Post: #276

Antifa, um I mean, Oath Keeper attacks Alt-Right guy from behind, at the Sam Houston monument rally in Houston. Looks like the guy brought a bunch of signs but was told "this isn't about anti-communism".





And it turns out the attacking Oath Keeper is an illegal alien.

There was another incident the other week where Oath Keepers pushed nationalists out of a rally and were cheered on by antifa.

Fuck this poisonous group. The fact that they'll talk about "defending muh free speech" while siding with antifa and illegal aliens who attack actual citizens who offend their little ears, pisses me off immensely. I hope their reputation is ruined over this.

Post: #277

(((boomers)))

Post: #278

You know that the cause for that rally was a hoax, right?

Post: #279

Matt,

Have you heard of the Turner Thesis? That the American character is shaped by the idea of always having a frontier you could flee to:

Quote:The Frontier Thesis or Turner Thesis, is the argument advanced by historian Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893 that American democracy was formed by the American frontier. He stressed the process—the moving frontier line—and the impact it had on pioneers going through the process. He also stressed results; especially that American democracy was the primary result, along with egalitarianism, a lack of interest in high culture, and violence. "American democracy was born of no theorist's dream; it was not carried in the Susan Constant to Virginia, nor in the Mayflower to Plymouth. It came out of the American forest, and it gained new strength each time it touched a new frontier," said Turner.

In the thesis, the American frontier established liberty by releasing Americans from European mindsets and eroding old, dysfunctional customs. The frontier had no need for standing armies, established churches, aristocrats or nobles, nor for landed gentry who controlled most of the land and charged heavy rents. Frontier land was free for the taking. Turner first announced his thesis in a paper entitled "The Significance of the Frontier in American History", delivered to the American Historical Association in 1893 in Chicago. He won wide acclaim among historians and intellectuals. Turner elaborated on the theme in his advanced history lectures and in a series of essays published over the next 25 years, published along with his initial paper as The Frontier in American History.[2]

Turner's emphasis on the importance of the frontier in shaping American character influenced the interpretation found in thousands of scholarly histories. By the time Turner died in 1932, 60% of the leading history departments in the U.S. were teaching courses in frontier history along Turnerian lines.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Thesis

I sometimes think Americans are still gripped by this, even after frontiers and the resources to be found there have dried up.

I'll just download my mind onto the internet, and forget about IRL lol.

Post: #280

(06-12-2017 11:29 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  Matt,

Have you heard of the Turner Thesis? That the American character is shaped by the idea of always having a frontier you could flee to:

Quote:The Frontier Thesis or Turner Thesis, is the argument advanced by historian Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893 that American democracy was formed by the American frontier. He stressed the process—the moving frontier line—and the impact it had on pioneers going through the process. He also stressed results; especially that American democracy was the primary result, along with egalitarianism, a lack of interest in high culture, and violence. "American democracy was born of no theorist's dream; it was not carried in the Susan Constant to Virginia, nor in the Mayflower to Plymouth. It came out of the American forest, and it gained new strength each time it touched a new frontier," said Turner.

In the thesis, the American frontier established liberty by releasing Americans from European mindsets and eroding old, dysfunctional customs. The frontier had no need for standing armies, established churches, aristocrats or nobles, nor for landed gentry who controlled most of the land and charged heavy rents. Frontier land was free for the taking. Turner first announced his thesis in a paper entitled "The Significance of the Frontier in American History", delivered to the American Historical Association in 1893 in Chicago. He won wide acclaim among historians and intellectuals. Turner elaborated on the theme in his advanced history lectures and in a series of essays published over the next 25 years, published along with his initial paper as The Frontier in American History.[2]

Turner's emphasis on the importance of the frontier in shaping American character influenced the interpretation found in thousands of scholarly histories. By the time Turner died in 1932, 60% of the leading history departments in the U.S. were teaching courses in frontier history along Turnerian lines.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Thesis

I sometimes think Americans are still gripped by this, even after frontiers and the resources to be found there have dried up.

I'll just download my mind onto the internet, and forget about IRL lol.

The problem with this thesis is that 97% of US land is classified as rural by the US.

The US gives out generous loans for low-income families as well:

https://eligibility.sc.egov.usda.gov/[email protected]

The fact is no one is even attempting to use the vast empty stretches of US land. I wish the US Gov would advertise more of that rural loan program so that the cities can get some relief.

Post: #281

I was applying the Turner Thesis to the mentality of Americans, that they don't bond with their neighbors or become rooted because in the back of their minds is the idea that you can pick up stakes and move to greener pastures. I am trying to provide an explanation for why we don't seem to know our neighbors, and feel life will be better somewhere else.

This is an explanation of an unreasoned cultural article of faith.

It has nothing to do with how much rural land is out there.

Post: #282

(06-09-2017 12:42 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 12:32 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  The answer is to become one of the elite. "Plutocrats" live incredible lives, surrounded by luxury and insulated from risk and discomfort. The problems of the wealthy are much more palatable than those of the poor.

It's the answer for the individual, or at least, the talented and/or lucky individual. I know you have a pretty sweet setup. Quintus spends a lot of with girls half his age in Brazil, and when he's not on dates he's challenging jaguars to contests of bite strength and eating smoked game meats. I don't lead quite that kind of lifestyle, but it's 10:30 on a Friday and I'm typing out forum posts before I go to the gym, so I don't really have much cause to complain about my life either.

But as an American, I'd really like my country and my countrymen to succeed, and it makes me really sad to see that for the vast majority of them, that option is closed off.

What exactly is "closed off"?

In 1888 one of the wealthiest men in America was a manufacturer of freight wagon wheels. I would hazard a guess that by the time your grandfather was old enough to work, wagon wheel manufacturing was not a business model that was conducive to "success". If you mean someone cant go into business as a wagon wheel manufacturer and expect to succeed: then I agree with you.

Anecdote time:

A couple years ago I had a neighbor (early 30's) who'd decided to sell his house. His wife was pregnant with 2nd kid so they decided to sell their $1.8 million house and move further from the beach but to a bigger property : In the $3 million range. When he'd first moved in 4-5 years earlier he was late 20's. As I got to know him casually I learned his story (I'm always curious and I go out of my way to make friends with my neighbors for various reasons...but that's another post).

It turns out that in his late teens and into his 20's he was on the pro-motocross circuit. Had a couple minor sponsors and minor success. Enough to keep him in weed and keep from having to get a real job. Then two things happened. His GF at the time (now wife) got knocked up and his father was diagnosed with cancer and wanted to retire. His mom and dad owned and ran a literal mom and pop printing business. So the son went to work for his dad and eventually took over the business.

But even though this printing business had been established over 20 yrs, it was struggling. Why? Because the world had changed and you dont get rich printing the occasional business cards, flyers and brochures. That market was "closed"

Long story short he used his connections in the motocross world and landed first one contract then another printing sponsor decals. That lead to the skate board, snow board, surf industries. That lead to actions sports companies across the globe, conventions etc, etc, etc. He even started printing decals for a company that has several state transportation contracts

Last time I spoke two him he had two local production facilities, 60 employees, and was looking to expand overseas.

But here's the moral of the story: The first 2-3 years he was working 10-12 hrs a day 6-7 days a week, for months at a time...because he thought he had no choice. He was terrified of letting his family down. That fear of failure drove his desire to succeed.

I've posted on this subject before. In the history of man (even in this country) when have the "wealthy" outnumbered the "poor"?

Never.

What else has been a constant?

Some people are more talented than others? Check
Some people born into more fortunate circumstances than others? Check

Here's another constant: Relative few are willing to sacrifice immediate comfort for the level effort and dedication that's required to move from "poor" to "wealthy"

I'm not fond of jumping on "bash the millenials" bandwagon but if there's an overarching defect in the collective mentality is that they feel cheated that they dont have the same opportunity of guaranteed success of previous generations.

Guess what? Those guarantees have never existed.

The world has never given wealth, prosperity, peace, comfort, safety, luxury easily to those not born into them.

(06-09-2017 12:42 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  It's the answer for the individual, or at least, the talented and/or lucky individual. I know you have a pretty sweet setup.

Yeah I do have a pretty sweet setup. I've never really elaborated the extent of my net worth on this forum as I don't feel it's appropriate, or necessary. Suffice it to say that if I were to cash it all in it would definitely qualify as "fuck you" money. I kind of live that way already.

I don't really work anymore as much as I manage assets. Mine

But I definitely grew up poor. I've worked pretty damn hard from the time I was a teenager, 2 jobs to put myself through college and exit debt free. Ive worked incredibly hard, taken a lot of chances, and suffered a lot of failures along the way to financial success. Ive weathered many many shit storms in order see the other side

My point of all this is Im trying to impress upon the younger guys reading this:

Don't buy the "you dont have a chance, the system is fucked, may as well not even try" narrative. It's BS.

Want to do your fellow countrymen a solid? Don't sell the BS either

The fact is there are more opportunities, and resources available for those that willing to work for success than there ever have been in the history of the world. They dont just look the same as they once did.

Post: #283

(06-14-2017 03:00 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  I'm not fond of jumping on "bash the millenials" bandwagon but if there's an overarching defect in the collective mentality is that they feel cheated that they dont have the same opportunity of guaranteed success of previous generations.

I agree with you that there are, and never were, any guarantees of anything. However it all depends what you mean by "success". If success equates to, as you put it, "fuck you money", then the probability of achieving it is, and always will be, very small. This is simply because not everyone can be above average and the further above average you go the fewer people can be in that position. I also think that people who are in that position find it hard to be honest about how much luck was involved in their success. That isn't to say a lot of hard work wasn't required; but however hard you work, you also need to be lucky.

I don't think that most people expect to ever be in a "fuck you money" situation. To the majority success would be simply a roof over their head, a family, a reasonably secure job and to not have to spend the majority of their life worrying about how they are going to make ends meet. It's that definition of success which has become much harder to achieve compared to the period from 1945-1970. You might say they shouldn't have had even that expectation, but then that dream has been sold to them by everyone from their own parents to the media. Then when they can't measure up they are castigated as lazy when in reality the rug has been pulled from under their feet. Millennials feel cheated because they have been cheated. Instead of passing wealth down from one generation to another their parents and/or grandparents spent it all, ran up a huge debt which they expect their posterity to pay, outsourced/offshored the industry which gave them their lifestyle and destroyed or passively witnessed the destruction of the society which gave them peace and stability.

Post: #284

PT and Diogenes are both right in a certain sense.

My advice is that if you want a family and you don't want to be living paycheck to paycheck then you need to adopt at least part of PT's entrepreneurial spirit.

Ignore the boomers. They have no idea what a historically typical jobs market looks like. You might as well take life-building advice from an alien hailing from planet x.

Instead, look back into history. Most guys here would probably not be aware that the term "salary man" was once derogatory in nature. Salaried jobs were such an aberration of the post war period that men who had "real" jobs who's incomes depended on the amount of sweat and blood they shed looked on men with salaried jobs in much the same way we would currently look at feckless government workers. And why not. These "salary men" got paid the same whether they worked hard or slacked off. The slackers were looked down on for obvious reasons. The hard workers were looked down on for being too cowardly to leverage that diligence "out in the real world".

Eventually the concept of being a salary man became the norm and as such was no longer derogatory. It simply came to mean "has a safe and secure income". By the time houses and cars became items assumed to be purchased on credit (at an accordingly inflated cost) the salary man was the only one the banks would touch for obvious reasons.

All in all, though, the average salary man who wants a stay-at-home wife and 2.5 kids can now consider himself relegated from middle class to lower class. That's just a fact, and no amount of boomer tongue clucking is going to help him drag himself up by his bootstraps. If the economic climate dips further, the only thing keeping him off of total welfare dependence will be his morals.

What we've headed into is nothing new. In fact it's actually a reversion to the normal state of things.

If you want that nuclear family AND you want separate rooms for your kids, brand name household items and a pair of cars that aren't more than 10 years old then you're going to have to start thinking outside of the box.

p.s. What fucking thread are we in, again?

Post: #285

Post: #286

(06-18-2017 04:25 AM)Tokyo Joe Wrote:  

That account is a great follow

Post: #287

(06-09-2017 11:42 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  What I said was very clear: I said that the root cause of most of the social and racial antagonisms in the US today is due to the tremendous and growing income disparities between rich and poor. I'm saying that the failure of the elites in the US to create and maintain a just society for all of us is the root cause of most of our problems.

Yes, and your proposed solutions for these problems are things like single-payer healthcare and subsidized education, i.e., government welfare programs.

So, if we gave the poor more welfare, we would rectify the "social and racial antagonisms", e.g. taking down and vandalizing statues, which are the specific antagonisms being discussed in this thread.

I'm not distorting anything you're saying, I'm simply cutting through the rhetoric to point out exactly what you're prescribing, which is solving our social problems through more government spending and welfare.

Of course there are serious problems among the lower and middle classes in America. Almost everyone on this forum has understood this for years.

Where we disagree is in our solutions to the problem. You call for more government programs and spending, while people like myself call for more jobs, less outsourcing, less immigration, less wasteful spending, etc.

Of course we need healthcare and education reform.

But for one, there are plenty of "universal" systems that are more politically and financially feasible in the US than what places like Canada and Western Europe/Scandinavia have, e.g., the Singaporean-style system that Trump was proposing during the campaign.

And two, free healthcare and education aren't going to magically solve all our problems, especially considering that so much of our societal and cultural problems are a direct result of what is taught in the festering cesspools also known as American "universities".

Quote:What I said was that arguing over old statues is a distraction from the real issues that affect people today. I'm saying that the plutocrats want us all to be fighting about bullshit that doesn't matter, while they continue to disenfranchise all of us.

"Old statues" are part of our culture, our identity, our heritage. Did you grow up in the American South?

And not so coincidentally, it's been collectivist, socialist regimes that have destroyed cultural artifacts in almost every region of the world over the last 150 years, from China to Cambodia to Russia to Romania to Cuba.

So, yes, we should be concerned with efforts to destroy our national history, as these kinds of actions have historically preceded massive amounts of bloodshed and persecution.

I don't know how many times and in how many countries this script has to play out before people get the picture.

Quote:I'm also saying a basic truth: other Western countries invest far more in their citizens than the US does. In Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, there is a social safety net, and subsidized education.

Yes, and I'm also stating some basic truths, which include the fact that the regions you mention:

- Have huge amounts of debt
- Spend a fraction of what the US does on defense
- Spend a fraction of what the US does on medical research
- Are more homogenous than the US
- Have massive social and racial problems of their own

In short, despite piggybacking on the US' military and healthcare industry, these countries still can't even support their own welfare states.

These are the very basic truths that you are ignoring. I did not paint your claims as socialist fantasies because I'm inherently opposed to things like healthcare or education reform; I did so based on your view that more government spending and programs would magically fix all of our problems, despite the fact that the countries you're citing as examples have enormous financial and social problems of their own.

Your argument falls apart when we look at the actual social and political climate around the world.

Western Europe is plagued by terrorism and race-related violence, while populism is on the rise. Why does WE continue to experience "social and racial antagonisms" despite their generous welfare states (and their far-reaching police states, that control political discussion)? Why are so many Europeans unhappy with their government if their governments are so "good" to them?

Meanwhile, China, which specializes in cronyism and treats their poor worse than nearly any country on Earth, is not currently experiencing the same "social and racial antagonisms" that we see in the West.

Why? If your hypothesis were true, surely a country like China would be going through a "Cultural Revolution" now, rather than in the '70s. And surely things would be all peachy in Western Europe.

Not to mention the fact that the same welfare state you praise could be considered directly responsible for the breakdowns in the familial and social structures we're seeing throughout the West.

Post: #288

(06-12-2017 01:09 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The problem with this thesis is that 97% of US land is classified as rural by the US.

The US gives out generous loans for low-income families as well:

https://eligibility.sc.egov.usda.gov/[email protected]

The fact is no one is even attempting to use the vast empty stretches of US land. I wish the US Gov would advertise more of that rural loan program so that the cities can get some relief.

No, the issue with the Turner thesis is that there hasn't been a demonstrable frontier since 1890, when the Census Bureau declared the West closed.

Turner's theory, while historically important, has largely been superseded by much more accurate descriptors of reality.

Post: #289

(06-19-2017 01:27 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 01:09 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The problem with this thesis is that 97% of US land is classified as rural by the US.

The US gives out generous loans for low-income families as well:

https://eligibility.sc.egov.usda.gov/[email protected]

The fact is no one is even attempting to use the vast empty stretches of US land. I wish the US Gov would advertise more of that rural loan program so that the cities can get some relief.

No, the issue with the Turner thesis is that there hasn't been a demonstrable frontier since 1890, when the Census Bureau declared the West closed.

Turner's theory, while historically important, has largely been superseded by much more accurate descriptors of reality.

I don't think you guys are getting what I'm saying. It doesn't matter when the frontier closed or how much rural land is available for a people to have a frontier mentality.

That is like saying the English don't feel superior anymore because it has been so long since they colonized the world or dominated the seas.

I am talking about the self image of the people, not the latest historical descriptors.

Mythology, not methodology.

I am not saying, mind you, that I am necessarily right about this, I am just throwing this way of self definition out as a possible explanation for why Americans are as they are.

Next you guys will want to be talking about when spurs when out of style, and how barbed wire changed modern culture, or how much the brain weighs.

We don't have to talk about it if you don't want to, but don't get all technical on me when I am asking a philosophical and psychological question.

Post: #290

(06-19-2017 01:17 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  I don't think you guys are getting what I'm saying. It doesn't matter when the frontier closed or how much rural land is available for a people to have a frontier mentality.

That is like saying the English don't feel superior anymore because it has been so long since they colonized the world or dominated the seas.

I am talking about the self image of the people, not the latest historical descriptors.

Mythology, not methodology.

I am not saying, mind you, that I am necessarily right about this, I am just throwing this way of self definition out as a possible explanation for why Americans are as they are.

Next you guys will want to be talking about when spurs when out of style, and how barbed wire changed modern culture, or how much the brain weighs.

We don't have to talk about it if you don't want to, but don't get all technical on me when I am asking a philosophical and psychological question.

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying, that the frontier mentality is part of why Americans have developed as they have. I suppose that's an innovation on the Turner thesis, though I can think of a few counterexamples.

Post: #291

(06-09-2017 07:39 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 03:25 PM)RIslander Wrote:  The confederacy rebelled against the United States and lost. Their right to flags and monuments at public locations was lost the moment they capitulated.

So what you're saying is: since Blacks in America are the result of African Tribes being conquered in War by their Kinsmen and then sold to Jewish Slave Traders, then Blacks should understand that those defeated in battle have lost their rights, and, as such, should just accept slavery as their natural state?

How awfully-racist of you.

That is not at all what was said.

He did not say “those defeated in battle have lost their rights”. He said that those defeated in battle have lost their right to expect public honor (very specifically: the right to flags and monuments at public locations) from their opponent.

That is not all rights. What you have done here is taken the supposed loss of the right to display flags/monuments publicly and made it an equivalent to the loss of ALL RIGHTS AS A HUMAN BEING (this is what chattel slavery is). Those are VERY different things you are treating as equals here. Nobody is talking about enslaving those who would dare to display the symbol of the confederacy, equating them to 3/5ths of a person by law, and removing all constitutionally protected rights to privacy. Slaves did not merely lack the right to display symbols – they lost the right to just about anything not considered worthy of a cow or horse.

There’s no comparison there, and the fact that you even suggest that there is (and are backed by a good number of members in doing so – 12 likes, guys? Really? This is what you want to co-sign?) says a lot about where this place is. That’s an indefensible position.

You are completely free to disagree with the notion that the display of confederate symbols should at all be limited by law. Frankly, it is likely that most firm restrictions on the display of said monuments would not pass legal muster. There is a right to symbolic speech that I personally believe would protect the display of confederate symbols from any attempt to launch a prohibition on it.

That being said, you have not made a sound argument in favor of that position. All you’ve done is created a false equivalence, and a disturbing one at that. Claiming that the loss of a right to public (taxpayer sponsored) display of confederate monuments is akin to being enslaved is a nonsensical argument that highlights why so many people are suspicious of confederate sympathizers and those who stand up for them. There are far more logically sound ways to stand up against a state prohibition on the display of monuments, but you chose the least logically sound and most blatantly offensive line of reasoning one could find.

Arguments like this (and the support they receive from other members) are just proving the opposition’s point. Keep it up if you like, but don’t expect much in the long run. An argument has to stand on its own merit at some point, and this isn’t an argument capable of doing that. You're best served coming up with something stronger.

Post: #292

Confederate Statue in Tampa, FL Will Stay!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/us/confede...a-florida/

Coney took to the podium Wednesday in the packed chambers looking for solace. Behind her, people in the gallery held signs that said "Americans build monuments; we don't remove them." She left disappointed when commissioners decided 4-3 to keep the monument.

Instead, after nearly three hours of contentious debate, they voted to add a mural behind the monument to showcase what one member called "the love and diversity" in the community.

"If we don't look for a compromise or consensus, there's going to be hatred and anger that could last for decades," Commissioner Victor Crist said.

"What I'm going to argue is [the statue] is there and let's make lemonade out of lemons. Let's wrap it in love and let's continue the message of what we have developed into today."

It was a rare negotiated outcome in the national debate over the place of divisive Confederate memorials. The removal of four statues in New Orleans in May renewed discussion in communities across the South over what to do with theirs in what one attendee of Wednesday's meeting called "a crazed obsession for radical leftists."

While other cities in Florida are taking steps to remove the monuments from another era, the decision makes Tampa one of the first to decide to keep one, and then some.

The commissioners also passed proposals to fund an education program to address racism in the community and protect Hillsborough war monuments from future removal attempts.

More feelz and CNN virtue signaling at the link
-----------

Finally, sanity wins, but barely by a 4-3 vote. The Mayor sounds like a crazy SJW also. Hopefully this can be an example for other cities not to tear down their history and heritage, and instead "Let's wrap it in love and let's continue the message of what we have developed into today.""

Post: #293

Emotional subjects bring out the stern reductionist in all of us.

Post: #294

Quote:What you have done here is taken the supposed loss of the right to display flags/monuments publicly and made it an equivalent to the loss of ALL RIGHTS AS A HUMAN BEING (this is what chattel slavery is). Those are VERY different things you are treating as equals here. Nobody is talking about enslaving those who would dare to display the symbol of the confederacy, equating them to 3/5ths of a person by law, and removing all constitutionally protected rights to privacy. Slaves did not merely lack the right to display symbols – they lost the right to just about anything not considered worthy of a cow or horse.

You missed AB's point. He was using an argument from absurdity to question the validity of the original assertion. Namely, if rights can be lost via war, why should any losers get any protection at all?

Either people have rights or they don't, the idea that war victors can pick and choose certain rights would mean no loser of any war is entitled to any rights.

Post: #295

It's all well and good to talk about theoretical sad widdle girls Appeals to the Pathetic and use it as a justification for Socialist Erasure of History, but let's theoretically say Blackie - who by this stage might as well be Reddie - kills Whitey. Do they really think they'll be allowed to hold power? Do they not realise they're only valued by (((Socialists))) for their willingness to readily-use violence to destroy functionality, and aren't they insulted by the insinuation? Do they not see the repeating pattern of history of how, post-revolution, this same capacity makes them a threat to be immediately-lined up and shot, because it's never about Equality, it's about Power?

So, Blackie kills Whitey and the stabilising force of White Order and (by this stage, decaying) Societal Functionality is gone:

1) With the military in disarray, China immediately invades, and, being tribal, since they're racist against Blacks, believing them to be inferior to their own race, puts them in mass graves.

2) Russia invades and (best case scenario) Blacks remain a controlled-minority.

3) The Mexican Cartels take control, and ethnically-cleanse the country, being tribal, and racist against Blacks, believing them to be inferior to their own race. Watch the Black Neighborhoods being Gentrified by Hispanic LA for clues, and the 'White Hispanic' cops - whatever that means - who keep being involved in Black Killings the White Community gets blamed for.

Or, more likely:

4) The (((Socialists))), having gotten what they desired, see the chance for profit, and sell the Blacks en masse into Slavery to the Muslims as part of the understanding to leave Greater Israel alone. The Jews, being tribal, publicly-pretend to pro-Black, despite the Jewish Talmud being racist against Blacks, believing them to be inferior to their own race.

The Muslims, still using Africans as slaves even today, will accept, being Tribal, and racist against Blacks, believing them to be an inferior to their own race.

The reality is, Whites are the only population with a (decreasing) subgroup who cares about the advancement of other races above their own, based upon the unspoken concept that other races need their help due to them being inferior, to the degree that the Civil War was White Brother shedding the blood of White Brother shedding blood to grant the black community Human Rights.

I've never expected to hear a 'Thank You' from the Black Community for this White Loss of Life, and, well, never have.

Now, being really fucking blunt:

The Black Community will grumble, and bitch, and enact violence over White Rule. The obvious solution, of course, being, mass migration from White Countries back to Africa - something that is currently shown to be possible, but which ever won't be done.

Why?

Because the American Black Community is tribal, being racist against the African Black Community, and believing them to be inferior to their own race.

They know that skin colour alone isn't enough: their unspoken bigotry means they subconsciously-believe their continued Western-Comfort and Privilege can only exist in Majority-White Communities where White Guilt, and the money it generates, exists.

Where this is all leading is simple enough. Look, I've been fighting the tribalist rhetoric on the forum for a couple of years now, but if this is where we're heading, there's not much one man can do about it. If the Black Academic Thought Leaders are going to champion fucktarded ideas like "You can't be racist against white people", "Blacks shouldn't be jailed for committing crimes" and "Maths is racist" - the foundational stone of every society throughout history bar the Aboriginals - with aims to destroy Functional Society, then we're heading into 'Of Mice and Men' territory, where, as much as I want to protect Lennie, I have to accept his inability to logically-reason and destroy with just a touch makes him very, very dangerous.

I don't care what your skin colour is but I sure as hell care if you're trying to force Socialism upon me and my society.

Remember: I'm a moderate. This is how bad a point racial relations have become. Sure, you can blame the elite and Obama deliberately seeding devisions all you want, but you have to wonder about a community that is handed a possible avenue of attack, one that has been repeated been shown to be a road to ruin, and so gleefully runs down it, without hesitation.

Post: #296

Quote:(and are backed by a good number of members in doing so – 12 likes, guys? Really? This is what you want to co-sign?)

Who made you the morality police all of a sudden? What business of yours is it who liked what and how do you even dare to assume that just because someone liked a post they automatically agree with it?

You're neither a moderator nor a judge, so spare us your sanctimonious "I'm watching everyone for signs of thoughtcrime" bullshit.

Post: #297

I got my first like in this forum from Handsome Creepy Eel.

He is one of the most generous likers in the world.

There are many issues to be discussed.

There are many different reasons why people like posts.

Never tell the Eel what he can or cannot like.

All other issues pale in comparison to this one.

That is like telling Trump he cannot be president or Jordan Peterson what pronouns to use.

It is better not to go there.

It is not enough to say that people ought to stay in their lanes.

The Eel owns this freeway.

(Hitler video incoming.)

Post: #298

Post: #299

(06-24-2017 08:41 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:(and are backed by a good number of members in doing so – 12 likes, guys? Really? This is what you want to co-sign?)

Who made you the morality police all of a sudden? What business of yours is it who liked what and how do you even dare to assume that just because someone liked a post they automatically agree with it?

You're neither a moderator nor a judge, so spare us your sanctimonious "I'm watching everyone for signs of thoughtcrime" bullshit.

HCE, I understand your outrage.

I've noticed on many occasions you liking a post from one fellow, then liking the next post from another fellow who he seemed to be in combat with.

There are many reasons to like a post:

1: You may agree whole-heartedly with someone.
2: You may disagree strongly (and want to be ironic sometimes).
3: You may agree or disagree, but you want to egg the fellow on.
4: You may want to encourage them to elucidate on their viewpoint.
5: You may want them to shut up, and 'Like' is a slap around their head.
6: You may think they are losing, but want to show support, even if you disagree.
7: You may think they are out of control and want to push them over the edge to oblivion.
8: You may just respect the fact they have stuck to their guns, are very obviously wrong, but still labour their argument.
9: You may see they have lost their argument, but still will not give it up and fight it to the death.
10. You may see that they have talked utter crap for the whole debate, but finally make a good point worthy of note.

Off the top of my head.

Yes, we note who likes what, when and where. A post unliked is worth ten liked, to the trained eye, in context. But who's counting?

It's sort of the first rule of Like Club - you don't talk about it.

Having said all that HCE, I've never seen you like particularly arsehole posts. You are a kind of detached voice of reason. A like from HCE is always worthy of note. It may just mean that you are doing well and it is a nice pat on the back, but it can also mean 'wind your neck in', just as much. It is for the viewer to have discretion.

.........

On another note. I wanted us all to have the great race debate. This forum was the main candidate for that argument in fact. But I see now that this can not take place within our lifetimes. Too many people are not ready for it. And I'm not specifically talking about this thread or this forum or even specific posters. Just generally. The world is not ready.

We tried. I believe we had good hearts. But we are on a collision course of a slow leaning slope into nothingness, and a hyped up super-resentment of vested interests. It's a heady mixture.

A few of us know the game. I know a good few of my RVF brothers know it too. Black and White and Yellow and Green!

So many appeals to so many things.

First they came for racism then they came for homophobia. Or is that, first they came for homophobia, then they came for racism? Does it matter?

I've seen some extremely worrying developments lately on some last bastions of 'free speech' forums. They are clamping down. This is not the world we lived in last week. A few of you might notice. I know a few of you do.

I believe this forum to be an exceptional forum, with exceptional men. There may still be hope, I don't know. But external influences are at play.

I just got a warning for racist and homophobic content on another forum that is about as racist and as homophobic as you can get. Me and a thousand others. They made no differentiation, other than to say 'you have been marked - do not mention ze war, yah?'.

I know that there are a couple of 'drivers' there. They are deliberately provocative in the homosexual field - taunting people for a reaction. And others are deliberately provocative in the race field - ditto.

As such they have now shut down all debate. Free speech is dying in front of my very eyes. And it wasn't anything I said.

Things will speed up from here. This is not a battle we will win. Not being defeatist. I've been saying this for a while, and I was right all along.

On the bright side? Well, there isn't going to be much point of being on the net in the next few years time.

I'm dropping out of this debate now. One that I have partaken in for the last few decades. I never did get to say my piece here. Oh well. No loss.

We will retreat in to our shells, and we will draw lines.

And the devil may care...

Post: #300

Interesting take on how Whites kept away from vibrant diversity in the past and now:

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/07/...gregation/

Quote:The Four Regional Approaches Whites Take To Racial Desegregation

Quote:Heartiste has talked about ‘Good Schools’ and other hidden taxes on whites, like the above examples of regulations and HOAs.

He’s also commented on how these taxes drive down “affordable family formation” by significantly raising the costs to have kids.

All of this relates to how boomers handled desegregation.

The California/Western approach was Racial Covenants, but the govt outlawed this (example: two future presidents lived in all white Compton, CA in 1947, blocks away from the beach and 6 miles from downtown or 5 miles to the port, but, by 1987, Compton is the most famous ghetto in America.)

The Sothern Approach was to live in the same neighborhood but have segregated facilities (similar to today’s Northern Ireland). This was struck down by courts (famous example, Selma AL was turned from a prosperous nice working city into an impoverished hellhole).

The Northern & Midwest Example was for whites to live in and sell to their own ethnic groups informally and extralegally. A city might have a little Italy and a little Germany and a little Poland. And some of this approach survives today in places like Madison, WI. But, The government mostly crushed this with school bussing, part of the Johnson and Nixon administration’s attempt to crush the power of ethnic whites within the Democrat party. (White people fled bussing, their ethnic neighborhoods didn’t re form, and midwestern cities like Detroit, or more recently Milwaukee, became shitholes).

The last legal was to discriminate was to the Puritan method (found almost exclusively in cities founded by former Puritans). Simply make everything so expensive that the diversity can’t come. To this day, San Francisco, Boston, Portland, Seattle, are all relatively peaceful and prosperous. It’s the only currently legal way to prevent diversity. But this costly model isn’t affordable or sustainable. White fertility is such places nears zero.

And cities everywhere are now trying to copy the Puritan approach, which is making the bigger problem (low white fertility due to high costs and the destruction of the white lower and middle classes) even worse. Moreover, those whites who are able to buy their way out of diversity by paying hidden taxes coalition with the Democrat party to preserve their way of life from all of the diversity that free enterprise will inflict on them. And this coalition prevents any honest discussion of race in America.

Quote:Western Whites – Racial Covenants
Southern Whites – Jim Crow
Midlands Whites – Ethnic nepotism
Puritan Whites – Discriminatory pricing

Quote:Jim Crow has received the brunt of GoodWhite Fake Moralizing, but all four approaches are designed to help Whites avoid the same end: racially mixed District 9 neighborhoods and all the crime, dreariness, annoyances, and ugliness that entails.

On the moral ledger, Puritan Whites are NO MORE MORAL than the BadWhites they have spent the past sixty-odd years demonizing for social status points and virtue sniveling accolades. The only difference is that Puritan Whites have tackled the problem obliquely instead of directly, through price and zoning controls, allowing them the necessary plausible deniability when confronted on their covert race realism.

Another civil war is all but assured as long as the regional Whites see fit to posture and deny reality for the pleasure of beating each other up for a warm glow of sanctimony; the system just cannot accommodate another sixty years of this race denial bullshit. The money or the patience will run out, and then the score settling begins.

I don't agree on everything with Heartiste of course. But he is right on that. If the liberals loved diversity so much, why not move to the vibrant part of town?

Pricing is the way to go and that is what is practiced across the world now. Next level will be enclosed heavily armed and fortified compounds like in South America.

And even then Obama and the globalist lackeys like Sadiq Khan are settling vibrant diversity right next to expensive neighborhoods removing for them the way to shift away.

I once predicted that the future world may be truly without borders, but there will be zoning rights of entry. That way the Top Zone 1 of Nairobi, Jakarta, New York or Seattle will be accessible only for the ones who work or live there. And there may be multiple zones to the bottom - each less and less safe. That way you create borders without borders. Also it won't be racially discriminatory. Highly successful intelligent blacks and other tribes can equally attain access to Zone 1 - even if there will be less of them there.

As for the liberals - they can bullshit each other all they want about how inclusive they are, they are not moving to the nice neighborhoods because of the flair.