Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "Styxhexenhammer666" channel.

  1. 741
  2. 740
  3. 709
  4. 594
  5. 467
  6. 436
  7. 406
  8. 394
  9. 368
  10. 365
  11. 361
  12. 361
  13. 330
  14. 314
  15. 285
  16. 269
  17. 258
  18. 235
  19. 232
  20. 229
  21. 219
  22. 218
  23. 207
  24. 197
  25. 189
  26. 188
  27. 186
  28. 184
  29. 182
  30. 166
  31. 165
  32. 163
  33. 163
  34. 158
  35. 158
  36. 152
  37. 147
  38. 145
  39. 145
  40. 144
  41. 141
  42. 140
  43. 137
  44. 133
  45. 128
  46. 127
  47. 126
  48. 124
  49. 122
  50. 121
  51. 119
  52. 114
  53. 114
  54. 111
  55. 111
  56. 110
  57. 110
  58. 107
  59. 106
  60. 103
  61. 103
  62. 101
  63. 99
  64. 98
  65. 97
  66. 96
  67. 93
  68. 93
  69. 92
  70. 89
  71. 88
  72. 86
  73. 84
  74. 83
  75. 82
  76. 78
  77. 76
  78. 74
  79. 74
  80. 71
  81. 71
  82. 70
  83. 69
  84. 69
  85. 68
  86. 68
  87. 66
  88. 63
  89. 63
  90. 62
  91. 62
  92. 62
  93. 61
  94. 61
  95. 60
  96. 60
  97. 60
  98. 58
  99. 58
  100. 57
  101. 56
  102. 55
  103. 55
  104. 54
  105. 54
  106. 53
  107. 53
  108. 53
  109. 50
  110. 50
  111. 48
  112. 47
  113. 46
  114. 43
  115. 43
  116. 42
  117. 41
  118. 41
  119. 41
  120. 41
  121. 41
  122. 40
  123. 40
  124. 40
  125. 40
  126. 40
  127. 39
  128. 39
  129. 38
  130. 38
  131. 38
  132. 37
  133. 37
  134. 37
  135. 37
  136. 36
  137. 36
  138. 36
  139. 35
  140. 35
  141. 34
  142. 34
  143. 34
  144. 34
  145. 34
  146. 34
  147. 33
  148. 33
  149. 33
  150. 33
  151. 32
  152. 32
  153. 32
  154. 31
  155. 31
  156. 30
  157. 30
  158. 30
  159. 30
  160. 30
  161. 30
  162. 30
  163. 29
  164. 29
  165. 29
  166. 29
  167. 29
  168. 28
  169. 28
  170. 28
  171. 28
  172. 28
  173. 27
  174. 27
  175. 27
  176. 27
  177. 27
  178. 26
  179. 26
  180. 26
  181. 26
  182. 26
  183. 26
  184. 26
  185. 26
  186. 25
  187. 25
  188. 25
  189. 25
  190. 24
  191. 24
  192. 24
  193. 24
  194. 24
  195. 24
  196. 24
  197. 24
  198. 24
  199. 24
  200. 24
  201. 24
  202. 24
  203. 24
  204. 23
  205. 23
  206. 23
  207. 23
  208. 23
  209. 23
  210. 23
  211. 23
  212. 23
  213. 22
  214. 22
  215. 22
  216. 22
  217. 22
  218. 22
  219. 22
  220. 21
  221. 21
  222. 21
  223. 21
  224. 21
  225. 21
  226. 21
  227. 21
  228. 21
  229. 21
  230. 21
  231. 21
  232. 21
  233. 20
  234. 20
  235. 20
  236. 20
  237. 20
  238. 20
  239. 20
  240. 20
  241. 20
  242. 20
  243. 20
  244. 20
  245. 20
  246. 20
  247. 20
  248. 19
  249. 19
  250. 19
  251. 19
  252. 19
  253. 19
  254. 19
  255. 19
  256. 19
  257. 18
  258. 18
  259. 18
  260. 18
  261. 18
  262. 18
  263. 18
  264. 18
  265. 18
  266. 18
  267. 18
  268. 17
  269. 17
  270. 17
  271. 17
  272. 17
  273. 17
  274. 17
  275. 17
  276. 17
  277. 16
  278. 16
  279. 16
  280. 16
  281. 16
  282. 16
  283. 16
  284. 16
  285. 16
  286. 16
  287. 16
  288. 16
  289. 16
  290. 16
  291. 16
  292. 16
  293. 16
  294. 16
  295. 16
  296. 16
  297. 16
  298. 16
  299. 16
  300. 16
  301. 16
  302. 16
  303. 16
  304. 16
  305. 16
  306. 15
  307. 15
  308. 15
  309. 15
  310. 15
  311. 15
  312. 15
  313. 15
  314. 15
  315. 15
  316. 15
  317. 15
  318. 15
  319. 15
  320. 15
  321. 15
  322. 15
  323. 15
  324. 15
  325. 15
  326. 15
  327. 15
  328. 15
  329. 15
  330. 15
  331. 15
  332. 15
  333. 15
  334. 15
  335. 15
  336. 15
  337. 15
  338. 15
  339. 14
  340. 14
  341. 14
  342. 14
  343. 14
  344. 14
  345. 14
  346. 14
  347. 14
  348. 14
  349. 14
  350. ​ @damian_cross  I think it's generally immoral to assign collective guilt on a group as well, but let's not forget that they (and those who mindlessly defend them) bank on our instinct...hell...they even exploit our instinct to not assign collective guilt...because they know that being "individuals" in certain instances allows them to obfuscate when they are in fact operating in confederation (as a group) for some purpose. The "not all" argument only goes so far when it comes to this group, given the overwhelmingly disproportionate power that their nepotism and ethnocentrism has helped them obtain. And of course, any group that wishes to maintain their power must establish a set of double standards for themselves. And this is why it's been made quasi-forbidden and socially dangerous to even acknowledge, let alone criticize their power (and the way they obtain and hold that power). Also, let's not forget that the most influential cultural and political ideologies that members of this group have created (and championed en masse) are completely reliant on assigning collectivized group guilt/onus. They have decided who is eligible to be assigned with that collectivized guilt and who isn't (they didn't make themselves eligible...shocker, I know). The sad fact is that the vast majority of them have absolutely no moral issue making broad generalizations about YOUR group if it's somehow expedient to them. But if you do that to them, they accuse you of being evil and wanting to destroy them.
    14
  351. 14
  352. 14
  353. 14
  354. 14
  355. 14
  356. 14
  357. 14
  358. @Browns Fan:   Trump knows their game and has played it, but that doesn't mean he's one of them. Have you ever once even considered that he might not be what you think he is? Have you ever even looked at the situation and critically evaluated it, or is your cognitive bias simply too pervasive?  In my opinion, Trump appears the narcissist, but is actually benevolent, well-intentioned and wants the best for the average American. He understands how this system caters to the rich, because he has been the beneficiary of that system, and he understands how that needs to change. He has already taken advantage of that flaw, and wants to give back. And whether or not his motivation for wanting to endear himself to average Americans is for his own egotistical purposes or not, it doesn't really matter. I would rather have someone that helps the average American for selfish reasons that screws the average American for selfish reasons. The Clinton/Bush/Obama mafia don't want anything to change. They appear benevolent, but are actually the most narcissistic and malevolent people on the planet.  Trump is a reformer. You can already see how the neolib/neoncon globalist forces have aligned against him to resist every little thing he wants to change. Tax reform? The establishment and the MSM resists it because the plan doesn't favor the rich and gives less tax deductions for elitist blue state homeowners living in inflated real estate markets. Every other industrialized nation has a corporate tax rate of around 20%. Yet ours is 35%??? Trump wants to lower in to a normal rate and the globalists are demonizing that. Why??? Because it benefits them. Lowering the corporate tax rate will make it less cost-effective for them to keep their factories in China and keep Americans unemployed and on welfare. Dependent people are easier to control and their dependence garners votes for globalists. Healthcare reform? The Ryan/McConnell neocon establishment draws something up and it has elements that strongly resemble ObungholeCare, a blueprint for healthcare failure. The globalists want private healthcare to fail in this country so that they can justify single payer and a massive tax increase. Then the globalists look like the good guys, and Americans become dependent on the government for their medical. Again, dependent people are easier to control and their dependence garners votes for globalists.  The wall/deportations/DACA? The establishment, GOP and Dem, resists because they both stand to profit and fortify their power from illegal migration/cheap illegal labor/welfare dependence and voter fraud. Illegal migrants are dependent upon the globalist establishment to provide them with amnesty and social services. Again, dependent people are easier to control and their dependence garners votes for globalists.    Who loses when Trump's reform is resisted? Everyday Americans like you and I. Who wins when Trump's reform is resisted? The neocon/neolib establishment, multinational corporations, illegal immigrants, state-dependent social parasites, and workers and businesses in foreign countries.
    14
  359. 14
  360. 14
  361. 14
  362. 14
  363. 14
  364. 14
  365. 14
  366. 14
  367. 14
  368. 14
  369. 14
  370. 14
  371. 14
  372. 14
  373. 14
  374. 14
  375. 14
  376. 13
  377. 13
  378. 13
  379. 13
  380. 13
  381. 13
  382. 13
  383. 13
  384. 13
  385. 13
  386. 13
  387. 13
  388. 13
  389. 13
  390. 13
  391. 13
  392. 13
  393. 13
  394. 13
  395. 13
  396. 13
  397. 13
  398. 13
  399. 13
  400. 13
  401. Bernie just made promises that couldn't feasibly be delivered without running up massive debt. His policies would be doable in a different country with a different population under a different and unique set of circumstances. That is the only way his form of European socialism works. Democratic socialism in Europe only works when there is a prosperous and diversified market economy and largely homogenous population (ethnic, ideological, wealth), which results in a massive surplus and middle class. That surplus can then be used to prop up the welfare state, but it eventually crumples under its own weight after a finite number of very enjoyable years for their population. This gives them the impression that the system will work indefinitely. Venezuela didn't wait until their economy was diversified and enough of a surplus existed, and their population was too large and not homogenous enough (too much wealth disparity), so their system failed. Mass unfettered immigration and decadence (lack of competition and laziness) eventually destroys this system as well, and the U.S. is experiencing both of those. We will see this occur in Europe soon, as their surpluses diminish, and their dependent class begins to overwhelm their productive class, the government will be forced to raise taxes higher and higher until they are forced to nationalize industry and become socialist dictatorships. The European form of socialism would never work in the United States. The population is too large and ethnically/ideologically/financially diverse. It is a dream. I would still begrudgingly accept Bernie over Clinton, but his ideology is not sound. Please stop acting as though it is feasible for this country.
    13
  402. 13
  403. 13
  404. 13
  405. 13
  406. 13
  407. 13
  408. 13
  409. 13
  410. 13
  411. 13
  412. 13
  413. 13
  414. 13
  415. 13
  416. 13
  417. 13
  418. 12
  419. 12
  420. 12
  421. 12
  422. 12
  423. 12
  424. 12
  425. 12
  426. 12
  427. 12
  428. 12
  429. 12
  430. 12
  431. 12
  432. 12
  433. 12
  434. 12
  435. 12
  436. 12
  437. 12
  438. 12
  439. 12
  440. 12
  441. 12
  442. 12
  443. 12
  444. 12
  445. 12
  446. 12
  447. 12
  448. 12
  449. 12
  450. 12
  451. 12
  452. 12
  453. 12
  454. 12
  455. 12
  456. 12
  457. 12
  458.  BallTistic Screecher  There is a difference between supporting someone's freedom to do something and morally supporting the activity itself. For example, I support people's freedom to do drugs if they so choose, but I do not morally support that activity itself...in fact, I actively discourage it. You seem to not only support the freedom of pornographers to create and disseminate porn, you morally support the activity and industry itself. Then you conceal it like a coward behind some kind of inane veil of freedom to choose. This is what a lot of abortionists do. "What's the problem?" The problem is that porn is detrimental to individuals and society as a whole. It is also a predatory industry as a whole. You give some cringey example of a porn company you admire and act like all of the actresses do what they do completely by free will...no financial desperation, no psychological issues, no coercion, no risk to their health and safety, no drugs or other persuasive predatory elements involved. I don't think you're that stupid, I think you're making excuses because you're dishonest. And like I said, addicts trivialize that which they're addicted to (and the industry that provides it) as a defense mechanism. I would suggest reading about Mia Khalifa's (sp.) account of her time in the porn industry to get a more enlightened picture of the porn industry as a whole. Also, your last line is a pathetic logical fallacy. Assuming that if men don't watch porn, they'll be out picking up on disease-addled junkies? Unbelievably dishonest.
    12
  459. 12
  460. 12
  461. 12
  462. 12
  463. 12
  464. 12
  465. 11
  466. 11
  467. 11
  468. 11
  469. 11
  470. 11
  471. 11
  472. 11
  473. 11
  474. 11
  475. 11
  476. 11
  477. 11
  478. 11
  479. 11
  480. Iam Bob:  God-tier post. The truth is that white identity extremists, white racists, fascists etc. are fringe elements within the right-wing that have no access or open support from the mainstream political structure, the right-wing media, or right-wing politicians. Another truth is that black identity extremists, black racists, and radical communists are becoming mainstream elements within the left-wing that have full access and open support from the mainstream political structure, left-wing media, and left-wing politicians. The two are not even comparable at this point. I watched a Liberty Hound video that had Tucker Carlson interviewing Ekow Yankah, and Tucker asked him how he would feel if the tables were turned (and Tucker wrote a piece about teaching his kids to not trust Black people and it was published in a major conservative new outlet). Yankah did not honestly answer, of course, but instead deflected with a comparative question asking Tucker if he would not teach his young daughter to not naively trust men, as if the proportional risk that women face from men is comparable to the proportional risk Blacks face from Whites. Tucker just laughed at him, and asked him to answer the original question. Yankah could not answer the original question, of course, because it would expose him as a racist and a hypocrite. Tucker actually destroyed him in the interview, basically getting him to admit that he doesn't want to give credence to distasteful narratives that he "doesn't want." Feels before reals, essentially, and deep disingenuousness.
    11
  481. 11
  482. 11
  483. 11
  484. 11
  485. 11
  486. 11
  487. 11
  488. 11
  489. 11
  490. 11
  491. Styx is in denial. Joel is correct that libertarianism can't exist without some other unifying framework or identity. Styx immediately said that libertarianism existed in America and worked under a "civic awareness," which is absolutely ridiculous. It did work, but the country was both racially and culturally homogeneous and enforced a strict racial and cultural hegemony. Moreover, the vast majority of the population was Christian and operated largely based on those moral values, not "civic" ones. Libertarianism doesn't work without racially and cultural homogeneity and a complete lack of cultural/moral relativism. The Founding Fathers understood this, which is evidenced by the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which restricted naturalization to "free whites persons of good character." John Adams said "we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people." It's understandable if Styx were truly ignorant of this, given that he has lived in environments that are 95% white for the majority of his life. But I don't thinks he's ignorant; I think he's willfully ignorant and is being disingenuous. He is always refusing to acknowledge the importance of race and religion as primordial unifying forces. He ignores this for his subjective "civic" awareness. That might work in Vermont, which is already racially and culturally homogeneous, but it won't work in the country as a whole.
    11
  492. 11
  493. 11
  494. 11
  495. @ L B:  Try using the left side of your brain for once in your life. Think rationally and consider what would happen if the media and the entertainment industry theoretically had a similar right leaning bias. Leftists would then have something to actually be outraged about, instead of manufacturing the majority of their outrage. What if Obama's severed head was hoisted by a Rightist comedian on the Fox News payroll? (Oh, the horror!) The Right  (especially the libertarian right and far right) has wanted to destroy the MSM long before Trump. Trump's rise has only made that desire more universal among Rightists as the MSM is not even attempting to appear transparent, objective, or truthful anymore. Antifa and their free speech attacks is just the extreme. Look to the rest of the socialist Left Western world where north of the border, it is criminal to criticize Islam. In the UK, it is illegal to write wrongthink on the internet and it is illegal to make "misogynistic" comments. Germany, where it is illegal to deny the Holocaust or even question the traditional narrative of it, and it is illegal to post wrongthink on the internet as well. How about the Google memo and that corporate communist totalitarian debacle? How about the Leftist university culture of censorship? How about gender pronouns and other PC speech policing? Face it. Liberty and free speech is more of a right-wing value now. The Left is perpetually aggrieved and wants to control people instead of convince them.
    11
  496. 11
  497. 11
  498. 11
  499. 11
  500. 11
  501. 11
  502. 11
  503. 11
  504. 11
  505. 11
  506. 11
  507. 11
  508. 11
  509. 11
  510. 10
  511. 10
  512. 10
  513. 10
  514. 10
  515. 10
  516. 10
  517. 10
  518. 10
  519. 10
  520. 10
  521. 10
  522. 10
  523. 10
  524. 10
  525. 10
  526. 10
  527. 10
  528. 10
  529. 10
  530. 10
  531. 10
  532. 10
  533. 10
  534. 10
  535. 10
  536. 10
  537. 10
  538. 10
  539. 10
  540. 10
  541. 10
  542. 10
  543. 10
  544. 10
  545. 10
  546. 10
  547. 10
  548. 10
  549. 10
  550. 10
  551. 10
  552. 10
  553. 10
  554. 10
  555. 10
  556. 10
  557. 10
  558. 10
  559. 10
  560. 10
  561. 10
  562. 10
  563. @ Hunter Zolomon:  Many first-world historically White countries are not only multicultural, but have official government policies of multiculturalism. Canada, the U.S., Australia, and Western European countries have hundreds of different ethnic groups living within them, and they aren't just multiethnic, they are multiracial, unlike Nigeria, which adds another complexity and general social divide. I knew that Nigeria has over 200 ethnic groups, believe it or not, but I would wager the majority of people don't. I know religion plays a major role in societal unity as well, but there are places that Muslims and Christians co-exist without rampant and never-ending violence, mostly in Southeast Asia, but I see where you're coming from. Most Oriental Muslims aren't as radical and violent and don't subscribe to such a literalist form of Islam, like Boko Haram. I agree with your assessment of Europe's ethnic history and the difference between Europe and Africa. The countries there are artificial, just as many are in the Middle East. The responsibility for this lies with Western powers. The thing that's insane to me is that the same people that are criticizing the West's mistake in not creating ethno-states in Africa and the Middle East are the same people that think the West has a responsibility to inundate what were White ethno states with millions of non-White and vastly disparate (and many times incompatible) cultures as some kind of repentance. The thing is, if a person fundamentally supports the concept of ethno-nationalism as the only way forward, then it shouldn't matter what nation we're talking about, it should be applied everywhere, regardless of history. That would include your country, and all ethnically non-British people should go back to their ethnic ancestral homelands.
    10
  564. 10
  565. 10
  566. 10
  567. 10
  568. 10
  569. 10
  570. 10
  571. 10
  572. 10
  573. 10
  574. 9
  575. 9
  576. 9
  577. 9
  578. 9
  579. 9
  580. 9
  581. 9
  582. 9
  583. 9
  584. 9
  585. 9
  586. 9
  587. Nicolas M. I used to think the exact same way as you, mostly because I didn't want to believe it and I was uncomfortable with the notion of agreeing with "conspiracy theorists" and "Nazis." Then I just started seeing such disproportionate representations of Jews involved in every large-scale shady plot against Western culture. The more you research, the more shady Jews you find. Don't look now, but almost a quarter of the U.S. Senate has Jewish ancestry. 3 Supreme Court Justices. 5 of the "Big 6" film studios founded by Jews. Anywhere you find postmodernism, you find Jews in disproportionate numbers: modern "artists," modern "architects," cultural Marxist sociologists. And perhaps their most disproportionate and corrupt representation: international banking cartels and the financial sector. 7 of the top 10 in Forbes' The Most Powerful People in the Financial World are Jews (thanks Catholic church). They developed atomic weapons and also facilitated the Cold War by providing the Soviets with top secret documents that allowed them to compete with the U.S. nuclear program. They're behind so many poorly disguised initiatives to destroy Whites and occupy so many positions of influence and power in Western countries while only representing 1-2% of the population. They're a shady desert tribe, no better than the Saudis, maybe even worse. And like the Saudis, they are thinly veiled to appear as our allies, but their ulterior motive is to subvert and destroy us. You talked about Jewish tribalism and Ignatiev and that made me remember that he was allowed into Harvard Graduate School as a known anti-White Marxist criminal without a bachelor's degree. Yet somehow, he was admitted and allowed to lecture before he even had a master's degree. And people attribute Jews being successful solely to their high average IQs. No. Jews conspire together and elevate their own, even if it's blatantly obvious. They NEVER fully adapt to host nations. "Host" nations: they're like a virus. They're the original multiculturalists, expecting to live within a nation as an autonomous entity, only being part of the nation in ways that are advantageous to them, and in every other way, causing dissent and attempting to destroy that nation. Have you ever heard of a Jew in the military? A Jewish cop? A Jewish firefighter? Anything personally dangerous to them and not exploitative? Doctors maybe, and if being a doctor wasn't lucrative, they wouldn't do it. Is it any wonder they've been persecuted for thousands of years and have been expelled from over 100 nations in recorded history?
    9
  588. 9
  589. 9
  590. 9
  591. 9
  592. 9
  593. 9
  594. 9
  595. 9
  596. 9
  597. 9
  598. 9
  599. 9
  600. 9
  601. 9
  602. 9
  603. 9
  604. @A Sojourner: It was worse than that: he was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm. The thing that's sick about that is that willful possession of the firearm and gross negligence was the only thing they needed to establish in order to convict of involuntary manslaughter. For second degree murder and/or voluntary manslaughter, they needed willful possession and intent/malice aforethought. They arguably had both. So, the fact that they convicted him of illegal possession of a weapon means that they KNEW that he was guilty of possessing it willfully. His ENTIRE DEFENSE was predicated on "finding" the weapon, which it just so happened was stolen from a federal LE officer's vehicle less than a ten minute walk from the location that scumbag shot and killed Kate Steinle. I explain this in the video I made about this affront, and also prove that it is nearly impossible (beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the threshold of proof required in a court of law) that he willfully pulled the trigger at least three times based on the internal security features of the weapon. There is also other evidence, based on his testimony and admissions to the police, that there was at least gross negligence, if not outright malice aforethought, because at first he said he was down there SHOOTING SEA LIONS from the pier (also a felony)! They couldn't prove that he intended to murder her (1st degree murder), but they could have easily convicted him of second degree murder based solely on that admission, which he redacted after his scumbag lawyer told him to change his story. I believe the DA had everything they needed, but the jury members were SF residents and all Leftists, and therefore virtue signaled and allowed a murderer to walk free. Absolutely despicable and it makes me want to puke just thinking about it.
    9
  605. 9
  606. 9
  607. 9
  608. 9
  609. 9
  610. 9
  611. 9
  612. 9
  613. 9
  614. 9
  615. 9
  616. 9
  617. 9
  618. 9
  619. 9
  620. 9
  621. 9
  622. 9
  623. 9
  624. 9
  625. 9
  626. 9
  627. 9
  628. 9
  629. 9
  630. 9
  631. 9
  632. 9
  633. 9
  634. 9
  635. 9
  636. 9
  637. 9
  638. 9
  639. 9
  640. 9
  641. 9
  642. 9
  643. 9
  644. 9
  645. I've lost friendships and destroyed family relationships just because I used to speak my mind non-anonymously about political issues on Facebook. I didn't bother to use an anonymous or false identity, and just assumed the people in my life knew me and loved me well enough to look past whatever ideological differences we might have. I was wrong. Even though I rarely if ever directly engaged with my family or friends on the platform about any contentious issues, several of my friends and family would stalk my posts when I was trolling and arguing with randos. Then they'd get offended and ghost me without telling me. A couple of times, a friend of family member would confront about it like I'd done something heinous for simply having right-wing opinions. One ex-friend accused me of being a racist murderer because I think average group behavior has something to do with average group outcomes. An aunt called me evil for talking disparagingly about a certain little ethnoreligious state in the Levant region. But most of the social shunning was passive aggressive. Fact is that you simply can't talk about all the juiciest topics non-anonymously without it taking a serious toll on your personal life. Peterson should realize this, given that he polices his own speech all the time and refuses to speak about the most controversial issues. It's not psychopathic or Machiavellian or narcissistic to want to talk about controversial issues without everyone in your personal life being apprised of your opinions, especially if your opinions are not the "correct" ones on some of the most controversial of issues. I look back on it without regret because I know I'm better off without people who would disassociate themselves from me over a simple difference of opinion. But I do understand why someone would rather not deal with that fallout.
    9
  646. 9
  647. 9
  648. 9
  649. 9
  650. 9
  651. 9
  652. 9
  653. 9
  654. 9
  655. 9
  656. 9
  657. 8
  658. 8
  659. 8
  660. 8
  661. 8
  662. 8
  663. 8
  664. 8
  665. 8
  666. 8
  667. 8
  668. 8
  669. 8
  670. 8
  671. 8
  672. 8
  673. 8
  674. 8
  675. 8
  676. European sanctimony revolves around their belief that the U.S. is incompetent, racist, and can't properly manage our social issues and institutions. However, now that Europeans are dealing with the kind of immigration that the U.S. has been dealing with for decades, causing major social issues and putting massive pressure on their institutions, they're all crying about how multiculturalism has failed. Yeah...no shit...Americans have known multiculturalism doesn't work for years, and yet Europeans would always thumb their noses at us and call us racists because we have problems with our non-White population. They also blame us for warmongering, usually without recognizing the fact that U.S. meddling in the Middle East is mostly just Zionist bullshit. The only valid criticism that they have is that the U.S. is puppeteered by Jewry, but that is true of most of their countries as well, who take part in the ZOG/NATO war machine. Other than that, our institutions are something they chastise without considering several major variables that render our systems practically incomparable i.e. muh healthcare, muh incarceration rate, muh education etc. We have a larger population that Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain combined, and a far less homogeneous society. We also pay way less in taxes and have far more civil liberties. I also dare any European country to manage 38 million Blacks and 50 million Hispanics, along with millions of other Third World immigrants. No chance they would succeed, let alone preserve their national identity.
    8
  677. 8
  678. 8
  679. 8
  680. 8
  681. 8
  682. 8
  683. 8
  684. 8
  685. 8
  686. 8
  687. 8
  688. 8
  689. 8
  690. 8
  691. 8
  692. 8
  693. 8
  694. 8
  695. 8
  696. 8
  697. 8
  698. 8
  699. 8
  700. 8
  701. 8
  702. 8
  703. 8
  704. 8
  705. 8
  706. 8
  707. 8
  708. 8
  709. 8
  710. 8
  711. 8
  712. 8
  713. 8
  714. 8
  715. 8
  716. 8
  717. 8
  718. 8
  719. 8
  720. 8
  721. 8
  722. @John Hathorne: Rutilae means reddish, actually. That root word is found in almost every single European language for red. Think about it: rot, rouge, rosso, red, rojo, røt. Varg's argument: "It means blonde; just ask anyone who studies Latin." Tacitus used the word rutilae to describe the Germans, and then used the exact same word to describe ancient Caledonians in Scotland, even noting that he believed the Caledonians were of Germanic origin. Obviously, Scotland has the most redheads by percentage in the world, even to this very day. His description of the Caledonians came after his description of the "Germans" he encountered. He meant red. But that isn't even the point. Whether he meant red or blonde, that is likely not the color of hair that EVERY Celt or EVERY German had, which is what Varg is claiming. He also said that the red haired genetic, the mutation of the MC1R protein, originated with Ancient Egyptians. So, dey wuz kangz, I guess. "to say otherwise is deny reality and imply they were all "redheads" - impossible, think for yourself" By that logic, if it's impossible that they were all redheads, it should also be impossible that they were all blondes. You've contradicted yourself. "Ultimately, that's not even his point, he meant proto-europeans dozens of thousands of years ago mainly." Then why did he use Tacitus' description of the "Germans" as evidence? Tacitus was describing people less than 2000 years ago, not dozens of thousands of gorillions of years ago. "I don't get why people get some butthurt and emotional over an anthropological argument... Varg has made videos hanging out with black-haired friends and supports people like Styx who isn't even purely white... Stop being so silly..." 1.) I'm not butthurt or emotional at all, I just think Varg is wrong about this. 2.) The fact that Varg hangs out with people with black hair is irrelevant to this conversation honestly. I'm not implying that Varg rejects dark-haired people as Europeans and doesn't associate with them. 3.) The fact that Varg supports people that are not entirely European is also irrelevant to this conversation. 4.) Dismissing something as "silly" is something a Leftist would do.
    8
  723. 8
  724. 8
  725. 8
  726. 8
  727. 8
  728. 8
  729. 8
  730. 8
  731. 8
  732. 8
  733. 8
  734. 8
  735. 8
  736. 8
  737. 8
  738. 8
  739. 8
  740. 8
  741. 8
  742. 8
  743. 8
  744. 8
  745. 8
  746. 8
  747. 8
  748. 8
  749. 8
  750. 8
  751. 8
  752. 8
  753. 8
  754. 8
  755. 8
  756. 8
  757. 7
  758. 7
  759. 7
  760. 7
  761. 7
  762. 7
  763. 7
  764. 7
  765. 7
  766. 7
  767. 7
  768. 7
  769. 7
  770. 7
  771. 7
  772. 7
  773. 7
  774. "the socialist ideology is not retarded. The meta of the system is nearly perfect; it simply cannot be applied to humans." An ideology/theory that is intended to be applied to humans, but cannot be applied to humans because it doesn't take into account the nature of humans, is conceptually flawed, and therefore retarded. "humans are flawed, they are not all created equal, some are more equal than others" You cannot be more equal than something. You are either equal, or you are greater or lesser. Saying humans are not created equal is a confirmation of this.  "Some humans are more flawed than other humans." Yes, and therefore not equal in value to society as a whole. "The blame should be placed generally on the human species and specifically on the humans who try to make socialism work for humans." Blaming the human species for its inherent flaws is not really logical or of any use whatsoever. The value lies in understanding and not resenting or denying the nature of humans and logically deducing that socialism, in the context of practically applying it to humans, does not function (you alluded to this and I agree). Something that only works theoretically is valueless to human beings. Something that does not function practically is something that is retarded, i.e. a diminution or hindrance to humans, especially if it is not universally accepted that it is impractical, and continues to be applied in nature by idiotic humans. I appreciate your argument. It was well structured and lucid.
    7
  775. 7
  776. 7
  777. 7
  778. 7
  779. 7
  780. 7
  781. 7
  782. 7
  783. 7
  784. 7
  785. 7
  786. 7
  787. 7
  788. 7
  789. 7
  790. 7
  791. 7
  792. 7
  793. 7
  794. 7
  795. @Spring Bloom: All you've basically said is that you don't like him as a person, which is what everyone's problem is with him. You're treating the presidency like a personality contest instead of a competence contest. If you think he's such a boorish fool, how can you simultaneously think he isn't compromising America's dignity with all that "really stupid shit" he's saying all the time? Many great presidents have had difficult and even unpalatable personalities, including John Adams. It sounds to me like you dislike him personally, but lack the wisdom and humility to separate personality from performance. You can't really bring yourself to fully denounce his performance, because you know that's a losing argument. So instead you just insult his personality, dismiss the job he's doing as merely non-cataclysmic, and try to blackpill everyone with forecasts of doom and gloom. I've met so many people like you. Trump's personality is irrelevant. Action is what is important. His platform and his ability and likelihood to deliver on his promises is what is important. Obama came into office thinking he could do no wrong, did nothing of note and was praised, and has left office probably thinking he will be canonized. Trump is a narcissist, and envy is his motivation. He envies others and he wants them to envy him. He wants to be the best president in history so everyone loves and envies him. That is what narcissism is about: envy. So I don't really care that Trump's motivations are based on that aspiration, so long as the result of his actions mean a better America with a more prosperous population.
    7
  796. 7
  797. 7
  798. 7
  799. 7
  800. 7
  801. 7
  802. 7
  803. 7
  804. 7
  805. 7
  806. 7
  807. 7
  808. 7
  809. 7
  810. 7
  811. 7
  812. 7
  813. 7
  814. 7
  815. 7
  816. 7
  817. 7
  818. 7
  819. 7
  820. 7
  821. 7
  822. 7
  823. 7
  824. 7
  825. 7
  826. 7
  827. 7
  828. 7
  829. 7
  830. 7
  831. 7
  832. 7
  833. 7
  834. 7
  835. 7
  836. 7
  837. 7
  838. 7
  839. 7
  840. 7
  841. 7
  842. 7
  843. 7
  844. 7
  845. 7
  846. 7
  847. 7
  848. 7
  849. 7
  850. 7
  851. 7
  852. 7
  853. 7
  854. 7
  855. 7
  856. 7
  857. 7
  858. 7
  859. 7
  860. 7
  861. 7
  862. 7
  863. 7
  864. 7
  865. 7
  866. 7
  867. 7
  868. 7
  869. 7
  870. 7
  871. 7
  872. 7
  873. 7
  874. 7
  875. 7
  876. 7
  877. 7
  878. 7
  879. 7
  880. 7
  881. 7
  882. 7
  883. 7
  884. 7
  885. 7
  886. 7
  887. 7
  888. 7
  889. 7
  890. 7
  891. 7
  892. 7
  893. 7
  894. 7
  895. 7
  896. 7
  897. 7
  898. 7
  899. Denial and fear. Two phenomena which are intrinsically linked. Denial is essentially just fear in disguise. Civcvcks and lolberts both willfully ignore or deny highly likely probabilities and objectively observable realities regarding demography. They willfully ignore or deny the obvious correlation between race, ethnicity, culture and political worldview and what mass nonwhite migration means for our political, cultural, and racial destiny. This type of obstinate stubbornness and denial generally only occurs when people fear the consequences and stigma of openly admitting and accepting reality, whether real or imagined, that follow the abandonment of their dogma and desired perception of reality. Denying reality in the face of danger and fear is the trademark of the cowardly and weak. It is the mentality of the slave. As Alexander Hamilton said: “the nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one.” What keeps the mythical notion that civic nationhood is viable (or even nationhood at all) is fear and denial. Fear and denial of abandoning the Big Lie which states ideas and values are not only enough to define a nation but what defines Western civilization and are responsible for our success. Fear of what widespread abandonment of civic nationalism would lead to: an intense and possibly destructive rebirth and reorganization of humanity into actual nations…groupings based on inelastic, material, and unifying qualities instead of pliable, conceptual, and dividable ideas. Fear and denial that this correction is monumentally necessary for our survival and our preferred way of life. Civic nationalism is not nationalism, it is a stopgap used to placate cowardly denialists. It represents little more than a slightly slower death kneel for Western civilization and its steward, the European race.
    7
  900. 7
  901. 7
  902. 7
  903. 7
  904. 7
  905. 7
  906. 7
  907. 7
  908. 7
  909. 7
  910. 7
  911. @Count Jimbo: There was a CIA National Intelligence Estimate that came out in 2002. The Dems insisted on it before giving the okay to invade Iraq. That report held that the Iraqis had the makings of a nuclear program, which was false. That report held that the Iraqis had chemical weapons, which was false. That report held that the Iraqis had biological weapons, which was false. The fact there there were some in the intelligence community that knew it was bullshit is irrelevant, as the majority said they had those weapons and went along with the company line. If was not just a few Bush cronies, it was THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CIA. US intel wanted to destroy Iraq because it was convenient to their Zionist "peacekeeping" mission in the Middle East i.e. laying waste to the controlling regime of any functional nation that poses a possible future threat to Israel and turning that nation into a chaotic hellscape. Bush complied, as it would make his cronies some money, and they unleashed the ZOG war machine. The intel was falsified then, and it's falsified now. Russia did nothing of note to sway the election. US intel is only trying to protect the ZOG globalist establishment from Trump at this point, because he wants to weaken and expose them. The Dems flip flop on their views all the time whenever it's convenient to their narrative. They used to distrust the MSM, now they trust them because they're telling them what they want to hear. They use to distrust the US intel community, now they trust them because they're telling them what they want to hear. They used to distrust the censorship, now they trust it. They used to distrust moralism, now they are the moralists. They used to distrust the establishment, now they are the establishment. If it weren't for double standards, the Left would have no standards at all.
    7
  912. 7
  913. 7
  914. 7
  915. 7
  916. 7
  917. 7
  918. 7
  919. 7
  920. 6
  921. 6
  922. I don't hate you, I feel sorry for your sanctimonious arrogance. You speak only the truth of your own perception, which is no more than an opinion. You don't know what will happen to your soul when your mortal flesh perishes, so don't propose to know what will happen to mine. I hold that all Abrahamic faiths are false foreign proselytizing desert creeds that have perverted and diseased the souls of men for ages, making them do sick and twisted things in the name of their god. I don't think there is some omniscient, omnipotent being. Such a being would drown in its own wisdom. The Bible was written by mortal men, crafted to keep men controlled, fearing death and the wrath of their god's tyrannical judgments. The Bible teaches you to hate your own instincts. It's a guidebook on how not to survive in nature. Your hero is someone who willingly sacrificed himself, was nailed to a cross, and died in horrible agony, and you claim it a victory. Your dogma espouses masochistic love for wallowing and despair. It is a religion for slaves, beggars and weaklings, for sheep being lead by their shepherds to slaughter. It drips with morbidity, humility, and grief. Contrarily, I hold that nature, in its many glorious and beautiful forms, has eternally existed. The Allfather, Óðinn, is merely the king of a godly race of beings. Óðinn is seen as an archetype of wisdom, battle, death, and healing. His son, Þórr would be the Son of the Allfather, and is an archetype of strength, protection and masculinity. This of course, is simply my narcissistic humor, but is not seen as blasphemous in my faith. I aspire to emulate Þórr in the way I live my life. My gods admire men that dare confront power. Such a man is a natural confederate of the gods, for my gods love audacious spirits. My faith allows for the worship of other worldly gods, and does not terrorize others into conformity with lies of eternal Hellfire and damnation. Go and preach elsewhere, zealot. Your false truths only work on the stupid and the weak. Stupidity and weakness are sins in the eyes of my gods.
    6
  923. 6
  924. 6
  925. 6
  926. 6
  927. 6
  928. 6
  929. 6
  930. 6
  931. 6
  932. 6
  933. 6
  934. 6
  935. 6
  936. 6
  937. 6
  938. 6
  939. 6
  940. 6
  941. 6
  942. 6
  943. 6
  944. 6
  945. 6
  946. 6
  947. 6
  948. 6
  949. 6
  950. 6
  951. 6
  952. 6
  953. 6
  954. 6
  955. 6
  956. 6
  957. 6
  958. 6
  959. Again, you are wrong, Dan. They were compelled to implement large social welfare systems because they gained wealth and prosperity from capitalism, diversified their economies, and implemented social programs that were somewhat sustainable IN THOSE COUNTRIES FOR A TIME. All they are doing currently is enjoying the fruits of prior prosperity and deferring an unsustainable future to the next generation. It is deferred gratification. They enjoy social programs now while the system gets increasingly unsustainable, government gets increasingly more inept and burdensome, and more and more idiotic fiscal and immigration policies are implemented with no regard for future outcomes. A socialist like system is only a "healthy mix" if ALL THINGS REMAIN CONSTANT, and at that point the system must revert back the fiscal sanity and less socialism. Of course things aren't remaining constant in Europe and many of these countries will decline because of their retarded social, immigration, and border policies. You obviously have a very myopic and simplistic understanding of this. Just because something works in Sweden or Canada does not mean it can be applied in the U.S. and be sustainable. The U.S. federal government spends massively on social programs as it is. 91% of the mandatory budget and 21% of the discretionary budget in 2015 (About 2/3 of the total annual budget of 3.8 trillion dollars, or 2.53 trillion/year). The U.S. has a larger population than the top 15 social welfare spending states COMBINED. (France, Finland, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Greece, Germany, Norway, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Netherlands, Luxembourg). Educate yourself, FFS. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
    6
  960. 6
  961. 6
  962. 6
  963. 6
  964. 6
  965. 6
  966. 6
  967. 6
  968. 6
  969. 6
  970. 6
  971. 6
  972. 6
  973. 6
  974. 6
  975. 6
  976. 6
  977. 6
  978. 6
  979. 6
  980. 6
  981. 6
  982. 6
  983. 6
  984. 6
  985. 6
  986. 6
  987. 6
  988. 6
  989. 6
  990. 6
  991. 6
  992. 6
  993. 6
  994. 6
  995. 6
  996. 6
  997. 6
  998. 6
  999. 6
  1000. 6
  1001. 6
  1002. 6
  1003. 6
  1004. 6
  1005. 6
  1006. 6
  1007. 6
  1008. 6
  1009. 6
  1010. 6
  1011. 6
  1012. 6
  1013. 6
  1014. 6
  1015. 6
  1016. 6
  1017. 6
  1018. 6
  1019. 6
  1020. 6
  1021. 6
  1022. 6
  1023. 6
  1024. 6
  1025. 6
  1026. 6
  1027. 6
  1028. 6
  1029. 6
  1030. 6
  1031. 6
  1032. 6
  1033. 6
  1034. 6
  1035. 6
  1036. 6
  1037. 6
  1038. 6
  1039. 6
  1040. 6
  1041. 6
  1042. 6
  1043. 6
  1044. 6
  1045. 6
  1046. 6
  1047. 6
  1048. 6
  1049. 6
  1050. 6
  1051. 6
  1052. 6
  1053. 6
  1054. 6
  1055. 6
  1056. 6
  1057. 6
  1058. 6
  1059. 6
  1060. 6
  1061. 6
  1062. 6
  1063. 6
  1064. 6
  1065. 6
  1066. 6
  1067. 6
  1068. 6
  1069. 6
  1070. 6
  1071. 6
  1072. 6
  1073. 6
  1074. 6
  1075. eggsandwich8885 ChaosSwissroll pretty much said it all, but consider that if you are a Hispanic and a fiscal conservative, you are in the minority. Pew Research has suggested that around 80% of Hispanics in the U.S. want the government to be larger and more involved with their lives. Also consider that I shouldn't have to "reach out" to any Hispanics that are here illegally in this country. How can someone whose first action in this country was an illegal act be trusted? Those that are here legally should understand what this country was built upon republican government and liberty and that is why it is great. They should also realize why Latin America is fucked: because Latin American countries always regress back to socialism. Within a decade of Pinochet stepping down in Chile, there were Marxists in control again. The first thing they did was allow mass immigration because they figured all those immigrant votes would keep them in power. Disproportionate use of our social programs is also a problem. Many of our systems are now completely unsustainable because of mass Hispanic immigration. 68% of Medical recipients are Hispanic. Here's the bottom line. If you truly care about republicanism, small government and liberty, you will realize that Hispanic immigration is a threat to that. You should want to maintain a White majority, despite you not being White. The reason I promote a White majority is because even high average IQ immigrant groups like East Asians vote overwhelmingly for the Left. Basically, the vast majority of non-White groups vote overwhelmingly for the Left all around the Western world, and their kids tend to be even more likely to be left-wing. You have to understand that if this country becomes any more blue, there is a tipping point, after which it will essentially become a one-party state. That tipping point is Texas. If we lose Texas (which will happen as more young Hispanic immigrants become voters) it is over. The same thing is happening all over the West, which is the real reason there is so much anti-immigrant sentiment. Immigrants are destroying the ability of White/European people from being in control of our own destiny. They are the pawns of the Left, and it's frankly much more feasible to exclude them rather than hope that we can acculturate them before they vote for the destruction of our way of life.
    6
  1076. 6
  1077. 6
  1078. 6
  1079. 6
  1080. 6
  1081. @Joel Thorsen:  People being bombed is not Darwinism in action my friend. You could make that argument of people being shot in a movie theatre by a terrorist, maybe, if they didn't fight back or try to protect themselves and just accept being slaughtered. But people that are bombed have no way of really preventing it. Your claim is akin to saying that the death of a person that gets sniped from 1000 yards away is "Darwinism in action."  In the modern world, you can be the most lethal and cognizant of individuals and still be killed from afar or be taken by surprise. That is why bombing something is cowardly in many ways, not only because innocents are killed, but it leaves no opportunity for anyone to defend themselves from the aggressor and kill them. If the government decided to conduct a drone strike on your house and end your existence, would you blame yourself and say that was "Darwinism in action?" No. That is not natural selection. Having more respect for a foreign terrorist than your fellow Westerners? That is pathetic. You may find popular society just as distasteful as I do, but that doesn't mean I value a brainwashed cowardly foreigner that runs a truck into innocent civilians more than I value my own fellow countrymen. I think you have been demoralized and have forgotten how many people in this country are still worthy of your support. It shows; you say "most of you" as if you actually know the worldviews and sentiments of the majority of the people on this thread. You don't. Stop peddling blackpills. It is not constructive or beneficial to your cause in any way. If you don't want to win hearts and minds, you don't actually want to make society a better place for our children, and are likely of no value to anyone other than perhaps yourself. Given how demoralized you are, I wonder if you're even of any value to yourself.
    6
  1082. ​ @austinbyrd4164  You're a "hardcore conservative," but you can't possibly entertain the notion that the election was subverted? Have you been living under a rock for the last five years? There has never been a person that the deep state and their institutional allies have so blatantly attempted to subvert, and the crazy thing is that Trump only mildly threatened their power. If a real nationalist came into power, they would immediately assassinate him or enact a coup to remove him from power. Ironically, the whole Russia thing was an example of their subversion against him. Even though the narrative has been disproven and was even revealed as a blatant attempt to illegally spy on and subvert his campaign, people still push the narrative. There were several multimillion dollar investigations to conjure up some excuse to remove him. There were multiple impeachment attempts, one of which he was charged with a "crime" that is not even a statutory law, and one in which he wasn't even in office anymore. Both the number of impeachment attempts and attempting to impeach a President after he is out of office are both unprecedented in U.S. history. As for the 2020 election, you had the first election in U.S. history that conveniently occurred during a "pandemic" caused by a virus released by our greatest economic rivals who just so happen to be economically and politically in bed with the deep state and the elite. You had an unprecedented amount of mail-in ballots as a result, a method of voting that clearly favors urban voters and is largely banned in all somewhat functional countries in the world. You had every single state legislature held by Dems in a swing state deliberately and unconstitutionally relaxing their verification standards at the 11th hour and using the pandemic as an excuse. You had hundreds of examples of election protocol being breached. "Broken pipes" and counting votes at 4am in Atlanta. You had several different states refusing to even call their results WEEKS after the election was over and they all magically turned blue in that time. And in the aftermath, you had big tech and the media censoring anyone who so much as questioned the results. Nothing to see here. Totally clean election, right? You moron. Open your eyes.
    6
  1083. 6
  1084. 6
  1085. 6
  1086. 6
  1087. 6
  1088. 6
  1089. 6
  1090. 6
  1091. 6
  1092. 6
  1093. 6
  1094. 6
  1095. 6
  1096. 6
  1097. 6
  1098. 6
  1099. 6
  1100. 6
  1101. 6
  1102. 6
  1103. 6
  1104. 6
  1105. 6
  1106. 6
  1107. 6
  1108. 6
  1109. 5
  1110. 5
  1111. 5
  1112. 5
  1113. 5
  1114. 5
  1115. 5
  1116. 5
  1117. 5
  1118. 5
  1119. 5
  1120. 5
  1121. 5
  1122. 5
  1123. 5
  1124. 5
  1125. @ 4Clubs: the funny thing is that I don't even reject war for the reasons most people do. I'm not a pacifist, and honestly I probably value human life less than the average person. I actually think a lot of people deserve to die. I reject egalitarianism and cultural and moral relativism; not all people, cultures, and moral value systems are equal. Not even close. That being said I don't really give a fuck how other cultures want to act or behave in their own countries. That is their problem, as long as they leave me and my countrymen alone and don't try to subject us to their shitty customs. I simply see war as irrational and perverse now that I truly see it for what it is and not through the lens of a glory-seeker or a world policeman. War is wasteful, fiscally insane, and usually causes more harm than good. It allows corporate entities and their puppet governments to profit while American taxpayers fund it and American plebs go out and get slaughtered "serving their country." Such a tired lie. It's really becoming cringeworthy. War has generally served to denigrate our reputation more than it has strengthened it on the world stage, and constant neolib/neocon warmongering has generally made all aspects of foreign policy more difficult for us. Almost every war our country has partaken in since WWII has been unpopular with the U.S. public...and why? Because we weren't attacked by any of these countries we turned into slaughterhouses. You would think the U.S. would learn its lesson and let others take the lead in some of these conflicts, but apparently there is just too much money and power in it to risk someone fighting their own fucking war for once. I say let Israel fight its own wars in the Middle East. Fuck Israel. Let the Koreans unify their own peninsula. Fuck Korea as well. I just don't want the U.S. to go to war unless we are attacked by a sovereign state and Congress declares war. Then we go and absolutely obliterate that nation, eat cornflakes out of their skulls, and make necklaces out of their teeth. I give zero fucks. I just think that all of these proxy conflicts are unconstitutional in all actuality, which is why they need to call them "police actions" or some such horseshit. Yeah, Vietnam...a "police action"...56,000 young Americans died there and countless more are completely mentally fucked up for life because of their experiences there. But hey, who am I to say...just a jaded and bitter Bush-era vet...lol
    5
  1126. 5
  1127. 5
  1128. 5
  1129. 5
  1130. 5
  1131. 5
  1132. 5
  1133. 5
  1134. 5
  1135. 5
  1136. 5
  1137. 5
  1138. 5
  1139. 5
  1140. 5
  1141. 5
  1142. 5
  1143. 5
  1144. 5
  1145. 5
  1146. 5
  1147. 5
  1148. 5
  1149. 5
  1150. 5
  1151. 5
  1152. 5
  1153. 5
  1154. @ Nicholas: Indeed it is. Sometimes I question my own sanity, and wonder if I'm just a masochist, always researching things that are the clearest detriments of White culture, nations, institutions, legacy, exceptionalism, etc. as well as those that are responsible for said detriments. Know thy enemy, is the purpose, I suppose. But the sad (and maddening) truth is that I find Jews in nearly every corner and crevice as both the engineers and facilitators of our decline. I'm not even surprised to see this pattern anymore, I almost expect it. It's almost refreshing to find someone who isn't a Jew that is deliberately trying to fuck over European White civilization. My research started as an attempt to prove the conspiracy wrong. Then when I realized it was true, I began trying to advance that narrative by cherry picking (dishonest, I know, but at least I'm coming clean now). But then I realized...I didn't even need to cherry pick. It's just a pattern that can't be denied. They are such a small overall percentage of the population. There is just no other explanation. Eugene there made a really good point though actually: "If the anti-ZOG brigade spent as much time forming strong tribes of their own as they do bitching on the internet that the other team are cheating, they'd be able to resist just fine." This is very true. The first step is the convince yourself and others of this distasteful reality though. The aptly named "red-pilling" on the topic of the JQ.
    5
  1155. 5
  1156. 5
  1157. 5
  1158. 5
  1159. 5
  1160. 5
  1161. 5
  1162. 5
  1163. 5
  1164.  @thurin84  Only a halfwit couldn't fathom how they are opposed. Nationalism v. internationalism. Ethno-separatist v. ethno-integrationist. Essentialist v. non-essentialist. Hierarchical v. egalitarian. One emphasizes and celebrates class, race, ethnicity, religion, culture and tradition. The other attempts to demonize and destroy those things. These ^^ are not minor differences, which is why fascists hate communists and vice versa. So you're either dumb or you're playing dumb. I'm guessing the latter, because you have already lied once, saying I strawmanned your position and then taking up that same position only moments later. So tell me how the Kingdom of Spain was not collectivist. Tell me how it was leftist. Lol your desperate arguments will amuse me. The fact that not every kingdom in history was collectivist is irrelevant. The point is that collectivism and authoritarianism are not exclusive to leftism, which is what you implied and what idiots like Tarl say all time. You think you're giving me a history lesson, but you sound like a novice. I think you vastly overestimate your knowledge and abilities. You're like a Dunning Kruger poster child. NatSoc is vastly different than Marxist state socialism. The only people who conflate them are either simpletons (who can only understand political concepts if they are reductive and lack nuance) or liars who do so for political expediency (to either insulate themselves from accusations or to demonize their political enemies). Either way, people who make this argument deserve to be mocked. You think I'm unaware that Mussolini was a member of the Italian Socialist Party? That's common knowledge. It's also irrelevant. There are plenty of ardent nationalists and even lolberts who were once socialists. Your arguments are tired and weak. Classic cvckservstive Boomer-tier lolbert nonsense.
    5
  1165. 5
  1166. 5
  1167. 5
  1168. 5
  1169. 5
  1170. 5
  1171. @Hunter Zoloman: "He is a ruthless capitalist business man" >the majority of people who have worked for Trump have said he truly cares for his workers. I didn't believe it either, but I've seen a lot of testimonials. Maybe they just didn't want to get fired or get a bad reference, but either way, that doesn't mean he doesn't care about minorities. I also don't see how sexism fits into that argument. "Now i don't know if he is racist or not" >No one ever accused Donald Trump of racism before he ran for President as a Republican and made statements about some illegal immigrants being rapists, murderers and drug dealers, which some are. He has also been called a racist by some Blacks because of his comments about the "Central Park 5," participation in the Obama birther campaign, the alleged shithole comments etc. However, Trump was lauded by the Black community for his work with Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow/Push coalition before he went into politics. He was close with Oprah as well and was on her show many times. https://youtu.be/J5lcART6TTE "Also saying that because america is 40 percent minorities means trump cares about them is like saying that the higher incaceration of blacks in the prison system is due to racism." >I fail to see the relationship between the two. You said Trump cares about America, but not about minorities. Trump cannot care for America as a whole if he only cares for the 60% of its population that is White. "I am more likely to believe ron paul cares about ppl that trump cause he seems more moral." >Ron Paul is a great guy, but he's 82 years old. He'll never be President.
    5
  1172. 5
  1173. 5
  1174. 5
  1175. 5
  1176. 5
  1177. 5
  1178. 5
  1179. 5
  1180. 5
  1181. 5
  1182. 5
  1183. 5
  1184. 5
  1185. 5
  1186. 5
  1187. 5
  1188. 5
  1189. 5
  1190. 5
  1191. 5
  1192. 5
  1193. 5
  1194. I've been arguing that the mainstream are the real "radicals" and "extremists" for over a decade now. A radical or extremist is someone who diverges from fundamental or foundational principles, laws, values, culture, etc. People on the Right are generally not trying to diverge from foundational or fundamental American principles, laws, values, and culture; we are trying to promote and preserve those things. In reality, it is the liberal/leftist/globalist hegemony that is diverging from our foundational national principles, and they are bringing half the population with them. To insulate themselves from being exposed for what they truly are, they project (falsely accuse us of the behavior in which they are truly engaging) and gaslight us (psychologically manipulate us into questioning our own understanding of reality) by calling us the radicals and extremists. Meanwhile, they continue to normalize more and more radical and extreme forms of their own ideology. Think about how they mainstream and celebrate open Marxists, far-left criminals and terrorists, and nonwhite racial/ethno separatists and identitarians. The same is true of the way this liberal/leftist/globalist hegemony frames "radicalism" and "extremism" in Islam. Muslims who are routinely characterized as "radicals" and "extremists" are actually fundamentalists who are following a literal interpretation of their scripture. They aren't trying to diverge from the foundational principles, laws, values, and culture of Islam; they are trying to revive and preserve those things. Muslims who try to diverge from fundamental Islam are the real radicals, and they receive fatwahs from the Islamic establishment for their troubles. The liberal/leftist/globalist hegemony frames members of ALL OTHER religions who are conservative and traditionalist as "fundamentalists." This linguistic propaganda and psychological projection is designed to create an inverted false reality wherein the fundamentalists are the extremists are the extremists are the fundamentalists, when the opposite is objectively true. The reason they do this is to aid in concealing something's true nature. For themselves, it is to hide that fact that they are definitively the radicals. With Islam, it is to hide the true nature of fundamental Islam and its incompatibility with their liberal/leftist/globalist agenda.
    5
  1195. 5
  1196. 5
  1197. 5
  1198. 5
  1199. 5
  1200. 5
  1201. 5
  1202. 5
  1203. 5
  1204. 5
  1205. 5
  1206. 5
  1207. ​ @markzuckergecko621  The whole "not all" (correlation doesn't equal causation) argument is kind of lowbrow when talking about group characteristics if you really think about it, because how is anyone supposed to address group characteristics without generalizing? When a person makes generalizations about a group, it's usually assumed that they aren't talking about that entire group as if it's a collective entity. The only people who constantly nitpick whenever a generalization is made are those who are trying to deny some group characteristic even exists (or minimize it as something that's irrelevant). Jordan Peterson often says something like "well, men are more assertive" and the feminist interviewer will instinctually respond with "wELL nOT aLL mEn aRe aSseRtiVe!" Obviously, JP was not intending to say that all men are more assertive than women. He's saying men are more assertive in general, and that this personality trait produces outcome disparity. And here's the thing: the feminist interviewer KNOWS he's not saying making an absolute statement. She's just trying to deny the fact that there are differences between men and women because it undermines feminist narratives about equality and discrimination. This carries over to statements made about ]evvs. When people are saying "]evvs control Hollyweird," they aren't saying that all ]evvs have control over Hollyweird or that everyone with any power in Hollyweird is a ]evv. They're simply saying that in general, Hollywood is controlled by members of this group.
    5
  1208. 5
  1209. 5
  1210. @ 6gorillion: Blacks should still vote Republican. There was no takeover and Southern Dems were RINOs federally. Eisenhower won a lot of the Southern states before the CRA was even proposed, and the only reason the Republicans became popular in the South was because Goldwater opposed the CRA and was nominated as the Republican candidate in 1964. That was a complete diversion in Republican politics, and people do not just change their entire ideology on race overnight. That narrative is preposterous. The vast majority of state and local governments in the South remained Democrat from the reconstruction period until well after the Civil Rights movement. The governor of Mississippi was a Democrat from 1872 to 1988. The governor of Louisiana was a Democrat from 1887 to 1980. Alabama: 1874 to 1987. Georgia: 1872-2003. South Carolina: 1876 to 1979.  Even Texas: 1874 to 1979. Most other Southern "red" states follow the same pattern, more or less. The Republicans did not change their allegiances and agenda after the Emancipation Proclamation. They have been responsible for the vast majority of Civil Rights reform in this country up to and after 1964, when the Democrats finally threw Blacks a bone and claimed responsibility. You've all been chewing on that bone ever since, too generally short of memory to recall that the Democrats were responsible for the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, and the vast majority of resistance to civil rights legislation. Dems successfully deceived Black America by claiming responsibility for emancipating Blacks via the 1964 CRA, and then LBJ, a racist Southern Democrat subhuman, enslaved them again with the Great Society only a few years later. Blacks are generally more socially conservative than Whites. They only vote Democrat because they had been pandered and lied to for decades with identity politics, race baiting, and enslavement via welfare dependence and other detrimental left-wing policies. Meanwhile, Black America, under nearly unilateral Democratic leadership at the state and local level for the past 60 years, is still a total embarrassment, and is in many ways is worse off than it was before the Civil Rights Act. I don't think that is coincidental.
    5
  1211. 5
  1212. 5
  1213. 5
  1214. 5
  1215. 5
  1216. 5
  1217. 5
  1218. 5
  1219. 5
  1220. 5
  1221. @Alexandra: Even separatism is not really necessary, IMO. Jared Taylor is labelled a Nazi by the corrupt Leftist media, and he is for completely free association between races. If people want to live amongst their own, that should be their right. Tribal separatism occurs naturally for the most part anyways. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as a "White" or "Black" neighborhood. There should be no societal stigma or government intervention in people's rights to associate. The government should eliminate racial quotas, federally sanctioned discrimination and install a system of absolute merit-based selection. The key with historically White nations is to nurture and legalize an environment that allows for a White majority to exist in perpetuity. Mexico will remain perpetually ethnic Hispanic per their Constitution. Mexico denies entry to immigrates should they upset the "equilibrium of the national demographics." This means repealing the Hart-Cellar Act and replacing it with a Joshson-Reed style immigration quota, which is not racist or xenophobic as the globalist Left hegemony would have us believe, it is sane and in our best interest as Americans, and that includes minorities that are already here. This also means finally securing our fucking borders and deporting all illegal immigrants. This also means revising the 14th amendment so that only citizens can bear citizen children, and illegals cannot. This also means drastically retracted if not reversed the welfare state in its entirety. This will disincentivize irresponsible breeding amongst minorities and the poor. This also means ratifying a constitutional amendment that ensures demographic integrity and equilibrium in the U.S. will be kept intact, lest our country be overrun by cultures that do not espouse our national and cultural values.
    5
  1222. 5
  1223. 5
  1224. 5
  1225. 5
  1226. 5
  1227. 5
  1228. 5
  1229. 5
  1230. 5
  1231. 5
  1232. 5
  1233. 5
  1234. 5
  1235. 5
  1236. 5
  1237. 5
  1238. 5
  1239. 5
  1240. 5
  1241. 5
  1242. 5
  1243. 5
  1244. 5
  1245. 5
  1246. 5
  1247. 5
  1248. 5
  1249. 5
  1250. 5
  1251. 5
  1252. 5
  1253. 5
  1254. 5
  1255. 5
  1256. 5
  1257. 5
  1258. 5
  1259. 5
  1260. 5
  1261. 5
  1262. 5
  1263. 5
  1264. 5
  1265. 5
  1266. 5
  1267. 5
  1268. 5
  1269. 5
  1270. 5
  1271. 5
  1272. 5
  1273. 5
  1274. 5
  1275. 5
  1276. 5
  1277. 5
  1278. 5
  1279. 5
  1280. 5
  1281. 5
  1282. 5
  1283. 5
  1284. 5
  1285. 5
  1286. 5
  1287. 5
  1288. 5
  1289. 5
  1290. 5
  1291. 5
  1292. 5
  1293. 5
  1294. 5
  1295. 5
  1296. 5
  1297. 5
  1298. 5
  1299. 5
  1300. 5
  1301. 5
  1302. 5
  1303. 5
  1304. 5
  1305. 5
  1306. @Chrysopoeia Seeker That's a strawman argument my friend, because most of us here did not even argue expressly for separatism i.e forced repatriation of all non-Dutch. Also, how many non-Dutch constitute the so-called "assimilated" or "non-problematic" groups you mentioned? 2%? 3%? Less? If Sikhs were the only group anyone paid attention to in the UK, far less people would be concerned about demographic replacement. Sikhs are largely are not trying to undermine British culture and replace it with their own, but they are a rare exception and a model immigrant group, just like the groups you mentioned. They also constitute only a tiny part of the ethnic non-Euro invasion of Western nations, just like the groups you mentioned. Even so, if 80% of the population of the UK was Sikh, Britain would not be Britain in any meaningful sense anymore. The globalists push cultural and racial relativism/egalitarianism which argues human groups are the same and are therefore interchangeable, which is not only idiotic and arrogant, but the result of such thinking generally ends with chaos, catastrophe, ethnic conflict and even genocide. Genetic replacement equals ethnic replacement. Ethnic replacement equals cultural replacement. Cultural replacement equals national replacement. Therefore, genetic replacement equals national replacement. The globalists understand this, but have strategically conned many into believing racial/cultural egalitarianism. Their agenda runs much more smoothly when Euros are duped into believing their lies and will help them enforce social taboos on anyone with the spine to speak these truths. But it's no easier convincing them that only certain groups are allowed than it is to convince them that NONE should be allowed. Both positions are framed as evil. So arguing with a globalist is pointless, and the reason is because their agenda is to strip us of our lands and disintegrate us. Anything short of complete marginalization/disintegration will be framed as evil by these devilish people.
    5
  1307. 5
  1308. I agree that you can't have a welfare state and allow mass immigration; that should be a seemingly obvious fact even to the Left. Deportations and even a stark decrease in legal immigration would need to occur to even have a prayer for single payer. But even as it is, over 100 million people (55 million elderly and about 45 million poor and disabled people) are being subsidized by way of single payer healthcare in the U.S. Sustaining these 100 million people on Medicare and Medicaid cost the U.S. taxpayer over 1 trillion per year in 2015. The U.S. population in 2010 was 330 million, so probably more like 350 million now, plus the illegals... So, it is a conservative estimate that single payer for the entire country would cost over 3 trillion dollars per year. To put that figure into perspective, the entire federal budget in 2015 was 3.8 trillion, with 2.05 trillion coming from tax revenue. Taxes would need to increase significantly to pay for it. I want nice things too, but I fear universal healthcare is simply unsustainable in a nation of this size with such incompetent and money-squandering bureaucratic systems in charge of administering government services. I think people fail to conceptualize the vast resources necessary to sustain 330 million people on single payer healthcare. Canada does it (and their system sucks, btw) but they have about 1/10 of our population while their GDP per capita was only marginally less that the U.S. ($42,157 as opposed to $57,466). They have a way more sustainable situation, as do the majority of countries that have single payer or socialized healthcare.   https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
    5
  1309. 5
  1310. 5
  1311. 5
  1312. 5
  1313. 5
  1314. 5
  1315. 5
  1316. 5
  1317. 5
  1318. 5
  1319. 5
  1320. 5
  1321. 5
  1322. 5
  1323. 5
  1324. 5
  1325. 5
  1326. 5
  1327. 5
  1328. 5
  1329. 5
  1330. 5
  1331. 5
  1332. 5
  1333. 5
  1334. 5
  1335. 5
  1336. Joss Fitzsimons Ad hominem attack at the beginning ruled out any chance that I'll take your question or any further exchange we have seriously. But, I'll entertain you anyhow. No, for 35 years (1910-1945), there was a regional foreign country occupying Korea: the Japanese. The Korean government operated in exile from China during that period. When the U.S. defeated the Empire of Japan, Korea was liberated to ethnic Koreans, the vast majority of whom lived in the South and opposed communism. But the Soviets wanted their take in the peace negotiations, and the U.S. had to play ball. That's the only reason a unified non-communist Korean state does not exist, because the Soviets negotiated it. The U.S. occupying South Korea was a direct result of that: they knew that it was only a matter of time before the Chinese and Soviets tried to invade and subjugate the entire Korean population, and sure enough that's exactly what they did only 5 years later. The majority of the "North Korean" forces that fought against the U.S. and South Korea were Chinese nationals dressed up in North Korean uniforms. The North Koreans didn't even support communism enough to fight for it in large numbers. There was no communist insurgency in South Korea either, as there was in Vietnam (a country whose majority WANTED to be communist). The United States is the reason both Koreas are sovereign nations today. They would be controlled by other regional powers, probably Japan or China, otherwise. Koreans still hate the Japanese to this day for invading them and occupying them for those 35 years.
    5
  1337. 5
  1338. 5
  1339. 5
  1340. 5
  1341. 5
  1342. 5
  1343. 5
  1344. 5
  1345. 5
  1346. 5
  1347. 5
  1348. 5
  1349. 5
  1350. 5
  1351. 5
  1352. 5
  1353. 5
  1354. 5
  1355. 5
  1356. 5
  1357. 5
  1358. 5
  1359. 5
  1360. 5
  1361. 5
  1362. @eggsandwich: "White superiority" in a historically White European nation based on Western values (values which Whites have been the stewards of since their conception). Yeah, what exactly is wrong with that again? If you think majority-White countries are free game for the entire world to invade, while the rest of the nations of the world (including Mexico) can control their demographics without accusations of racism, you are being a hypocrite and arguably anti-White. I suggest that if non-White immigrants have such a problem living in a country controlled by Whites with a White majority, perhaps they shouldn't move to a historically White nation controlled by Whites with a White-majority. I'm not going to Mexico trying to make it something different than it is and alter their ethnic, cultural and national identity. If I did I would be seen as an enemy and a racist, because that's exactly what I would be to the Mexican people. I also never said all immigrants like socialism. Stop trying to paint my argument as an absolute. Of course there are Hispanic conservatives. There are also Whites that vote for socialism, but the numbers don't lie. Hispanics vote about 60-70% for socialism, while Whites vote ~60% for republicanism. I agree with your assessment of Islam, but exactly why do you think that so many people falsely state that you can be racist to a Muslim? Simple: because Black and brown people are the overwhelming majority of Muslims. If you exclude Black and brown people from Europe, you are simultaneously significantly decreasing the amount of Muslims in your country. Think about it. That being said, socialism and big government are also ideologies that are supported with much greater fervor in ALL Western white-majority countries by non-White immigrants. I support excluding Islam. I support excluding socialism. Quite frankly, the easiest and most effective way of doing that is to restrict non-White immigration. That might be distasteful for you to the point of you rejecting it and being cognitively dissonant, but I refuse to ignore the connection.
    5
  1363. 5
  1364. 5
  1365. 5
  1366. 5
  1367. 5
  1368. 5
  1369. 5
  1370. 5
  1371. 5
  1372. 5
  1373. 5
  1374. 5
  1375. 5
  1376. 5
  1377. 5
  1378. 5
  1379. 5
  1380. 5
  1381. 5
  1382. 5
  1383. 5
  1384. 5
  1385. 5
  1386. 5
  1387. 5
  1388. @ Christian:  That really depends on your definition of totalitarian. That term gets thrown around even when discussing democratic processes, border security, and even valid enforcement of laws these days. Either way, a perpetually White-majority state can be maintained without totalitarianism if these things are accomplished.  1.) Secure the borders. 2.) Deport all illegals, regardless of details. 3.) Those caught illegally entering the country more than once are banned from the country for life. If they return, they are immediately imprisoned and deported after release.  4.) Revise the 14th Amendment to state that at least one parent must be an American citizen and both parents must be legally present in the country to bear a natural-born citizen. 5.) Repeal the insane and disastrous Hart-Cellar Act. 6.) Pass another Johnson-Reed style Act that is sane and reasonable. 7.) Ratify a constitutional amendment that guarantees demographic equilibrium insofar as it may be controlled via immigration policy, similar to the immigration policy of Mexico.  8.) Drastically cut the welfare state to only those that are legally present and either: needy, disabled, or elderly in an effort to disincentivize irresponsible breeding among low income groups of all races.  9.) Ban immigration and travel from nations whose governments foster terrorism and/or an official anti-Western sentiment.  10.) Identify nations that currently espouse cultural values that are incompatible with our own and ban immigration from these nations. 11.) Ensure that refugees are in fact refugees before admittance, and dually ensure that they are not allowed citizenship and are returned to their home country when it is reasonably safe for them to do so.  12.) Install harsher penalties for tax evasion, welfare fraud, social security fraud, hiring illegal workers, overstaying a visa, etc.   13.) Drastically cut the H2B visa program. 14.) Make it illegal for foreign nationals to own real estate in the U.S. 15.) Stop warmongering in the Third World, destabilizing countries, and subsidizing mass migration of incompatible cultures into majority-White countries.  16.) Pass an act banning multiculturalism from ever becoming an official policy, adopting English as the official language, and banning the adoption of any other official language.  17.) Cut ESL programs in our public schools. Disincentivize non-English speakers from immigrating to the U.S.  18.) Decriminalize drugs to financially cripple the cartels. 19.) Install draconian penalties for human trafficking.  20.) Pass a law that requires a legal visa to attend any state-funded institution of education in the United States.  That's about all I can think of right now. Can you think of any you'd like to add or any that you don't agree with?
    5
  1389. 5
  1390. 5
  1391. 5
  1392. 5
  1393. 5
  1394. ​ @alexrandrerx3809  "Sure, it would be a hostile state" Ummm...yeah, so why would the Russian government want to allow the US/NATO to create a NATO client state on their border that is 1.) politically/economically hostile to Russia and 2.) has the real potential to become a regional power? The Russian government does not want the US/NATO meddling in their sphere of influence. They don't want the US/NATO setting us client states on their border any more than our government would want Russia to set up a Russian client state on the American border (which they are not doing, btw). So basically, you just answered your own question ("what does it matter if Ukraine is in NATO?") and proved why Styx (and you) are wrong. Furthermore, you're wrong about Russia's intentions. They don't want to annex/incorporate all of Ukraine into Russia as they did with Crimea. The rest of Ukraine they just want to suppress the pro-NATO elements, dominate the government and have Ukraine serve as a client buffer state between them and NATO, similar to Belarus and Georgia. That is what Ukraine essentially was from 1991-2004, before the U.S./CIA/NATO sponsored a color revolution and installed a pro-Western government. This exact same thing happened with Georgia, which serves as a buffer state between Russia and Turkey (a NATO member). The West was trying to prime it and turn it into a NATO client state, and the Russians invaded in 2008 and reestablished it as their own client state. NATO is trying to expand, not the Russians. But when NATO tries to subvert a Russian client state, the Russians answer, and then the global liberal propaganda apparatus accuses the Russians of engaging in expansionism and unprovoked aggression. It's pure projection. Americans can be so depressingly myopic and incapable of looking at anything from a non-Western perspective. So many of us still possess this grossly hypocritical Monroe Doctrine-type worldview. We often fail (and sometimes outright refuse) to acknowledge that other governments have a legitimate right to protect their own interests, even if and when they conflict with the actions of our government (and the alliances/institutions it belongs to like NATO). You pretend like those actions are never a legitimate threat to other countries. Like our initiatives to spread our sphere of influence and power are always benevolent.
    5
  1395. 5
  1396. 5
  1397. ​ @AlphaQHard  You claim the Russians have no right to defend their own interests through military force, but I seriously doubt you would say the same thing about the U.S. if the Russian deep state was subverting countries in the U.S. sphere and turning them against U.S. interests. The last time the Russians set up a puppet state in our sphere, the U.S. government financed an invasion of that nation (Cuba). The U.S. government goes around invading sovereign nations all the time in the name of our "interests" and even on behalf of the interests of other countries. I would say it is indeed immoral, as you said. But really it's all a matter of perspective. You are the one claiming "everyone" thinks the Russians are evil, and that simply isn't the case. Now you're backtracking and saying basically "ok, well not everyone, but everyone who isn't evil thinks Russia is evil." All that really means is most people in the West think Russia is evil. So it's really just your own subjective pro-Western bias, a bias which renders you incapable of having a rational understanding of what is happening in Ukraine. That said, I'm not the one trying to rationalize anything, I'm just trying to explain to you that Russia invaded for a reason, and that reason is because our government was meddling in Ukraine and trying to expand NATO and EU influence. Biden had his crackhead son sitting on one of their state-run energy firms, FFS. Russia views our deep state's actions as hostile, and they're correct. And they aren't the only ones who view it in this way. This whole conflict was completely predictable. Academics like John Mearsheimer knew this would happen all the way back in 2015. He knew that NATO would get Ukraine wrecked just like they did with Georgia, and he knew that NATO would do nothing, because that is the entire strategy. Subvert Russian client states with pro-NATO color revolutions. Provoke the Russians to act. Demonize the Russians once they do act. Rinse and repeat.
    5
  1398. 5
  1399. 5
  1400. 5
  1401. 5
  1402. 5
  1403. 5
  1404. 5
  1405. 5
  1406. 5
  1407. 5
  1408. 5
  1409. 5
  1410. 5
  1411. 5
  1412. 5
  1413. 5
  1414. 5
  1415. 5
  1416. 5
  1417. 5
  1418. 4
  1419. 4
  1420. 4
  1421. 4
  1422. 4
  1423. 4
  1424. 4
  1425. 4
  1426. @YouReadMyName: You are correct that the American Left will continue to polarize between sane individuals and those that follow the failed doctrine of socialism. However, that is a horribly oversimplified version of the political spectrum. Communism and Fascism are both authoritarian far-Left phenomenon. They are both statism, and require totalitarian control, the opposite of which is liberty. Marx many times used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, although he also said that socialism is just the transitional phase towards to a true communist state, implying a dissimilarity of sorts. Therefore true communism has never been fully achieved in the real world, just varying adherences of socialism and the aspiration towards true communism. Mussolini was a Marxist before he developed fascism, and fascism is essentially just nationalized socialism, and in the case of Hitler, ethnocentrically nationalized socialism. Leftists/Marxists have always tried to call National Socialism "Nazism" or "fascism" to hide the truth that it is just a different form of socialism. Nazism is really just inegalitarian socialism. A more accurate example of right wing authoritarianism would be Pinochet's regime in Chile, where the economy was progressively liberalized to free market status whilst the country's population was simultaneously under the authoritarian social control of the military junta. Pinochet's regime was authoritarian, but occurred as a direct retaliation against Allende's far-left socialist form of authoritarianism. The political spectrum is better represented by Nolan's diagram, which uses an economic and social scale, or various circular political spectrums. The opposite of the statist forms of government is libertarianism or minarchism. Anarchism is not on the scale, because it represents no form of government to characterize. Classical Liberalism is the bedrock of American political consciousness. Conservatism is just the advocation to conserve classically liberal social and economic values, and not change them impertinently or without logical reason and foresight of eventualities. Because conservatives disavow brashly changing systems which already work fantastically, their views are falsely branded as authoritarianism, when in truth is the opposite (libertarianism) that they are trying to defend. Conservatives are the true guardians of liberty. That being said, Macron is not a classical liberal. He is economically a neoliberal, and socially is a welfarist/socialist like most Frenchmen. He is center-left, and would be a full Leftist if he were any less of a free market advocate. As I said, Europe is essentially moving towards full Marxist socialism, and as you'll see, socialists that want national sovereignty and show even the slightest inkling towards protectionism (Le Pen) are labeled as "far-right fascists," which is laughable. She is center-right, if not further Left. This is what the Left does to hold power in Europe. Paint anyone who is not a leftist as a far-right ideologue. Communists openly run in several European countries. This is not an accurate Overton window. It is eschewed WAY far to the Left. If Macron is a centrist, that so too is Le Pen. They are simply on slightly different ends of the spectrum socially.
    4
  1427. 4
  1428. 4
  1429. 4
  1430. 4
  1431. 4
  1432. 4
  1433. 4
  1434. 4
  1435. 4
  1436. 4
  1437. 4
  1438. 4
  1439. I agree with you that there are major 4th and 5th amendment concerns surrounding the precedent civil forfeiture sets. I also would decriminalize all drugs if it were up to me. But honestly this "debate" is less about the issue at hand and more about you just wanting to insult and spew vitriolic hate towards someone because you're full of resentment for the law. Probably because some cop stomped on your nuts and stole your weed pipe when you were a teenager because you lipped off. I hold cops accountable for their actions. Cops that kill unjustly, are corrupt, or abuse the rights of normal citizens should burn. Unfortunately, you're too low class and low IQ to refrain from making massive assumptions, insulting people, and wishing death upon people you deem to have slighted you in some way. If anyone is a fag, it's you. My friend isn't abusing his authority or anyone's rights that is of value to this country or its people. He is operating fully within his legal capacity and I find it hilarious that he is capable of seizing a drug dealer's vehicle, money whatever and using it how he deems necessary. He'll use it to bust more scum, hurt the cartels economically, and funnel money into programs that actually help people instead of cause more misery and degeneracy in this country. He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard. He was also a combat medic and saved my life while risking his own when we were in the military. He's a good man. But you...you're just a pathetic little edgelord shitposter will an inferiority complex. ;)
    4
  1440. 4
  1441. 4
  1442. 4
  1443. 4
  1444. 4
  1445. 4
  1446. 4
  1447. 4
  1448. 4
  1449. 4
  1450. 4
  1451. 4
  1452. 4
  1453. 4
  1454. 4
  1455. 4
  1456. 4
  1457. 4
  1458. 4
  1459. 4
  1460. 4
  1461. 4
  1462. 4
  1463. 4
  1464. 4
  1465. 4
  1466. 4
  1467. 4
  1468. 4
  1469. 4
  1470. 4
  1471. 4
  1472. 4
  1473. 4
  1474. 4
  1475. 4
  1476. 4
  1477. Also, Rhys. I am not saying the Jews don't have a certain cultural penchant for being successful. Henry Ford wrote about this ad nauseum. The Jews have many admirable qualities, and I would not be bitter about their disproportionate control over wealth if they used that influence to strengthen and support Western civilization and White countries, as any grateful group of immigrants would do. Instead they do the opposite, and try to destroy Western culture and demographically alter our countries at any opportunity. Two additional points here: one is that you are assuming that the methodology in which they obtained their power is entirely merit-based, which is not entirely true. "the fact of Jewish solidarity renders it difficult to measure Gentile and Jewish achievements by the same standard. When a great block of wealth in America was made possible by the lavish use of another block of wealth from across the seas; that is to say, when certain Jewish immigrants came to the United States with the financial backing of European Jewry behind them, it would be unfair to explain the rise of that class of immigration by the same rules which account for the rise of, say, the Germans or the Poles who came here with no resource but their ambition and strength. To be sure, many individual Jews come in that way, too, with no dependence but themselves, but it would not be true to say that the massive control of affairs which is exercised by Jewish wealth was won by individual initiative; it was rather the extension of financial control across the sea."  -Henry Ford. Secondly, Jews conspire together and elevate their own, just as every tribe does, but there is a societal difference...and it is that White cronyism is criticized as "White supremacy," while criticism of Jewish cronyism is called "anti-Semitism." The same goes for every ethnic group in this country besides Whites. They can be as nepotistic as they want, and we cannot. That hypocritical dichotomy is the recipe for White hegemonic  overthrow in White majority countries, and it was the Jew that engineered this tactic. Jews even say they are White when it's advantageous to them, and then define themselves as separate otherwise. So, you see, they play by different rules. In order for there to be true meritocracy, the rules need to be the same.
    4
  1478. 4
  1479. 4
  1480. 4
  1481. 4
  1482. 4
  1483. 4
  1484. 4
  1485. 4
  1486. 4
  1487. ​ @thurin84  ​ mUh sTrAwMan...mUh pRoJeCtiOn...reeee..... Yeah, that's what you said when I called you out on your "mUh fasCiSm iS LeFtiSm" idiocy. I identified your position and then you dishonestly denied it and said that's not what you meant, only to admit that's what you meant by defending that notion only moments later. Now you're saying the exact same thing: "it was leftist because it was fascist." So I guess you're just a liar. "Diametrically opposed" means completely opposite. Nationalist v. internationalist is completely the opposite, you fool. So is ethno-separatist v. ethno-integrationist and hierarchical and egalitarian. You asked how two collectivist authoritarian systems could possibly be diametrically opposed. "how can 1 collectivist authoritarian system be 'diametrically opposed' to another collectivist authoritarian system?" is what you wrote in your very primitive and uneducated manner. I listed multiple major ways in which they could, and you make no counterargument except to incorrectly attempt to claim I don't know what diametrically opposed means. Now you're saying "i nEvEr sAiD tHe diFFeReNcEs aRe miNoR." Correct; you said the differences couldn't exist at all, you deceptive worm. You're not even smart enough to lie and get away with it. All you can do is deny you said what you clearly said moments ago and then accuse me of sTraWmaNNinG you. A person that dishonest is not even worth talking to, tbh. Collectivism is not exclusive to the left. If it was, then a collectivist monarchy, which you JUST ADMITTED can exist, would be leftist by definition. The idea that some medieval collectivist monarchical state was definitively leftist is just so beyond ridiculous, it isn't even funny. You're still stuck in this Boomer-tier understanding of politics. It's so pathetic and desperate to see people like you take up this narrative. You're literally a meme of yourself. "dEmOcrAts aRe tHe rEaL rAciStS" and "nAziSm iS LeFtiSm" is practically the same thing. I think you're a complete halfwit and a liar. I know more about this topic than you'll ever know. I knew Benito Mussolini was a member of the Italian Socialist Party two decades ago. Meanwhile, you can't even spell or complete a legible sentence, let alone complete one without blatantly lying.
    4
  1488. 4
  1489. 4
  1490. 4
  1491. 4
  1492. 4
  1493. 4
  1494. 4
  1495. 4
  1496. 4
  1497. 4
  1498. 4
  1499. 4
  1500. You made no valid arguments at all, Matthew.  You based your entire evaluation of the educational system in the 1950s upon the "duck and cover nonsense?" Sound reasoning there. By the way...the Red Scare was not some paranoid delusional phenomenon, it was based upon some fairly undeniable realities at the time. McCarthy was also vindicated by the Verona Project. Read the book "Blacklisted By History" if you're interested in that...but I digress... Crime during the 1950s:   Was significantly lower in total, even when taking into consideration the infrequency of reporting, crime definitions, etc. I even used the stats from the end of the 50s, just to be fair:  *United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People in 1960: -Total Crime:  1,887.2  -Violent Crime: 160.9 -Property Crime: 1,726.3  -Rape: 9.6 -Robbery: 60.1 -Aggravated Assault: 86.1  *United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People in 2015: -Total Crime:  2,870.2 -Violent Crime: 383.2 -Property Crime: 2,487.0 -Rape: 28.1 -Robbery: 101.9 -Aggravated Assault: 237.8 The only two major categories that are less today than in 1960 are: Murder:  5.1 per 100,000 in 1960, 4.9 per 100,000 in 2015 Burglary: 508.6 per 100,000 in 1960, 491.4 per 100,000 in 2015 This is normally attributed to security measures i.e. cameras, home security systems, faster police responses, better crimefighting capabilities.  Education during the 1950s: *the US had the best educational system in the world  *there were hardly any school shootings *90% of all school levies were approved by voters *discipline problems in school were minor *Drugs did not infest American schools  Family during the 1950s: *Divorce rates were low, while marriage rates were high and people married at a younger age than at any other time in history *Only 4% of all babies were born out-of-wedlock, compared to 40% today *90% of all children grew up with married parents *Americans viewed the home and the family to be most important thing in society *The White birth rate was extremely high, women were having almost 4 children on average Economy during the 1950s: *cost of living was low *the GDP grew by 250% from 1950-1960 *average incomes tripled *the housing market boomed *developers were building 1.5 million homes per year *Home ownership rates exploded *60% of Americans were in the middle class category *Poverty rates were less than 20% *Consumer spending doubled in the 1950s *families were able to live comfortably on only one income If you consider patriotism, law and order, anti-communism, and societal stigma surrounding degeneracy and treason to be government control and police state mentality, then yeah, the 50's were horrible for someone like you. I think you made a very weak argument all in all, though.
    4
  1501. 4
  1502. 4
  1503. 4
  1504. 4
  1505. 4
  1506. 4
  1507. 4
  1508. 4
  1509. 4
  1510. 4
  1511. 4
  1512. 4
  1513. 4
  1514. 4
  1515. 4
  1516. 4
  1517. 4
  1518. 4
  1519. 4
  1520. 4
  1521. 4
  1522. 4
  1523. 4
  1524. 4
  1525. 4
  1526. 4
  1527. 4
  1528. @ Matthieu Pageau:  Yes, and a lucid comment, I might add. Cyclical nature itself is a hierarchy, so in balancing our civilization with nature, we must accept that hierarchy is natural. I also think that feminists and other cultural Marxists tend to contradict themselves in that they understand and accept hierarchies in a state of nature, but not in human social structures. They refuse to see humanity, even in the most rudimentary of senses, as living in a state of nature. They view human interactions through the lens of sociology (subjective pseudoscience) instead of biology and logical reasoning. They hold humans to different standards because they know that if they don't, they will perpetually possess less power than their male counterparts. This is not to say that "might is right," although in most senses that is true, but a combination of physical prowess, intelligence, and rationality generally puts males in a natural position of authority (with exceptions, of course). Traditionalist women are generally content with the role they play, because they understand that a good man and a good woman serve to supplement the other's natural weaknesses, and create a formidable team. It is so important also for children to experience this dynamic and have it be normalized in their life i.e.  to see their parents be happy and a fantastic, indomitable team.  So goes the traditionalist quote "a man is only as good as the woman beside him" whilst a retarded feminist might say "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
    4
  1529. @ Inisfad:  And what exactly was wrong with the 1950s? My country and its people were better then in many ways than they are now. You're simply using exceptions to the rule to try and invalidate the rule, which is a typical Leftist tactic. I don't know why Leftists always have to go around virtue signaling and being the "Not All" police, and then have the audacity to make such wantonly ignorant and fallacious generalizations as "all Trump voters are White supremacists."  Alas for your argument, the vast majority of married couples are not abusive, alcoholics, or drug addicts, and they certainly don't "loathe" the person they asked to marry and have children with. Again, this is a nihilistic view of marriage that is advanced by cultural Marxist scum that would rather you believe that marriage and children are the ultimate dream-killing prison, when in reality they are the most fulfilling thing you could ever imagine. The vast majority of marriages that end in failure are because the people involved are selfish and lack any semblance of stoicism. The same people that tell you "marriage is prison" will tell you we need to bring in immigrants because our native birth rate is below replacement and our economy will fail otherwise. They denigrate the backbone of Western traditionalism, the nuclear family, and then bring in foreigners that espouse hyper-traditional values and have gaggles of children. In three generations, bye bye White people, bye bye Western values.  Nevertheless, my life is not perfect. My marriage is challenging and we have issues just like every other family. You can mock me all you want in an attempt to defend your hedonistic and utterly transparent hatred of traditional values, but at the end of the day, the truth remains the same: traditionalism is vastly superior to the alternative, and the proof of that is everywhere around us. Also, if you ever intend on being a parent (gods forbid), you'd better not have such fragile sensibilities as to be triggered by the word "bastard" in an online environment.
    4
  1530. 4
  1531. 4
  1532. 4
  1533. 4
  1534. 4
  1535. 4
  1536. 4
  1537. 4
  1538. 4
  1539. 4
  1540. 4
  1541. 4
  1542. 4
  1543. 4
  1544. 4
  1545. 4
  1546. 4
  1547. 4
  1548. 4
  1549. 4
  1550. 4
  1551. 4
  1552. 4
  1553. 4
  1554. 4
  1555. 4
  1556. 4
  1557. 4
  1558. 4
  1559. 4
  1560. 4
  1561. 4
  1562. 4
  1563. 4
  1564. 4
  1565. 4
  1566. 4
  1567. 4
  1568. 4
  1569. 4
  1570. 4
  1571. 4
  1572. 4
  1573. 4
  1574. 4
  1575. 4
  1576. 4
  1577. 4
  1578. 4
  1579. 4
  1580. 4
  1581. 4
  1582. 4
  1583. 4
  1584. 4
  1585. 4
  1586. 4
  1587. 4
  1588. 4
  1589. 4
  1590. 4
  1591. 4
  1592. 4
  1593. 4
  1594. 4
  1595. 4
  1596. 4
  1597. 4
  1598. 4
  1599. 4
  1600. 4
  1601. 4
  1602. 4
  1603. 4
  1604. 4
  1605. 4
  1606. 4
  1607. 4
  1608. 4
  1609. 4
  1610. 4
  1611. 4
  1612. 4
  1613. 4
  1614. 4
  1615. 4
  1616. 4
  1617. 4
  1618. 4
  1619. 4
  1620. 4
  1621. 4
  1622. 4
  1623. 4
  1624. 4
  1625. 4
  1626. 4
  1627. 4
  1628. 4
  1629. @John Hathorne: I said that is something a Leftist would say: something condescending in an attempt to discredit a legitimate argument as an emotional overreaction. Wikitionary? lol. Put "rutilae" into any standard online Latin to English translator and tell me what you get. It will be red or reddish. Blond in Latin is "flavis." Consider the root word that you find in nearly every single Latin or Germanic based language. red, rojo, rood, rot, röt, read, rød, rouge, rosso, rautt, rout...even the Latin word "rubrum." "it was always used to denote blondish in roman texts" If that is so, then clearly Tacitus was describing the hair of the Caledonians as blonde. Hmmm...I wonder why the population of Scotland is not known for having blonde hair? They were even raided by Northern Germanic peoples for centuries in the early middle ages, and they still aren't majority blonde. If the ancient Caledonians were all blonde, the majority of proto-Celtic peoples would have been as well, to include the Celtic Gaels of Hibernia. That is clearly not the case, and you are grasping at straws. "To conjecture otherwise is simply not possible and would mean denying reality" The fucking arrogance. LOL high level autism to claim that there is only one acceptable or realistic answer to a clearly debatable issue. Are you sure you aren't a Leftist? You're using the same tactics that they do. "besides, where did all the redheads in Germany go?" Have you ever been to Germany? There are redheads in Germany. The Celtic peoples are most associated with Haplogroup R-M269, also known as R1b1a1a2, that carries the highest frequency of red hair, and it is found in the genome of 40-50% of the modern German population. https://goo.gl/images/958cbm Celtic peoples inhabiting the area that was the frontier region and later province of Magna Germania were forced north and west to the fringes of Europe by by Roman expansion and conquest. https://goo.gl/images/WuFJzs The cultural, genetic and territorial epicenter of the Halstatt and La Tene Celtic cultures directly before Roman expansion (1st/2nd century CE) was modern day Germany and Austria, the area Tacitus was in when describing these so-called "Germans," who were actually Celts. Tacitus lived from 56-120 CE. https://goo.gl/images/KhNnJc https://goo.gl/images/SNyZzx "Varg do claim that proto-europeans were originally blonde, and he is correct on that regard" No, he isn't. Not all "proto-Europeans" (a very ambiguous term) were blonde. Not even all "proto-Germanic" people were blonde. If that were the case, there wouldn't be nearly as much "diversity of phenotypes among modern Europeans." Most Europeans would still be blonde if that were the case.
    4
  1630. 4
  1631. 4
  1632. 4
  1633. 4
  1634. 4
  1635. 4
  1636. 4
  1637. 4
  1638. 4
  1639. 4
  1640. 4
  1641. 4
  1642. 4
  1643. 4
  1644. 4
  1645. @ L B: Hold up...what the fuck would a Leftist know about the survival of our society or the "greater good?" Leftists are fucking suicidal and have no cultural, racial, or national awareness. They just want to give all the little guys in the world a free ride, even if that requires them to irreparably damage, alter or outright destroy our nation. In addition, their economic and social policies are insane and have been completely disastrous in every practical application in this country. That being said, I don't give a rat's ass what a Leftist thinks of my views, in all honesty. They clearly don't know what is best for this country or our society, and they are incapable of reasoning. You can't find "common ground" with those that are incapable of reasoning. You sound like a moralist right now, probably because your sanctimony has been emboldened by the MSM, the PC hegemony, and popular culture, all of whom nauseatingly pander to the Left at any given opportunity. They don't even try to hide it anymore. Really, there aren't that many people that proportionally have more radical views than mine and are willing to express them. You think the majority of the 150K+ people that subscribe to this channel are considered anything but fringe by the plebeian "moderate" masses i.e. centrists (including you)? You think a minarchist or a far-Leftist is considered mainstream by the majority of people in this country? Think again. There is nothing wrong with my last post, or my point of view. Styx is clearly not right about everything. He is a rural shut-in that lives with his parents in a 98% White state. He's highly intelligent, but has some very myopic viewpoints as well and is prone to fence sitting at times, which is not a virtue, but a weakness.
    4
  1646. 4
  1647. 4
  1648. 4
  1649. 4
  1650. 4
  1651. 4
  1652. 4
  1653. 4
  1654. 4
  1655. 4
  1656. 4
  1657. 4
  1658. 4
  1659. 4
  1660. 4
  1661. 4
  1662. 4
  1663. 4
  1664. 4
  1665. 4
  1666. 4
  1667. 4
  1668. 4
  1669. 4
  1670. ​ @sexytopramen  I always laugh when I tell people who consume corporate media that what they consume is, in fact, propaganda. Almost invariably, they agree that it's propaganda. They even usually agree that most people just mindlessly believe it. But somehow, THEY are different. THEY are capable of seeing through all of the lies and "seeing both sides," like your Dad claims. When I prove to them that they were misled and lied to, they get angry at me instead of the propagandists who deliberately misinformed them. No one wants to admit they were gullible/dumb enough to believe an obvious lie, and when someone proves it, people usually get defensive and lash out at the person who made them feel that embarrassment. In that instance, you have to remind them that you're just the messenger. It was the media that lied to them, and it's the media they should be angry at, not you. I think the Rittenhouse case woke a lot of people up to how deceptive and desperate the media is getting. By design, I don't have very many people in my life who are left-wing, but every one who is was under the impression that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist who illegally transported an assault weapon into a neighboring state and murdered three Black people. Many of them have since come to realize that literally every pertinent detail of that narrative was an outright lie. One guy in particular was almost in disbelief. "How could they so comprehensively lie about the details of that case and get away with it?" he asked me. "Carl," I told him, "95% of what the media says is a lie, and they get away with it because of money, power, and their connections to the political establishment. It's really that simple."
    4
  1671. 4
  1672. 4
  1673. 4
  1674. 4
  1675. 4
  1676. 4
  1677. 4
  1678. 4
  1679. 4
  1680. 4
  1681. 4
  1682. 4
  1683. 4
  1684. 4
  1685. 4
  1686. 4
  1687. 4
  1688. 4
  1689. 4
  1690. 4
  1691. 4
  1692. 4
  1693. 4
  1694. 4
  1695. ​ The_Jaguar_ Knight  ​ I only required five minutes to dismantle the narrative that fascism is a far-left ideology. I noted differences that not one single person has actually addressed and been able to counter. I can only assume the reason is because people who think fascism is far-left are incapable of countering the points I made. If fascism is so obviously a far-left ideology, it wouldn't take five hours to make the argument. Libertarians and mainstream conservatives routinely make the argument that fascism is far-left (and compare leftists to fascists), so I reject the notion that the video I made "is all about shooting down strawmen." The video you are promoting and want me to watch implies this position right in the title, and also assumes that people who don't agree are in some form of denial. The entire point of that video is to draw parallels between NatSoc and communism, so why are you now backpedaling and denying that you think they're basically the same thing? Just own what you believe. The first "giant hole" you claim exists in my video was actually not even a main point of the argument, so the idea that it could even conceivably be a "giant hole" is ridiculous. It was an ancillary comment at best, but it is still true. In 1919, Marxist state socialism was not part of the preexisting global order. I never claimed that it was in 1919 (talk about a strawman). I implied it was when Germany attempted to destroy it (Operation Barbarossa) in 1941, because by then it objectively was. The two main superpowers after the war were the U.S. and the USSR. Half of Europe essentially belonged to the Soviet Union after the war, and the post-war period was defined by the struggle between Western liberal capitalism and Marxist state socialism. It is not a coincidence that the Chinese Communist Revolution occurred directly after the defeat of Nazi Germany. So yes...seriously...those two ideologies (and the states they controlled) did constitute the preexisting globalist order at the time of WWII, and the NSDAP did want to destroy them both. AH was well aware of the Marxist threat in the early 20s, when he wrote: "Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture." Does that sound like an ideology that was compatible with his worldview? I think not. The other "giant hole" you claim exists perfectly illustrates your lack of understanding of orthodox Marxism as an ideology. It is well known that Marxism promotes the dismantling of racial and ethnic identities and replaces them with more obscure and vague umbrella identities that are conducive to world communism (the ultimate goal of Marxist state socialism). It also seeks to destroy religious identity through the implementation of state atheism. All globalist/internationalist ideologies must by default break down identities that hinder their implementation and create these post-ethnic/racial/religious identities. The Soviets did this (the very term "Soviet" itself is a politonym designed to replace ethnic identities that previously divided the peoples who came to live under the Soviet regime). Look up Sovietization and the "New Soviet Man." Mao and the CCP also did this by promoting the umbrella post-ethnic identity "Chinese" as well as promoting "peasant nationalism" (a class-oriented form of "nationalism"), which had nothing to do with ethnicity. They have absorbed other ethnic groups such as the Tibetans and Uyghurs and attempted to Sinicize them. The EU (a Soviet-style system) is currently doing this by promoting a "European" regional/civic type umbrella identity. America and all civic (liberal/inclusive) states have this kind of post-ethnic integrationist identity as well, because civic nationalism is basically globalism lite. Other universalist ideologies attempt to do this as well. Universalist religions, for example. The process of Arabization and Islamization are married at the hip. Many non-Arabs group essentially "became Arab" because Islam is so ingrained into the Arab culture. That is what is meant by Marxist is ethno-integrationist. Fascists do not attempt to integrate or absorb other ethnic groups. They attempt to separate and preserve them. You provided one example, the Khmer Rogue, which seemingly contradicts this notion, but while it's often portrayed as a genocide, what happened in Cambodia is more aptly defined as classicide or politicide. This is evidenced by the fact that the Khmer Rouge were not chiefly concerned with eliminating or separating themselves from other ethnic groups, they were more concerned with destroying the previous ruling class (a prescription of Marxism), the majority of which were ethnically Khmer. They also destroyed and expelled ethnic and religious groups which held a disproportionate amount of power in Cambodia (Han, Viet, Muslims, Buddhists), but it was all about power, and these groups only constituted ~20% of their victims. You mentioned the Viet, but they literally only constituted 1% of their victims (~20,000 people). If ethno-separatism was their main concern, 8 out of 10 of the people who died at their hands would not have been ethnically Khmer.
    4
  1696. 4
  1697. 4
  1698. 4
  1699. 4
  1700. 4
  1701. 4
  1702. 4
  1703. 4
  1704. 4
  1705. 4
  1706. 4
  1707. 4
  1708. 4
  1709. 4
  1710. 4
  1711. 4
  1712. 4
  1713. 4
  1714. 4
  1715. 4
  1716. 4
  1717. 4
  1718. 4
  1719. 4
  1720. 4
  1721. 4
  1722. 4
  1723. 4
  1724. 4
  1725. 4
  1726. 4
  1727. 4
  1728. 4
  1729. 4
  1730. 4
  1731. 4
  1732. 4
  1733. 4
  1734. 4
  1735. 4
  1736. 4
  1737. 4
  1738. 4
  1739. 4
  1740. 4
  1741. 4
  1742. 4
  1743. 4
  1744. 4
  1745. 4
  1746. 4
  1747. 4
  1748. 4
  1749. 4
  1750. 4
  1751. 4
  1752. 4
  1753. 4
  1754. 4
  1755. 4
  1756. @LB7414: Gowdy "spearheaded" the Benghazi organization, spent 40 million in taxpayer dollars, and produced how many indictments/convictions? How about Fast and Furious? How about the IRS targeting scandal? No indictments. No convictions. Sure, he is entertaining and routinely embarrasses and owns people on camera, but after 5 years in Congress, he has done NOTHING to put an end to government criminality. My opinion about Gowdy has nothing to do with Trump's alleged failures in "certain areas." Mueller is not a liberal shill per se, but he is an establishment shill, just like Gowdy. They protect the ruling elite and the upper echelon actors in the ABC agencies and don't hold them to the same legal standards as they require of others. These deep state types know they won't get hammered, so long as they have their shills running the show. This unwillingness for leadership to maintain integrity and standards is the reason why we have agencies that are mutinying and are politically biased. Their smoke and mirrors facade isn't working anymore, and people are starting to wake up to the neocon/RINO agenda, which is not congruent with the desires of the majority of the Right. Once people get to Gowdy's level, they are only one of two things: with the establishment or against it. The establishment transcends party lines. Neocons and neoliberals are the same thing. You think Trump is despised by neocons and neolibs alike simply because of his boorish behavior? Not likely. He IS an outsider. One that they can't control with money and knows their games.
    4
  1757. 4
  1758. 4
  1759. 4
  1760. 4
  1761. 4
  1762. 4
  1763. 4
  1764. 4
  1765. 4
  1766. 4
  1767. 4
  1768. 4
  1769. 4
  1770. 4
  1771. 3
  1772. 3
  1773. 3
  1774. 3
  1775. 3
  1776. 3
  1777. 3
  1778. 3
  1779. 3
  1780. He's never claimed to be another other than a complete narcissist. His channel says "This is a channel dedicated to how glorious and magnificent I am." LOL I don't really blame him that so many people look to him for guidance, given how weak and lukewarm the Western masses have become. He does have some decent outlooks on life, but I find his self-appointed demigod status and autistic rants about his jooceyness to be more amusing than anything else. I have met a lot of people that use their demented narcissism as a vehicle for humor, which I find especially funny. I too dabble in narcissistic delusion as humor, and that is exactly what my self-proclaiment as Þórr, "Son of the Allfather" is. Those sheep that follow TGO's "teachings" are proving themselves to be the opposite of what he preaches a man should be, in all reality. I personally am an actual Norse Pagan, not some LARPing degenerate like most of TGOs followers. So, really my naming myself Son of the Allfather is looked at as blasphemous by most that are unfamiliar with the nature of the Gods. The Eddaic Gods are pleased and humored by audacity. They admire men who dare to confront power. As I'm sure you're aware, Óðinn, "The Allfather," is not "God" but simply the king of the Norse pantheon. I identify with his son first and foremost, mostly because I physically resemble the usual description from the sagas of Þórr as large, powerful, red haired, fierce eyed, bearded etc. and I aspire towards emulating his nature as an archetype. :)
    3
  1781. 3
  1782. 3
  1783. 3
  1784. 3
  1785. 3
  1786. 3
  1787. 3
  1788. 3
  1789. 3
  1790. 3
  1791. 3
  1792. 3
  1793. 3
  1794. 3
  1795. 3
  1796. 3
  1797. 3
  1798. 3
  1799. 3
  1800. 3
  1801. 3
  1802. 3
  1803. 3
  1804. 3
  1805. 3
  1806. 3
  1807. 3
  1808. 3
  1809. 3
  1810. 3
  1811. 3
  1812. 3
  1813. 3
  1814. 3
  1815. 3
  1816. Some mistakes?" lol You mean like invading Russia only 5 months before winter, and forcing the majority of his army into a war of attrition, saying "We have only to kick in the front door and the whole rotten Russian edifice will come tumbling down?" You mean like allying himself with the Japanese and declaring war on the United States 4 days after Pearl Harbor, even though the anti-interventionist movement that had previously kept the US out of the European theater was still alive and well in the US? You mean like his failure to put the proper amount of research necessary into physical science to develop an atomic weapon and deporting or encouraging the immigration of Ashkenazi scientists, the same ones that were instrumental in the Manhattan project? If you think Hitler was the greatest or most successful dictator to ever live, you are wrong. He was highly successful in pulling the German state out of the economic and societal despair and destitution that was a result of WWI and the Treaty of Versailles. He was highly successful in developing a highly effective military and social system. He was highly successful in his ability to instill cultural pride and promote ideological homogeneity. He was even successful in his initial military actions, but it was all downhill after that. His tactics were brazen and foolhardy once he held absolute power and he had established a fully functional and powerful military apparatus. He managed to ruin everything he created because he was too greedy and expanded too far and too quickly. Bonaparte's story was pretty similar, yet Hitler was too arrogant to learn from history.
    3
  1817. 3
  1818. 3
  1819. 3
  1820. 3
  1821. 3
  1822. 3
  1823. 3
  1824. 3
  1825. 3
  1826. 3
  1827. 3
  1828. 3
  1829. 3
  1830. 3
  1831. 3
  1832. 3
  1833. 3
  1834. 3
  1835. 3
  1836. 3
  1837. 3
  1838. 3
  1839. 3
  1840. 3
  1841. 3
  1842. 3
  1843. 3
  1844. 3
  1845. 3
  1846. 3
  1847. 3
  1848. 3
  1849. 3
  1850. 3
  1851. 3
  1852. 3
  1853. Anecdotes are evidence of fucking nothing. That "same old tired crap" is something you still haven't refuted, despite your incessant sniveling. You having travelled to Israel means nothing. I've been to France. Does that make me an expert on French demographics and immigration policy? Of French multicultural acceptance and the nature of Frenchmen just because I've talked to a few people about it? I've been to Paris, can I say that the demographic representation that I observed in Paris is the same for the entire country? No. If the entire country was like Paris, France would probably be around 20% Sub-Saharan African and 20% Middle Eastern, but of course, that is not so. Your "experience" is a crock of steaming shit in comparison to actual EVIDENCE of official Israeli demographic government policy. THAT is what highlights their true motives and national outlook. As I said, read my earlier comments on this thread if you want to know my opinion as to why Jews are influential and why it is important. It is a combination of their own merit and their hyper-tribalism i.e. they elevate their own. However, criticism of Jewish cronyism, not unlike any other criticism of Jews, is outside the realm of publicly acceptable judgment. Like every other minority group in the West, they can be as nepotistic as they like and play by different rules, and any criticism of this hypocrisy or double standard is falsely contrived and labeled as racism or hatred. I also said that if Jews held the power which they do, yet used it in ways that were not destructive to Western civilization and White homogeneity, I would have less of an issue with it. The Jews want their cake and to eat it too. They always have. That is why they have been expelled from over one hundred nation states in recorded history, and they essentially had to occupy Palestine to establish their own ethno-state. They deliberately demand preferential treatment, take advantage of other tribes, and refuse to practice what they preach. They've been doing this for millennia and despite rampant persecution, they insist of continuing this pattern, which is not evidence of ignorance, but of adamance. As long as they continue this behavior, "anti-Semitism" i.e. valid criticism and wariness of Jews, is not only justified, but necessary for survival.
    3
  1854. 3
  1855. 3
  1856. 3
  1857. 3
  1858. 3
  1859. 3
  1860. 3
  1861. 3
  1862. 3
  1863. 3
  1864. 3
  1865. 3
  1866. 3
  1867. Cubans are like 5% of the Hispanics in this country. Leftists don't even need to appeal to them to win the Hispanic vote by 20 points. Just like he always is whenever he opines about demographics, Tarl is wrong in this video. Notice how he didn't state any actual voting statistics, he just made generalized statements "hiSpAniCs vOteRs haVe mAssiVeLy iNcReAsEd iN sCoPe iN tHe GOP!!" The only reason about 20-30% of Hispanics are now voting GOP is because a minority of them have actually been here long enough to assimilate into what remains of the preexistent Anglo-Protestant culture that serves to unify various incoming immigrant groups. But as globalization continues, more and more will continue pouring over the border and more and more will continue having 3 kids each while the population of heritage Americans dwindles (for a variety of reasons). The majority of under 18 American citizens are already nonwhite, and the plurality are Hispanic. Once they become the outright majority, they will have no moral or economic incentive to assimilate, and thus, they will not. 99% of them will go through the public "education" system, which is completely dominated by leftist thought. Most of them will grow up in urban areas where leftism is the orthodoxy. The Hispanic voter of the future will be more socially liberal than previous generations also. This immigrant group has proven to be generationally willing to sacrifice the liberty they were given (some undeservedly) and whatever conservative moral values they might possess on the altar of gibs, degeneracy and big government, both in this country and in their countries of origin. When left to their own devices, they proven they prefer leftism. Once they represent around 1/3rd of American voters, they will vote us into a socialist system as well. And let's not forget that most "conservative" politicians and pundits have completely sold out to appease their increasingly "diverse" constituents. Most "conservatives" are just liberals now for all intents and purposes, and are on an ever increasing leftward trajectory as they insulate themselves from leftist moralist attacks by virtue signaling and taking leftist positions. America is already a failed project because obstinate race-blind fools like Tarl won't admit that demographics massively influence the cultural and political destiny of any country.
    3
  1868. 3
  1869. 3
  1870. 3
  1871. 3
  1872. 3
  1873. 3
  1874. 3
  1875. 3
  1876. 3
  1877. 3
  1878. 3
  1879. 3
  1880. 3
  1881. 3
  1882. 3
  1883.  @CynicalBastard  ​ ​ I think you're both making dishonest conflations for political expediency. I noticed your British/Commonwealth spelling, which is funny, because I've noticed that in comparison to Americans, British people are usually less likely to conflate liberalism and leftism. I also noticed that you (perhaps deliberately) omitted Marxist state socialism when you listed ideologies that result in authoritarianism and starkly-defined hierarchical structures. You say "any actual leftism is anti-authoritarian," so according to your argument, Marxist state socialism is not "actual leftism," and is actually "right-wing" because it has always resulted in authoritarianism and hierarchy when put into practice. This is not a commonly-held belief in the vast majority of political groups. Your argument is essentially the same argument that people like Styx make, yours is just the inverse. So, I think your argument (and his) is a cop out at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Unfortunately, it is an argument routinely used by people of all political inclinations in a transparent and dishonorable attempt to exonerate themselves (and their ideology) from the immoral deeds of leaders and nations who have taken their ideology to an extreme. The fact is that hierarchies eventually form under any system, and once in place, those that constitute the hierarchy can employ authoritarian methods to ensure adherence to their preferred ideology. Therefore, any ideology can become oppressive and hierarchical, even if its supposed/theoretical intention is to "liberate" people, bust down hierarchies, create more equality, etc. People on the "Right" almost universally accept that hierarchies are inevitable, but they don't always accept their moral authority. Right libertarians like Styx argue that in a free system, hierarchies form in a largely organic fashion and therefore possess more moral authority, even if those who constitute the hierarchy mostly use their power to serve their own interests instead of the interests of the nation. Right authoritarians argue that hierarchies will still form naturally in a controlled system (might is right), and that hierarchy will be more likely to use its power to serve the interests of the nation as a whole. So pick your poison. Hierarchies will exist either way, it just depends on whether you think the power that hierarchy wields has moral authority. Leftists use authoritarian methodology because their idea of "liberation" is equity, which does not naturally form in human societies without the use of extreme social engineering and statism. The moral question with leftism has always been "do the ends justify the means?" i.e. is it morally just to use authoritarianism to achieve the Left's vision of utopia and "liberation?" Moreover, is left-wing "liberation" actually freedom or just another form of slavery? To anyone who isn't an authoritarian leftist, the answer is a resounding no. I don't think anyone can honestly say that today's Left actually supports liberty and self-management. Today's Left is extremely illiberal. Your argument is basically “the Left isn’t the Left.” I think that argument is meritless.
    3
  1884. 3
  1885. 3
  1886. 3
  1887. 3
  1888. 3
  1889. 3
  1890. 3
  1891. 3
  1892. 3
  1893. 3
  1894. 3
  1895. 3
  1896. 3
  1897. 3
  1898. 3
  1899. 3
  1900. 3
  1901. 3
  1902. 3
  1903. 3
  1904. 3
  1905. 3
  1906. 3
  1907. 3
  1908. 3
  1909. 3
  1910. 3
  1911. 3
  1912. @ Browns Fan:   "Free (or more affordable) college" There is no such thing as a free education (or lunch). Bernie Bros can't seem to conceptualize that. Redistributing someone's hard earned wealth to pay for a freeloader's Master of Fine Arts degree in Tantric Pottery is not rational or just by any stretch of the imagination. There is a massive amount of taxpayer subsidized financial assistance for college students as it is, and the military is always an option. That is how I obtained my education. "ending foreign interventionism" this is not an explicitly Progressive value, and is shared by most on the New Right. Try again. " single payer healthcare" is unsustainable in this country. We already provide single-payer healthcare to a population 3 times the size of Canada's. The most pertinent example of socialized healthcare in the U.S. is the VA healthcare system, which costs taxpayers 166 billion annually to provide piss poor healthcare to 8.7 million veterans. If the same amount of money per capita were spent on the entire 350 odd million citizens (plus the legal and illegal residents) of the United States, is would cost 6.2 trillion dollars a year. FYI, the entire federal spending budget in 2015 was 3.8 trillion. Get real. Universal healthcare is not feasible nor sustainable in a country this size, despite its popularity. Progressives are fucking cuckoo. Nothing they want is feasible or reasonable without raising taxes to completely oppressive levels. That is pretty much socialism at that point, and you might as well start nationalizing industries while you're at it.
    3
  1913. 3
  1914. 3
  1915. 3
  1916. ​ @jasonx7501  Well, first of all, I didn't say anything about race, I said culture. But since you're conflating the two, I guess that's a good segue into acknowledging that there is a positive correlation between the two. That said, the truly ignorant position is the belief that there is no link between behavior and culture. How else can you explain away 13/52 if not for violence being glorified and normalized in their little urban subcultures? It's clear that all you're capable of intellectually mustering is various tired versions of the irrelevant "nOt aLL!" argument (correlation doesn't equal causation). Let me make this very clear: we are NOT talking about causation, absolutes, or individuals here. We're talking about general patterns of behavior that vary between individuals that belong to certain GROUPS. Ideologues like you will casually acknowledge positive group behavioral patterns without a passing thought (like the pattern of ]evvs placing emphasis on educational acheivement, for example). You'll even acknowledge negative group behavioral patterns if that group is safe to criticize (whites, for example). But when it comes to acknowledging negative group behavioral patterns within any "protected group," you recoil into a state of tactical ignorance. Stereotypes (positive and negative) are based upon observed, quantitative patterns. In other words, they oftentimes have real merit despite not being causal or absolute. You know all the negative stereotypes of ]evvs. I'm not going to bother listing them because I know you're just playing the hatchling and haplessly trying to bait me into some "gOtcHA yOu aNti-SemiTe!" moment. Try being honest with others (and yourself) for once. You might actually win an argument sometime.
    3
  1917. 3
  1918. 3
  1919. 3
  1920. 3
  1921. 3
  1922. 3
  1923. @ Inisfad: I'm not basing what I speak of on any TV show that I watched. I'm basing my views upon the reality of the situation and on the women of that generation that I have met, including both of my wonderful grandmothers, who were both formidable and graceful women of great character. They were also the most generous, selfless, and nurturing women I've ever met. Women like them, that were the glue of the traditional household, have always held a certain power, especially over their children, but over their men as well. You just want to manipulate the definition of being a matriarch to being a woman that works and brings home money. You must not know very many immigrant families either...talk about women that run the household. Immigrant families are also very traditional.   I already stated earlier that I am 35, so no I wasn't there for any feminist marches in the 60s, and I'm glad for that. My sister chose the lifestyle that she lives, and squandered the best years of her life being a degenerate and not taking control of her life. She does not have a partner BECAUSE she was told she didn't need one to be happy by her miserable Marxist professors at college and all of her idiotic libtard friends, who all went ahead and had children anyways. Average, single, never-married, childless men in their 50s are not celebrated or seen as attractive or desirable in this culture. George Clooney is not a normal person, and that is a pathetic example. Take Dale, 55 years old, never married, no kids, not much money to speak of, not particularly attractive, and works as a handyman. I'm sure the ladies are beating down the door to marry that guy and bear his children. What planet are you living on? I do look at old men that have no family as alone and lacking spiritual fulfillment, but I do not "disdain" them, you drama queen. My sister will not have immediate family as she grows old, and that is what I mean by being alone. Being a cat lady and living with a roommate into your 40s? Sounds like a depressing life to me.
    3
  1924. 3
  1925. 3
  1926. @ Inisfad:   Here's a little bit about life in the 50s.  Crime during the 1950s: Was significantly lower in total, even when taking into consideration the infrequency of reporting, crime definitions, etc. I even used the stats from the end of the 50s, just to be fair:  *United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People in 1960: -Total Crime:  1,887.2  -Violent Crime: 160.9 -Property Crime: 1,726.3  -Rape: 9.6 -Robbery: 60.1 -Aggravated Assault: 86.1  *United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People in 2015: -Total Crime:  2,870.2 -Violent Crime: 383.2 -Property Crime: 2,487.0 -Rape: 28.1 -Robbery: 101.9 -Aggravated Assault: 237.8 The only two major categories that are less today than in 1960 are: Murder:  5.1 per 100,000 in 1960, 4.9 per 100,000 in 2015 Burglary: 508.6 per 100,000 in 1960, 491.4 per 100,000 in 2015 This is normally attributed to security/deterrence measures i.e. cameras, home security systems, faster police responses, better crimefighting capabilities.  Education during the 1950s: *the US had the best educational system in the world  *there were hardly any school shootings *90% of all school levies were approved by voters *discipline problems in school were minor *Drugs did not infest American schools  Family during the 1950s: *Divorce rates were low, while marriage rates were high and people married at a younger age than at any other time in history *Only 4% of all babies were born out-of-wedlock, compared to 40% today *90% of all children grew up with married parents *Americans viewed the home and the family to be most important thing in society *The White birth rate was extremely high, women were having almost 4 children on average Economy during the 1950s: *cost of living was low *the GDP grew by 250% from 1950-1960 *average incomes tripled *the housing market boomed *developers were building 1.5 million homes per year *Home ownership rates exploded *60% of Americans were in the middle class category *Poverty rates were less than 20% *Consumer spending doubled in the 1950s *families were able to live comfortably on only one income Yeah, the 50's were horrible because everyone didn't know what was going on in the world. I think you must be cognitively impaired.
    3
  1927. 3
  1928. 3
  1929. 3
  1930. 3
  1931. 3
  1932. 3
  1933. 3
  1934. 3
  1935. 3
  1936. 3
  1937. 3
  1938. 3
  1939. 3
  1940. 3
  1941. Sesshounamaru 1.) I didn't say that fatherless children get a free pass to be a failure in life. There are some kids that turn out fine in a single parent home. There are some that struggle and still come out a well-functioning human because of shear willpower. However, exceptions to the rule don't invalidate the rule. You can play the "not all" game from now until doomsday. It doesn't negate the fact that fatherless children have a higher likelihood to fail in life. 2.) Of course Black kids from fatherless homes can find passions that help them achieve in ways outside of athletics. That doesn't mean that Black fatherless kids are not the perfect candidates to partake in organized sport. If you think Blacks aren't more likely to be athletically inclined than academically, you either aren't paying attention or you're cognitively dissonant. Most Black kids do have mothers with strong personalities that present them with a constantly toilsome influence, and I agree that can be an unnecessary weight on their shoulders. Still, positive male role models help any young man or woman in obtaining a normalized view of men in general and of their view of what a healthy relationship with the opposite sex entails. 3.) The foster home you worked in must have been the one home in this country where most of the kids were from married families, because 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father in their life. 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the national average. 4.) Saying degeneracy or delinquency is a whole lot easier than saying drug use, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school, suicide, going to prison/juvie, committing crimes, being unemployed, being homeless and being a general detriment to society as a whole. Degeneracy to me does not mean anything I don't agree with or the slightest deviation from traditional values.  5.) I am a living example of the things I preach, believe it or not. Read previous posts if you're interested. I am not as unreasonable or insane as some radfem lunatic, nor am I as uncompromising. I simply argue what is already known and should be the accepted truth. A truth that people generally just don't have the courage to admit it because it's distasteful and contradicts what modern cultural norms dictate. 6.) The whole "autistically screeching" meme does not apply to me, and it really is getting kind of cliché and overused, to where anyone with an opinion you choose not to agree with is by default "autiscally screeching" about it. I rely on fact, not emotion. I practice what I preach. Traditional family values are healthier and work better for our people, our culture, and our nation. I'm not arguing to bring this country back to the 50s, I'm only arguing that 1.) the 50s were a better time to grow up and 2.) the nuclear family is incomprehensibly important.  You dismissing the importance of the nuclear family and comparing its destruction to an argument about something as meaningless as transgendered bathrooms shows your shallowness. People that can't conceptualize the importance of the family unit likely cannot conceptualize the importance of cultural integrity or the importance of the nation-state, either. That being said, yes, people of this nature are ignorant of the damage they're doing normalizing the destruction of the nuclear family. You use Kek references, so I'm assuming you fancy yourself alt-right, which confuses me. Family, race, culture, and nation are all intrinsically linked, and none can survive alone. That seems to be what the alt-right argues as well. Amirite?
    3
  1942. 3
  1943. 3
  1944. 3
  1945. 3
  1946. 3
  1947. 3
  1948. ​ @jasonx7501  Okay, I'll deduce my position based on logical reasoning and data like voting demographics. The pattern I'm describing is not just true in the U.S., it is true everywhere in the West. Nonwhites and other minority groups are the vanguard of the Left, and the Left is openly anti-white, anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-capitalist. In every Western nation, the most brazen and extreme anti-whites are communists, and often many of those communists are nonwhite. You said it yourself, many of them are adverse to Western culture and the White race because they feel they and their group have been wronged by us, whether perceived or factually, historically or currently. Therefore, they are aggrieved and bitter and resentful, which leads to hate and the desire to subvert and destroy that which they perceive to have wronged them. Hence, far-leftism is the perfect ideology, because it is designed to harness that resentment and use it for revolution. In the USSR, communists used resentment of the wealthy to effectuate a revolution. In the modern West, communists are using basically every other type of grievance (racial, cultural, gender, sexual, etc.) in hopes of effectuating another revolution. They wish to destroy and subjugate your "oppressors," along with our culture and systems (which are said to reinforce our "cultural hegemony," as Gramsci put it). There is an entire Marxian academic discipline being taught throughout Western academia devoted to subverting and destroying "whiteness." What you will find when you look at the racial/ethnic character of the most extreme of leftist movements in the West is that nonwhites are vastly overrepresented. Styx said that "no one goes out and maliciously props up an ideology that sucks." That is false. Minorities who are aggrieved and hate the West and/or White people routinely prop up a failed and murderous ideology and weaponize it to maliciously satisfy their desire for vengeance. So here is the thing, you can deceive yourself all you want about this topic, but you are wrong. The vanguard of the far-left is minority groups, many of which would hate each other if they didn't have a common purpose. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." What's worse is that many of the most influential of them are well aware of the atrocities committed by far-left regimes throughout history. They ignore that history. That is how much they hate us. And on a side note, reducing any human group to something as trivial as the color of their skin or "a vitamin D deficiency" is ignorant and immoral. Europeans have evolved over millennia to possess several physiological characteristics that distinguish us from other groups. People like you love to dehumanize Europeans because you think it wounds our pride or weakens our sense of identity. But in reality, all it does is the opposite of what you intend. Narratives like yours only make us stronger and more racially conscious.
    3
  1949. 3
  1950. 3
  1951. 3
  1952. 3
  1953. 3
  1954. 3
  1955. 3
  1956. 3
  1957. 3
  1958. 3
  1959. 3
  1960. 3
  1961. @Mark Lein: Nice fantasy narrative imbued with idiotic false stereotypes you've concocted there Marky Mark. Top notch. Looks like I really rustled your jimmies. Try to calm down and let's talk about reality... Killing your stereotypes: >European Americans have the lowest rate of diabetes of any race in the country. http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/ >European Americans have the best overall oral health of any race in the country. https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/oral_health_disparities/index.htm >Younger generations outvoted older generations in 2016 and the Right still won. The Right is no longer geriatric, Marky Mark. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/31/millennials-and-gen-xers-outvoted-boomers-and-older-generations-in-2016-election/ European Americans are actually the healthiest people in the country on average. That being said: >55-60% of European Americans are Republican. An even larger percentage are right-leaning independents and libertarians. >Racial minorities are overwhelmingly Leftist. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/ >The vast majority of private weapons are in the hands of European American males with conservative political leanings. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/ >The vast majority of military veterans and police officers are right-leaning as well. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2016/05/09/military-times-survey-troops-prefer-trump-to-clinton-by-a-huge-margin/ I also don't believe a fucking word you're saying, but even if it were true it would be hilarious considering that a Leftist like yourself (speaking about weapons, working a farm, wasting trespassers etc.) is still so fucking delusional that you don't realize you are an oddity! Your allies will be in the cities and you're almost certainly surrounded by a majority of Rightists if you live in a rural area. I don't really care how many weapons you own (I own plenty as well) because it only takes one to put a bullet in a commie's head. Ironic also: a Leftist making a soy consumption reference to a far-right nationalist. lol we wrote the book on hazing soyboys. Those are your folk, bro. Btw, threats on the internet are quite possibly the saddest thing ever, besides the low-T beta males that make them. :) Your army would be a bunch of dependent diabetic low-IQ unarmed racial minorities, women, and weaklings. Have fun with that....General. LOL
    3
  1962. 3
  1963. 3
  1964. 3
  1965. 3
  1966. 3
  1967. 3
  1968. 3
  1969. 3
  1970. 3
  1971. 3
  1972. 3
  1973. 3
  1974. 3
  1975. 3
  1976. 3
  1977. 3
  1978. 3
  1979. 3
  1980. 3
  1981. 3
  1982. 3
  1983. 3
  1984. 3
  1985. 3
  1986. 3
  1987. 3
  1988. 3
  1989. 3
  1990. 3
  1991. That is really dependent upon what police force you're talking about, especially now that some states have legalized or decriminalized the recreational use of weed. The problem with the modern day is that you've got dash cams, microphones, bodycams, cell phones, social media, etc. That basically makes it so that cops must go by the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law in most instances. At that point, to "look the other way" is not "wishful thinking," it's a question of possibly losing their job and being criminally prosecuted for dereliction of duty. Most cops I've known don't give a fuck about weed, unless you're being incredibly blatant and dumb, driving around and smoking etc. But if it's between busting you for weed or losing their job, they'll obviously take the former every time. I don't think that's very unreasonable. To say that marijuana arrests are the "bread and butter" for "state, county, and local police" is pretty much false and an extreme generalization. Law enforcement is specialized at the state level. The trooper's "bread and butter" is speeding citations, DUI, etc. A game warden's "bread and butter" are poaching citations. County sheriffs and municipal cops would be more likely to bust someone for weed, but many cities and counties have their own legal code that busts down petty use and possession to an infraction. Either way, most cops will destroy weed or paraphernalia if they can do it without someone they don't trust knowing about it. Most the people that get busted for weed these days were assholes or they committed other crimes in addition to unlawful possession. Either that or they're selling or possessing more than a reasonable amount.
    3
  1992. 3
  1993. 3
  1994. 3
  1995. 3
  1996. 3
  1997. 3
  1998. 3
  1999. 3
  2000. 3
  2001. 3
  2002. 3
  2003. 3
  2004. 3
  2005. 3
  2006. 3
  2007. 3
  2008. 3
  2009. 3
  2010. 3
  2011. 3
  2012. 3
  2013. 3
  2014. 3
  2015. 3
  2016. 3
  2017. 3
  2018. 3
  2019. 3
  2020. 3
  2021. 3
  2022. 3
  2023. 3
  2024. 3
  2025. 3
  2026. 3
  2027. 3
  2028. 3
  2029. 3
  2030. 3
  2031. 3
  2032. 3
  2033. 3
  2034. 3
  2035. 3
  2036. 3
  2037. 3
  2038. 3
  2039. 3
  2040. 3
  2041. 3
  2042. 3
  2043. 3
  2044. 3
  2045. 3
  2046. 3
  2047. 3
  2048. 3
  2049. 3
  2050. 3
  2051. 3
  2052. 3
  2053.  @spirittammyk  Expose them as globalists and replace them, I guess. But even then, so as long as there is this unholy alliance between politicians and multinational corporations, the politicians will enact policies that support the elitist's globalist agenda. The idea that lobbying is moral was normalized by the Arch-]ew propagandist Bernays, who is considered the "father of public opinion" and whose philosophical worldview is eerily similar to what the power dynamics of the world have become today. Bernays' vision was of a utopian society in which individuals' dangerous libidinal energies, the psychic and emotional energy associated with instinctual biological drives that Bernays viewed as inherently dangerous, could be harnessed and channeled by a corporate elite for economic benefit. Through the use of mass production, big business could fulfill the cravings of what Bernays saw as the inherently irrational and desire-driven masses, simultaneously securing the niche of a mass-production economy (even in peacetime), as well as sating what he considered to be dangerous animal urges that threatened to tear society apart if left unquelled. Therefore, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy. He advocated for centralization and planning in the form of "corporate socialism." "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind. " -- Propaganda (1928) pp. 9–10
    3
  2054. 3
  2055. 3
  2056. @Manfred Byron: Yes, there have been non-Whites living in Western countries for centuries, but still the U.S. was 90% White European about 100 years ago. That fact is slightly irrelevant to your other point, but it serves to preface the overall framework of the discussion, just as you did by saying that non-Whites have ancestral claim to the U.S. Regardless, I know that the argument against ethno-nationalism always comes down to practice, because the theory is hard to argue against (the data is on our side: ethno-states are highly optimal). That being said, the idea that forcible deportations are a forgone conclusion to achieve what most WNs want is not valid. Many vilify the formation of such a state by saying it can only be achieved with draconian "Nazi" tactics i.e. that WNs would want to kill/enslave all non-Whites and "purge" the new-formed state. That is ridiculous and irrational and hysterically contrived conclusions like that are a deliberately dishonest way of discrediting and marginalizing the concept. Styx has partaken in this type of fear-mongering/Nazi conflation. The idea of an absolute ethno-state is impossible for Americans or any European countries at this point without ethnic cleansing and deportation of non-White citizens. That is true. But Balkanization could occur, or the establishment of 90+% White majority states without displacing non-Whites within that newly-formed state. If non-Whites wanted to leave that newly formed state, they could, and many surely would in that scenario. At that point, free, racially and culturally aware Whites would be able to practice their way of life and chose who enters their state in order to protect that way of life, just as Japan does. That idea is essentially the idea of ethnic separatism that could work in practice in Western countries. "Free association" can never work, because that would mean foreign elements could come and live amongst Whites and sabotage White interests and our way of life. This is the problem with the current system: Whites have no control over their own destiny. Non-Whites overwhelmingly vote for Marxist and authoritarian policies and support toxic dissident causes that undermine the cultures and way of life of majority White populations.
    3
  2057. 3
  2058. 3
  2059. 3
  2060. 3
  2061. 3
  2062. 3
  2063. 3
  2064. 3
  2065. 3
  2066. 3
  2067. 3
  2068. 3
  2069. 3
  2070. @John Hathorne: Have you ever heard of a paragraph break, dude? "I'm astonished at your denial of facts and mis-representation of the truth." REEEE. I'm the only one thus far that has provided any outside sources or information. Your entire argument is based upon psuedo-scientific and psuedo-historical concepts. Your argument is sloppy, unacademic, and scattered. You said that proto-Europeans were an entirely blonde race "dozens of thousands of years ago." You realize that means at least 24,000 years ago, correct? That was after you backtracked from your claim that proto-Germanic people were an entirely blonde race marginally before and after the time of Tacitus. You haven't provided any translations or data that confirm your claims. Your argument is completely opinion based, and hinges upon yours (and Varg's) desire that an all-blonde race were the original Europeans. "the caledonians were blonde...Scotland is a majority blonde country today - that is a FACT." You have no literary or scientific proof of this whatsoever. You are only claiming this now because it fits your contrived narrative. Ancient Caledonians were genetically and culturally Celtic, not Germanic. They likely had people of many hair colors, and just as many if not more red haired people than they did blondes. This is evidenced both by physical descriptions by classical writers, including Tacitus, and by the fact that Scotland holds the highest single concentration of red-haired peoples in the world to this very day. I provided a study of Scottish hair color that shows the breakdown of 133 Scots and only 27 have blonde hair. This is after centuries of Scandinavian raids and admixture. That is 20%, which is NOT A MAJORITY. If you can PROVE that Scotland is a majority blonde country with actual data, PROVE IT. But you might as well not even look, because you are wrong. "There were only 3 originals races - the Proto-Europeans, Proto-Asians and Proto-Africans" I don't dispute this. What I dispute is that all "Proto-Europeans" (Indo-Europeans?) had the exact same physical characteristics. Even Neanderthal had different hair and eye colors, and it is known that they carried the gene for red hair. But you expect me to believe that all "Proto-Europeans" had blonde hair? Ridiculous. "Scandinavians are 0.01% mixed, while Britons may be 0.02%," That doesn't matter. A Briton that is 0.02% "mixed" could still appear more prototypically Nordic than a Scandinavian that is 0.01% mixed. This is because Scandinavians were not clones of each other, even when they were living in tribal societies, and neither were Britons. "Hitler admitted that Germans weren't of the same stock as before and entirely homogenous and of best quality" Yes. Hitler considered the Germans to be slightly mixed, and Nordic peoples to be the master race. I don't know what that has to do with our conversation. The classic Nordic genetics came to Germany from the Jastorf culture (who had the highest occurrence of blonde hair and blue eyes, but were also likely not clones of each other) when they invaded what is now Germany in the 2nd century CE. They mixed with Celts, invading Gothic tribes from the East, and Romans. But the Jastorf culture was not the original Proto-Europeans, culturally or genetically.
    3
  2071. 3
  2072. 3
  2073. 3
  2074. 3
  2075. 3
  2076. 3
  2077. 3
  2078. 3
  2079. 3
  2080. 3
  2081. 3
  2082. 3
  2083. 3
  2084. 3
  2085. 3
  2086. 3
  2087. 3
  2088. 3
  2089. 3
  2090. 3
  2091. 3
  2092. 3
  2093. 3
  2094. 3
  2095. 3
  2096. 3
  2097. 3
  2098. 3
  2099. 3
  2100. 3
  2101. 3
  2102. 3
  2103. 3
  2104. 3
  2105. 3
  2106. 3
  2107. 3
  2108. ​ Killian Barnhart  I'm not underestimating anything, I simply know the American govt is capable of being defeated or at least being forced into conceding. I was in Afghanistan and Iraq. We had eyes and ears everywhere in those countries and we still didn't know what the F was going on or where the F we were going half the time. That was part of the reason why none of the insurgents we fought were ever defeated. The Taliban (mostly comprised of goat-herding peasants living an 11th century lifestyle carrying 50 year old rifles) were ultimately triumphant over the illustrious US govt with all our spy drones and satellites and smart bombs. It would be no different in the territorial US. An insurgency here would be even more difficult to quell because so much of the country is urbanized. In Afghanistan, we were able to control large swaths of the country, but an insurgency in the US would be more like Iraq, where we could barely control a single city. I also don't assume most people would support an insurrection, I know most people wouldn't need to support it for it to be successful. If just 1 in 100 people participated, there would still be 3.3 MILLION problems for the US govt, and many of them would be police, military, veterans, and militia. If you look at how these types of conflicts pan out in other countries, you'd also realize that even the people who don't support the insurgency aren't going to be very comfortable giving information to the feds. In Afghanistan, the locals were scared to death of the Taliban and harbored a lot of resentment for us, so they would rarely volunteer information. It was the same in Iraq, and historically it was the same in Vietnam, Ireland, Yugoslavia, and basically every insurrection/revolution you can think of, including the American revolution. I also don't assume, I KNOW, people will care about the "intervention." When Americans are under martial law i.e. a police state...when they're getting shaken down by the military in the streets...when they're under curfew every night...when federal bombs are inflicting collateral damage on American civilians...you watch how quick the population turns on the government. Hearts and minds. The US govt is incapable of defeating an insurgency because brutal tactics are needed. They can't use those kind of tactics on their own people and still win the conflict. For every insurgent they killed, they'll be creating two more. The Euros barely even have a military, and they sure AF aren't gonna be jumping for joy at the prospect of their sons dying in an American Civil war. If it's the Chinese, the feds will have signed their own death sentence. Your defeatist subservience to the govt makes me think you might glow. I've met FBI agents from the DT task force and those little B males told me a big part of their job is trolling these dissident YT channels spewing pro-govt propaganda. Could you perhaps be one of them?
    3
  2109. 3
  2110. 3
  2111. 3
  2112. 3
  2113. 3
  2114. 3
  2115. 3
  2116. 3
  2117. 3
  2118. 3
  2119. 3
  2120. 3
  2121. 3
  2122. 3
  2123. 3
  2124. 3
  2125. 3
  2126. 3
  2127. 3
  2128. 3
  2129. 3
  2130. 3
  2131. 3
  2132.  @crimadellaphone9374  There are also smaller periodic warming and cooling periods seemingly every 800-1500 years and we are near the peak of the current one. We are also at the relative peak (slightly on the descent) of the current Milankovitch cycle, which you mentioned. According to fossil analysis, the Roman Warming Period (250 BCE to 450 CE) saw higher average sea temperatures than we have ever experienced in modern times. Some hypothesize the periodic mini-warm and mini-ice age periods are due to massive amounts of greenhouse gases being released by volcanic eruptions, which would cause a period of global warming followed by a period of global cooling as a "correction." So if we are emitting similar gases, it could just be that we are gradually causing a similar effect. That said, I don't really contest that human activity is exacerbating the current warming period, but I also think climate activists deliberately ignore the fact that the Earth in the middle of natural warming periods on both a small and large scale. All the propaganda and resulting hysteria are definitely tools the elite are using to consolidate their power in the West. The fearmongering is what gives it away ("we only have 10 years to live unless we implement muh Green New Deal!!!"). There is really not a whole lot developed nations can do about developing countries destroying the environment, though, so it seems like a lost cause to me. Global cooperation is impossible without global control, so I say we just do what we can and hope others follow suit.
    3
  2133. 3
  2134. 3
  2135. 3
  2136. 3
  2137. 3
  2138. 3
  2139. 3
  2140. 3
  2141. 3
  2142. 3
  2143. 3
  2144. 3
  2145. 3
  2146. 3
  2147. 3
  2148. 3
  2149. 3
  2150. 3
  2151. 3
  2152. 3
  2153. 3
  2154. 3
  2155. @Inisfad: "A long diatribe which only proves that whites had slaves to begin with." Bullshit. The comment proved that Whites were the only ones with both the political power and moral will to make it a point to ban the slave trade and pressure other countries, mostly African and Middle Eastern countries full of non-Whites, to outlaw the slave trade and abolish slavery. Of course, all that you in your small and cognitively dissonant mind construed from that "diatribe" was that Whites owned slaves, which no one, including myself, ever denied. The fact of the matter is that, while Whites enslaved other human beings of other races, so to did non-Whites, and their practice of slavery predated the Transatlantic Slave Trade by millennia and postdated it by over a century. Whites did not invent slavery and collectively carry no more or less onus than any other group of people in the grand scheme of things. In addition, no other race of people besides Whites can claim as much responsibility for helping to end the slave trade and abolish slavery in the modern world, and it isn't even close. Yet Whites are demonized for our role in slavery FAR more than other races, some of which still practice slavery to this day en masse. Whites are not given credit for this accomplishment, simply because Whites enslaved others, but at least we say the err of our ways and helped to make monumental changes in the world. Now historically White countries have the highest human development indexes in the world. This is something no one can deny if they are academically honest. I also never said that Whites don't treat each other or other races like shit as well, only that Blacks clearly treat others and each other worse on average. Simply look at the state of Africa and the amount of human misery there. Look at the murder rates, even in first world countries, carried out by Blacks upon other Blacks. Look at the child abuse, domestic violence, gang violence, etc. Look at Haiti, where, as Styx said in the video, 1 in 20 Blacks are enslaved by other Blacks. There is no comparison in a modern context. White people on average treat people of all races, including their own, better than Black people treat people of other races, including their own. It isn't that hard to see, if you have an honest and open mind. Someone like you only sees things the way you want to see them. That much is clear. I remember you by the way. You are an incredibly disingenuous person, so it really doesn't surprise me that you would reduce my previous comment to such a simplistic, biased, and ignorant statement as "it only proves that whites had slaves to begin with." Pathetic.
    3
  2156. 3
  2157. 3
  2158. 3
  2159. 3
  2160. 3
  2161. "Fuck this society to be honest you're all too fucking dumb."   Making blanket statements again here, friend. If you condemn all of society, you are truly alone in the world; consider that. There are like-minded individuals out there, and as time goes on and the Big Lie festers, more will wake from their slumber to realize the truth. I have been a nationalist with racialist overtones for over a decade, before an "alt-right" even existed. You think I wasn't deemed an extremist, labeled as a racist, and alienated within society? Think again. Regardless, I still have hope for the West. We are without question at war, and it is a multi-front, multi-dimensional conflict, both physical and metaphysical (cultural), foreign and domestic. Many people are fucking stupid, and that is a fact. Many of them will also eventually pay the ultimate price for their stupidity. I'm for liberty as well, and I am not a heavy moralist either, like you. Those that can't stay within the realm of reason are enemies. Civilizations rise and fall, but the great ones endure based on the foundations of their culture...their values. Our values and culture are under attack, but people will return to what made the West great when times become more difficult, and difficult times are on the horizon. It is just a matter of time. The West will endure, and it needs leaders with the courage and strength to defeat the demoralization with which modernity and decadence infects us. Good times create weak men. Weak men create bad times. Bad times create strong men. Strong men create good times.
    3
  2162. 3
  2163.  @GodOfOrphans  They aren't a fringe; they have millions of clerics and millions more acolytes. And they are only getting larger and more powerful as all their left-wing useful idiots metastasize around them. I don't wish to unite with anyone unwilling to admit the truth about demographics and its impact on cultural and political destiny. Whatever the reason someone denies it, whether it's willful ignorance or cowardice, it's something I can't forgive, because the consequences of this denial have been so disastrous for the entire European civilization. To me, such people don't deserve to be trusted as allies. A nation is defined as a group of people with shared descent, culture, history and language. The U.S. is arguably not even one nation, but a multinational state. Thus, any ultranationalist movement would already be overwhelmingly White. Why not just unite under our shared European ancestry? It's the last thing they want. We are their bogeyman, but only if we collectivize. That is the entire point. Don't let them define the rules any longer and manipulate you with their psychological terrorism. But don't get me wrong, I also have zero desire to consort with ethno-masochistic whites. I hate them worse than anyone. We have more sympathizers than you'd think. We have more ideas and plans set in motion than the civcvck, and that is because civcvcks have status quo bias. As far as ideas and strategy, you want nothing new because you lack the emotional courage to accept objectively superior but unorthodox alternatives.
    3
  2164.  @GodOfOrphans  ​ Rest assured, I'll never sink to the point of gatekeeping for people who want to destroy me and my civilization. Trying to deny or minimalize the correlation between race and culture is what all civcvcks do in an attempt to deceptively prop up their failed ideology. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that while race and culture are not causative, they are very strongly correlated. This is very simply proven with this very quick thought experiment: if there are more ethnically Han people in any given location, will there be more or less of their culture in that location? The answer is simple. If there are Han people there, Han culture will follow. So yeah...I'm not conflating race and culture, as causation is not correlation, I'm just not deceiving myself and pretending they don't have a strong correlation, like all of you willfully ignorant race-blind types do. And once you realize that race and culture are strongly correlated, you can't deny that racial demographic shifts will heavily impact the cultural destiny of any nation. And since politics are downstream of culture, racial demographic shifts will heavily impact the political destiny of a nation too. It doesn't make you a "hwite nationalist" to admit that; it makes you a logical, honest human being. That said, if you are a person who wants to preserve or CONSERVE the cultural and political character of your nation, and not fundamentally alter and change it, you will naturally be an ethno-majoritarian at the very least, which is considered a form of "hwite nationalism." Culture is a psychic manifestation of a group's genetics. A nonwhite person can adopt white culture, but even they would not pretend like the culture that they adopted was that of their own race and people. Why do you think American blacks are always criticizing their own people who act "too white?" Why do you think they started using African names and celebrating their own holiday instead of Christmas? Why do you think they try to protect and normalize their own form of English. They want to have their OWN culture, because they know the culture they practice is WHITE CULTURE. People of the same race but different ethnicities will segregate, but an Englishman would live more harmoniously with a Swede than they would a Somali 99 times out of 100. Why the f do you think America worked at first? The Founding Fathers understood the importance of race, and so did this nation as a whole until about 1965. America was a hodgepodge of EUROPEAN ethnic groups that were all racially, culturally, and religiously very similar in relative terms. If the country was flooded with a bunch of totally heterogeneous groups, the U.S. would probably have Balkanized along racial lines a long time ago. So no, the fact that white ethnic groups segregate does not debunk my position. It is nowhere near the same type of polarization you will see when groups that are racially, culturally and religiously very different are trying to occupy the same territories. .
    3
  2165. ​ @GodOfOrphans  Somehow...just somehow...this country became the most powerful and wealthy country in the world after centuries of mass migration...from EUROPE. The reason it worked, among other things, was because the groups migrating here were EUROPEAN and were relatively homogeneous. So yeah...the problem is not mass migration per se, it is mass migration of certain groups. I cannot help you come to grips with the fact that your ideology is flawed and premised on a bunch of decades-old gatekept lies which we've been programmed to believe. Positions like "race doesn't matter" and "culture is not linked to race" and "wE jUsT hAvE tO dO bEttER aT iNtEgRaTiNG tHeM" serve to grease the skids for Marxian globalism, which is why they have been the status quo platitudes since the 1960s, right around when this country began circling the drain. The European groups that came to this nation are basically now a homogeneous "panethnic" racial group. There is no significant conflict between white ethnic groups in this country. Racial/ethnic conflict is rooted in power struggle i.e. which group's culture and general political worldview is hegemonic. That problem would be monumentally decreased with ethnic homogeneity. You don't see commies burning down cities in Japan or Poland do you? You don't see this toxic cultural Marxist BS in their schools do you? You don't see them being conned into hating themselves and prostrating themselves before some toxic 5th column that exists in their nations. The less and less homogeneous this country becomes, the more divided it becomes. Diversity is division. But it was the Hart-Celler Act, which removed de facto racial discrimination from our immigration policy, that the issue of mass migration and the issue of race and demographic shift became intrinsically linked. Politics regarding immigration are now by default racially charged, because 95+% of the people now entering this country are not from Europe. It's really not that difficult to understand. You just can't accept truths that you've been programmed to view as verboten.
    3
  2166. 3
  2167. 3
  2168. 3
  2169. 3
  2170. 3
  2171. 3
  2172. Yes, it was an invasion. The majority of those that came here did so in a willfully illegal manner, or they illegally and willfully overstayed their graciously issued visas. The Hart Cellar Act was not decided by the people, it was decided by the corrupt Democrat elitist 89th Congress, who also thought they were doing something virtuous by enacting the laws that became known as the Great Society, which destroyed minority communities in this country and persuaded and incentivized them into a perpetual cycle of poverty and failure. The Hart-Cellar Act was not direct democracy, so stop trying to make it sound like it was. Conservatism is not an assault on the Constitution. It seeks to "CONSERVE" American classical liberal values and Constitutional Rights. It is the conservation of liberty. The Left has always sought to change the U.S. into something it was not intended to be, in the process trimming off whatever parts of the Constitution they see fit, or passing federal acts and laws within their majority states that are directly unconstitutional, which as a result strips U.S. citizens of their civil liberties. Johnson-Reed was intended to thwart the undesirable immigration of the time, which happened to be from Eastern and Southern Europe. As most sane conservative legislation does, it took into consider an element of foresight, and instituted a reasonable immigration system that didn't give preference to one group over another, but went by the proportional makeup of the population as it was at the time. The Left is wantonly incompetent at the skill of foresight, which I and other conservatives interpret as a lack of wisdom. Those that claim they want an ethno-state are forgetting themselves and the situation of the country. Demanding something that is not only unreasonable, but unrealistic. A realistic goal is democratically persuading the revival of a perpetually White-majority state with set demographic goals and equilibrium. Mexico, through various Articles in its Constitution, will be perpetually Hispanic, and it has stricter and saner immigration standards than the U.S. Yet we are painted as Nazis by Hispanics and Leftists for not wanting half of the North American Hispanic population to illegally immigrate, reside and procreate in our country? We already have 50 million Hispanics, or 1/4 of the Hispanics in North American and the Caribbean.  There is no need for a monarchical system for the people of a country to have a claim of inheritance. Monarchies are own by monarchs. The U.S. is owned by the people, and the people of the U.S. have always been majority White. The U.S. was founded by Whites, created for Whites, built and maintained by Whites. The Leftists are deliberately flooding our countries with immigrants they know will likely be perennial Left-wing voters. It is a power grab with wanton disregard for the overall integrity and prosperity of this nation. I am all for meritocracy. In a perpetually White-majority country, other races will have plenty of opportunity for elevation based on the virtue of their merit, just as they do today. White people dominate positions of power, as they always have, because we are the majority group in this country, and we always have been. This is our country. It is not supremacist, it is equitable. Other groups would not be restricted from holding positions of power. We have shared this country with others, some that are directly hostile to us, and that generosity has brought us nothing but grief and problems in the end. But that is simply human nature, because if you give anyone an inch, they will take a mile if they are allowed, and that is exactly what other groups have done in the U.S. It is not paranoia to be uncomfortable with seeing merit replaced by discrimination in favor of non-Whites. It is not paranoia to see the White majority decrease by 22% in 50 years. Minorities in this country can remain as they are and have been. But mass immigration and the welfare state must be thwarted for this country to remain what it is today. This country will become something different if Whites become a minority. No time in the history of humankind has a racial/ethnic/cultural group been replaced by other groups, and the conquering groups adopted the culture and values of the vanquished.
    3
  2173. 3
  2174. 3
  2175. 3
  2176. 3
  2177.  @TheSebi99p  It isn't designed to be reformed. It is considered the final and unaltered word of God, and Mohammed's example was considered perfect. Try telling a Muslim that slavery or pedophilia is morally wrong when their prophet, the supposed "perfect man," did those things. It is pointless arguing with a person who believes that, and most Muslims believe that, whether they admit it to you or not. Also, you are calling them radical when most are in fact fundamentalists. It may seem semantic, but think of every other religion: do we call Christians who follow a literalist interpretation of the Bible "radicals?" No, we call them fundamentalists. Calling a person a radical or an extremist (when they're only following the fundamental principles of the ideology) serves to obfuscate and defang the truth about the foundational principles of their ideology. As I said, the real radicals are those like Tawhidi and Hersi-Ali who are trying to reform Islam, and they are getting hunted by their fellow Muslims for it. Also, Maajid is a Trojan horse. He coined the term "Islamist," which just means a typical Muslim, really. It's just more taqiyya. He also wrote a book called "Radical" when he knows full well his ideology was fundamentalist, and radicalism is a departure from foundational principles. He is also a globalist, an ideology which leads to more Islamic colonization and supremacy, and he knows it. Just because "good Muslims" exist doesn't mean they belong in our countries or that they wouldn't side with their own when all the chips fall. Even "good Muslims" are an existential threat to any civilized society, because the children of Islamic immigrants generally become more fundamentalist than their parents due to the natural effects of social alienation. They are an alien culture that belongs living in their own countries, dealing with their own problems. "Your solution is us vs them. This leaves no room for any compromise, either we kill them, or they kill us." It is already us vs. them, whether you like to admit it or not, bro. We should not have to compromise with foreign groups within our own nations, even if they are capable of compromising, which Muslims are not. They should either conform or get out. You need to stop applying these unreasonable standards of "tolerance" for yourself and your country. Talking to them will achieve nothing. We've been talking for years, and all they do is demand unreasonable concessions because they have become accustomed to using our "tolerance" against us to demand special treatment. Then they demonize anyone who criticizes them or their 7th century death cult as a bigot with a phobic mental illness. They are a group that have proven they are incapable of fully adapting and they cause far more detriments to our nations than they do benefits. They should be repatriated to the countries of their origin or ancestry. We don't have to kill them to remove them.
    3
  2178. 3
  2179. 3
  2180. 3
  2181. 3
  2182. 3
  2183. 3
  2184. 3
  2185. 3
  2186. 3
  2187. 3
  2188. 3
  2189. 3
  2190. 3
  2191. 3
  2192. 3
  2193. 3
  2194. 3
  2195. 3
  2196. 3
  2197. 3
  2198. 3
  2199. 3
  2200. 3
  2201. 3
  2202. 3
  2203. 3
  2204. 3
  2205. 3
  2206. 3
  2207. 3
  2208. 3
  2209. 3
  2210. 3
  2211. 3
  2212. 3
  2213. 3
  2214. 3
  2215. 3
  2216. 3
  2217. 3
  2218. 3
  2219. 3
  2220. 3
  2221. 3
  2222. 3
  2223. 3
  2224. 3
  2225. 3
  2226. 3
  2227. 2
  2228. 2
  2229. 2
  2230. 2
  2231. 2
  2232. 2
  2233. 2
  2234. 2
  2235. 2
  2236. 2
  2237. Respectfully, I don't need a poignant lecture about Puerto Ricans in the military or veterans, especially if you have never served. I served with several Puerto Ricans, and the ones that join the military are a lot like any other Hispanic that joins the military. They do it because it is their best option and they want veterans benefits and healthcare for their family etc. Of course they also want to serve their country, and many are there to prove themselves as Americans. But also consider that there is this hero fallacy surrounding veterans and military as if all of them risk their lives day in and day out. In reality, it takes 10 support personnel to put one pair of boots on the ground. Regardless, the Puerto Ricans I served with considered themselves Americans, and they were one of the few exceptions. Nevertheless, I don't care what anyone says, national and cultural identity matters, and most Puerto Ricans don't identify as Americans first and foremost. Citizenship means shit all to me. There are imbedded terrorists bent on destroying the United States that are American citizens. Hispanics that join the military obviously aren't the grievance mongering ingrates waving foreign flags at anti-Trump rallies demanding free healthcare and open borders. But they are the exception, not the majority, and the reality is that Latinos as a whole vote 4:1 Democrat and the more Latinos we have involved in our voting process, the more Leftist votes will be cast, and the more our country becomes a socialist Hell project.
    2
  2238. 2
  2239. 2
  2240. 2
  2241. 2
  2242. 2
  2243. 2
  2244. 2
  2245. 2
  2246. 2
  2247. 2
  2248. 2
  2249. 2
  2250. 2
  2251. 2
  2252. 2
  2253. @ neil: It seems like an archaic practice to build walls, sure, but over 29 border walls have been planned, proposed, or built all over the world since 2000. There are 65 operating border walls in the world. Certainly all these countries have critically assessed the effectiveness and concluded they aren't an unnecessary waste of money and resources. I think the main difference between ancient and modern border walls is fairly obvious. Ancient walls were built to hinder, delay or thwart invading armies and raiding parties, as well as "mount detection devices (human surveillance)" as you said. Modern walls need only to hinder, delay or thwart the much less formidable and motivated common migrant. The exception being walls in places like Israel and the late great Berlin Wall. I also added earlier in this thread that physical barriers are used everywhere to designate boundaries and private property, not just national borders. It adds a psychological factor that implies "keep out," especially when concertina wire is used. Although it sounds simplistic, even walls that are easily defeated usually thwart human traffic to a significant degree. Apartment complexes, industrial yards, port facilities, government facilities, military bases, etc. all invest in physical barriers. I don't know how feasible a purely "detect and react" system would be, and in all actuality, we have plenty of detection and reaction capabilities that could be easily employed right now, but are not. I think solar powered drone systems could be used for detection and alerting reaction forces. This in conjunction with a physical barrier would be highly effective, in my opinion.
    2
  2254. 2
  2255. 2
  2256. 2
  2257. 2
  2258. 2
  2259. 2
  2260. 2
  2261. 2
  2262. 2
  2263. 2
  2264. 2
  2265. "I'm talking diabetes your respond olympic medal ?" Yes, I do. Some Americans have health issues, but this country also produces the finest athletes in the world. Just goes to show how stupid you are for making generalizations about American health. There is diversity of all kinds in a country of 330-360 million people, and health and wellbeing are no exception. I've seen some fat, slovenly, ugly people French people in my day as well. Everything you say is a mass generalization, and the same anti-American sentiment that is spewed by every degenerate socialist European. There are many of us here that know full well that liberalism is the backbone of western democracy, which is why I never use the word liberal to describe a Leftist, because it is a misnomer. You see the world through a very narrow lens. And just like the other guy shitposting here and badmouthing the U.S. and me, it is just because you have no argument about what this post began as, and it devolved into a character attack. Also, I don't even think you're French. Let me add that this thread started with this very ignorant quote made by you: "Yep that's why the average french people live a better life than any other kind of nationnalities (especially US..)" Actually, "a better life" is subjective and that's again, a mass generalization about Americans. That seems to be your MO. How can "a better life" even be quantified? Your lifespan? Your wealth? The amount of time you spend at leisure? The quality of food and drink you consume? The list could go on and on, and depends on what makes a person happy in life. For me, I have a great life. Wife, kids, multiple houses, a great job with benefits, a boat, two vehicles, a summer cabin in the mountains. My family is healthy and strong. We eat and drink like kings, and life is good. If you live two years longer than me, God Bless. It doesn't matter to me, because I'm a happy guy.
    2
  2266. 2
  2267. 2
  2268. 2
  2269. 2
  2270. 2
  2271. @ephewe: "Japan can't protect itself though." Yes, it can. It has one of the top 10 militaries in the world and is allied with South Korea (another top 10 world military power), and the U.S., the most powerful military in the world. "I mean, protecting itself means a preemptive strike" No it doesn't. If everyone went around killing everyone that posed a threat to them, the world would be a slaughterhouse. Think about if Israel openly attacked every country that posed a threat to them. They would be in open war with every Islamic state in the world. Going around "preemptively striking" everyone is warmongering, plain and simple. "The entire deal is that WE will handle their foreign affairs when hostility is on the table. When it comes to Japan, we are bound to be their guardian angel as much as they are bound to depend on us." If this is true, why do they even have a military apparatus, let alone one of the most powerful ones in the world? Stop burdening yourself with the defense of another country. They are perfectly capable of protecting themselves, and their constitution only states that they cannot attack a country that doesn't attack them first. That is really the way it should be, and isn't unreasonable at all. "unless we take NK out, they're going to blackmail us constantly, to the point where the regime is entirely subsidized by American tax payers" This is just an absolutely ludicrous argument. Name me one time in U.S. history that we have submitted to blackmail by some tinhorn dictator? "There really is nothing else to do at this point other than what needs to be done: Kill the Kims, take out the nukes & the mind-bogglingly massive amount of conventional artillery which is pointed at Seoul, and hope for the best." Keep trying to convince yourself the ends justify the means, no matter how low you have to sink. I will not approve of it, for I have actually seen war. I hope whoever makes the decision about Korea actually has a familiarity with war and killing, but I doubt that will be the case. An impetuous approach to this conflict will end in ruin.
    2
  2272. 2
  2273. 2
  2274. 2
  2275. 2
  2276. 2
  2277. 2
  2278. 2
  2279. 2
  2280. 2
  2281. 2
  2282. 2
  2283. 2
  2284. 2
  2285. 2
  2286. 2
  2287. 2
  2288. 2
  2289. 2
  2290. 2
  2291. 2
  2292. 2
  2293. 2
  2294. 2
  2295. 2
  2296. 2
  2297. 2
  2298. The United States prior to the New Deal is what pure unbridled capitalism and imperialism looked like. It is not the politics or the economics of the United States that has "pulled so far right," it has simply gradually shifted. The most drastic shift has taken place in the rest of the "advanced industrial" world, which has pulled towards the Left and becoming social welfare states. Look to Western Europe as the example of that, where they have socialists in control of most of the government and a corrupt post-national authority lording over them, stripping them of their national sovereignty. Even communists openly run, and with a marginal degree of popularity there. You clearly don't have the self determinant spirit requisite to conceptualize a state without a strong centralized welfare system actually working. Instead you advocate for systems that are destined to fail. The government cannot spend money unless it first takes it away from someone else. The problem is that there is a finite amount of wealth, even in the "capitalist class." Once there is no money left to take, these systems implode under the weight of the parasitic leaches that they are sustaining. Add mass unfettered immigration and open border retardation, and you have yourself a failed state, unable to sustain its utopian dream. Still, the U.S. is moving that direction, and the massive bureaucratically controlled central government and the growing welfare state here is already clearly unsustainable, especially when mass immigration is factored into the equation.
    2
  2299. 2
  2300. 2
  2301. 2
  2302. "somehow think that your theory is flawless" Hardly. I simply think it is exponentially better than communism and other forms of socialistic welfare systems. "automatically pivot to boxing the left into Marxist theory whenever there's an argument against a laissez faire marketplace. There's no either/or here." Actually, I'm not for unbridled, completely deregulated capitalism either. I think it's safe to say most American Rightists aren't either. I simply advocate for a reversal of the welfare state. Most American Leftists are pushing for "democratic socialism," which is essentially just socialism lite and is fundamentally Marxist in principle. I'm just calling a duck a duck, honestly. Also, as you well know, Marxist theory transcends economics and politics. There is cultural Marxism as well, which is culpable for many of the perverse postmodernist forms of degeneracy that are infecting our society today. I agree with your assessment on cronyism, mismanagement and misallocation of taxpayer dollars, politics and spending being influenced by corporate interests, etc. Riddle me this, however...given how incredibly inept and corrupt big centralized government has proven itself to be, why should we feel compelled to place more power and tax dollars into their hands? It seems as though some Leftists contradict their criticism of the government as inept by advocating for more government control, more taxes, and more bureaucratically run programs.   Overall, that was a very well structured argument. Props.
    2
  2303. 2
  2304. "It's very difficult for social democracy to function when the USA empire is pulling, by hook or by crook, further to the right - "free market" capitalism." What a pathetic excuse. Blame the U.S. for all of your economic woes. You're just proving that we indirectly subsidize your shitty social projects. We should pull out of NAFTA and twist the knife. "What you have is private profits and socialized costs FOR THE RICH" The rich (the top 1%) pay between 35-39.6% for income tax here. The highest corporate tax bracket is 35%. The rich pay more taxes here that they do in Canada, income and corporate. "Would you prefer that your tax dollars are spent on a massively bloated military (that receives socialized medical, btw) No actually I would much rather the rest of the West pay their fair share in defense spending to protect interests that are largely their's as well i.e. fund their fair share of NATO or get the fuck out of it, help pay for Israel to not get wiped off the face of the Earth etc. I would much rather our war apparatus be partially defunded and that money reallocated to homeland security, schools, infrastructure etc. But no other Western "industrialized nations" wants to bear the burden of protecting our way of life and paying for the means to have an effective war apparatus. They would much rather just push their weight around as if they deserve to be heard as a world voice, all whilst under the dry umbrella of American protection, and then sanctimoniously sneer and badmouth us as "imperialists" ever chance they get. Meanwhile all of these "visionary" Western countries are trying to sustain these degenerating social welfare states in hopes of establishing some kind of utopia, whilst simultaneously inviting the Third World into their countries. Only a fool would establish a welfare state with open borders, so perhaps you all deserve to be destroyed. It's like a being a parent: they treat you like shit, you sustain them, and you watch as they make childish errors trying "follow their hearts." "would you prefer your tax dollars went to universal healthcare" Absolutely fucking not. There will never be universal healthcare in this country, and I'll tell you why. Firstly, we have 350 million people in this country and that number will be increasing so long as we're allowing illegal immigrants that have an average birthrate of 3 children per woman to enter our country without significant legal consequence. Our largest example of socialized medicine is the Veterans Health Administration which serves about 1.5 million people and costs the Fed about 2% of its mandatory budget per year. If you take the cost of the VHA, and you apply it to the entire population, it would cost the equivalency of 466% of the U.S. federal mandatory spending budget just to provide healthcare that is renown in the U.S. as being horrible (believe me, I'm a vet). The cost of socialized medicine in this country in unsustainable. It would require taxes to increase exponentially. Remember that the population of Canada is only 1/10 of ours, and we have way more poor immigrants that contribute very little tax revenue. Some groups of people in this country are a lot more productive than others, and I'm not talking about people who are unable to produce. The productive class does not want to subsidize the parasitic class any more than they already do in this country. There is already socialized medicine here for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and veterans. Those that are able to be productive should not be rewarded for their lack of productivity. The majority of career-type jobs have healthcare benefits. Welfare states breed laziness and a false sense of entitlement, and Americans know this. Healthcare is not a right owed to anyone by society, it is a courtesy given to those that are the neediest and unable to produce and sustain the cost of their own healthcare.
    2
  2305. 2
  2306. 2
  2307. 2
  2308. 2
  2309. 2
  2310. 2
  2311. 2
  2312. 2
  2313. 2
  2314. 2
  2315. 2
  2316. 2
  2317. 2
  2318. 2
  2319. 2
  2320. 2
  2321. 2
  2322. 2
  2323. 2
  2324. 2
  2325. 2
  2326. 2
  2327. 2
  2328. 2
  2329. 2
  2330. 2
  2331. 2
  2332. 2
  2333. 2
  2334. 2
  2335. 2
  2336. 2
  2337. 2
  2338. 2
  2339. 2
  2340. 2
  2341. 2
  2342. 2
  2343. 2
  2344. 2
  2345. 2
  2346. 2
  2347. 2
  2348. @lapamful: The article is linked above in the subsequent comment. Open your eyes, my friend. Just because something is copied and pasted does not mean it isn't the truth. Based on your criticism thus far, I would think you would rather me use other sources as fact instead of my opinion, anyways. Interesting how you would automatically dismiss something just because the information doesn't fit your narrative. Kind of like how you automatically dismiss my opinion because you insist I'm a "neo-nazi." Hmm... I sense a cognitive bias. "This doesn't include the 850,000 Jewish refugees Israel took in 1948 from Arab lands after they were ethnically cleansed because of Arab anger at the recreation of the state of Israel. So this already puts Israel up there with Germany in terms of migrants. But no doubt you'll have something to say about why that isn't true either..." I doubt that ethnically Jewish refugees were even counted as refugees if they fled to the state of Israel, however Israel is one of the only country's that requires genetic testing to immigrate to there, so I wouldn't put it past them. Meanwhile 720,000 Palestinians fled or were forcibly deported by the new Israeli government in 1948 when their lands became Israel. Did they take any of these folks back in? Less than 1% of them. Your argument really doesn't disprove my claim that they are an ethno-state. If Germany took in 850,000 ethnic Germans living outside Germany, this would not be considered ethnic diversity. If Israel took in hundreds of thousands of Somalis and granted most of them asylum, as Sweden has done, then they would be considered a multi-ethnic state. But of course they won't do that. They know that Somalis are incompatible with their society, but they surely want Europeans to take Somalis, even though the same incompatibility exists. Also, just because someone is physically in Israel, doesn't mean they are a citizen of Israel. The country of Qatar seems very diverse too, but in early 2017, Qatar's total population was 2.6 million, and only 313,000 of them are Qatari citizens.
    2
  2349. @lapamful: "You are the sum of your opinions." Opinions are subjective. They do not add up to define a person or necessarily their entire viewpoint unless those opinions are 1.) uncompromisingly steadfast and 2.) interpreted as unquestionable a certain thing by an observer. My opinions are neither steadfast, nor are they commonly interpreted correctly. You see my criticism of Jewry and Israel and you automatically equate this to Anti-Semitism, which is then automatically conflated with neo-Nazism. But tell me this, what do you consider a person that criticizes U.S. imperialism and White-American influence and meddling? Do you automatically assume the person criticizing is a communist? An Islamofascist? A racist? A supremacist? Yeah, you probably wouldn't consider them any of those things. Just someone with a opinion, and probably a valid one. Yet Jewry and Zionism are immune to criticism. You are currently confirming this. Others have accurately classified my views as White nationalist. You, on the other hand, having little tact or nuance and prone to false equivalence, would conflate a WN with a NN, when there are in fact some rather large dissimilarities. "Criticism is based on facts. Racism is based on fiction." Again, this all depends on interpretation. Fact: "A black person is more than twice as likely to commit a crime than a White person in the United States." Fact or fiction? Criticism or racism? Some would say this is fiction and racist. Others would say it is a fact, and racist. Still others would say it is fiction, and not racist. And some might even say it is fact, and not racist, like myself. Your argument is that if something is a fact, it cannot be interpreted as being racist. That is patently false. Facts are interpreted as being racist all the time. You interpret my opinions as being false, therefore racist. It is entirely subjective. Additionally, your argument seems to be that all racism is based on fiction and not facts. As if a supremacist can only develop these notions from stimulus that is fictional in nature. That is also patently false. "OPEC's control of the oil supply thus controlling the price of oil" If OPEC holds absolute control over the oil supply and the price of oil, and therefore the flow of wealth, why do oil prices fluctuate? Why would OPEC allow oil prices to plummet? If oil is king, and controls all wealth, why is Venezuela in the current state it finds itself? Why didn't OPEC raise oil prices to prevent their member state from imploding? Rhetorical questions. This is an absurd argument on your part. International finance controls the world market, not any one commodity. The oil industry is a hugely powerful factor, but it is not the most powerful.
    2
  2350. 2
  2351. 2
  2352. 2
  2353. 2
  2354. @ Virgil: You "took it down?" LOL How so? "I stated truthfully that Israel is one of the most multicultural countries on the planet by virtue of the fact that it has a population that is 20% Muslim Arab, 5% Christian, Druze, Bahii Arab and other, and the Jewish population is multi ethnic in the extreme, considering that nearly 50% of the Jews are of Arab, African, North African, or Asian background. But of course you ignored me when I made those statements." No, you actually didn't say anything like this at all. THIS is an actual argument, unlike anything you have provided thus far. Here is the thing about the Palestinian Arabs; they are an unwelcome presence to the Jewish majority of Israel. Everybody knows this. The vast majority of them don't even consider themselves Israeli, even though many of them hold Israeli citizenship. They refer to themselves as Palestinian Arabs, not Arab Israelis. Everybody knows this. Many Arabs living within Israel have actually denied the Israeli citizenship they were offered. Everybody knows this. They are in Israel because when Israel became a state, the Israelis would have had to forcibly deport or kill them in order to get rid of them. Everybody knows this. The animosity the Jewish government has shown towards the Palestinians, and their own bitterness of the establishment of the Jewish state, has caused them to become an essentially autonomous population within Israel. The Druze and the Negev are the only Arabs that even openly embrace Israeli citizenship, and they are less than 5% of the population. Despite the Palestinian presence, the state is 75% ethnically Jewish, and they would no doubt be more ethically homogenous if they could do so without open genocide or displacement. Israel has both immigration and emigration laws that promote ethnic homogeneity. Demographers are very determinant as to who is considered Jewish and who is not, using rabbinical law as their basis for assessing "Jewishness." That doesn't sound like any other state in the world to me. Can you imagine if British immigration officials were also demographers that were this concerned with "Britishness," and you could only immigrate back to Britain if you had an ethnically British grandparent? What other state has anything like the Law of Return? It basically gives ethnic Jews automatic rights to citizenship. Israel is even politically referred to as the "Jewish State," which practically defines it in common usage as an ethno-state. Israel is an ethnic state by law, and would be 100% Jewish if they had it their way. Someday, especially if a Palestinian state is established, they will be even more ethnically homogeneous. How is this not ethnic nationalism? How do the Jews not show hypocrisy, promoting multiculturalism and mass immigration everywhere in the world other than in Israel? I don't think you took down the argument at all.
    2
  2355. The Jews were forced to take in Palestinians at the inception of their country. They would never allow the equivalency of 20% of their population of Muslims enter today, and they would have good reason. It is academically dishonest to compare Israel's Arab population to other countries for this reason, and you know it. Yet, they expect White nations to continue taking in Muslim migrants, despite all the problems they are causing. "the only thing they have in common is that they share a religion" This is very untrue and academically dishonest as well. Israel requires that at least one grandparent was genetically Jewish. Jews have been exclusive for millennia, so they can be genetically determined to be ethnically Jew, and you know it. Being a Jew is not just practicing Judaism. That is retarded. Israel also favors certain Jews they see as more purely Jewish, according to rabbinical law. Russian Jews, for example, have been discriminated against by Israeli demographers because they see them as ethnically and culturally different. "Israel has proven that a multi-cultural society can work." Really? I don't think they have at all. I think that their multiethnic society is bound by Judaism and Zionism. Without those things, it would implode into civil war and chaos. I think they still exist in a tumultuous and precarious situation.  They have practical apartheid and racial segregation against their Arab minority. Very progressive. Western White nations are a better example of a successful multicultural experiment, and they are all fucked too. Multiculturalism doesn't work. It's adverse to the very element of human nature.
    2
  2356. 2
  2357. 2
  2358. 2
  2359. Really, Dan? Welfarism is not socialism. The Nordic Model is not socialism. Germany, the Nordic countries, France, Canada, Australia...not socialism. I'll bet every single country you're thinking of is a mixed market economy that is more capitalist than socialist. I'd also wager that every country you're thinking of has only a fraction of the population of the U.S. and significantly less immigrants, poor, and elderly. Even Germany has less than 1/4 of our population. You cannot take the European/Commonwealth welfare state model and apply it to a population of 330-350 million and growing. It doesn't fucking work. The U.S. only spends 3% less (19%) of our GDP on social programs than Norway, who are second in the world at 22% and have the second highest GDP-per-capita ratio in the world. We have over 10 times the population of Norway just in elderly people on Medicare.  All of those European countries are just now starting to feel the burden of mass immigration, an aging population, and a low birth rate amongst the productive classes, and they already have 40-50% average tax. You talk about elitists and wealth and power disparity as if they haven't existed in every single real-world practical application of a socialist system. Every socialist regime has produced an elite class as well, they are just government and military people that take all the wealth and power instead of a corporate oligarchy. The elite within a Marxist/Leninist regime have their own military, police and intelligence apparatuses to crush any dissidence. Yay. I could "hand-pick" several countries that have failed under socialism. Venezuela  was moving further and further towards the proverbial socialist cliff and they collapsed under the massive weight of their unsustainable central bureaucracy. You don't have to be a Green party supporter to fucking get that pure unbridled socialism or capitalism both don't fucking work.
    2
  2360. Dan Mannington You should revoke your American citizenship and immigrate to Canada since it's so much greater than your own country, Dan. You can have incredibly high taxes, shitty sorta free healthcare, and go on welfare and live in a government subsidized housing project full of other immigrants to include imbedded terrorists that the Trudeau administration protects. Since the wealth mobility is second to none, you shouldn't be there long, Dan. But then you'll realize that all the real estate in the urban centers is being bought by wealthy Asians and you won't be able to afford anything decent, so you'll be forced out of the city core. With real estate and rental prices skyhigh, your only choice will be to buddy up to some wealthy liberal government elite that can crony you out and give you a fat paying public sector job like a good little socialist. Then on your way to the office, you can share your 100% taxpayer subsidized salary with the thousands of homeless drug addicts littering the streets that shitty Canadian social programs couldn't save. Make sure you don't criticize Islam or call someone by the wrong pronoun while you're up there, you can get legally prosecuted for that, Dan! Everything will seem fantastic, until you realize debt is skyrocketing and will continue to skyrocket far into the foreseeable future with no sane plan or method to pay for it. Your pension will depend on that system, Dan, but unfortunately immigrants are sucking all those benefits dry. Looks like you're back in the subsidized housing project Dan, but oops, that depends on the taxpayer too, and since you're White you'll be at the bottom of the list. No pension, no housing, no welfare...hmmm...I guess you'll be out on the street with the rest of the bums, Dan. But at least you'll have free healthcare if you get frostbite on your feet...oh wait...it isn't free...it depends on taxpayers too. Go for it, Dan!
    2
  2361. 2
  2362. 2
  2363. 2
  2364. 2
  2365. 2
  2366. 2
  2367. 2
  2368. 2
  2369. 2
  2370. 2
  2371. 2
  2372. 2
  2373. 2
  2374. 2
  2375. 2
  2376. 2
  2377. 2
  2378. 2
  2379. 2
  2380. 2
  2381. 2
  2382. 2
  2383. 2
  2384. 2
  2385. 2
  2386. 2
  2387. 2
  2388. 2
  2389. 2
  2390. 2
  2391. 2
  2392. 2
  2393. 2
  2394. 2
  2395. 2
  2396. 2
  2397. 2
  2398. 2
  2399. 2
  2400. 2
  2401. 2
  2402. 2
  2403.  @jacobhill7963  It doesn't matter what you are in all honesty; if you aren't an American, your opinion is essentially meaningless concerning this matter. Nothing you have said has been particularly wise or noteworthy, so I don't see much of a point in taking heed to your gibberings. If I say someone is "running around like a chicken with their head cut off," it is a way of humorously mocking their behavior as erratic or misguided. It is not erratic or misguided to be angry and behave accordingly when it comes to this election. Hence, your characterization of people who are actively resisting this crime in the manner they are is objectively a way of mocking their behavior, trivializing their anger, and psychologically manipulating them to question their own sanity. The latter is the definition of gaslighting. The fact that you keep denying this only illustrates your inability to remain honest in the face of being criticized for what you said in plain English. Anger is useful when one needs to correct transgressions made against them, and I don't see much harm in behaving unorthodoxly in the face of this type of transgression. I don't need to prove anything to someone like yourself: a naive and over-opinionated youth. I am older than you, but still a relatively young man. I've learned that I find very little value in meekness/humility or relativistic notions of "tolerance." I admire audacity and steadfastness in one's convictions. I have no reason thus far to respect you, as you've given me more reason to not respect you than the contrary.
    2
  2404. 2
  2405. 2
  2406. 2
  2407. 2
  2408. 2
  2409. 2
  2410. 2
  2411. 2
  2412. 2
  2413. 2
  2414. 2
  2415. 2
  2416. 2
  2417. 2
  2418. 2
  2419. 2
  2420. 2
  2421. 2
  2422. 2
  2423. 2
  2424. 2
  2425. 2
  2426. 2
  2427. 2
  2428. 2
  2429. 2
  2430. 2
  2431. 2
  2432. 2
  2433. 2
  2434. 2
  2435. 2
  2436. 2
  2437. @Politics:   The question should be "what exactly do Democrats do to help black people?" Because they have had unilateral control over the Black population for fucking decades and things are getting worse or not changing at all. So really, the Republicans haven't even been given an opportunity to help Black people and try the things they want to do: namely issuing vouchers to Black parents so they don't have to send their children to be "educated" at demilitarized Hell project public schools. The Dems and teachers' unions block every effort conservatives make to reform education in urban areas.  As far as "suspicious voter-suppression tactics" and "racial district cracking" to "disenfranchise Black people," I would say that is mostly the same old lies and excuses Democrats have been using for years i.e. anything that disproportionately impacts Blacks or even impacts Blacks at all is racist. Tell me, how exactly are Republicans keeping Black people from voting? Sounds like soft bigotry of low expectations to me.  As far as Hispanics are concerned, the fact that you think "Trump shits all over that constituency" again shows your soft bigotry of low expectations and cognitive bias. How exactly does he "shit all over them" besides expecting them to follow the same laws as everybody else?  If Blacks actually did vote based on political/social view and not party allegiance, they wouldn't be voting Democrat 9:1.  Blacks are totally socially conservative, and are economically very goal driven. Their young men are alpha male capitalists, many of whom are obsessed with wealth and swag. The majority of Southern Black Americans are religious and follow Judeo-Christian social values. Blacks generally oppose same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and alternative lifestyles at a greater rate than Whites. They also poll as anti-immigration advocates. The main reason they vote Democrat is for the welfare state and the myth surrounding Republicans being WACIST. Of course this is a lie that began in the 60s, not the 70s as you said. Luckily for Blacks, Whites in this country have a vastly more diverse allegiance to political parties and ideologies. Blacks call the GOP the "White Party" when only 58% of Whites voted for Trump. Meanwhile, Blacks vote 9:1, Hispanics 4:1, and Asians 4:1 Democrat. Can you imagine if Whites voted 9:1 Republican? Even 4:1? Can you imagine the screams of racism from the Left and the utter butthurt? Doubles standards yet again.   "The conservatives have never been on black people's side throughout history." Wrong. You do realize that a conservative is simply someone who is trying to CONSERVE classically liberal values? Take a look at classical liberalism defined and you'll pretty much be reading the blueprint for modern conservatism. As far as the social aspect, the social liberals have always just been virtue signaling and instituting a Marxist bourgeoise/proletariat framework onto the racial framework of this country, painting Whites as the oppressors and everyone else as the oppressed. Leftists "care" for Blacks, but they don't actually do anything but mire them in perpetual poverty, pander to their grievances, and facilitate and make excuses for their cultural failures that are largely a result of Leftist policies. Conservatives believe in the notion of family, tradition, self-accountability, work ethic, and education. These are things Blacks used to exemplify before the Great Society. Blacks were much better off when they were more socially conservative, but many of them still are in all actuality. At this point, they are simply driven by identity politics and are extremely tribal and anti-White. The Dems continue to nauseatingly peddle identity politics, despite it being so utterly transparent at this point, even to the point of creating a marked reactionary increase in White identitarianism.
    2
  2438. 2
  2439. 2
  2440. 2
  2441. 2
  2442. 2
  2443. 2
  2444. 2
  2445. 2
  2446. 2
  2447. 2
  2448. 2
  2449. 2
  2450. 2
  2451. 2
  2452. 2
  2453.  @jasonx7501  My whole argument is that anti-white, anti-Western, anti-American and anti-capitalist people endorse communism (an ideology that is widely known as murderous) in the hopes that communist revolution will destroy their perceived enemies. That is pure malevolence. Styx said people don't endorse ideologies that suck just to be malevolent, but the facts suggest otherwise. The vanguard of classical Marxists was the working and lower classes. The vanguard of the neo-Marxists is minority groups. They are the useful idiots...the "proletariat" of the neo-Marxists. Their desire to destroy Western civilization is all that truly unites them. Without that desire to subvert and destroy us, their coalition would devolve and they would begin fighting amongst themselves. They are an unholy alliance of groups that would otherwise be enemies. All the benign issues you claim leftists care about the most are simply facades for the overarching agenda. Through wealth distribution, mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the ideological subversion of our cultural institutions, the Left wants to deconstruct and reconstruct Western civilization into a globalist socialist hellscape. They hope that targeting the West first will makes all other nations follow suit. So no, it's no strawman. You're just trying to play innocent. It is not dehumanizing to point out why we have different skin tones. It is dehumanizing to say that our skin tone is the only thing that defines us as a group of people. There is no need to be obsessed with race to realize that. You can't argue with what the voting data says, so instead you're deceptively attempting to trivialize the categorization (race) which makes those voting statistics valid to my argument, and damning to your understanding of leftism. You have no real argument here. Just personal attacks conjoined with meaningless dogmatic gibberings and lies.
    2
  2454.  @jasonx7501  Actually, communism (a stateless society) is a theoretical concept that has never been brought to fruition. Marx said that socialism is the vehicle by which a society arrives at communism. Socialist economic reformation is generally achieved by way of violent revolution, but even if it is achieved democratically, it cannot be implemented and maintained without what Marx called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" seizing control of the means of production, maintaining one-party rule, and compelling collective ownership. So again you are wrong. Tyranny is the default mode of communism, and a communist state cannot adopt pro-democratic ideas for its style of governance. Compelling equality of outcome is impossible without extreme tyranny. The idea of a communist state being democratic is laughable, and proves one of two things: either you are woefully ignorant or transparently dishonest. You have sunk to the depths of downplaying communism, and you call my beliefs pathetic? Again, because you can't contend with the substance of the argument, you are now trying to pivot again and attacking the meaning of Western civilization. The enemy is so easy to spot these days..."your race and civilization don't exist, so they can't be attacked or destroyed...reeeee." Something to that extent. It's painfully obvious what you're trying to do. This is a YouTube comment section, not an academic journal. The idea that the left-wing agenda does not extend past the benign desire to institute socialized medicine and increased maternal leave is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Minorities are rarely dehumanized by white people, nor are white people actively seeking to strip away their rights. Talk about a strawman. If that were the case, people would not be breaking down the gates to get into white-majority nations. And yet when they get here and are given full rights, they immediately vote for ideologies that seek to dehumanize and destroy their host population and culture. Those ideologies are all leftist.
    2
  2455. 2
  2456. 2
  2457. 2
  2458. 2
  2459. 2
  2460. 2
  2461. 2
  2462. 2
  2463. 2
  2464. 2
  2465. 2
  2466. 2
  2467. 2
  2468. 2
  2469. 2
  2470. 2
  2471. 2
  2472. 2
  2473. 2
  2474. 2
  2475. 2
  2476. 2
  2477. 2
  2478. 2
  2479. 2
  2480. 2
  2481. 2
  2482. 2
  2483. 2
  2484. 2
  2485. 2
  2486. 2
  2487. 2
  2488. 2
  2489. 2
  2490. 2
  2491. 2
  2492. 2
  2493. 2
  2494. 2
  2495. 2
  2496. 2
  2497. 2
  2498. 2
  2499. 2
  2500. 2
  2501. 2
  2502. 2
  2503. 2
  2504. 2
  2505. 2
  2506. 2
  2507. 2
  2508. 2
  2509. 2
  2510. 2
  2511. 2
  2512. 2
  2513. 2
  2514. Jamie Howard I don't think you understand. I don't go around telling everyone to kill themselves. Only a select few, like H Wayne. We have history and he is a demented anti-White Leftist. I don't even disparage everyone with a Leftist opinion, let alone tell them all to kill themselves. Regardless, the Left is losing the working class vote, in America as elsewhere. Look at France, Germany and the UK. Right wing populism is rising. The neoliberal Left represents the elites, big tech, multinational corporations, international finance, academia, the media, Hollywood, and the civil services. The only workers they represent are the unions, and even they are getting tired of the Left's globalist bullshit betrayals. Also, the reason the Dems win the under 50K demographic in the U.S. is because minorities subscribe heavily to groupthink and vote ~80% for the Left. White Americans are by far the most ideologically diverse group. The White working class votes overwhelmingly Republican, despite the fact that the GOP talks about reducing the welfare state. That is telling: to me is means Whites want to work, not be generational welfare recipients. Trump only wants to deport illegal immigrants who have zero right to be in this country. Their ethnicity or race is irrelevant, and as an anti-immigration advocate, I would condemn it if White Canadians were illegally invading our country too, disproportionately using public assistance and committing crimes, etc. I think it poses other issues and expenses when the population group is culturally different, speaks a different language, and is disproportionately poor, unskilled and uneducated, as many Hispanics are. Still, I think we should build a wall and enforce the Canadian border too. We are bound to be invaded by their citizens too once their multicultural welfare retardation project collaspes under its own weight.
    2
  2515. 2
  2516. 2
  2517. 2
  2518. 2
  2519. 2
  2520. 2
  2521. 2
  2522. 2
  2523. 2
  2524. 2
  2525. 2
  2526. 2
  2527. 2
  2528. 2
  2529.  @shadowthehedgehog3113  India has a massive amount of ethnic and religious conflict, but the domination of the Indo-Aryan Hindu majority keeps it relatively stable. Imagine if half of India was Muslim though. It would descend into civil war and Balkanize. Either that or one group would defeat and subjugate the other group, or maybe one group would ethnically cleanse the other. Nearly every multiethnic state has some level of ethnic conflict, some of it violent. Just look at Africa, where European powers drew up nation-states rather idiotically to sometimes include hundreds of adversarial ethnic and/or religious groups. Hundreds of separatist movements exist throughout the world, most of them ethnic, many with armed wings. Many first world nations even have ethnic separatist movements such as those in Quebec, Scotland, Basque country, Flanders, Crimea, etc. The reason the U.S. has been successful is because those values you mentioned were enforced by a dominant majority demographic (Euro-Americans) who required immigrants to acculturate and adhere to those values. As Euro-Americans increasingly become a dwindling minority and other groups continue trying to subvert and destroy the dominant American culture, values, language, and institutions, the entire project will collapse. Culture, values, religion, and average political proclivities are correlated with race. When a country becomes too diverse, it becomes divided and weak. The Latin prefix "div" means separate. Divorce is a word that shares a prefix with diversity. Strong marriages don't typically end with divorce. Strong countries aren't typically overall diverse, either.
    2
  2530.  @shadowthehedgehog3113  I know the difference between religion and ethnicity. However, in some cases, ethnicity and religion are closely linked. A state can Balkanize along religious or even political lines as well, it is just usually ethnic. I also didn't say that the Indo-Aryan ethnolinguistic group is ethnically homogenous, but they do represent a religious majority that serves to unify the country. In India, the division is more religious instead of ethnic, but the principle is largely the same. You are in denial if you think a half Muslim, half Hindu India could survive. Pakistan and Bangladesh separated from India because of their Muslim majority. There is still sectarian violence in Kashmir due to its Muslim population. Moreover, the fact that homogenous societies also have had historical conflicts is irrelevant. Multiethnic societies still have an inherent flaw that serves to divide and weaken the country from its very inception. Multiculturalism is plainly insane and doesn't work at all, let alone does it help to strengthen a nation. But now I see what you are, and I am diametrically opposed to what you stand for: multiculturalism and left-wing globalist, which are destroying Western civilization. You incredulously denounce and try to sanctimoniously marginalize the legitimate desire of unique groups of people to have independence, probably even more so if they are a European group. Ethnonationalism and monoculturalism are the most natural form of state organization. It creates the most harmonious and stable societies in our current age.
    2
  2531. 2
  2532. 2
  2533. 2
  2534. 2
  2535. 2
  2536. 2
  2537. 2
  2538. 2
  2539. 2
  2540. 2
  2541. 2
  2542.  @TimBitts649  It is impossible to get an accurate sampling of immigration sentiment because pro-migration activists are such vile propagandists and have created a culture of shame and fear surrounding the issue. I think the majority of Americans think that supporting zero immigration leaves you open to being accused of bigotry and selfishness. Regardless of this stigma, the majority of Americans still want immigration to be decreased. I think that makes it reasonable to assume that a good percentage would want little to no immigration if they weren't in danger of being demonized for expressing this viewpoint. Whites are the people most likely to resist their in-group preferences because we've been propagandized to believe that advocating for our own collective interests is uniquely evil. Whites are told we are evil unless we view ourselves as individuals while every other group is encouraged to collectivize and subvert us. Whites are exclusively targeted with weaponized guilt. We are told we are uniquely evil and the world would be better off without us. We are told we must repent for this original sin through ethnomasochism: the desire to debilitate and destroy ourselves as a group. The Left knows that they can ideologically subvert Whites when we are in this weakened, individualistic, demoralized state. This is why Whites are so "welcoming" also, and why other groups are not. We apply double standards to ourselves and allow others to enforce them. Other groups know that we are critical of ourselves and have a strong desire to not be hated and shamed. So they exploit us. I think your views on technological advances as they apply to immigration are largely sound. My only concern is that AI and technological advances will render many Americans jobless and dependent on the state as well. Immigrants might leave here if there are no jobs, which would be good, but initially (when automation eliminates millions of jobs) they will just stay and parasitize our welfare systems.
    2
  2543. 2
  2544. 2
  2545. 2
  2546. 2
  2547. 2
  2548. 2
  2549. 2
  2550. 2
  2551. 2
  2552. 2
  2553. 2
  2554. 2
  2555. 2
  2556. 2
  2557. 2
  2558. 2
  2559. 2
  2560. 2
  2561. 2
  2562. 2
  2563. 2
  2564. 2
  2565. 2
  2566. 2
  2567. 2
  2568. 2
  2569. 2
  2570. 2
  2571. 2
  2572. 2
  2573. 2
  2574. 2
  2575. 2
  2576. 2
  2577. 2
  2578. 2
  2579. 2
  2580. 2
  2581. 2
  2582. 2
  2583. 2
  2584. 2
  2585. 2
  2586. 2
  2587. 2
  2588. 2
  2589. 2
  2590. 2
  2591. 2
  2592. 2
  2593. 2
  2594. 2
  2595. 2
  2596. 2
  2597. 2
  2598. 2
  2599. 2
  2600. 2
  2601. 2
  2602. 2
  2603. 2
  2604. 2
  2605. 2
  2606. 2
  2607. 2
  2608. 2
  2609. 2
  2610. 2
  2611. 2
  2612. 2
  2613. 2
  2614. 2
  2615. 2
  2616. 2
  2617. 2
  2618. 2
  2619. 2
  2620. 2
  2621. 2
  2622. 2
  2623. 2
  2624. 2
  2625. 2
  2626. 2
  2627. 2
  2628. 2
  2629. 2
  2630. 2
  2631. 2
  2632. If that were true, 65% of Hispanics wouldn't have voted for Biden, who is possibly the worst candidate to ever run for President. Tarl and his three-ring circus of race-blind civglobs are in an objective state of denial about demographics, which is evidenced by the fact that this comment was pinned and upvoted so much. I know you all WANT to believe that Hispanics are permanently swinging to the right, but it's just wishful thinking. The only reason about 30-35% of Hispanics are now voting GOP is because a minority of them have willingly assimilated into what remains of the preexistent Anglo-Protestant culture. But as globalization continues, more and more will continue pouring over the border and more and more will continue having 3 kids each while the population of heritage Americans dwindles (for a variety of reasons). The majority of under 18 American citizens are already nonwhite, and the plurality are Hispanic. Once they become the outright majority, they will have no moral or economic incentive to assimilate, and thus, they will not. Let's also not forget that the Left owns culture and controls all of the institutions that shape minds. 99% of Hispanics will attend the public "education" system, which is completely dominated by leftist thought. Most of them will grow up in urban areas where leftism is the orthodoxy. They will sit and watch TV that is filled with leftist propaganda. They will be influenced and adapt to the socially liberal and economically leftist attitudes of their peers. As a whole, this immigrant group has proven to be generationally willing to sacrifice the liberty they were given (some undeservedly) and whatever conservative moral values they might possess on the altar of gibs, degeneracy and big government, both in this country and in their countries of origin. When left to their own devices, they've proven they prefer leftism. Once they represent around 1/3rd of American voters, they will vote us into a socialist system as well. America is already a failed project because obstinate race-blind fools like Tarl won't admit that demographics massively influence the cultural and political destiny of any country.
    2
  2633. 2
  2634. 2
  2635. 2
  2636. 2
  2637. 2
  2638. 2
  2639. 2
  2640. 2
  2641. 2
  2642. 2
  2643. 2
  2644. 2
  2645. 2
  2646. 2
  2647. 2
  2648. 2
  2649. 2
  2650. 2
  2651. 2
  2652. 2
  2653. 2
  2654. 2
  2655. 2
  2656. 2
  2657. 2
  2658. 2
  2659. 2
  2660. 2
  2661. 2
  2662. 2
  2663. 2
  2664. 2
  2665. 2
  2666. 2
  2667. 2
  2668. 2
  2669. 2
  2670. 2
  2671. 2
  2672. 2
  2673. 2
  2674. 2
  2675. 2
  2676. 2
  2677. 2
  2678. 2
  2679. 2
  2680. 2
  2681. 2
  2682. 2
  2683. 2
  2684. 2
  2685. 2
  2686. 2
  2687. 2
  2688. 2
  2689. 2
  2690. 2
  2691. 2
  2692. 2
  2693. 2
  2694. 2
  2695. 2
  2696. 2
  2697. 2
  2698. 2
  2699. 2
  2700. 2
  2701. 2
  2702. 2
  2703. 2
  2704. 2
  2705. 2
  2706. 2
  2707. 2
  2708. 2
  2709. 2
  2710. 2
  2711. 2
  2712. 2
  2713. 2
  2714. 2
  2715. 2
  2716. 2
  2717. 2
  2718. 2
  2719. 2
  2720. 2
  2721. 2
  2722. 2
  2723. 2
  2724. 2
  2725. 2
  2726. 2
  2727. 2
  2728. 2
  2729. 2
  2730. 2
  2731. 2
  2732. 2
  2733. 2
  2734. 2
  2735. 2
  2736. 2
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. "Someone say america is not the best place on earth and a 300 pound diabetic with 3 job 20 years of student debt ahead, 2 chronic illness (and a shitty healthcare) will correct you about merica !!! Keep spending your few dollars on thousands dollar guns while you can't afford your medical treatment dumbass..." "USA is a country of slave brainwash by their master to be against any left ideology that would be their corporat master biggest threath" "in america you can't even recognise liberalism to you liberalism is socialism" Are these are not generalizations about Americans/America? ^^^^LOL You are a real student of debate, man. Keep up the good work. You guys keep saying how happy the French are, but they seemed pretty miserable when I was in France, tbh. Unfriendly, rude and cynical. Not to mention everywhere you go there is some African scumbag trying to sell you a trinket or pickpocket you. Why the fuck would I want to live in France, anyways? So I can pay 41% in taxes instead of 25% so migrants can get free welfare and healthcare? So I can live in an overcrowded, expensive, multicultural Hell project with no borders? So my daughter can get raped by a migrant and the police do nothing and the media covers it up? The unemployment rate in France is twice that of the U.S. I hear the food is really good though. lol I really don't want to hate France, because they were instrumental in the Revolutionary War, but every time I turn around there is some idiot Frenchman spewing anti-American Merkelite diarrhea and telling me how great socialism is. I'm not convinced. France is circling the drain. Uncuck yourselves and save France. Elect Le Pen.
    1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. ​ @jamesbuchanan3145  I don't think a second Trump campaign would necessarily lead to a hard reset, not in an immediate, direct sense anyways. It'll just lead to more admin state meddling, mass fraud, unconstitutional legislation, and power grabs that will make it that much more difficult for the GOP to ever win again in the future. If they do that kind of crap to subvert DeSantis, they'll look insane and authoritarian to a broader swath of the public. DeSantis doesn't have the same effect on the average lib/left person that Trump has. They hate any GOP candidate of course, but their hatred of Trump is unique. That is why the elite were able to convince people that gross overreach and "by any means" tactics were necessary. It was easy for them to convince people that Trump was dangerous because he's so boorish and cavalier. With DeSantis, the media's attacks on him will appear transparently hyperbolic and desperate to a broader range of people. It won't be as easy for the elite to fearmonger and convince people that DeSantis is dangerous (and thus overreach is necessary to prevent him from taking power). DeSantis is a very reasonable person, and that is clear to anyone who actually hears him speak. He's a way more effective diplomat and orator than Trump. He might not create the same energy Trump created among a very fervent base, but he'll have broader appeal with basically the same policies as Trump. I think he'll have a better chance of winning '24 and '28. I think a Trump presidency in '24 might ruin DeSantis' chances in '28. Even though the fortification might have been what ultimately won them the 2020 election, it can't be denied that we saw tens of millions of people go out and vote for an invalid just to get rid of Trump. DeSantis won't energize the Right the same way, but he wouldn't energize Left the same way either, plus he'll appeal to more moderates, which is the key to winning in this country. You look at the candidates the Dems have, and I think DeSantis would win in a landslide in '24 and would probably win again in '28 barring any catastrophes.
    1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. @ Browns Fan:   Trump has been significantly less of a warmonger thus far than your champion Obunghole. Him and the your last candidate were instrumental in creating ISIS, destabilizing the entire Middle East and North Africa, and causing the migrant crisis in Europe. Their foreign policy was catastrophic, so pray tell, what are you basing your claim upon (that Trump is a warmonger)? The fact that he blasted one Syrian airbase and postured after Kim threatened to nuke some other country and even a U.S. territory...again...?   "You're simply just jumping on the failures of the VA and assuming they would also occur in a single payer system (which they wouldn't)."  Based upon what evidence? Spamming a Leftist rag like the HuffPost is not evidence. HuffPost articles are not research either. Why don't you "research" something that isn't an opinion piece with an unquestionable Left-leaning bias? That would be like me posting a Breitbart article as evidence or "research."  I gave you actual data about the VA, which is exactly the type of inept bureaucratic nightmare that an all encompassing socialized healthcare agency would likely turn into if it were to be instituted in this country. Albeit, single payer systems are a little bit different. As far as single payer goes, we already spend massive amounts of both our mandatory and discretionary federal budget on single payer healthcare (over 1 trillion a year on Medicare and Medicaid) and we are subsidizing about 55 million elderly people and 50 million poor people on those programs. That is 105 million people, but still less than 1/3 of our population...so...it would cost over 3 trillion dollars for everybody. The federal government receives about 2 trillion a year in tax revenue to put that in perspective. So, it is still unsustainable. It would be less disastrous than socialized healthcare, but disastrous none the less. Research the federal budget; it is important to understand where the money goes and how much money there is for the government to spend before you start advocating for things like single-payer healthcare or "free college." Progressives want all these things, but they don't consider how it'll be paid for. Most of them don't even know how much we already spend on healthcare. Consider how much we are taxed and then how much it would cost to sustain the things you want. If the numbers don't add up, the only way to pay for it is to raise taxes, and nobody likes paying taxes.  https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
    1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. When I was in the military, we were subjected to general mandated training provided by the FBI's domestic terrorism unit. It was a total joke. Look back on it, the idea that the ADL was involved totally makes sense. The training consisted of two little skinny B males lecturing us for an hour about rightwing and white supremacist terrorism. There was nary a mention of any other type of terrorism...black, Islamic, left-wing...none of it. It was easily the most biased summation of domestic terrorism I've ever seen, and holy fook did they heard about it afterwards. At the end, there was a discussion period, at which time my entire squad started interrogating them about the obvious bias. They first tried to lie and defend the "company product," claiming that rightwing and white extremism were indeed the most legitimate and active terrorist threats. When we asked them what data that assertion was based on, they couldn't come up with an honest answer. We poked holes in everything they said. One guy asked why they didn't mention anything about Islamic terrorism, and the reason they gave was that it's religious in nature, and so that means they group it in as a rightwing brand of terrorism. I remember we all started laughing at them when they said that. Their entire presentation was about rightwing terrorism, and they didn't mention Islamic terrorism once. Finally after we had embarrassed them enough, they just admitted that this is what the government cares about, not necessarily what the greatest threat is. The whole "we're just doing our job" BS. That is when someone suggested that maybe the FBI's politically correct mission orientation was responsible for the failure to prevent multiple terrorist attacks on American soil. That is when things got a little heated, and our OIC ordered the whole squad to leave the classroom. We never did that training again. I guess the FBI realized that most people in the military think rationally and have no fear of calling them out on their lies.
    1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. ​ @jasonx7501  I originally said culture and then you conflated that with race. So no, you didn't "correctly address the things I believe." You mischaracterized what I said, doubled back like a deceptive rat, and now you're trying to gaslight me. LOL Stating a simple fact proves nothing about everything I believe. Race being correlated with culture is a fact, and can be proven with this simple thought experiment: if there are more Chinese people in any given area, will there be more or less Chinese culture in that area? The answer is obvious. More Chinese people = more Chinese culture because race/ethnicity is positively correlated with culture. It isn't causative, it's strongly and positively correlated. This isn't rocket science, it's obvious. But people like you are so brainwashed, you can't even admit simple truths. 13/52...yes. It's a horrifying disparity which can't be fully blamed on poverty alone, because similarly impoverished non-Black groups do not commit nearly as much violent crime. So what is the cause? Calling me some tired epithet won't change the fact that 13/52 is an indictment and suggests a serious cultural problem within "diverse" urban subcultures. As I said before, you know every negative ]evvish stereotype, so there is no need for me to list them. You asking me what they are is transparent tactical ignorance. Getting triggered by my refusal to list them proves that I was right: your purpose in asking me was merely to try to bait me into a "gOtCha" moment. You failed though, because you aren't as smart as me. I alter that word because comments that contain the unaltered spelling of that word get censored by YT. This is because YT allows groups like the ADL to provide "special input" for how YT algorithms will remove "hate speech." So yeah, they have no special status or power at all. LOL you just can't mention them in a YT comment without eventually having your comment removed or shadowbanned.
    1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. Mike C From your article: "It's going to be hard to mold this into something where the middle class is the big winner. (still a winner, though, nay?)... And the reason for that, or course, is that the upper-income earners are those that pay the most in taxes," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "If you're going to reform the tax code, a lot of times it's going to be the people who pay the most taxes who end up with those bigger breaks." So, the rich that pay the vast majority of the taxes pay less taxes under the plan, but so does pretty much everybody else, including the middle class...yet...this isn't good for the middle class and the poor? Hmmmm. Over 500K will pay 39.6% in income tax. 200K-500K 35%. 45K-200K 25%. 0-45K 12%. It also increases the standard deduction of both individuals and joint filers, which 70% of Americans use instead of itemized deductions. The only reason the rich are paying any "less" is because it eliminates estate tax (estate tax is totally corrupt and immoral btw) and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Btw, you might want to use articles that aren't published by Left-leaning outlets like NPR if you want anyone to take you seriously. That article quoted a study done by a Left wing think tank called the Tax Policy Center, which is just a front for the Urban Institute. All it really tried to do was marginalize the relatively substantial savings that normal Americans will get by comparing them to the tax savings of the rich, which of course are more because the rich make exponentially more money and therefore pay and are refunded exponentially more taxes. Totally disingenuous angle, in all actuality.
    1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. @ Sesshounamaru:  I agree degeneracy is used far too much in alt-right circles. It has almost lost its meaning, like any buzzword. I use it only when it applies by definition. Since I'm curious now I'll look up the actual definition:  "having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline." Also the noun can mean "an immoral or corrupt person." And degeneracy is defined as just the state of being degenerate. Sounds accurate enough to what I was describing, but perhaps delinquent would be more applicable.  I can imagine where you're coming from, being from a culture that is oppressive with their traditionalism. I for one believe that good things can be taken from traditionalism, and bad things can be left behind. My OP stated that the Boomer generation just rebelled against and questioned every traditional value out of spite, even the ones that seemed like they had obvious virtue. Having children outside of wedlock and making a considerable effort to maintain a nuclear family is one of those. Even if it means sacrificing some degree of your own happiness, the moral virtue of this seems unquestionable to me. I don't really have a problem with homosexuality. I don't think it's degenerate, in and of itself. I do think that gay people, and especially gay men have a tendency to be promiscuous and exhibitionist, but not all of them are that way. Most Pride parades are kind of degenerate in my opinion. I think that gay people should be less blatant about making a public display of their perversions. They almost weaponize their sexuality in some ways. Look at the difference between the Pride parade in Tokyo and the one in San Francisco.  The one in Tokyo was totally fine, and was just a very classy celebration of who they are. The Japanese, of course, have a much more traditional culture. They are generally weird and kinky in their sexuality, but not publicly. The one in SF has guys in S&M, being walked like dogs, wearing next to nothing, fucking each other, etc. There was even some little kid, 12 years old, twerking and getting dry humped by all of these older men. That stuff IS degenerate and perverted, and I hope you can agree. I wouldn't think it was appropriate for heterosexual people to put on displays like that in public, so gay people shouldn't get held to a different standard in my book. Sexuality is a private matter, IMO. Forcing your sexuality upon other people is rude, and really that is the reason why a lot of people have a problem with homosexuals, I think.  I believe there are only two genders and very rare instances of intersex persons. Transgenderism (gender dysphoria) is a mental disorder, technically. I think gender=biological sex and gender expression is something different. Just because a guy wants to be a girl, dresses like a girl, even surgically mutilates himself and takes hormones to mimic being a girl, he is still a he, and he is still a man. All of that stuff just kind of feels like people are trying to mainstream these people's delusions under the guise of tolerance. I for one prefer to live in reality. I would never go out of my way to ridicule a transgendered person though. I just believe that a trans woman is still a man, and no one is going to shame me into believing otherwise.  I don't think the societal stigma should be oppressive surrounding these values. I just think it should be accepted and encouraged that this is, by and large, the best way to raise healthier, smarter, more productive children with the most potential. Our children are the future of our world. They are our legacy, and our most important resource. I think the meaning of life is to achieve happiness, and to me, nothing gives me more purpose than the pursuit of moulding my boys into being exceptional men.
    1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. ​ @jasonx7501  I listed several valid reasons why, you're just pretending I didn't. Communism requires dictatorship PER MARX HIMSELF to achieve his theoretical stateless society. And it is no wonder why it never worked. Think on a microcosmic level; simply think of the amount of tyranny required for a set of parents to achieve equal outcomes with children who they raised under the same roof. Now go macro, and multiply that level of tyranny by millions and that is how much tyranny is required to create equal outcomes in a nation of 330 million people. The idea of it being accomplished democratically is insane and incredibly naive. If you can't figure this out, you don't belong in any conversation about politics. It isn't a cop out considering the only reason you're asking me to define Western culture/civ is because you want to deconstruct and gaslight. BLM, a Marxist (and I'm sure one of your favorite) organizations had this in its manifesto last year before removing it: "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families..." So it appears that BLM is aware of what Western culture/civ is and how it "prescribes" requirements for family structure, which it does. Interesting that they don't pretend that it doesn't exist or can't be defined, but you do. I know you know what Western culture/civ is and its relationship to those of European descent. You're just trying to argue semantics because you can't argue substance. Restricting certain rights of transgenders is totally pragmatic and rational, given the accompanying mental health issues they suffer from. Gender dysphoria and severe depression are basically one and the same, and constitute valid reason that a person should not serve in the armed forces. It is really no different than preventing any other person with a mental disorder from joining the military, but leftists love double standards for their little victim groups. I don't happen to have any strong aversion to homosexuality or gay marriage. That is a position that is much more common among people on the Right than you would think, especially among those of us who are not members of a world religion. Despite the GOP re-endorsing that platform, half of Republicans polled have no issue with same-sex marriage, and that number is increasing as the West is steadily becoming more irreligious. The First Amendment Defense Act just prevents the government from using authoritarianism against a person who believes in traditional marriage, and you think that's "ridiculous." Speaking of double standards again, its wildly hypocritical for you to demonize someone who supports traditional marriage, but then champion the importation of millions of people who would make homosexuality a capital punishment if they had a vote on it. That said, immigration is a matter of national safety and security, as well as economic pragmatism and cultural integrity. It's indescribably dishonest to frame the restriction of immigration as dehumanizing to 1.) minority Americans or 2.) foreign nationals. It's that kind of insane understanding of the situation that leads to completely unsustainable levels of migration. Mass and illegal immigration economically hurts recent immigrants and minority groups the most of all. Leftists used to understand that, because back then they were actually advocates for the working class, not the useful idiots of globalist elitists. Leftists used to be against open borders, deindustrialization and globalization. Cesar Chavez and his goons went full vigilante border patrol for a while because illegal immigrants kept coming in and acting as scabs, making it impossible for his union to negotiate higher wages and benefits with farming corporations. On foreign nationals, the only way you could frame restriction of immigration as dehumanizing or restrictive of their rights is if you think they have an inherent human right to immigrate here, which is an insane and totally irrational position. I think there is a mutual lack of respect here. You are an incredibly deceptive and irrational person, which is sadly very typical of those on the Left these days. You're probably some thin-armed pencil-necked pasty white middle-class suburbanite with a sub 300 T level. No one with such naive and absurd views should have a place at the table.
    1
  2980.  @jasonx7501  >The reason I provided is history, and that it has failed miserably every time it has been implemented at a national scale. What's naive (and insane) is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Marxism is an idealistic utopian fantasy that is totally at odds with reality and human nature. Equity politics do not work and have never worked when applied in practice. There is a mountain of human death and misery to prove it, and yet you want to continue implementing that same system in some varied form because it seems virtuous at face value. But if you actually understood communism, you wouldn't be trying to indulge your false sense of moral virtue by sympathizing with it. >That said, the most honest thing you've said to me is admitting you've never read Marx. If you had, you'd know it's foolish to think that communist theory can be separated from the fundamentals laid out by Marx. Marxism is the guiding theory of communism. Without it, it is no longer communism. That said, nothing Marx wrote had any basis in economic reality. It was a masterpiece of propaganda, but ultimately, a bunch of fantastical idealistic nonsense. His main premises and concepts were fundamentally flawed, so trying to tweak and modify them is comparative to trying to polish a turd. >Comparing Marx/communism to Smith/capitalism is a false analogy. Smith did not create capitalism as an economic system, he was simply an advocate for it. Without Smith, capitalism would still exist. Without Marx, Marxist state socialism would not exist. >I also never said there is only one path to communism. I said communism has never even been achieved and that there are two basic paths to achieve socialism: though democracy or through violent takeover. As far as the implementation of such a system, the only way to operate it is authoritarianism. It takes a very special kind of stupidity and gullibility to think that equal outcomes can be achieved without authoritarian statism. Again, at the end of the day, you have no credible arguments, which is why the only input you have left is to try to demonize and mock me and my views, many of which you are not even privy to. "Muh ignorance. Muh simple-mindedness. Muh bigotry. Muh bias. Muh lack of imagination." "bUt LeT's aLL cOmE tOgEtHeR aNd bE uNiTeD" reeee I think not. I have no desire to collaborate with midwits who have such an infantile personality and understanding of humanity and the world.
    1
  2981.  @jasonx7501  The deaths were caused by the policies of state socialism in the Marxist pursuit of communism. So yes, I can contribute those deaths to communism. By the logic you're using (or lack thereof) the death counts caused by national socialists is not attributable to national socialism because the end goal of national socialists never came to fruition. That, of course, is a ridiculous and desperate argument from a person who is defeated. As far as deaths attributable to capitalism, you can attribute deaths to the governments of capitalist countries which engaged in senseless (and often illegal) war and imperialist world policing, but killing is not the normal method of implementing and maintaining capitalism. The implementation and maintenance of capitalism does not require extreme tyranny, concentration camps, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, collectivization, food rationing, etc. In contrast, Marxist state socialism does require those things to implement and maintain it, as is evidenced by every single practical application of Marxist state socialism in history, from the USSR to the PRC to the DPRK to the Khmer Rouge. Marxist state socialist governments (in the pursuit of communism) starved, shot, executed and worked to death over 100 million of their own citizens in the 20th century. Comparing the way a corporation is organized in comparison to a government is another ridiculous and desperate false analogy. A corporation is loosely centralized, but is ultimately beholden to profit incentive (its stakeholders and market forces). Corporations become unaccountable and authoritarian when they are allowed to monopolize and seize control over the political destiny of a nation. The same is true of government. Governments are not beholden to the same incentives. When the state centrally plans an entire economy and seizes all means of production, the only incentive for production is fear of being executed or put in a gulag. "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us" was a common Soviet expression. I agree that collectivism and cooperation is the way humans instinctually organize themselves in a more tribal and microcosmic sense. I am not a pure individualist. But on a macrocosmic scale, especially in a vast country with so much ethnic and cultural and ideological diversity, it is complete folly and just leads towards Balkanization. I think it's hilarious how you have exposed yourself as an unvarnished socialist during this conversation. You began by championing democracy and human rights, and now you're glorifying the Soviet regime, a murderous authoritarian dictatorship and one of the most egregious human rights abusers humanity has ever witnessed. Real worm-tier deception there, and yet I'm the bad guy.
    1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984.  @jasonx7501  ​ You can explore any economic system without advocating for it, but you're openly shilling for Marxist state socialism, which has ended in mass murder and failure every time a regime has adopted and implemented it. I openly disavow not only fascist central planning, but "that other part" of National Socialism as well. I don't believe in racial supremacism or some kind of hierarchical racial structuring of humanity. I believe in nationalism and the right of self determination for the sake of preserving human biological, cultural, and historical diversity. And that goes for ALL human groups of all races and ethnicities, not just those to which I am ancestrally linked. I also believe that human population groups have biological differences that go beyond the pigmentation of our skin, because we objectively, scientifically do. So go ahead and strawman my beliefs, because that's the only way you can argue against me. The type of economic system you're advocating for gives the government absolute power, and when a government has absolute power, they have free reign to oppress and torture people under their control. You can make some weasely argument claiming that supporting central planning is not the same as supporting the oppression and death that invariably comes as a result of its historical and current implementation, but no one reading this is fooled by that excuse. Supporting one is de facto supporting the other, and all because you're willfully ignorant of history and a deceptive rat with no semblance of honor whatsoever.
    1
  2985. ​ @jasonx7501  As I said before, the only person who would NOT be weary of communism is a person who is either 1.) historically ignorant on a monumental scale or 2.) aware of its dark history but is possessed by extreme malevolence. You support central planning and are an open sympathizer of the Soviet system. And yes, when a government has absolute control over the means of production, they invariably become totalitarian. You can "lol" like an adolescent all you want, but history has confirmed my position while completely discrediting yours. I refuted your pathetic "corporations use central planning" argument, but here you are regurgitating it again. How weak. Go back a few comments and reeducate yourself. That is a false analogy. I have zero shame in any of my beliefs. I will always tell people exactly what I believe and exactly what I don't. "White nationalist" is just a bromidic, weak-minded slur that leftists use to try to demonize and silence their ideological enemies. I have already stated why I support nationalism, and it is not for any supremacist or authoritarian reasons. Quite the contrary. Are you seriously dumb enough to peddle the argument that nationalism "is a precursor to fascism," but that Marxist state socialism can exist without authoritarianism? Rhetorical question, I guess. Your argument is belied by the majority of modern history. There are literally HUNDREDS of historical and modern examples of nation-states that have not adopted fascism. But there is no historical or modern example of a country whose government implemented or is implementing central planning and is not also authoritarian. There are even dozens of modern examples of non-fascist nation-states where citizenship is defined by ethnicity; some of these have some of the most economic and social freedom in the world.
    1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. valleykilladude The precolonial Americas were not multiracial, and the indigenous population was not able to reach any populations of other races. If they could, they probably would have tried to enslave them or conquer them, just as they did with neighboring population groups. Native American and Mesoamerican civilizations practiced slavery en masse. It had to do with the subjugation and conquering of other tribes, not just warfare. The Mayans, for instance, enslaved entire groups of people that were considered inferior tribes. The Aztecs and Incas did the same thing. It was generational, if the slaves weren't first sacrificed in some cruel and barbarous religious rite. The root of the word Hispanic is also irrelevent to this conversation. Did slavery in the British North American colonies predate slavery in Latin America by 350 years as you claimed? No it did not. End of story. You've deflected from that original claim with other meaningless arguments. Every race, religion, ethnicity, culture, and creed practiced slavery to some extent, by some definition, and at some point in history. Many Islamic countries did not abolish slavery until the 1960-70s, and they were enslaving Blacks 700 years before Europeans. There are open slave markets in North Africa right now where Arabs are selling Blacks as slaves. No one seems to demonize Muslims for this. The West, most notably Britain and the U.S., are the powers that did the most to abolish slavery and the slave trade around the world. Latin America has no historical innocence in the realm of slavery; not the indigenous peoples, not the mestizo population, not the European population. They all practiced slavery. In comparison, they also sacrificed significantly less than Britain or the U.S. did to correct the mistakes they made. Latin American countries still have a heavily stratified race-based social caste system. I would say American Hispanics are, on average, more racist towards Blacks than are American Whites. I am not alone in that opinion. Most honest Hispanics would agree with me.
    1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042.  @orangeedo  They are largely the same on immigration, but the difference is that Labour's base actually wants mass invasion to continue while the Tories' base wants it to end. If the Tories continue to allow the invasion, a national populist party will emerge and split the Tory vote in the next election. In most European parliamentary systems, national populist parties need to win an outright majority, because otherwise the globalist parties will unite and block them out of the governing process. Almost every centrist/globalist party in Europe is having to adopt nationalist populist ideas (when it comes to this invasion) just to stay relevant. Some people get fooled by globalists, some just want to believe they will change, and some are shamed into thinking its evil to vote for nationalism. They vote globalists into power, but then the globalists renege on their promise and willfully continue allowing the invasion. This is what happened in Italy with Five Star and in Sweden with Moderates. Both betrayed the will of the people and formed governments with left-wing globalists who didn't even win the election. But people see what is happening. They now see that the center is all the same: globalists aligned with the Left. But people need nationalist populist parties to vote for or else they must choose the lesser of two evils, like in the U.S. In the next election, Salvini will win an outright majority in Italy and will not need any other party to form a government. In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats might win the next election, but they will probably not win an outright majority. That will mean the so-called "center right" Moderates will form a government with leftist globalists again and lock the Sweden Dems out of power just as they did in the last election.
    1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. @H Wayne: "If anyone will be responsible for liquidating democracy in the U.S., it will be Trump and his supporters." LOL. Been watching more CNN, you pleb? You do realize that there is a reason that the majority of libertarians identify as right-wing? Because the Left is ANTI-LIBERTY and pro big government. Trump attacks the media because they are a propaganda engine for the globalist political elite, who just so happen to be owned by multinational firms. The Left used to hate the media and corporations, and now they support it!! LOL. The media deserves to be attacked. Trump does not denounce the right of free press, he denounces blatant lies and propaganda. There is a reason CNN is dying and Sinclair is on the rise. Because Sinclair is more honest. Sorry. He also doesn't "cozy up" to strong arm rulers, he simply deals with them in a pragmatic manner. He plays in to their egos, because he is accustomed to people like them from his life in business. Your Hitler reference is ridiculous. You really aren't even worth this response. It seems like it's only a matter of time with you before you run out of points, start wildy attacking Trump, and invoke Godwin's law. Pathetic. Separatism makes sense, and anyone who denies it is denying reality. The destruction of "Western democracy" is not a foregone conclusion in the framework of separatism. Your opinion about WN leaders is irrelevant, because you are insufferably biased. Moreover, there is plenty of precedent that proves multiculturalism does not work. There is FAR more precedent that shows that homogeneous societies are the most harmonious. I also don't advocate for the mass deportation of American citizens, regardless of race/ethnicity. I only seek to secure a 90+% White majority state that will remain demographically intact by constitutional decree. Mexico has such a clause in their constitution. Changing the demography of a country changes the culture, and therefore the nation itself. Of course I advocate for the removal of parasitic foreign nationals that don't belong here: everyone with a brain that isn't suicidally altruistic should. "Broad-based politics and culture are more vibrant, dynamic and produces more competent leadership." Ah yes, so enriching and vibrant. Obama was such a competent leader, if by "competent" you mean spineless and inept. I guess you're not paying attention to what is happening in Europe right now; how they are being vibrantly enriched by Third World cultures, Pakistani rape gangs, Cologne, Paris, Sadiq Khan's London and Sharia courts in the UK, Angela Merkel's German hell project, SWEDEN FFS. Our movement is global, and Obama did not produce that. It is only now gaining steam. The EU is falling. Brexit is coming. Italy, Austria, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are all populist/nationalist. There is now a wall of populist/nationalist governments that span the entire length of Europe north to south, from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean. Trump is poised to win in 2020, and the Dems have no leadership. SCOTUS is ours. Congress is ours. FN is rising in France. ADF is rising in Germany. SD are rising in Sweden. Canada is nauseated and embarrassed by Trudeau and will oust him in 2019. Westerners are sick of the globalist agenda of the Left. We are fucking TIRED of being betrayed by our own governments in favor of foreign nationals, being demonized by the media and academia, and becoming strangers in our own lands. It is over for the globalists and the Left. We are winning. We will take back what is rightfully ours.
    1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. 1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. 1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168.  @fuzzywzhe  " I'm entirely happy to see the coup attempt completely fail." Why would the U.S. establishment back a socialist in a coup attempt? If they cared that much and wanted to try to create a regime change, they would just invade and install a puppet who the multinational corporations could exploit. Guaido is another socialist with much of the same views as Chavez and Maduro. It doesn't make any sense. I haven't seen a Leftist try to explain this. They just screech and blame the CIA as they always do. "If it brought up 60% of the population out of destitute poverty and as a result a bunch of oligarchs are now fleeing the nation after they raped it, is that a failure?" Yes, of course that is a failure. Socialism always works well at first. National socialism worked well at first too. But the oligarchs in a socialist system just wear military uniforms instead of business suits. Those 60% who were taken out of destitution fall right back into the gutter once the system collapses. "It's not the problem of the United States. Should the US invade the country, you will be put on the hook to pay for it" It is not the problem of the U.S. until their refugees flood our nation, right? lol it is always our problem somehow. That said, I don't agree in interventionism nor do I want stupid wars. I really don't care about Venezuela, I just want to be left alone. You ranted about the government being corrupt, the alphabet agencies being corrupt, war being expensive and wasteful and immoral, past CIA interventionism and meddling, past crimes, etc. All truths. But what does this have to do with Venezuela right now? Yes, the government is a mafia run by banksters and/or multinationals and the CIA cannot be trusted. Does that mean Guaido is a CIA puppet? You have a false sense of superiority if you think you're the only one who sees what is happening in the overall framework. You went off the deep end in your comment. All I was talking about is the situation in Venezuela, which is not similar to the situation in Iraq.
    1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. When I was in the military, we were subjected to general mandated training provided by the FBI's domestic terrorism unit. It was a total joke. The training consisted of two little skinny B males lecturing us for an hour about rightwing and white supremacist terrorism. There was nary a mention of any other type of terrorism...black, Islamic, left-wing...none of it. It was easily the most biased summation of domestic terrorism I've ever seen, and holy fook did they heard about it afterwards. At the end, there was a discussion period, at which time my entire squad started interrogating them about the obvious bias. They first tried to lie and defend the "company product," claiming that rightwing and white extremism were indeed the most legitimate and active terrorist threats. When we asked them what data that assertion was based on, they couldn't come up with an honest answer. We poked holes in everything they said. One guy asked why they didn't mention anything about Islamic terrorism, and the reason they gave was that it's religious in nature, and so that means they group it in as a rightwing brand of terrorism. I remember we all started laughing at them when they said that. Their entire presentation was about rightwing terrorism, and they didn't mention Islamic terrorism once. Finally after we had embarrassed them enough, they just admitted that this is what the government cares about, not necessarily what the greatest threat is. The whole "we're just doing our job" BS. That is when someone suggested that maybe the FBI's politically correct mission orientation was responsible for the failure to prevent multiple terrorist attacks on American soil. That is when things got a little heated, and our OIC ordered the whole squad to leave the classroom. We never did that training again. I guess the FBI realized that most people in the military think rationally and have no fear of calling them out on their lies.
    1
  3181. @Paul Franklin You are completely uninformed. Islam began in the early 7th century CE, and there were already numerous ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman scholars who wrote negatively about Jews, some as early as 270 BC. Jews were expelled several times from various areas of Europe, Africa and the Near East hundreds of years before Muhammad was even born. It's so ironic that the people who are most disparaging, hostile, and arrogant - demanding that everyone else "educate themselves" are usually the one that have no idea wtf they're talking about. Here's just one example (of about 100 more I could provide) that serve to crush your argument. "The other practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting, and have entrenched themselves by their very wickedness. Wretches of the most abandoned kind who had no use for the religion of their fathers took to contributing dues and free-will offerings to swell the Jewish exchequer; and other reasons for their increasing wealth way be found in their stubborn loyalty and ready benevolence towards brother Jews. But the rest of the world they confront with the hatred reserved for enemies. They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles. Though a most lascivious people, the Jews avoid sexual intercourse with women of alien race. Among themselves nothing is barred. They have introduced the practice of circumcision to show that they are different from others. Proselytes to Jewry adopt the same practices, and the very first lesson they learn is to despise the gods, and shed all feelings of patriotism..." ~Tacitus Histories 5.5 Written over 500 years before the birth of Muhammad. ^^^
    1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207. 1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. @Dennis Helgi: My friend, do not take my criticism and lack of confidence in Christianity as a denouncement of its core values. I am not anti-Christian. I do not hold resentment for Christianity for any other reason than the fact that they have attempted to proselytize to the entire world and become multicultural. They are cultural globalists now, for the most part, despite their values conflicting with the globalist agenda. Look at the Black community in America. Strong Christian roots. Most Blacks talk about God and identify as being Christian, but commit heinous acts at a disproportionate rate and generally make our country worse. The same is true of Hispanics. An attempt was made to Christianize them and change their collective average morality, and it failed along with Christianity. That being said, I simply don't see faith (or any values) as the bedrock upon which a modern culture can be built. Christianity will not secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. Only race and ethnicity can do that now. Atheist communist China uses a globalist economic ideology, but they're ensuring that their nation is not being invaded by different races, ethnic groups and cultures. They are quite comfortable admitting that race and ethnicity and culture and nation are all intrinsically linked. That being said, I am a proponent of most of the core values of Christianity, but it is not enough to stop White genocide. I think the largely peaceful creation of a high percentage (90+%) White ethno-state is more realistic than you imagine. More realistic than a White-only town ever being sanctioned by the Zionist occupied government of the United States.
    1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267.  The Grin Reaper  "pEoPlE dOn'T uSe WoRdS LiKe ThAt." Followed by calling me a brainlet. Hahahha that's rich. You're diving off the deep end now, but by all means, keep going...because you're actually making my point for me. The definition of insurgent, just like the definition of terrorist, only "changes context" when one applies their own moral and ideological bias to different groups which fit the original definition. For example, there is very little difference between Irgun and the IRA. They are/were both paramilitary groups which used similar methods of violence against military and civilians alike to further a political aim. But if you call Irgun a terrorist group, you're an "aNtI-sEmiTe" REEEE. The U.S. considers the IRA a terrorist group, but not Irgun. Why? Not because one fits the definition and the other doesn't. When I drew a parallel between revolutionary Americans and other insurgent groups, it rustled your star-spangled jimmies to such an extent that your mind created a deluge of cognitive dissonance inspired excuses to differentiate the patriots as something uniquely virtuous. In other words, you don't want to think of the Founding Fathers as insurgents, even though they definitively were, because you think that word carries with it a negative connotation. You think the patriots were national heroes, not rebels and insurgents. The same thing it true of the word "terrorist." It's typically used just to demonize a group that a person or group or state doesn't like. That is why the term is subjectively applied even though it has a definition with criteria. So no, you didn't burst any bubble, despite your delusional sanctimony. Definitions are intended to give exact meaning. They don't change just because you decide they don't apply based on your own moral or ideological position. You sound like a leftist talking about the definition of racism but you're saying I sound like a leftist. It's next level projection, I'll give you that. Hahahaha
    1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273. 1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. 1
  3278. 1
  3279. 1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283. 1
  3284. 1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1
  3295. 1
  3296. 1
  3297. 1
  3298. 1
  3299. 1
  3300. 1
  3301. 1
  3302. 1
  3303. 1
  3304. 1
  3305. 1
  3306. 1
  3307. 1
  3308. 1
  3309. 1
  3310. 1
  3311. 1
  3312. 1
  3313. 1
  3314. 1
  3315. 1
  3316. 1
  3317. 1
  3318. 1
  3319. 1
  3320. 1
  3321. 1
  3322. 1
  3323. 1
  3324. 1
  3325. 1
  3326. 1
  3327. 1
  3328. 1
  3329. 1
  3330. 1
  3331. 1
  3332. 1
  3333. 1
  3334. 1
  3335. 1
  3336. 1
  3337. 1
  3338. 1
  3339. 1
  3340. 1
  3341. 1
  3342. 1
  3343. 1
  3344. 1
  3345. 1
  3346. 1
  3347. 1
  3348. 1
  3349. 1
  3350. 1
  3351. 1
  3352. 1
  3353. 1
  3354. 1
  3355. 1
  3356. 1
  3357. 1
  3358. 1
  3359. 1
  3360. 1
  3361. 1
  3362. 1
  3363. 1
  3364. 1
  3365. 1
  3366. 1
  3367. 1
  3368. 1
  3369. 1
  3370. 1
  3371. 1
  3372. 1
  3373. 1
  3374. 1
  3375. 1
  3376. 1
  3377. 1
  3378. 1
  3379. 1
  3380. 1
  3381.  @PeteyPirahna77  As I said, supporting a person's right to do something and morally supporting the person's actions are two different things. I support people's right to do drugs, watch porn, smoke cigarettes, have an abortion etc. if they so choose. But I'll never defend, support or try to relativize the action of doing drugs, watching porn, smoking cigarettes or having an abortion, and I don't think society should either. Just because it's legal to have an abortion doesn't mean it should be considered OK to do it. Abortion shouldn't be morally relativized. Moreover, I certainly won't defend or support the industries that push to normalize and provide these things to society for financial gain. I will not go into the myriad ways in which porn and the porn industry are detrimental to individuals and society, but I suggest you research it. I'll also remind you that when a society's moral compass has been destroyed by relativism, people will think immoral things are moral and vice versa. Morality may be generally subjective, but a largely agreed upon set of moral values is imperative for any society to function. The cowardice I speak of is found in morally fence-sitting behind the luxury of legality or support of freedom of choice. This makes it so you don't actually have to take a moral stand. Donald Trump avoided taking a stand on gay marriage by simply saying "it's legal." For him, that was strategic but it's also cowardly. Just because something is constitutional or legal or even victimless doesn't mean it should be considered good. Porn is a vice, just like any other vice. The industry is depraved and greasy and predatory. To defend or relativize it is wrong and does damage to individuals and society, in my opinion. On inceldom...it is a visceral overreaction to the mainstreamed relativization and encouragement of hypersexualism, sexual depravity, feminist misandry and gynocentrism, etc. Porn is a byproduct of the movement that created incels and continues to have a destructive influence on three healthy sexuality and male-female relationship dynamics necessary to limit phenomenon like inceldom.
    1
  3382. 1
  3383. 1
  3384. 1
  3385.  @donsal.t.1765  They tried in the 50s with the Communist Control Act, but the law didn't have any teeth. Communists will always just mutate into some other form to prevent direct search and destruction. There is only one way to get rid of them, and even that only keeps the plague at bay temporarily. I think most Hispanics vote blue because they are ethnocentric and like state handouts. And it was not "just about all the border towns," it was one single obscure mayoral election in a small border town. The conservative media machine latched onto that story and tried to spin it as though it was a bellwether of a mass Hispanic shift to the GOP. What the pundits didn't mention is that the GOP mayor only won by like 10 votes and he is Hispanic, while his Dem opponent was a white woman. While I agree with you that Hispanics aren't as pathetic in the realm of cultural Marxism, the younger ones are still getting indoctrinated into the cult en masse...being told they're victims of oppression, etc., etc. They are the voters of the future, and a significant majority will still vote left. And really, the whole point is that even if we get 40% of the Hispanic vote that is already here, their numbers are growing at a rate where there is no way they'll shift to conservatism before it's too late and this country is completely overrun by the 3 world. The ones that pour over the border, once given the opportunity, will vote left at a rate of 80%. I have plenty of anecdotal experiences as well that flip the typical narrative, but I don't let those skew my understanding of the issue at large. I look at voting statistics and trends and see that, sadly, even 3rd generation Hispanic voters support Democrats at a rate of 65-85%, depending on the area of the country they live. I look at polls, like for instance the one conducted by Pew in 2012 that found that 75% of Hispanics favor a larger role for the government, while just 19% say they prefer a smaller government. By contrast, only 41% of American citizens as a whole favor a larger role for the government. I know you want to believe it's different, but the numbers don't lie. You've got to look at the bigger picture.
    1
  3386. 1
  3387. 1
  3388. 1
  3389. 1
  3390. 1
  3391. 1
  3392. 1
  3393. 1
  3394. 1
  3395. 1
  3396. 1
  3397. 1
  3398. 1
  3399. 1
  3400. 1
  3401. 1
  3402. 1
  3403. 1
  3404. 1
  3405. 1
  3406. 1
  3407. 1
  3408. 1
  3409. 1
  3410. 1
  3411. 1
  3412. 1
  3413. 1
  3414. ​ @jon-erich9752  You're using extreme examples of moral puritanism and theocratic overreach to try to discredit the entire notion that traditional societal mores are positive and should be culturally and legally encouraged. The government in a secular nation creates and enforces laws which are reflective of the society's morals. Therefore, they already "dictate what is moral and what is not" in many ways. When the morality of a society is deliberately being undermined and is decaying as a result, the last thing that society needs is for the government to encourage and expedite that moral decay. That will only lead to that societal decay becoming that much more difficult or impossible to reverse. That said, I agree that the government should largely stay out of people's personal lives, but they should also not encourage or deliberately normalize values, behaviors, policies and lifestyles that are objectively destructive and lead to likely undesirable and unsustainable societal outcomes. Traditional morality should obviously be the goal, as it tends to produce the most optimal societal outcomes. It's difficult enough to fight the relentless moral subversion of our infiltrated cultural institutions. The last thing we need is government undermining the very values that serve to preserve and strengthen the fabric of our society. The goal of cultural Marxism is to undermine and destroy Western civilization by undermining and destroying traditional Western culture and values. Therefore, left-wing moralism attempts to induce shame and guilt in Westerners who resist the degeneration and destruction of themselves and society. Right-wing moralism attempts to induce shame and guilt in those who want to degenerate and destroy themselves and society. That is the difference.
    1
  3415. 1
  3416. 1
  3417. ​ @cb5513  "I hereby authorize the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, under their respective jurisdictions, to order to active duty any units, and any individual members not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit of the Selected Reserve, or any member in the Individual Ready Reserve mobilization category and designated as essential under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, not to exceed 3,000 total members at any one time, of whom not more than 450 may be members of the Individual Ready Reserve, as they deem necessary, and to terminate the service of those units and members ordered to active duty." Read it. Then read it again. Then realize that you're wrong, and my numbers are correct, as much as that pains you. You basically just admitted you're going off anecdote and word of mouth, which is often wrong. The order specifically mentions the CG so it gives them the option to include CG reservists as a portion of the 3000 reservists being activated. Not all of them are IRR, only 15% of the entire activation CAN be. Selected Reserve is not IRR, which is why it specifically stated that there is a limit of 450 on IRR, even though it authorizes 3000 to be mobilized. Many of these billets will be filled by reservists who volunteer to activate themselves and go on active duty. Military reservists do that all the time. And even if 450 IRRs are involuntarily mobilized, that is less than 0.1% of the entire IRR. So no, the "IRR" isn't being "inacted." Get over it.
    1
  3418. 1
  3419. 1
  3420. 1
  3421. 1
  3422. 1
  3423. 1
  3424. 1
  3425. 1
  3426. 1
  3427. 1
  3428. 1
  3429. 1
  3430. 1
  3431. 1
  3432. 1
  3433. 1
  3434. 1
  3435. 1
  3436. 1
  3437. 1
  3438. 1
  3439. 1
  3440. 1
  3441. 1
  3442. 1
  3443. 1
  3444. 1
  3445. 1
  3446. 1
  3447. 1
  3448. 1
  3449. 1
  3450. 1
  3451. @ Inisfad: So, because Clinton (who was appointed by a Black president, not elected by the majority White masses) was part of the administration that destroyed Gaddafi, the entire White race bears the onus of the European migration debacle? Wow. That is the most retarded thing I've read today, and I've been reading idiotic Leftist opinion pieces all morning. Just a reminder: most White people in the U.S. would like to see Hillary Clinton in prison or dead. The fact that she was put in the position where she had the power to influence world politics is more the fault of the rainbow coalition and Leftist white women than White people in general. So who really is to blame for the Libyan government being toppled and the ensuing barbarisms that are occurring there? Who put Clinton and Obama in power? I'll bet you anything that it was YOU and people like omgmatthew100. omgmatthew100 seems to think it is the fault of Europeans, who have already allowed millions of culturally incapable non-White migrants into their countries, given them welfare, given them housing, given them food and clothing and jobs...and have even dealt with their crimes and terrorism as a result. Why can't you Leftists ever hold a non-White or impoverished person responsible for their own actions? I am White, and I'm not voting for people that want to destabilize countries. I'm not supporting those actions. I'm not forcing Black Africans to enter Libya and try to invade Europe. I'm not forcing Libyans to enslave Blacks. So how the fuck am I responsible for any of that? Why is it that every inhumane act carried out by non-Whites is the fault of Whites somehow?
    1
  3452. 1
  3453. @Inidfad: Yes, they were the globalist choice. Whites are generally more anti-globalist and supportive of limited government. Globalist, big-government types (both neoliberal and neocon) are the warhawks that go around the world bombing non-White countries, and even White countries sometimes (you might recall Clinton's administration bombed SERBIA). Still, to say that Whites destroy every non-White person and nation they make contact with (now or historically) and turn it into something worse than it was before is nothing but pure anti-White, anti-American, postmodernist, ethno-Marxist drivel. My previous post demonstrated how European powers banned the slave trade and abolished slavery in their own countries and colonies around a century (on average) before African and Arab countries did. They established nation-states in Africa and the Middle East that could actually effect the rule of law upon the peoples of those regions and at least marginally enforce some ethical and legal standards. Still, most African and Arab countries did not ban the slave trade or abolish slavery until the mid to late 20th century, and they only did so because postnational organizations that Whites were instrumental in creating and operating forced them to do so. Britain forced dozens of African and Arab states into treaties that forced them to abolish slavery. The Brussels Conference Act of 1890 and the 1926 League of Nations Slavery Convention (which 99 countries have signed, acceded to, ratified, or succeeded to) were both engineered by American and European Whites. People seem to forget that Africa and the Middle East were both hellscapes even before European powers futilely meddled there. So much criticism and demonization is peddled against Whites for their historical transgressions and everyone else gets a free pass. Black and brown races, for the most part, treat each other like shit and always have, whether they are in Third World hellholes or they're in First World historically White countries like the U.S. They've done FAR less than Whites have to modernize the world and stop barbaric, inhumane acts like slavery. Yet, we are blamed the most. It is a massive load of bullshit, and perpetuated by White-guilt ridden people like you.
    1
  3454. 1
  3455. 1
  3456. 1
  3457. 1
  3458. 1
  3459. 1
  3460. 1
  3461. 1
  3462. 1
  3463. 1
  3464. 1
  3465. 1
  3466. 1
  3467. 1
  3468. 1
  3469. 1
  3470. 1
  3471. 1
  3472. 1
  3473. 1
  3474. Look at this SJW drivel that made its way onto Wikipedia. "Animation historian Christopher P. Lehman considers the original concept of the Yogi Bear series to contain political symbolism relative to its era of production. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, racial segregation in the United States was still legally enforced, people were confined to living in their designated social "place", and attempts to venture outside it came with serious consequences. Yogi also has a designated social place, restricted to spending his life in Jellystone Park, under an overseer in the form of a White park ranger." "Yogi is living in social confinement, but tries to take advantage of his situation. People come to the Park to have picnics and bring with them picnic baskets. Yogi resorts to theft, stealing the picnic baskets, and enjoying their contents. Yogi's habitual criminality and preoccupation with his own nourishment and survival are not portrayed as negative traits. He is depicted as a sympathetic protagonist." "Yogi never actually challenges the social hierarchy of the Park, does not seriously challenge the authority of the ranger over him, and does not seek more autonomy in his life. Lehman contrasts Yogi's acceptance of the way things are with the activists of the series' contemporary Civil Rights Movement who did challenge the way things were. They wanted to move beyond their designated place and integrate into wider society. The press and politicians of the time were portraying these activists as radicals and opposed their efforts."
    1
  3475. 1
  3476. 1
  3477. 1
  3478. 1
  3479. 1
  3480. 1
  3481. 1
  3482. 1
  3483. 1
  3484. 1
  3485. 1
  3486. 1
  3487. 1
  3488. 1
  3489. 1
  3490. 1
  3491. 1
  3492. 1
  3493. 1
  3494. 1
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514. 1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521. 1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. @Steven Wallmart: You said killing innocent children is a "no no" for these guys, but these gangs recruit kids as early as 10 to act as their drug mules, sell dope and even kill people. Some crooks and gang members still have a "code" of sorts, that is true, but I guess if we're talking about definitions, you'll have to define a child for me as well. I would say a 10 year old is still a child. I'm not trying to get into an argument with you about semantics, my man, but I think we are both reasonable enough to agree that the vast majority of gang members are violent, degenerate, and sociopathic individuals, and the organizations they represent are predatory and violent as fuck. Overall, they represent a net negative for our country, despite whatever efforts they might make to "give back." I don't think crime can be stopped. But it can be heavily thwarted with the correct approach. Disarming the general populace is not in that general formula, of course. The people we should be disarming and punishing are the criminals. I think we should condemn them to heavy labor doing public works projects. We might as well make our tax dollars cost effective and productive. Moreover, they'd have no time to run criminal organizations from prison if they were digging ditches all day. Regardless of what is done at the legislative level, if the law is not administered correctly and with a high degree of regularity, we will still have problems. If the legislation already in place was administered correctly and the officials responsible were held accountable if they did not enforce the law, gun crime would decrease significantly. Also, btw...I am not a hacker. lol. I've never been convicted of any crime, only infractions.
    1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1
  3531. 1
  3532. 1
  3533. 1
  3534. 1
  3535. 1
  3536. 1
  3537. 1
  3538. 1
  3539. 1
  3540. 1
  3541. 1
  3542. 1
  3543. 1
  3544. 1
  3545. 1
  3546. 1
  3547. 1
  3548. 1
  3549. 1
  3550. 1
  3551. 1
  3552. 1
  3553. 1
  3554. 1
  3555. 1
  3556. 1
  3557. 1
  3558. 1
  3559. 1
  3560. 1
  3561. 1
  3562. 1
  3563. 1
  3564. 1
  3565. 1
  3566. 1
  3567. 1
  3568. 1
  3569. 1
  3570. 1
  3571. 1
  3572. 1
  3573. 1
  3574. 1
  3575. 1
  3576. 1
  3577. 1
  3578. 1
  3579. Val Devoursez Pay attention to the numbers. Your subjective notions of what is happening in your state are observant, but all you have to do is look at the census to understand what is happening in all of the Southwest and Western U.S. In 1980, California was a solid red state and had been since WWII. It was 66.6% Non-Hispanic White. Now it is majority Hispanic and will be a blue state forever. This was not due to urbanization, it is due to demographic replacement. In 1980, New Mexico was a red state that would occasionally be a swing state. It was 53% Non-Hispanic White. Now it will be a blue state forever because it is majority Hispanic. Texas is no different. Almost 50% of live births in Texas over the past decade have been Hispanic. They are now over 40% of the population and were only 20% in 1980. Democratic support has steadily increased as the Hispanic population increases and more and more Hispanics become able too vote. Nevada and Arizona are now swing states and used to be solid red. The Hispanic population in Nevada in 1980 was 12%, now it is 30%. Arizona in 1980 was 15%, now it is 30%. Hispanics account for 50% of live births in CA, NV, AZ, NM, and TX, where they now make up 40% of the population. They are about 17% of the national population but consistently account for 25% of nationwide births. Even if immigration completely stopped tomorrow, Hispanics will continue breeding and breeding and breeding some more. And as their children become able to vote, this country will become a one-party socialist state. That has been the Democrats' plan all along.
    1
  3580. 1
  3581. 1
  3582. 1
  3583. 1
  3584. 1
  3585. 1
  3586. 1
  3587. 1
  3588. 1
  3589. 1
  3590. 1
  3591. 1
  3592. 1
  3593. 1
  3594. 1
  3595. 1
  3596. 1
  3597. 1
  3598. 1
  3599. 1
  3600. 1
  3601. 1
  3602. 1
  3603. 1
  3604. 1
  3605. 1