It would stop whites from being excluded from COVID relief packages
A white nationalist Stormfag justice would do that? Sorry to break it to you, but I'm 100% sure on what side Clarence Thomas will be on that.
As annoying as danger hairs are, they're not the ones that make vast swathes of cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc. uninhabitable.
It's not cities being uninhabitable that destroys civilization. There's been plenty of that before. An ideology that axes foundational civilizational values is what destroys it.
I never had to move because my "danger hair" neighbors were stealing everything
Funny, you will get fired because your dangerhair neighbors are ratting you out for your opinions. Not to mention the fact that it is your dangerhair friends who burn down stores after their allies have looted them.
The people who annoy you are worse than murderers.
It's not about annoying, it's about what is a threat to civilization.
I don't have the platform they do. No one with an ideology similar to mine does.
Thank God. Or maybe not. Someone like you can be useful in expanding the Overton Window. Part of the problem is that with the disappearance of racism, they have continued to redefine racism as the 'least left-wing position on race', so my position is suddenly 'racist' and 'white supremacist'.
Sowell and the rest of the gang are free to spout their views, occupy powerful positions, etc. What good is that doing?
They're advocating for reason. Against your identitarianism as well as that of the left.
That's cute. Now, look at what the average black thinks about AA.
How is that relevant? You said you'd rather have a moron Stormfag on the Supreme Court rather than Clarence Thomas, because he would stop the AA in Covid relief. Except that Thomas is sure to vote against that. But you don't like him because he's black. I had hoped people were beyond such primitive nonsense.
White racial conscious was once a key part of our civilization.
Nonsense. The Roman Empire was not based on race. Nor was the Hellenistic Empire, with a figure like Isocrates saying that even non-Greeks who spoke Greek and lived in cities could be counted as civilized/Greeks.
Later Christian civilization included figures from Egypt as well as paleskins from France. It was the Catholic Church who in 1537 Sublimus Deus said that Indians could not be enslaved, and that their property had to be respected. It was friars like Antonio de Montesinos and Bartholome de las Casas who defended them and tried to make them Christians. At the Estates General of 1789, it was the clergy who argued against slavery, with the clergy of Melun stating stat "in the eyes of religion there can be no distinction based on skin color".
And the same is true for Victorian England, which in my view was the apogee of Western civilization. Lord Macauley argued that the Indians (in actual India) had to be made into cultural Englishmen, more English than the English themselves. The French tried to make their colonial peoples into 'black Frenchmen'. In your country, you tried to assimilate Indians and make black slaves into civilized people.
Your ideology is the odd man out.
You can't have white civilization without whites, and people like you helped to obfuscate that.
There is nothing 'white' about that civilization. Just where are you getting this tunnelvision?
I could just as easily get fired by blacks doing the same.
It's your Dangerhairs who are Very Online and who make a specialty of ruining people's lives. But at least they're white. Then you'll forgive everything.
Even "based" blacks like Republican Tim Scott have a black bias in many cases.
Like I've said many times, I don't think Tim Scott is based at all. He sabotaged one judicial nominee for writing against IDPol.
Then you're still a fucking idiot because you are painting the dangerhairs, obvious pawns, as masterminds and the root of the problem.
The ideas are the root of the problem. And these come from the dangerhairs.
Here the liberal exhibits his strong commitment to the principle of free speech based on how useful said speech is to his agenda.
I'm not a liberal. I am a traditionalist. I also did not talk about free speech, but about whether it is desirable for you to have a public presence. Free speech is a non-negotiable. But more importantly, it makes everything more rational if there are examples of what actual racism is.
And what is the effect of their advocacy? All they do is give whites a false sense of hope that this failed integration experiment can work some day, a hope that ultimately contributes to our destruction.
If you can't win based on color-blindness, what makes you think that you can win based on ethno-nationalist retardation? First, you're going to lose all minorities, so you need 80% of the 60% who are white. That's not going to happen.
The 1790 Immigration Laws suggest otherwise. I noticed you cited a lot of empires. Do you approve of imperialism there, liberal?
Of course I approve of imperialism. What do you think brought civilization to the world, and ended slavery in Africa as well as the Middle East? As for your Immigration Acts, that was just some backwater run by rebels. It was no place that mattered at the time. It most certainly is not respresentative of Western civilization.
Really? Tell me what other civilizations resemble ours. Do you believe race is a social construct?
Yours then, I assume, because I am not white. Western civilization is based on Greco-Roman civilization, as well as Christianity. Christianity is a religion from the Middle East, with most of the influential founders coming from North Africa and Egypt (Tertullian, Basil of Caesarea, Athanasius, Anthony the Great, Pachomius, Augustine). Rome and Greece are Southern European (darker), and they were heavily influenced by Egypt and Babylon, two places that you no doubt despise for being insufficiently white.
How did all of these projects work out:
It's noted that you're trying to shift the goalposts from "race was always at the center of Western civilization" to "IT DIDN'T WORK". As a matter of fact, it worked alright, but it would have been better if colonialism had been more thorough.
You think they're steering the billionaires rather than the reverse, laughably absurd.
It's certainly to the benefit of the billionaires to push woke-ism. But that is not divorced from the broader climate. Corporations follow the path of least resistance, which is made that way because the dangerhairs control institutions such as universities and the media.
It's almost as if woke idpol is in his interest as a black man.
It may be in the interests of Clarence Thomas as well, but he prefers to be judged on quality and not color.
By that standard, what good are you?
A white nationalist Stormfag justice would do that? Sorry to break it to you, but I'm 100% sure on what side Clarence Thomas will be on that.
It's not cities being uninhabitable that destroys civilization. There's been plenty of that before. An ideology that axes foundational civilizational values is what destroys it.
Funny, you will get fired because your dangerhair neighbors are ratting you out for your opinions. Not to mention the fact that it is your dangerhair friends who burn down stores after their allies have looted them.
It's not about annoying, it's about what is a threat to civilization.
Thank God. Or maybe not. Someone like you can be useful in expanding the Overton Window. Part of the problem is that with the disappearance of racism, they have continued to redefine racism as the 'least left-wing position on race', so my position is suddenly 'racist' and 'white supremacist'.
They're advocating for reason. Against your identitarianism as well as that of the left.
How is that relevant? You said you'd rather have a moron Stormfag on the Supreme Court rather than Clarence Thomas, because he would stop the AA in Covid relief. Except that Thomas is sure to vote against that. But you don't like him because he's black. I had hoped people were beyond such primitive nonsense.
Nonsense. The Roman Empire was not based on race. Nor was the Hellenistic Empire, with a figure like Isocrates saying that even non-Greeks who spoke Greek and lived in cities could be counted as civilized/Greeks.
Later Christian civilization included figures from Egypt as well as paleskins from France. It was the Catholic Church who in 1537 Sublimus Deus said that Indians could not be enslaved, and that their property had to be respected. It was friars like Antonio de Montesinos and Bartholome de las Casas who defended them and tried to make them Christians. At the Estates General of 1789, it was the clergy who argued against slavery, with the clergy of Melun stating stat "in the eyes of religion there can be no distinction based on skin color".
And the same is true for Victorian England, which in my view was the apogee of Western civilization. Lord Macauley argued that the Indians (in actual India) had to be made into cultural Englishmen, more English than the English themselves. The French tried to make their colonial peoples into 'black Frenchmen'. In your country, you tried to assimilate Indians and make black slaves into civilized people.
Your ideology is the odd man out.
There is nothing 'white' about that civilization. Just where are you getting this tunnelvision?
It's your Dangerhairs who are Very Online and who make a specialty of ruining people's lives. But at least they're white. Then you'll forgive everything.
Like I've said many times, I don't think Tim Scott is based at all. He sabotaged one judicial nominee for writing against IDPol.
The ideas are the root of the problem. And these come from the dangerhairs.
I'm not a liberal. I am a traditionalist. I also did not talk about free speech, but about whether it is desirable for you to have a public presence. Free speech is a non-negotiable. But more importantly, it makes everything more rational if there are examples of what actual racism is.
If you can't win based on color-blindness, what makes you think that you can win based on ethno-nationalist retardation? First, you're going to lose all minorities, so you need 80% of the 60% who are white. That's not going to happen.
Of course I approve of imperialism. What do you think brought civilization to the world, and ended slavery in Africa as well as the Middle East? As for your Immigration Acts, that was just some backwater run by rebels. It was no place that mattered at the time. It most certainly is not respresentative of Western civilization.
Yours then, I assume, because I am not white. Western civilization is based on Greco-Roman civilization, as well as Christianity. Christianity is a religion from the Middle East, with most of the influential founders coming from North Africa and Egypt (Tertullian, Basil of Caesarea, Athanasius, Anthony the Great, Pachomius, Augustine). Rome and Greece are Southern European (darker), and they were heavily influenced by Egypt and Babylon, two places that you no doubt despise for being insufficiently white.
It's noted that you're trying to shift the goalposts from "race was always at the center of Western civilization" to "IT DIDN'T WORK". As a matter of fact, it worked alright, but it would have been better if colonialism had been more thorough.
It's certainly to the benefit of the billionaires to push woke-ism. But that is not divorced from the broader climate. Corporations follow the path of least resistance, which is made that way because the dangerhairs control institutions such as universities and the media.
It may be in the interests of Clarence Thomas as well, but he prefers to be judged on quality and not color.