Comments by "Republitarian" (@republitarian484) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
46
-
41
-
41
-
26
-
25
-
22
-
21
-
@decartes_3168 . . .Actually, I can answer both because the 1965 immigration act is one of the reasons why the US will be over with.
Because a large multi-racial society will fail. Even Barrack Obama has made comments on if a large multiracial society will be successful.
A little diversity is fine and probably a good thing, but too much diversity brings division and conflict. Hence the reason we're so divided right now.
Many black people think they are getting even with the white man. But in the end they may end up replacing themselves with Asians, Arabs, Indians (India), Hispanics, etc. And those groups have no guilt from slavery or colonialism. They're a minority just like black people. Which is not right. At least the white man tried to atone for the sins of slavery and colonialism (even white people that have no ancestral ties to slavery or colonialism like Polish, Irish, Hungarian, Swedish, etc.). Black and native Indians were the only groups that deserved any type of special treatment for what happened to them. They were Americas minorities. Not an Arab Muslim from Pakistan.
Anyway, that's all gone now. Now it's replace whitey and see what we get. You're not going to get Utopia once the white man is gone from North America. Hopefully Europe can manage to stay majority white.
20
-
14
-
11
-
@sabin97 . . . what's odd is that you've never had an event like this. To be a majority where they basically hate themselves. What other country, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. has bent over backwards to demonize itself but then also welcome its replacement? Name one other "country of color" that openly welcomes people of all stripes, colors, ethnicities, races, etc. Do you think Nigeria would welcome 300 million Chinese? What about Pakistan, Somalia, Israel, Mexico, India, etc.
Also, it seems that white people are already becoming a hated majority. I'd hate to think how much more we'd be hated once we're just another minority? Or maybe it might end up being a good thing?
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
@JeffMcDuffie72MeridianGate . . . culture and race are inseparable. Culture is downstream from race and politics is downstream from culture.
The different races are just that. . . different. As the OP said up above is that wealth can sometimes mute those differences. The more wealthy people become the less they notice race within the group they associate with. And the lower you get on the socioeconomic ladder the more "racism" you'll encounter. I rarely look at it as racism and more of tribalism in varying degrees between individuals within that race. Some white people are more tribal than others while some black people are more tribal than others. Men tend to be more tribal than women. But those small differences become amplified when larger groups are involved. Go to any College lunch room even today and the students tend to self-segregate by race.
People fool themselves into thinking just because they have a few friends of different races that it can then be applied to larger groups. Usually individual friends of different races have enough in common where any differences are overlooked by manners or just an individual having different tastes. But those little differences become exacerbated when larger groups of different races interact. The group dynamic will trump the individual trait. There are also some individuals that can bridge the natural racial divide. C. 0wen$ and La-ry EIder come to mind. There's a few derogatory names that their own tribe call them. That alone tells you something.
This isn't a statement or question on one race being better than another. It's just an honest acknowledgement of the races being different.
A little diversity is fine and probably a good thing. Too much diversity leads to division and conflict.
In order for a nation to prosper you need a dominate super-majority of one ethnicity/race where any minority living within that country adheres, accepts, appreciates, admires, etc. the customs, norms, traditions, language, culture, laws, history, etc. of the majority. But that minority must stay a minority. And the majority welcomes that minority as they feel proud and flattered that a different ethnic/racial group would adopt their culture and country as their own. But as the minorities population #'s increase to a certain point (I have no idea at what % that would be but I'm assuming 10% to 20% minority) that feeling of welcoming and flattery turns to concern, displacement, and resentment. I'm sure the Native Indigenous Tribes of the Americas were curious and flattered at first when the white man set foot on North America. But at some point as the white man's #'s increased they became concerned.
If multiracialism within countries were the norm then why do so many "countries of color" have strict immigration and citizenship laws designed to keep their ethnic/racial majorities the same. Such as "your grandparents had to be a citizen within such and such country for 10 years".
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DG-nk7jo . .you obviously only know the version of WWII from the victors perspective. What is a Nazi by the way? They never referred to themselves as that. Hitler wanted Lebensraum. . .more land for the Germanic people of Europe. England and France did not like that. They were the big boys that were colonizing the globe. They didn't want any competition from another European power. England especially liked to have the mainland European powers always divided. Germany also had to deal with the threat of France from the West and Russia from the East; Franco-Russian Pact. Hitler never wanted global domination. If you can cite the source of where he stated that please let me know.
But I guess taking sides with two very powerful Imperialist nations with colonies around the globe that subjugated the indigenous peoples of those areas was just fine and dandy. And also pairing up with a Communist dictatorship that had ambitions to spread Communism throughout Europe and the rest of the world was just fine and dandy too. And by the 1930's it was well know of all the murder, gulags, imprisonment, starvation, etc. that was happening in the Soviet Union. (Side note. . . the increasing influence of Communism was in part what gave rise to Hitler. Which is also why Germany became ultra nationalistic as Communism seems to be more anti-nationalism and more global).
And what part did the Treaty of Versailles play in the rise of Hitler? After all, Germany was punished for a war you could argue they did not start and severely punished for a war one could argue they only lost on paper. Germany was forced to cede lands to other nations, pay war reparations, and had many other sanctions imposed on them. On top of that, they had to fend off a Communist coup shortly after WWI by Spartacists. Their economy eventually collapsed and their currency suffered from hyper-inflation.
Also, many historians blame WWII on the Treaty of Versailles. So do the people/countries that drafted and signed the Treaty of Versailles also share some responsibilities for WWII?
Anyway, you really need to learn the other perspective of WWI and WWII.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1