Destiny just became a white advocate (not memeing, watch the video):
(streamable.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (37)
sorted by:
The game is very simple: how much power can non-whites accrue for themselves (using racial tribalism) before whites wake up and adopt their own defensive tribalism?
God willing, we will never go back to the delusional psyop of “colorblindness”.
Colorblindness would have been fine if the system had been colorblind. But the system was never colorblind and never ever tried to be. Affirmative action for non-whites isn't colorblind. The media freakouts whenever an unarmed black guy gets killed by cops (or overdoeses) isn't colorblind. The college admission rates aren't colorblind.
If these things WERE colorblind, we would not be in this mess.
If welware programs helped white trailer trash as much as they helped inner city blacks, we would not be in this mess.
The problem with colorblindness is not that it was a bad idea, it was that it was never, ever part of the system and only existed on the social level.
People will instinctually pick people who remind them of themselves. That's the very basis of tribalism on a biological level. Colorblindness was always a bad idea because we will never bridge that gap that racial diversity puts between us.
The only solution is an external enemy that is more different, which only works with things like constant warfare and demonetization of one specific group for the betterment of the rest. 9/11 was a good example of that in action for a brief time.
One of the failures of nearly every "progressive" idea is the denial of human nature, or the idea that we can suppress/overcome it. Colorblindness is another of those failures.
"Colorblindness" is a laudable ideal, but it is easily subverted by groups (or possibly even individuals) who refuse to go along. It's also contrary to human nature, but to build a successful society there are certain elements of human nature you have to overcome (though acting as if they don't exist after you "overcome" them is just asking for failure.) I don't think that the US can survive continued racial tribalism, but the solution to this problem is not a simple one
I don't see anything wrong with a society wanting to be ethnically homogenous, or even enforcing that, but this hasn't been the case in the US in a very long time, and it probably isn't practical to eject around half the citizenry purely on the basis of race, nor would I consider that to be a moral solution. The US (and every country) does need to be enforcing some degree of homogeneity or it will simply cease to exist due to irreconcilable factionalism within the populace.
I would propose that the US needs to revert back to a system where the states, cities, and--most importantly--individuals hold the power. In order to preserve this, you would undoubtedly need to have a populace that believes in and upholds those ideals, which given the current ideological makeup of the populace, would likely require some "unpalatable" actions (anywhere from restriction of voting privileges, to splitting the country, or perhaps beyond.)
Obviously I've glossed over and simplified a lot of this, and it certainly strayed pretty heavily from the original discussion of racial tribalism and colorblindness, but suffice it to say I don't believe the US can survive under continued racial tribalism, and I don't believe (re)creating an ethnostate is a practical or moral solution. Ultimately, i believe that colorblindness must be something adhered to by the overwhelming majority of the US populace, or we will cease to exist as a coherent country.
Colorblindness was a psyop propagated against white peoples in order to destroy them. The goal was to disarm white tribalism while maintaining racial and ethnic tribalism for everyone else. That’s why whites are the first racial cohort in history with an out-group bias.
This is the right answer. It is specifically aimed at white people in Western countries.
Colorblindness isn't an out-group bias. And that's not white people, it's white Leftists specifically.
I think he was saying that pushing colorblindness (was part of what) led to outgroup bias among whites, but even non-leftist whites have less outgroup bias than almost every other racial group, IIRC.
I think there were enough people for whom the ideal of colorblindness was sincerely held belief that had there not been a conscious effort to push the most extreme supremacist elements, and a narrative to convince people that their beliefs had validity (well, unless they were Cis White Men) that average Americans would have banded together against these groups and ideologies, and they would have died down to insignificance.
Colorblindness may have been part of a manipulation campaign, but so long as the ideal can be enforced in some way (that is, making the outgroup based on who forms ingroups based on racial lines and punishing them for it.) I believe you could probably make a functional society based on that ideal.
From the responses to this comment: quite a bit.
There's no hope for the United States to do what you're asking. The diversity ship sailed in the early 1900's. Americans need to try and unite on common ground. There are people of all races who believe in liberty and individualism. If they balkanize themselves by race they will be divided and lose to Globohomo. White people should try to be leaders and teach their cultural values to others as much as possible. Maybe you think Asians are "bugmen" but some of them will listen to reason and work with you.
If you're talking about European countries, they may still have a fighting chance to remain ethnostates. The UK is probably a lost cause.
That's not reality. It's as absurd as Racism = Prejudice + Power. You are asserting that it is physically impossible for people to interact with one another.
Even entirely alien people can live next to each other amicably, particularly through trade.
Moreover, you're rejecting that there is differences of behavior within demographics, which is nonsense and would negate the very concept of religious differences.
Behavior is influenced by culture. Think social norms, and moral beliefs. Some cultures clash with one another, people have different ideas about how things should be done. Think about Islamic law. Consider that Islamic law (which defines morals and social norms aka culture) is incompatible with western culture. Women in the West believe they have the right to dress how they like. Those dress standards conflict with Islamic law. Someone who grew up under by Islamic law and thinks everyone should live under it as well, is not going to fit in with Western society, to say the least.
Of course, and that's my point. That culture isn't defined solely, or even primarily by genetics. Not even close. Religion is a social system. Islam is a totalitarian system that effects all aspects of society. Hell, it's basically Muhammad's whole point: to unite all of the bickering arab tribes, clans, and ethnic groups into a single homogenous culture. It worked for nearly a thousand years. Though there was still infighting, and multiple civil wars, most of these came about as the result of the innate authoritarianism of Islam. It's clear that the culture of Islam is the specific issue, not the genetic make-up of people there (excluding inbreeding, and even then, that's not as detrimental to society as Islam's practices).
I'm an Atheist & an American Liberal (as in American Revolutionary Liberalism).
If Arab Christian moves next door to me, I have nothing to worry about.
If an Arab Entrepreneur moves next door to me, I have little to worry about.
If an Arab Communist moves next door to me, I'm going to be a bit nervous, and build a fence to protect my property.
If an Arab Islamist moves next door to me, I need to buy a gun to protect myself, and build a fence.
A racialist or an ethno-centrist just saw the same person repeated 4 times and will not treat them differently. That's intentionally disregarding nuance and individuality in order to support their narrative.