetics have a strong hand in athletic ability and intellectual curiosity/ambition as well… although a bit harder to prove than obvious physical characteristics and/or mental acuity tests.
But this whole idea that successful endeavor in this world is, ipso facto, “unearned” because of genetic gifts (and/or “past injustice) is the philosophy of loserdom and a handy tool in the devil’s handbag for the envious and teeth-on-edge-from-sour-grapes brigade… only holding a modicum of truth, admittedly, when certain fields of endeavor are “closed shops”, tightly monitored and jealously guarded by a demonstrable coterie of a given “type”, for lack of a better term.
Well, regardless of what nomenclature you use — it’s pretty uncontroversial to admit that these advantages which give a “strong hand” are unearned. And it follows from that that some portion of this success is unearned.
My only point is that a lot of liberal philosophy comes from John Rawls and his difference principle, which is why it’s a strawman to equate liberalism with “pure egalitarian.” The difference principle allows for society’s tolerance of inequality, so long as making those at the top better off results in some net benefit for those at the bottom. The main justification is a more complex form of the above reasoning about “unearned” talent.
As an additional point, it’s difficult for me to see how any HBD philosophy could lead someone to any other philosophical standpoint. The only HBD-touter who claims to be liberal is JayMan, as far as I know. I think that’s remarkable.
I thought I would interject here to say that I reject both logically inconsistent belief that individual humans ARE the abstracted platonic “essential” human. See essentialism. I also reject HBD as being a group of people who think that all that matters is iq and of course they happily belong to a high iq group but yet none of them have done anything remarkable besides starting a blog about hbd. HBDer’s are no different than the elitists that are already in control. That does not mean I reject genetic differences but that genetic potential is essentially meaningless and the hbd types only speak about theoretic potential abilities. To say however that you didn’t build that because you have the genes is wrong. It would be the same as saying to a factory that you didn’t build that because you already had the factory. It only looks at theoretical potential to do things and not actual things.
No, I would not. I would argue that you are assuming they do some endeavor. A factory is not measured for all its bells and whistles. One factory could have many more knobs, whistles and bells than another but that does not mean the factory has any meaningful value. Output of a factory is usually what is measured. I care only for output.
‘No, I would not. I would argue that you are assuming they do some endeavor. A factory is not measured for all its bells and whistles. One factory could have many more knobs, whistles and bells than another but that does not mean the factory has any meaningful value. Output of a factory is usually what is measured. I care only for output.’
All right. It seems as though we are analogizing genetic potential to factories and their attendant outputs. Would you agree that some factories have higher output than other factories?
I see. Then that’s the point of divergence. I would think that the quality of raw material being fed into a factory has little, if anything, to do with anything intrinsic to the factory. Instead, it’s something wholly apart from the factory that nevertheless influences the factory’s output.
Wait, I was assuming that factory output may or may not be nonlinear function of input. Like if you put shitty gas in to an expensive car versus in to a two stroke dirtbike engine… My point is that people measure output of engines or factories. In reality this is true because two factories with identical machinery in two places absolutely do not have the same output, tiny nearly invisible changes are enough to make them different. So all this talk of measuring iq to me is just hbder’s praising themselves for doing nothing. I am not denying iq or genetics. I am saying it doesn’t have a good use to measure it, that output or success is the only measure that counts.
The factory analogy is probably going too far now and we need to readjust. Simply put, the hbders really like iq, afaik it is all they care about. But iq just measures some abstract thing and they take this abstract thing to actually be the real thing. Why not measure real things like success? These two might be correlated but even if they are, there still is no answer to why not use just success as a measure. To point out why I think this distorts things, look at the hbd people. They of course are happy to be a part of groups they say have high iq. They haven’t done anything remarkable despite saying high iq is remarkable. In actuality, I think they are insecure people. That’s it really. I sympathize with their hate of extreme diversity and multiculturalism but to me I think their iq favoritism is phony.
The only measurement of your personal worth may be your actual accomplishments, sure. But, how are we supposed to analyze why certain factories have higher output than other factories? We can’t just say “one factory produced more” and end the inquiry there.
It seems like the only way to analyze this differential output is to find out what causes the differential output. How would you explain — or attempt to measure — this difference?
And would you agree — or consider plausible — that at least part of the difference may come down to factors that, largely, are unearned?
If you wanted to answer why, yes, studying test performance or inputs or whatever is useful. iq isn’t the only thing. The problem is making category errors like saying success _is_ iq. or that iq has inherent meaning by itself. So, yes, I can see why people would think some output is unearned given different factories. But for example if you accept that, what is earned? also, if someone didnt earn something, who did? should we take from the haves and give to have nots? does that follow? Those are sort of superficial but I think it does cause a lot of the objections to that saying.
I would agree that IQ is far from “the only thing.” But, there are other attributes I can think of that may also be “unearned contributors to success.”
However, these questions you ask are at the heart of this discussion. How much did X “earn?” It’s hard to say, admittedly. However, just because X failed to earn something, I don’t think it follows that anyone “had to” earn that something. It could simply be an inert, “luck of the draw” quality.
Now we come to the central policy discussion — “should we take from the haves and give to the have nots.” To some degree, that is the philosophy of liberalism. And it rests on the “unearned talents” bedrock. Rawls make a case for his theory about the extent of this “taking and giving” and sums it up with the difference principle.
My main point returns — the philosophy behind liberalism is more complicated than “perfect egalitarianism,” just like “conservative” philosophy is more complicated than “racism/sexism/etc.” And, liberalism’s philosophy countenances a lot of the “biological differences” the HBD-sphere accuses the philosophy of ignoring.
Yes this is true. The concept of reparations or something like housing projects does seem like it takes differences in to account. Although it is hard to tell what the motivations are. For example, feminism certainly seems to argue that men and women are exactly equal although just saying that doesn’t mean they believe it. But the reality is that yes, the hbd crowd is assuming that the left believes in perfect equality when that probably isn’t the case in all places. As far as policy discussion, this just seems like a situation where there is no way to reduce the problem to a simpler one or to find a guaranteed solution. That isn’t just being relativistic or pessimistic, this just actually seems like a class of problems that may have solutions but no way to find one for being too complex.
One small change, I’ve witnessed in my lifetime–I’m 39–is that women are more callous, openly slutty, and avoidant of relationships. They don’t even express aspirations of a commitment or romance. They nearly all are or at least front like they’re guys trying to rack up numbers. They all have delusions of grandeur about what they deserve, their number of sex partners is through the roof, and they are open and unashamed about their plan of screwing with abandon until they’re 30 or so, and don’t realize how they’re hurting their chances of snagging a good guy for marriage later in the game or how they’re damaging themselves–physically and emotionally–with all the promiscuity. There were some girls like this even back then, but they were considered screwups. Now it’s the norm.
This societal destruction happened pretty quickly. It seems that all the left has to do is whine and they win an argument because so-called conservative leaders have no stomach. Of course, it helps the left that they’ve won tons of elections thanks to all those mexicans they brought in and convinced to vote blindly for them.
I don’t remember clinton running on a … hey, can we get 30-50 million mexicans living here on welfare platform.
Lesson from destruction of America?
You can have universal franchise but not open borders. The left has treated american citizenship and voting rights like … um something very cheap and handed out to anyone they can. Which is why they won’t quarantine africa, it’s the new mexico and they’re importing them as fast as they can.
I wonder if pre-1990’s american families can invade mexico now and inflict the same loss of culture on them?
thwack: “Texas, California, Arizona, NEW MEXICO…. those were all part of MEXICO until white people STOLE IT.”
Um…conquest, paying for land in struggle and blood, is not quite the same thing as some druggie punk bopping a little old lady over the head and stealing her purse, just to chase the dragon. Similarly ridiculous is comparing a warrior to a two-bit thug that strong arms diminutive store clerks. Well, ridiculous to whites, anyway. Obviously, it makes perfect sense to you, to anti-whites in general, and probably to most non-whites.
But hey, I’ll still take the bait. Keeping with your claim, are you aware of the Bantu Expansion? Yep, your ancestors STOLE huge swathes of Africa. Why don’t you give it back? Hottentot power!!! (research what blacks did to the Hottentots for sport…not to mention for good eats)
But what does a black call Africa, much of which was STOLEN? He calls it The Motherland. That same black will then harp on how the whites STOLE the New World.
Of course, pretty much every piece of land on planet earth has been conquered – in your terms STOLEN – from someone else. Funny how the only people to ever be condemned for this are whites. If whites conquer land, it is immoral and illegitimate. If non-whites conquer land, it belongs to them forever by sacred right. Hell, if a single drunken black stumbles into the woods to defecate, his people forever have a claim on that land. But if a white goes into the wilderness and creates a successful civilization where there was only desolation, well, who cares? Big deal. He STOLE IT!
I am not engaging in hyperbole. This is how the anti-white mind works. Anyone who has debated these lunatics knows exactly what I’m talking about.
The hypocrisy is so blatant, the double standards so brazen, that it is clear that whites must separate entirely from non-whites in order to have a healthy and functioning society, not to mention a sane one. The anti-white way of *thinking* is simply pathological.
Then: If a man shoots a thug trying to rob him then he’s looked upon as a brave citizen and gets possibly awarded.
Now: If a man shoots a thug trying to rob him, he becomes the most hated man in America.
I actually wish he could have seen the degradation that has happened. Maybe then he would have been a bit more proactive, rather than simply warning of the industrial military complex. Same goes for Woodrow Wilson and the banking coup of 1913.
No pretensions to historical knowledge above the average edumacated white guy,but wasn’t it possible that we could’ve made a conditional peace with the Little Corporal,allowed him to proceed against the Commies and Ike’s masterpiece his sine qua non,the Normandy slaughter might never have had to happen? Why were the French so grateful that we invaded their country and cause all sorts of hell;was the occupation so bad? seems the main activity was German soldiers banging French lovelies. (I hear French women so about sans panties. )
The Germans were careful to avoid physical damage to Paris and wanted commerce and artistic life to continue. According to some accounts, Goebbels insured that the occupying troops consisted of tall young men with Aryan features that he thought French women would find attractive.
Hitler wanted to preserve Paris as a comparison, as he felt, with his engineering background, that he could build Berlin to be superior. The Parisians were quite happy to ruin their city during the Paris Commune
Well, Ike wasn’t in charge of the strategic air effort. He wanted to use heavy bombers to lay a carpet of bombs ahead of advancing US troops, that is, bomb the other guy’s army, not his cities.
It didn’t work out too well. Read about it.
Ike recognized his mistake on Warren. When asked after he left office if he had made any mistakes as President, he said just two, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court.
As for the troops in Little Rock. He said that was the most distasteful thing he ever did as President, but, he had no choice. Unlike the current incumbent, he enforced all the laws, not just the laws he liked.
We shall never again have such a competent and decent man for President as Ike. We had 8 years of peace and prosperity. He ended the Korean war, and kept us out of conflicts. He opposed colonialism, supporting Egypt against France, England, and Israel when they invaded the Suez canal zone, for example. He built the interstate highway system.
He belongs to an America that has ceased to exist.
I wonder if you anti-feminists and Neo-Spartans* ever stop to consider that you are just the latest in a long line of paranoid people? Had you been born 50 years earlier you’d all be ranting about ‘dem commies’ and chanting ‘better dead than red.’ Had you been born 100 years ago you’d have been isolationists and been anti-European. 150 years ago you’d have been frothing at the mouth about immigrants. ** 170 years ago you’d have been ranting:”The n*****s want to rape our women.” Had you been around 220+ years ago you’d have been screaming:”The witches are the cause of all our problems. Burn them at the stake, every last one!”
* I coined this phrase, but you may use it if you wish.
** The Irish were once called “St Patrick’s vermin” in America. There were debates about what position the Irish were to occupy in America. Finally it was decided that they were white, but they were to be considered only superior to the blacks.
Stop that, you are exaggerating so you can dismiss our objections on emotional grounds. Have you considered that communists(maoists, trotskyites, bolsheviks) committed grave evils or is that just paranoia too? Do you think we don’t have valid objections to feminism or will you just hand wave them away so you don’t have to confront the possibility of being wrong?
Yep, 50 years ago people bitched about communists – and they were right. Communism is amazingly murderous and destructive.
100 years ago isolationism was right. No US invovlement in WWI would have been a massive improvment – WWII and the death of the west likely don’t happen if the Allies have to come to even terms with the Germans.
150 they were right about immigrants – they didn’t improve the country and imported a ton of crime and dysfunction when the country stopped being mostly mono-ethnic.
170 years ago and up until today the niggers do want to rape white women – look at the fucking statistics dumbass.
as for 220 years ago the witch hunters are on your side. Today they call witchcraft “racism” and “sexism” and “homophobia” – which uses the evil eye to make blacks dysfunctional, women incompetent and gays mentally ill.
Elle Bee: “Had you been around 220+ years ago you’d have been screaming:”The witches are the cause of all our problems. Burn them at the stake, every last one!”
The irony is deep here, as witch-hunting is the favorite pastime of anti-white leftists. Rarely does a day go by when you people aren’t sniffing about, looking for a new witch to punish. “Racist!” “Bigot!” “Hater!”
It goes all the way back to your nutty, insane Puritan forebears. The modern anti-white is the very same cultist, witch-hunting loon, he’s just taken God out of the equation.
But here’s the thing: the modern anti-white is even nuttier than his witch- burning ideological ancestors. He looks down upon the religious believer, but it must be said that at least one can’t prove that heaven doesn’t exist. One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.
But one can prove that the things the anti-white liberal believes are untrue. Observably, provably, demonstrably untrue. And yet the anti-white kook will still believe it, and go into outraged spasms of rage and discomfort if truth is spoken in his presence.
The anti-white kook is fundamentally anti-reality in a way that the religious believer is not.
So who is nuttier, the religious type that the liberal loves to look down upon, or the kooky liberal nutter that claims to operate on reason, but ardently denies provable reality? Ardently demands that others believe things that are demonstrably untrue? The answer is obvious.
Elle Bee: “I coined this phrase, but you may use it if you wish.”
Um, no. You didn’t.
Yet I have little doubt that as an anti-white kook, you will ardently believe otherwise. After all, what is factual reality compared to what you wish to believe? Reality is optional, no? …or so believeth the kook, verily I say unto you.
Elle Bell: “Finally it was decided that they [the Irish] were white, but they were to be considered only superior to the blacks.”
More ignorance, sugar pie. Or are you just lying?
The Irish immigrated under naturalization laws as whites, for whites. They were “white” from the beginning – before they even stepped off of the boat.
Further, while many of the Irish population ended up in the North, many did not. In fact, much of the antebellum white population of the South – yes, *that* South – had either full or partial Irish ancestry. This is well known to the reasonably well informed…so I’m not terribly surprised that it slipped right on by you, Elle.
The whole “Irish weren’t white” schtick seems to be promoted by active liars and gobbled up by cultist anti-white loons (which one are you, Elle?), for the purpose of undermining any sort of white racial defense. Whites can be attacked as a race, but never defend themselves as a race.
Elle, if we assume that you’re one of the cultist gobblers as opposed to active liars, we can further assume that you got much, if not most, of your education from television or similar sources. No boring reality or documentation for you, after all. Didn’t you ever see Gone With The Wind? Didn’t it ever register with you that the Scarlett O’Hara character was, well, kind of Irish?
Yes, it does. We now have several generations of experience with exactly what liberalism and multiculturalism really mean. It is anti-white.
Perhaps you don’t know what we mean by anti-white? Helpful narrator that I am, I’ll whitesplain it to you in simple terms. Today, the multicult has reached the point where it literally celebrates the dispossession of whites, and is gleeful about whites being reduced to minority status, and ultimately blended out of existence. Anyone who objects to this process is actively demonized as an “Evil!” “Nazi!” “Hater!”
Whites don’t exist…but we’re so happy that they are disappearing!
That’s what we mean.
Or at least part of what we mean. Of course, I’m leaving out about a thousand other things, from active legal discrimination against whites, destruction of traditional Western culture, the loss of free speech and freedom of association, the murders and the rapes, the demonization of dissidents…
If you can’t see that modern liberalism is anti-white, it’s because you are willfully blind or pathologically dishonest.
It has been long known here in Europe that Americans are deeply paranoid. We laugh at your childish naivety and your inability to see shades of grey or fine distinctions. You seem to constantly veer from Pollyannaism and ‘oh my God the world is coming to an end and it’s all the fault of [enter marginalised,yet strangely all powerful social groups]’. 20 years from now feminism will be as dead as communism and you’ll have found some other group(s) to froth at the mouth about.
Elle: “It has been long known here in Europe that Americans are deeply paranoid.”
So it’s wonderful to make generalizations like this, without any supporting evidence, but deny generalizations that are well supported by real evidence? We see this a lot with anti-white kooks. They feel perfectly free to insult whites as a group, typically by making false claims. But when accurate facts are pointed out about blacks and browns, they start screaming “You can’t generalize!”
It really is a nutty mindset.
Elle: “20 years from now feminism will be as dead as communism and you’ll have found some other group(s) to froth at the mouth about.”
Um…what? Are you suggesting that those who opposed communism, a system under which literally millions of innocent people were slaughtered, were simply *frothing* at the mouth? That there was no reasonable or just basis for their opposition?
You’re bizarre, Elle, even by kook standards, and that’s saying something.
In the mind of the anti-white cultist, the liberal is free to oppose whatever he likes. He is free to run around like a loon screaming at others “Racist!” “Bigot!” “Witch!” He is free to demand that others believe things that are demonstrably, provably untrue, and conduct witch-hunts against dissenters (read: truth tellers).
Notice how the kook studiously avoids dealing with reality or evidence. It never asks even basic questions, such as “What is communism?” “What is feminism?” “Should these things be opposed?”
No, no, no. If someone opposes communism or feminism, they are simply “frothing at the mouth.”
Loons like Elle aren’t interested in fundamental questions and answers, because that would require dealing in reality. Much better to stick to their witch-hunts.
Elle, I think I saw Goody Proctor with the Devil! I think she was frothing at the mouth, too! Better go get her!
the European herd collectively laughing at Americans might want to consider some self-effacing humour and look around at the shades of brown marbling the cobblestone streets. “20 years from now” because each year we plan for our God-given right.
Stop lying, little socialist. You do NOT speak for Europeans. You speak only for socialist freaks, who pretend there is no such thing as a nationality, which means you are not European. The majority of Europeans have NEVER wanted mass immigration, it was imposed on us by the media-controlled corrupt politicians.
You try to lie to Americans, pretending that Europeans would all have the same opinions, all be leftist. Disgusting. Anyone with even cursory knowledge of Europe knows how false that is.
Oh please, The Hungarians weren’t frothing at the mouth when they revolted against communism even though communism is dead according to you. You are just a silly troll. Not everyone here is American either.
martin: “The Hungarians weren’t frothing at the mouth when they revolted against communism”
Of course they weren’t. But to a kook like Elle, a liberal is free to oppose whatever he likes, whenever he likes. He is free to conduct bizarre witch-hunts at will.
But any time a non-liberal opposes the liberal agenda, he’s merely “frothing” at the mouth. It matters not that what he says is provably, demonstrably true. In fact, the more accurate and honest he is, the more the liberal kook hates him.
Basically, in the twisted liberal mind, only he gets to take a political position at all. Everyone else should shut up. Any opposition must be crushed through hate speech laws, speech codes, and harassment of employers for the purpose of reducing the dissenter to a bread crumb.
That’s “freedom” in the mind of kooks like Elle. Did Orwell nail it or what?
“And they say education is Amurrica has been watered down”
you’re right….none of the info i drop is taught in Amurrican public schools – they teach mostly lies and propaganda……and they omit a whole lot…….i guess this is what your used too….
for example, you can complete the full educational course and still not come out knowing:
1. Where “white” i.e. pink people come from
2.,Why they are “white” i.e. pink
3. and What happened to the aboriginal occupants of Europe who came up from Africa through Gibralter, the Mediterranean, and the Levant.
” you can complete the full educational course and still not come out knowing Where “white” i.e. pink people come from”. Oh yeah shame on the schools for not teaching the story of Yakub Mr big head,creator of the “white devils”. http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1366565067168.gif