So the "good old days" of the ADL were back when it was normalizing the "Nation of Immigrants" retcon of American history that was used to speed us toward the demographic cliff? Ok...
The ADL has merely become more partisan, like many other things.
Right now, it has nothing at all to do with defending the interests of Jews
Just the other day I cited their Zionist position and moral defense of Israel's policies of maintaining its Jewish majority.
So the "good old days" of the ADL were back when it was normalizing the "Nation of Immigrants" retcon of American history that was used to speed us toward the demographic cliff? Ok...
Where did the Mayflower come from?
Just the other day I cited their Zionist position and moral defense of Israel's policies of maintaining its Jewish majority.
Which does nothing to defend the interests of the Jews, which are not identical with those of Israel.
Dear God, you're actually going to defend this "Nation of Immigrants" garbage. This particular psyop plays on America's history as a European colony. It's meant to say that accepting immigrants is some sort of proud American tradition therefore a "good American patriot" would support huge amounts of immigration.
I would also add that even if such immigration didn't exist, you could still use their own traditionalist argument against them, for example, by pointing out that whites are America's traditional majority demographic so if you're all about traditions, why are they opposed to maintaining the traditional demographic balance?
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about where the liberals would get wrecked if they didn't censor us. They get wrecked in their own frame when relevant facts are allowed into the debate. It's even worse for them when I enter my own frame, which is that it's bad for white people to get demographically engulfed by immigrants.
Dear God, you're actually going to defend this "Nation of Immigrants" garbage.
It's a leftist dogwhistle, particularly today, but I don't see what is so outrageous about it.
It's meant to say that accepting immigrants is some sort of proud American tradition therefore a "good American patriot" would support huge amounts of immigration.
I don't think that follows. You can accept that immigration has been good in the past (though it certainly wasn't for the people living in those times), while not advocating for it today.
I would also add that even if such immigration didn't exist, you could still use their own traditionalist argument against them, for example, by pointing out that whites are America's traditional majority demographic so if you're all about traditions, why are they opposed to maintaining the traditional demographic balance?
I think there you would have two groups against you: the wokies and the colorblind.
And while I oppose all immigration, basing it on race seems quite unseemly. You mean to say that one should reject a Thomas Sowell immigrating but not a white SJW?
You could make the counterargument that people from Africa are quite unlikely to be like TS. But that's not based on race. That's based on objective, observable phenomena.
. It's even worse for them when I enter my own frame, which is that it's bad for white people to get demographically engulfed by immigrants.
Is it good to be flooded by white immigrants though?
I think there you would have two groups against you: the wokies and the colorblind.
"Colorblind" isn't real and isn't an American tradition. I acknowledge that the tradition frame of argument isn't great, but I gave examples of arguments that could be made within it regardless.
Is it good to be flooded by white immigrants though?
So the "good old days" of the ADL were back when it was normalizing the "Nation of Immigrants" retcon of American history that was used to speed us toward the demographic cliff? Ok...
The ADL has merely become more partisan, like many other things.
Just the other day I cited their Zionist position and moral defense of Israel's policies of maintaining its Jewish majority.
Where did the Mayflower come from?
Which does nothing to defend the interests of the Jews, which are not identical with those of Israel.
Dear God, you're actually going to defend this "Nation of Immigrants" garbage. This particular psyop plays on America's history as a European colony. It's meant to say that accepting immigrants is some sort of proud American tradition therefore a "good American patriot" would support huge amounts of immigration.
The retcon comes in the form of a lie by omission. The actual American tradition WRT immigration looks more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
I would also add that even if such immigration didn't exist, you could still use their own traditionalist argument against them, for example, by pointing out that whites are America's traditional majority demographic so if you're all about traditions, why are they opposed to maintaining the traditional demographic balance?
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about where the liberals would get wrecked if they didn't censor us. They get wrecked in their own frame when relevant facts are allowed into the debate. It's even worse for them when I enter my own frame, which is that it's bad for white people to get demographically engulfed by immigrants.
It's a leftist dogwhistle, particularly today, but I don't see what is so outrageous about it.
I don't think that follows. You can accept that immigration has been good in the past (though it certainly wasn't for the people living in those times), while not advocating for it today.
I think there you would have two groups against you: the wokies and the colorblind.
And while I oppose all immigration, basing it on race seems quite unseemly. You mean to say that one should reject a Thomas Sowell immigrating but not a white SJW?
You could make the counterargument that people from Africa are quite unlikely to be like TS. But that's not based on race. That's based on objective, observable phenomena.
Is it good to be flooded by white immigrants though?
That's how they use it a rhetorical device.
"Colorblind" isn't real and isn't an American tradition. I acknowledge that the tradition frame of argument isn't great, but I gave examples of arguments that could be made within it regardless.
For the US right now? Yes. We need the backup.