The Latino cops were scared white! So white, they couldn't do their jobs. Then a Latino border agent ran into the Latino school to save his and other Latino kids from the Latino shooter. This must be the result of white supremacy.
Race has nothing to do with it, isn't it obvious that they were told to back down, it was a way to make the people mad about the killing of kid's, but they kill thousands everyday by abortion, this was done by the FBI's help, how could a kid working part time at Wendy's afford 2 assolt rifles, there's something Fishy about This!
Well true, my point is just that Tejanos have been a major part of the population of that part of the US for a long time, and that there are a lot of non-white populations who have been in the rough area for a long time.
And it didn't take shitheads like the Wapo to start writing editorials about how the shooing the fault of hwhite supremacists discriminating against the hispanics.
The part that worries me is that I will have to be doing it from both sides.
I will be having to slap young Leftist saying how the mayo monkeys are all spawn of Satan, and them not having the self awareness to realize they are basically saying everything Hitler ever said but with the races swapped.
But there has been a growing trend of a lot of younger Right-wingers who are seeming to decide that if they are going to be called White Supremacist, then they may as well become them. And they just get angry when I point out that culturally and politically, they have far more in common with the Hispanics living in Dodge City than they do with the White Yuppies and Marxist living in Lawrence and Overland Park.
There are virtually no white supremacists. There are whites who believe in white dignity, the right to white solidarity and white representation in government, white communities and white survival, and ethnically homogeneous white nations - and literally none of that is “supremacist”. Opposing the genocide of your peoples via replacement migration and anti-white government policy is, likewise, not “supremacist”.
Spare me. There are absolutely white supremacists who genuinely believe whites are inherently biologically superior to all other races. It's just wildly unpalatable to say the crazy shit that Spencer was saying in his supervillain rant at Charlottesville, because people are already pre-disposed to opposing it.
Also, having white racial affinity is a joke when you still have to side with white Leftists by definition.
He said there are virtually no white supremacists, and he's absolutely correct. White people, as a collective, are by far the most welcome, xenophilic, tolerant race on the planet. It's not even close. If white people acted like non-white people, there would be no non-white people in power in white countries.
The fact that maybe one in a hundred white people hate non-whites as much as non-whites hate them does not make white supremacy a problem, or even something worth discussing.
We're not talking in over-arching averages. We're talking specifically about right-wing racist whites, which is already a small strata.
Of that already small category, there are definitely white supremacists, and it's fucking weird for you all to try and deny it, when I get to watch idiots come on this board and basically announce they are white supremacists in all but name.
You generally put up really good arguments. Disappointing to see this level of dishonesty and weasel-wording from you, and then to see you defend it repeatedly is, quite honestly, mind boggling.
Oh no, concern trolling, better say the right things so my fans won't be mad at me and unsubscribe.
A) This isn't weasel-wording. I'm using his scope, and it didn't change. The weasel-wording is by people who come here and scream at the top of their lungs that blacks, jews, indians, gays, asians, arabs, and white people that don't agree with them are sub-human scum that deserve total extermination for their inherent racial (and therefore social) inferiority aren't white supremacists. They are, they know that, they're just liars attempting to hide their power level before you trigger them and get them to scream "gas the kikes".
Yes, the elites are the enemy of every race, every creed, and both genders.
I think it might be a good development if some right-wingers do become white supremacists. Not because that is good in itself, but because it expands the Overton Window. People have forgotten what 'white supremacy' actually is, which is why everyone and his dog gets called that.
Yeah, the EthnoNats do not want to accept that everyone is replacable to the Globalists.
I've often said that argument for "Black Replacement" is even stronger than any of the arguments for "White Replacement" given the effects of what has happened to black family units under not only Leftism, but Leftist Racialism / National Socialism over the past several decades: cultural degeneracy, cultural institutionalization of crime, complete social failure, runaway abortion, total collapse of the family unit, eradication of community, paranoid conspiratorial thinking as the norm, rampant poverty, total economic dependency on the government. It's actually lead to American blacks becoming the 2nd largest minority for the first time in American history. The reason Trump won more black support is because when he shut down illegal immigration, it benefited working class blacks immediately, because it was their jobs that were being outsourced to illegal labor even more than whites. The fact that black v. latino gang-wars have been a staple of Democratic hive cities near the southern border is not a surprise.
And this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Arguably, the Democrats actually did this to asians in California after WW2. People forget, when the American japanese were evicted from their homes and placed in camps, they didn't get to keep their homes. Their homes were seized by the government and sold to black families who were moved into the state. FDR literally replaced asians with blacks in California because it secured more votes for Democrats, and many blacks were shifting their votes from Republican to Democrat because of it.
I shouldn't have to explain how Natives were replaced.
I shouldn't have to explain that it's not only whites, and it's genuinely everyone who isn't useful. That makes sense from a globalist perspective: they really don't see any difference between one group and another.
They might be getting angry because your arguments are bad. Them being similar doesn't magically make those Hispanics suddenly less illegal, nor their effects on the economy acceptable.
You should add your third side of convincing those Hispanics (and all other groups) to also throw down their tribe to become one with the White. Because they will still prioritize themselves over others, like anyone reasonable would. Yet you are still trying to convince the Whites that they alone can't do that, because for some reason that's bad.
suddenly less illegal, nor their effects on the economy acceptable.
The hell are you talking about? They have lived there for almost 150 years. Their ancestors where cowboys who came up from Mexico and Texas on the cattle drives and then stayed here. The ranches they own have been handed down through generations. And they are quite proud of that heritage, and are some of the most flag waving patriotic people I know. As well as one of the most conservative parts of the state. Incidentally, Also some of the most hardcore border hawks.
to also throw down their tribe to become one with the White.
Well you are in luck then. Because recent voting and census trends have show Hispanics starting to either identify as White, or vote with Whites on political issues. Only in California is that trend not happening, but both Texas and Florida have gone hard to the Right because of shifts in Hispanic voting. Because Hispanic actually are starting to become more like past immigrant waves (Germans, Irish, Italians, etc) where they keep some of their culture but otherwise integrate.
I lived in Kansas until moving to Texas recently. The "Hispanics in Dodge City" that you said we should have so much in common with?
Those are straight up illegal aliens bro, the vast majority of them. Ditto the town of Liberal. Garden City too, which is where most of the fake money in the Midwest comes from if you weren't aware.
They are a plague on this state. Every bit as much the enemy as the white leftists.
Because recent voting and census trends have show Hispanics starting to either identify as White, or vote with Whites on political issues
If only the Hispanics that people actually hated were voting, or were allowed to vote without being bussed around by the Democrats to only vote for them. I'm certain that smaller minority of HIspanic voters will suddenly balance out the issues with the illegal population.
And I'm absolutely certain they won't have a massive bias on that specific issue either, that will effect many of them's personal family members (and many of their direct parents too).
I'm glad for the ones who came here and settled a good land. Those are such a nonissue they don't even factor into anyone's discussion of the problem. Acting like they do is deliberately misreading the issue.
But there has been a growing trend of a lot of younger Right-wingers who are seeming to decide that if they are going to be called White Supremacist, then they may as well become them.
Yeah. I think there's a lot of value in the pro-white arguments (or more specifically the anti-anti-white arguments), and it needs to be said, but I'm still very worried about the pendulum swing. We (rightly) mocked when the left called everything and everyone a Nazi for years, but it might end up being self fulfilling in the end. This leftist societal decay is exactly how you get actual conservative/right-wing authoritarianism.
And as fun as it is to LARP and say they'd deserve it, I don't think that's the ideal path for society to go down. If the pendulum does swing hard, it's going to be very rough for everyone.
Leftists still need to be stopped, but people need to pay attention to the warnings of history too.
From a strategic perspective you are right, people in America would be better served by alliances with groups that can help them promote their values instead of putting themselves in ethnic bubbles.
I don't really like how racism has come to be framed as a moral issue though. It shouldn't be an issue at all except within integrated cultures like the US, and only then as a matter of necessity/practicality.
It shouldn't be seen as an issue at all. This is a country based on Liberal Revolutions. Race is such a distant abstract that it's less relevant than religion in deciding whether someone is capable of integrating effectively into an American society.
Except that the elites/cabal passed the immigration act of 1965 from majority white countries to majority non-white, the Founding Fathers set up the United States as a white Christian ethnostate, and the globalists are intent upon carrying out the Kalergi plan, to literally replace and genocide white people in our own countries, and have said as much for over 100 years, the exact same people who have been promoting open borders, mass non-white immigration, diversity, multiculturalism, anti-white rhetoric and policies, affirmative action, globalist NGOs literally transporting non-whites into white countries, and attacking any white person that speaks out against this as a literal Nazi. These same sick bastards also proclaim that the Kalergi plan is a conspiracy theory pushed by white supremacists, while simultaneously tracking the decline of the white population with glee, saying that they look forward to whites becoming a minority, that it's inevitable, and that we deserve it.
First, the Hart-Celler act was passed by whites so that the Democrats could get more votes.
Second, the Founding Fathers set up the US as a Liberal Republic. Even in 1789, the US could not be considered an ethno-state, and wasn't considered an ethno-state even by the founders themselves. "White" isn't an ethnicity. Anglo, "Scott", "Irish", "Italian", "Spanish", "Portuguese" are ethnicities. And the Americans before the civil war would have found what they saw as ethnic differences between "Pennsylvanian" and "Virginian".
This Pan-European White Solidarity is a progressive racial concept that has more in common with Mr. Kalergi than it does George Washington.
This isn't about you, it isn't about race, it's about simple power.
First, the Hart-Celler act was passed by whites so that the Democrats could get more votes.
There are others involved, yes, which is why I prefer the term globalist.
Second, the Founding Fathers set up the US as a Liberal Republic. Even in 1789, the US could not be considered an ethno-state, and wasn't considered an ethno-state even by the founders themselves. "White" isn't an ethnicity. Anglo, "Scott", "Irish", "Italian", "Spanish", "Portuguese" are ethnicities. And the Americans before the civil war would have found what they saw as ethnic differences between "Pennsylvanian" and "Virginian".
To think that the people back then couldn't delineate between different races of people is asinine. Just because it wasn't a prevailing divisive topic like it is today doesn't mean they couldn't see it. They did see race, and a few of the states (Virginia for example) passed laws specifically limiting voting to white land owning men.
The founding fathers didn't explicitly detail every nuance of their intentions into the founding documents, because they didn't assume our population would become so thoroughly propagandized, corrupted, and dumbed down by our modern education and entertainment. They didn't have to say the country was for white people, because it was implied and understood by everyone. The U.S. was conquered, built, and founded by white people. They didn't have to say it. Everyone knew it. It's the same reason they weren't fully explicit and clear in the 2nd Amendment, or other Amendments which the left/globalists are trying to subvert through legalese, because the founders thought the people wouldn't be this stupid as to ignore such basic truths. The very documents that founded our nation are downstream of thousands of years of built upon legal and philosophical doctrine, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks, that is specific to Western civilization (i.e. white people). No other people on earth could've made the U.S. the way it was. It's why we can see the experiment of Liberia, which has identical founding documents to the U.S. but has resulted in a completely different outcome, because the people are different. Culture, governance, philosophy, tradition, society, they're all downstream of race. The founders knew this. It was just so blatantly obvious to everyone back then that they thought they didn't have to explicitly say it.
If they thought all peoples were equal, then this passage wouldn't have been included in the Declaration of Independence: "[King George III] has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." If they could specifically differentiate between White people and Native Americans, and believe them to be intrinsically different, then they saw and understood race and racial differences.
If the founding fathers didn't intend the U.S. to be a White ethnostate, they wouldn't have included this language in the naturalization act of 1790: "That any alien, being a free White person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof." This means they specifically intended for the U.S. to be a white ethnostate, that they didn't differentiate between the different European nations, and they saw the commonality of the people in European nations (that they're white).
This isn't about you, it isn't about race, it's about simple power.
Yes and no. It is about power, and it's also about race. The globalists are intent upon weakening, replacing, and genociding white people so they can gain more power. White people are the most likely demographic to fight back against them. Voting stats by race support this. White people have only been brainwashed to no longer see race through the very institutions the globalists control (like schools, media, news, social media, etc.). White people now have a negative in group preference. That's deadly to the continuation of a people, hell, to any animal on earth. You're also ignoring the blatant, open, and explicitly anti-white language the globalists have used for at least the last 100 years. They didn't say they were going to ethnically replace black people, Asians, or Jews, they explicitly said white people, over and over and over.
There are others involved, yes, which is why I prefer the term globalist.
You don't want to use the term globalist at all. You want to use the term jew because that's what fits in your narrative. The problem you have is that there are far too many whites both in the upper and lower echelons of power, that are absolutely dedicated to Leftist ideology that is destroying society... because Leftism is an invention from white people.
To think that the people back then couldn't delineate between different races of people is asinine.
Good thing I didn't say that, then. I said people already significantly differentiated between ethnic group and even state-association. This is because Pan-Europeanism is a progressive concept that literally none of the Founding Fathers were prepared to engage with. The British thought that the Irish were subhuman. The Revolution occurred because colonial Englishmen were seen as being innately non-English by the people living in England.
Race as an abstract concept was understood, they just weren't making political decisions off of it because why in God's name would you when you cant agree that the people of the same ethnic group as you have the same rights as you, under the same governing system as you, because they live "over there".
They didn't have to say the country was for white people, because it was implied and understood by everyone.
Except that's not true because the beginnings of "white" racial political affiliation come from proto-progressives who were trying to construct a "white" society in a land that had long since understood that the French & Spanish had already had zero interest in preventing their Europeans from interbreeding with native Americans, immigrants, Africans, and other settlers. The fact that the revolution was the most heavily racially integrated war in the US until Vietnam, and the fact that racial integration among settlers was already commonplace in Ohio country, and was a major aspect of the 2nd Great Awakening was something that those early progressive racialists were trying to defeat. This was in addition to the fact that those same racialists were still trying to decide precisely which Europeans could actually be considered "White" since that wasn't well defined, and the settlers in America came from a vast swath of western European groups that hated each other.
What you have in America is a faction of proto-progressives that are trying to unify European ethnicities under the concept of a "white" people so that same thing that happened to them with the English, doesn't repeat. They are the people acting to change how things were already working. The ideological Liberals (the literal basis of American governance) had no issue with race whatsoever because it is a Liberal system. It already pre-supposes the concept of a kind of Universal Man with Universal property rights. Liberalism stands in explicit contradiction to race based discrimination and slavery (especially by race). You can see this in the fact that Great Britain and France had almost no black-white race based discrimination through most of their history. Meanwhile, the 2nd Great Awakening movement was a Christian Evangelical revival that was heavily racially integrated among American pioneers, free blacks, French settlers, and converted natives. Both of these two other forces (which underpin the entire American system) stand it stark opposition to the Federalists & Democrats racial initiatives, and would even lead to the foundational roots of the Civil War as they also focused heavily on the abolition of slavery.
The Liberals and Evangelicals (if we can call them that), were so integrated that you had plenty of non-whites not only owning property, but even being classified as citizens of the states, and holding political office.
It's the same reason they weren't fully explicit and clear in the 2nd Amendment, or other Amendments which the left/globalists are trying to subvert through legalese, because the founders thought the people wouldn't be this stupid as to ignore such basic truths.
You're not going to like this part of the history lesson. The 2nd Amendment is explicitly clear. This is because the Founding Fathers are rabid Revolutionary Liberals, particularly the Anti-Federalists.
The reason that it was redefined wasn't just by the political Left in this country, but it was intentionally redefined by those same Democratic, Progressive Racialists, who were on the supreme court and rendered the Cruikshank decision.
The purpose of that decision was to allow the perpetrators of the Colifax Massacre to go free. But it also served the additional purpose of revoking the 1st, 2nd, 14th, and 15th amendments from the states themselves. In one felt swoop it declared that even protests and speech could be infinitely regulated by the states since the 1st Amendment just didn't apply if you weren't standing in a post office. It redefined the concept of the militia to be: whomever the state legislature asserted was "of" the militia or the people. It did this because the 2nd Amendment explicitly allows everyone the right to bear arms under all cases. However, for the Progressive Racialists, this means that blacks might be able to own firearms (they always had before), and that could pose a threat to their power. So, removing the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment from the states meant that the states could now mass disarm anyone at their hearts content since if the state legislature redefined the "state militia" to exclude those people, then those people had no right to own firearms. This is the same court that would go on to enshrine segregation through "Separate but Equal" because equal outcome is a progressive doctrine.
It wasn't globalists who redefined firearm rights in the US for political reasons. It was people like you!
If they could specifically differentiate between White people and Native Americans
Not my argument, no need to rebut.
It's why we can see the experiment of Liberia, which has identical founding documents to the U.S. but has resulted in a completely different outcome, because the people are different.
Speaking of Progressive Racialism, that's exactly why Liberia is the way it is.
Liberia isn't founded on Liberalism. It mimics the Constitution to a degree, but the free blacks who founded Liberia took their legal experiences from the Antebellum South. The Antebellum South is a racial aristocracy and a plantation system (once again, Aristocracy is contradictory to Liberalism). They reflected it perfectly by colonizing the coast, expelling the native Africans, racially discriminating against them, and using them as plantation/serf class to serve a racial aristocracy of Amero-Liberians.
Ever since then, it has gotten ever more progressive with it's racial politics, even down to the violent Civil War between Racialist Leftist factions.
Liberia isn't proof that only whites can build a Liberal system. It's that the system you are demanding is so fundamentally self-destructive and unworkable.
The Confederates also tried the same thing in Brazil, and eventually just gave in and integrated, and abandoned the concept of a racial aristocracy altogether.
The Confederates also tried the same thing in California, and that's why it's the progressive shithole it is today.
If the founding fathers didn't intend the U.S. to be a White ethnostate,
White Ethnostates are an oxymoron. Whites aren't an ethnicity.
The Founding Fathers wanted to limit immigration generally. This is because the country was already "diverse" with tons of slaves, French, Indians, abandoned Germans, and a crap load of Spanish colonists on the boarder.
Also, I'd bet that the primary reason they couldn't leave it as Free person is to appeal to the Progressive Racialists of the South. If you don't specify white, that means all the free blacks in those states get to vote, and they're probably not gonna side with that whole slavery thing that Virginia has going on.
That's also assuming that US Citizenship is a settled issue. It isn't. That bitch isn't a settled issue until after the Civil War. What even constitutes evidence of a US Citizen is part of the "Impressment" scandal that leads to the War of 1812.
You're also ignoring the blatant, open, and explicitly anti-white language the globalists have used for at least the last 100 years. They didn't say they were going to ethnically replace black people, Asians, or Jews, they explicitly said white people, over and over and over.
They said all of that about blacks, asians, and jews; and then they followed through on it. This is because it's about power, not race.
Someone the other day was saying that the cops inside the school pinned down the shooter inside a classroom, but couldn't get in until someone brought a key because the classroom door was specifically made so you couldn't bust through it (probably with the intent of being defensive against shooters ironically).
The cops milling around outside and stopping people from going in were just doing their job in keeping people out of an active shooting situation.
I wonder if we'll ever get accurate info, or if it comes out if they'll just quickly change the topic to something else?
It feels like maybe they just took a previous story where a school resource officer really did stay outside the school and just threw that story on top of this one, knowing it would generate outrage and if it's not true who cares they got clicks.
The Latino cops were scared white! So white, they couldn't do their jobs. Then a Latino border agent ran into the Latino school to save his and other Latino kids from the Latino shooter. This must be the result of white supremacy.
Hispanics are white when they need to. So the good ones were Latino, and the bad one were white hispanic.
That logic is flawless; you should write for such respectable news outlets as CNNPC or MSNPC
Race has nothing to do with it, isn't it obvious that they were told to back down, it was a way to make the people mad about the killing of kid's, but they kill thousands everyday by abortion, this was done by the FBI's help, how could a kid working part time at Wendy's afford 2 assolt rifles, there's something Fishy about This!
is this r/news or something? Nobody goes there, it's completely botted, manipulated, managed, and clusterfucked. I forgot it even existed.
The majority Latino Border Patrol was determined to go after a "potential non-white". Makes perfect sense.
How can you even live like this? Can you imagine what it's like to actually believe this nonsense?
Doesn't even make sense because local Uvalde police are almost all non-white themselves: https://media.patriots.win/post/chRV1vZxHL0O.jpeg
Goes to show how utterly ignorant reddit is.
It is so depressing to realize we've been invaded and that no one fucking noticed or cared.
But look how well they've assimilated. They've adopted our school shooter mentality.
That area was probably always majority hispanic.
Only for about the last 500 years ...
Well true, my point is just that Tejanos have been a major part of the population of that part of the US for a long time, and that there are a lot of non-white populations who have been in the rough area for a long time.
And it didn't take shitheads like the Wapo to start writing editorials about how the shooing the fault of hwhite supremacists discriminating against the hispanics.
Literally every cop in that town is obese.
One of them in the back looks like they might not be. And one of the women isn't...for all the good that would do.
I fucking hate these racist trash.
I swear, my entire adult life is going to involve how to teach young American gets not to be utterly racist garbage.
The part that worries me is that I will have to be doing it from both sides.
I will be having to slap young Leftist saying how the mayo monkeys are all spawn of Satan, and them not having the self awareness to realize they are basically saying everything Hitler ever said but with the races swapped.
But there has been a growing trend of a lot of younger Right-wingers who are seeming to decide that if they are going to be called White Supremacist, then they may as well become them. And they just get angry when I point out that culturally and politically, they have far more in common with the Hispanics living in Dodge City than they do with the White Yuppies and Marxist living in Lawrence and Overland Park.
There are virtually no white supremacists. There are whites who believe in white dignity, the right to white solidarity and white representation in government, white communities and white survival, and ethnically homogeneous white nations - and literally none of that is “supremacist”. Opposing the genocide of your peoples via replacement migration and anti-white government policy is, likewise, not “supremacist”.
Spare me. There are absolutely white supremacists who genuinely believe whites are inherently biologically superior to all other races. It's just wildly unpalatable to say the crazy shit that Spencer was saying in his supervillain rant at Charlottesville, because people are already pre-disposed to opposing it.
Also, having white racial affinity is a joke when you still have to side with white Leftists by definition.
He said there are virtually no white supremacists, and he's absolutely correct. White people, as a collective, are by far the most welcome, xenophilic, tolerant race on the planet. It's not even close. If white people acted like non-white people, there would be no non-white people in power in white countries.
The fact that maybe one in a hundred white people hate non-whites as much as non-whites hate them does not make white supremacy a problem, or even something worth discussing.
We're not talking in over-arching averages. We're talking specifically about right-wing racist whites, which is already a small strata.
Of that already small category, there are definitely white supremacists, and it's fucking weird for you all to try and deny it, when I get to watch idiots come on this board and basically announce they are white supremacists in all but name.
Us: "The number of white supremacists is very small"
You: "Why are you saying there are zero white supremacists?"
No, he's saying there aren't any.
You generally put up really good arguments. Disappointing to see this level of dishonesty and weasel-wording from you, and then to see you defend it repeatedly is, quite honestly, mind boggling.
Oh no, concern trolling, better say the right things so my fans won't be mad at me and unsubscribe.
A) This isn't weasel-wording. I'm using his scope, and it didn't change. The weasel-wording is by people who come here and scream at the top of their lungs that blacks, jews, indians, gays, asians, arabs, and white people that don't agree with them are sub-human scum that deserve total extermination for their inherent racial (and therefore social) inferiority aren't white supremacists. They are, they know that, they're just liars attempting to hide their power level before you trigger them and get them to scream "gas the kikes".
B) I reserve the god given right to be wrong.
Yes, the elites are the enemy of every race, every creed, and both genders.
I think it might be a good development if some right-wingers do become white supremacists. Not because that is good in itself, but because it expands the Overton Window. People have forgotten what 'white supremacy' actually is, which is why everyone and his dog gets called that.
Yeah, the EthnoNats do not want to accept that everyone is replacable to the Globalists.
I've often said that argument for "Black Replacement" is even stronger than any of the arguments for "White Replacement" given the effects of what has happened to black family units under not only Leftism, but Leftist Racialism / National Socialism over the past several decades: cultural degeneracy, cultural institutionalization of crime, complete social failure, runaway abortion, total collapse of the family unit, eradication of community, paranoid conspiratorial thinking as the norm, rampant poverty, total economic dependency on the government. It's actually lead to American blacks becoming the 2nd largest minority for the first time in American history. The reason Trump won more black support is because when he shut down illegal immigration, it benefited working class blacks immediately, because it was their jobs that were being outsourced to illegal labor even more than whites. The fact that black v. latino gang-wars have been a staple of Democratic hive cities near the southern border is not a surprise.
And this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Arguably, the Democrats actually did this to asians in California after WW2. People forget, when the American japanese were evicted from their homes and placed in camps, they didn't get to keep their homes. Their homes were seized by the government and sold to black families who were moved into the state. FDR literally replaced asians with blacks in California because it secured more votes for Democrats, and many blacks were shifting their votes from Republican to Democrat because of it.
I shouldn't have to explain how Natives were replaced.
I shouldn't have to explain that it's not only whites, and it's genuinely everyone who isn't useful. That makes sense from a globalist perspective: they really don't see any difference between one group and another.
Damn son 👍
Thanks
They might be getting angry because your arguments are bad. Them being similar doesn't magically make those Hispanics suddenly less illegal, nor their effects on the economy acceptable.
You should add your third side of convincing those Hispanics (and all other groups) to also throw down their tribe to become one with the White. Because they will still prioritize themselves over others, like anyone reasonable would. Yet you are still trying to convince the Whites that they alone can't do that, because for some reason that's bad.
The hell are you talking about? They have lived there for almost 150 years. Their ancestors where cowboys who came up from Mexico and Texas on the cattle drives and then stayed here. The ranches they own have been handed down through generations. And they are quite proud of that heritage, and are some of the most flag waving patriotic people I know. As well as one of the most conservative parts of the state. Incidentally, Also some of the most hardcore border hawks.
Well you are in luck then. Because recent voting and census trends have show Hispanics starting to either identify as White, or vote with Whites on political issues. Only in California is that trend not happening, but both Texas and Florida have gone hard to the Right because of shifts in Hispanic voting. Because Hispanic actually are starting to become more like past immigrant waves (Germans, Irish, Italians, etc) where they keep some of their culture but otherwise integrate.
I lived in Kansas until moving to Texas recently. The "Hispanics in Dodge City" that you said we should have so much in common with?
Those are straight up illegal aliens bro, the vast majority of them. Ditto the town of Liberal. Garden City too, which is where most of the fake money in the Midwest comes from if you weren't aware.
They are a plague on this state. Every bit as much the enemy as the white leftists.
If only the Hispanics that people actually hated were voting, or were allowed to vote without being bussed around by the Democrats to only vote for them. I'm certain that smaller minority of HIspanic voters will suddenly balance out the issues with the illegal population.
And I'm absolutely certain they won't have a massive bias on that specific issue either, that will effect many of them's personal family members (and many of their direct parents too).
I'm glad for the ones who came here and settled a good land. Those are such a nonissue they don't even factor into anyone's discussion of the problem. Acting like they do is deliberately misreading the issue.
Yeah. I think there's a lot of value in the pro-white arguments (or more specifically the anti-anti-white arguments), and it needs to be said, but I'm still very worried about the pendulum swing. We (rightly) mocked when the left called everything and everyone a Nazi for years, but it might end up being self fulfilling in the end. This leftist societal decay is exactly how you get actual conservative/right-wing authoritarianism.
And as fun as it is to LARP and say they'd deserve it, I don't think that's the ideal path for society to go down. If the pendulum does swing hard, it's going to be very rough for everyone.
Leftists still need to be stopped, but people need to pay attention to the warnings of history too.
From a strategic perspective you are right, people in America would be better served by alliances with groups that can help them promote their values instead of putting themselves in ethnic bubbles.
I don't really like how racism has come to be framed as a moral issue though. It shouldn't be an issue at all except within integrated cultures like the US, and only then as a matter of necessity/practicality.
It shouldn't be seen as an issue at all. This is a country based on Liberal Revolutions. Race is such a distant abstract that it's less relevant than religion in deciding whether someone is capable of integrating effectively into an American society.
Except that the elites/cabal passed the immigration act of 1965 from majority white countries to majority non-white, the Founding Fathers set up the United States as a white Christian ethnostate, and the globalists are intent upon carrying out the Kalergi plan, to literally replace and genocide white people in our own countries, and have said as much for over 100 years, the exact same people who have been promoting open borders, mass non-white immigration, diversity, multiculturalism, anti-white rhetoric and policies, affirmative action, globalist NGOs literally transporting non-whites into white countries, and attacking any white person that speaks out against this as a literal Nazi. These same sick bastards also proclaim that the Kalergi plan is a conspiracy theory pushed by white supremacists, while simultaneously tracking the decline of the white population with glee, saying that they look forward to whites becoming a minority, that it's inevitable, and that we deserve it.
First, the Hart-Celler act was passed by whites so that the Democrats could get more votes.
Second, the Founding Fathers set up the US as a Liberal Republic. Even in 1789, the US could not be considered an ethno-state, and wasn't considered an ethno-state even by the founders themselves. "White" isn't an ethnicity. Anglo, "Scott", "Irish", "Italian", "Spanish", "Portuguese" are ethnicities. And the Americans before the civil war would have found what they saw as ethnic differences between "Pennsylvanian" and "Virginian".
This Pan-European White Solidarity is a progressive racial concept that has more in common with Mr. Kalergi than it does George Washington.
This isn't about you, it isn't about race, it's about simple power.
There are others involved, yes, which is why I prefer the term globalist.
To think that the people back then couldn't delineate between different races of people is asinine. Just because it wasn't a prevailing divisive topic like it is today doesn't mean they couldn't see it. They did see race, and a few of the states (Virginia for example) passed laws specifically limiting voting to white land owning men.
The founding fathers didn't explicitly detail every nuance of their intentions into the founding documents, because they didn't assume our population would become so thoroughly propagandized, corrupted, and dumbed down by our modern education and entertainment. They didn't have to say the country was for white people, because it was implied and understood by everyone. The U.S. was conquered, built, and founded by white people. They didn't have to say it. Everyone knew it. It's the same reason they weren't fully explicit and clear in the 2nd Amendment, or other Amendments which the left/globalists are trying to subvert through legalese, because the founders thought the people wouldn't be this stupid as to ignore such basic truths. The very documents that founded our nation are downstream of thousands of years of built upon legal and philosophical doctrine, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks, that is specific to Western civilization (i.e. white people). No other people on earth could've made the U.S. the way it was. It's why we can see the experiment of Liberia, which has identical founding documents to the U.S. but has resulted in a completely different outcome, because the people are different. Culture, governance, philosophy, tradition, society, they're all downstream of race. The founders knew this. It was just so blatantly obvious to everyone back then that they thought they didn't have to explicitly say it.
If they thought all peoples were equal, then this passage wouldn't have been included in the Declaration of Independence: "[King George III] has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." If they could specifically differentiate between White people and Native Americans, and believe them to be intrinsically different, then they saw and understood race and racial differences.
If the founding fathers didn't intend the U.S. to be a White ethnostate, they wouldn't have included this language in the naturalization act of 1790: "That any alien, being a free White person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof." This means they specifically intended for the U.S. to be a white ethnostate, that they didn't differentiate between the different European nations, and they saw the commonality of the people in European nations (that they're white).
Yes and no. It is about power, and it's also about race. The globalists are intent upon weakening, replacing, and genociding white people so they can gain more power. White people are the most likely demographic to fight back against them. Voting stats by race support this. White people have only been brainwashed to no longer see race through the very institutions the globalists control (like schools, media, news, social media, etc.). White people now have a negative in group preference. That's deadly to the continuation of a people, hell, to any animal on earth. You're also ignoring the blatant, open, and explicitly anti-white language the globalists have used for at least the last 100 years. They didn't say they were going to ethnically replace black people, Asians, or Jews, they explicitly said white people, over and over and over.
You don't want to use the term globalist at all. You want to use the term jew because that's what fits in your narrative. The problem you have is that there are far too many whites both in the upper and lower echelons of power, that are absolutely dedicated to Leftist ideology that is destroying society... because Leftism is an invention from white people.
Good thing I didn't say that, then. I said people already significantly differentiated between ethnic group and even state-association. This is because Pan-Europeanism is a progressive concept that literally none of the Founding Fathers were prepared to engage with. The British thought that the Irish were subhuman. The Revolution occurred because colonial Englishmen were seen as being innately non-English by the people living in England.
Race as an abstract concept was understood, they just weren't making political decisions off of it because why in God's name would you when you cant agree that the people of the same ethnic group as you have the same rights as you, under the same governing system as you, because they live "over there".
Except that's not true because the beginnings of "white" racial political affiliation come from proto-progressives who were trying to construct a "white" society in a land that had long since understood that the French & Spanish had already had zero interest in preventing their Europeans from interbreeding with native Americans, immigrants, Africans, and other settlers. The fact that the revolution was the most heavily racially integrated war in the US until Vietnam, and the fact that racial integration among settlers was already commonplace in Ohio country, and was a major aspect of the 2nd Great Awakening was something that those early progressive racialists were trying to defeat. This was in addition to the fact that those same racialists were still trying to decide precisely which Europeans could actually be considered "White" since that wasn't well defined, and the settlers in America came from a vast swath of western European groups that hated each other.
What you have in America is a faction of proto-progressives that are trying to unify European ethnicities under the concept of a "white" people so that same thing that happened to them with the English, doesn't repeat. They are the people acting to change how things were already working. The ideological Liberals (the literal basis of American governance) had no issue with race whatsoever because it is a Liberal system. It already pre-supposes the concept of a kind of Universal Man with Universal property rights. Liberalism stands in explicit contradiction to race based discrimination and slavery (especially by race). You can see this in the fact that Great Britain and France had almost no black-white race based discrimination through most of their history. Meanwhile, the 2nd Great Awakening movement was a Christian Evangelical revival that was heavily racially integrated among American pioneers, free blacks, French settlers, and converted natives. Both of these two other forces (which underpin the entire American system) stand it stark opposition to the Federalists & Democrats racial initiatives, and would even lead to the foundational roots of the Civil War as they also focused heavily on the abolition of slavery.
The Liberals and Evangelicals (if we can call them that), were so integrated that you had plenty of non-whites not only owning property, but even being classified as citizens of the states, and holding political office.
You're not going to like this part of the history lesson. The 2nd Amendment is explicitly clear. This is because the Founding Fathers are rabid Revolutionary Liberals, particularly the Anti-Federalists.
The reason that it was redefined wasn't just by the political Left in this country, but it was intentionally redefined by those same Democratic, Progressive Racialists, who were on the supreme court and rendered the Cruikshank decision.
The purpose of that decision was to allow the perpetrators of the Colifax Massacre to go free. But it also served the additional purpose of revoking the 1st, 2nd, 14th, and 15th amendments from the states themselves. In one felt swoop it declared that even protests and speech could be infinitely regulated by the states since the 1st Amendment just didn't apply if you weren't standing in a post office. It redefined the concept of the militia to be: whomever the state legislature asserted was "of" the militia or the people. It did this because the 2nd Amendment explicitly allows everyone the right to bear arms under all cases. However, for the Progressive Racialists, this means that blacks might be able to own firearms (they always had before), and that could pose a threat to their power. So, removing the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment from the states meant that the states could now mass disarm anyone at their hearts content since if the state legislature redefined the "state militia" to exclude those people, then those people had no right to own firearms. This is the same court that would go on to enshrine segregation through "Separate but Equal" because equal outcome is a progressive doctrine.
It wasn't globalists who redefined firearm rights in the US for political reasons. It was people like you!
Not my argument, no need to rebut.
Speaking of Progressive Racialism, that's exactly why Liberia is the way it is.
Liberia isn't founded on Liberalism. It mimics the Constitution to a degree, but the free blacks who founded Liberia took their legal experiences from the Antebellum South. The Antebellum South is a racial aristocracy and a plantation system (once again, Aristocracy is contradictory to Liberalism). They reflected it perfectly by colonizing the coast, expelling the native Africans, racially discriminating against them, and using them as plantation/serf class to serve a racial aristocracy of Amero-Liberians.
Ever since then, it has gotten ever more progressive with it's racial politics, even down to the violent Civil War between Racialist Leftist factions.
Liberia isn't proof that only whites can build a Liberal system. It's that the system you are demanding is so fundamentally self-destructive and unworkable.
The Confederates also tried the same thing in Brazil, and eventually just gave in and integrated, and abandoned the concept of a racial aristocracy altogether.
The Confederates also tried the same thing in California, and that's why it's the progressive shithole it is today.
White Ethnostates are an oxymoron. Whites aren't an ethnicity.
The Founding Fathers wanted to limit immigration generally. This is because the country was already "diverse" with tons of slaves, French, Indians, abandoned Germans, and a crap load of Spanish colonists on the boarder.
Also, I'd bet that the primary reason they couldn't leave it as Free person is to appeal to the Progressive Racialists of the South. If you don't specify white, that means all the free blacks in those states get to vote, and they're probably not gonna side with that whole slavery thing that Virginia has going on.
That's also assuming that US Citizenship is a settled issue. It isn't. That bitch isn't a settled issue until after the Civil War. What even constitutes evidence of a US Citizen is part of the "Impressment" scandal that leads to the War of 1812.
They said all of that about blacks, asians, and jews; and then they followed through on it. This is because it's about power, not race.
Exactly that but reversed
They're clearly not bots. Just stupid people.
What's the difference at this point
It's harder for bots to vote in elections than the stupid people.
Don't be so sure.
That's why I said harder vs. impossible, but you're right.
Election integrity is dog shit
Voted at an advanced poll in Ontario last night.
Dominion voting machines being used to scan ballots confirmed.
Damn. I was having a really good day too.
Too many people say "bot" when what they mean is "NGO sockpuppet". They're not the same thing, although they do have roughly the same intelligence.
That totally explains Parkland, the cops stayed outside while all the white kids...huh.
The local PD was 100% Hispanic
Someone the other day was saying that the cops inside the school pinned down the shooter inside a classroom, but couldn't get in until someone brought a key because the classroom door was specifically made so you couldn't bust through it (probably with the intent of being defensive against shooters ironically).
The cops milling around outside and stopping people from going in were just doing their job in keeping people out of an active shooting situation.
I wonder if we'll ever get accurate info, or if it comes out if they'll just quickly change the topic to something else?
It feels like maybe they just took a previous story where a school resource officer really did stay outside the school and just threw that story on top of this one, knowing it would generate outrage and if it's not true who cares they got clicks.
These people live in a fantasy land.
Surprised a non-white shooter wasn't killed immediately? Really?
When have the police ever performed well in these situations?