I don't really care anymore about being banned from subreddit. Reddit is so goddamn awful anymore.
It shows that your low opinion of Reddit mods is amply justified though.
You can sub in "white Americans" if that helps it make sense. Europe is part of it, but it's up to them if they want to go pan-European or not.
Why 'white Americans' though? What is it that you have in common with some guy who came in from Ukraine two days ago that you do not with say Clarence Thomas?
They end up with an ethnostate dedicated to preserving them. We keep our governments that we have now, that are dedicated to replacing us.
Israel is not an ethnostate. It's majority non-white and it exerts itself extraordinarily to bring in say Ethiopian Jews, who are black.
Regardless, there is nothing wrong with an ethnostate, like Japan.
I think you misunderstand political motives for demographic ones. The reason they want to replace white people is because white people are not obedient enough. If whites were overwhelmingly Democrats and imported non-whites voted GOP, that would stop in an instant.
As in non-zero? Sure. But they're fucking deluded. You had people think Blexit was an actual thing FFS. They don't even criticize Jewish idpol. They might feud with organizations that practice it (especially the ADL), but they don't condemn Jewish idpol itself.
The large gains among Latinos. Proposition 18 going down in flames in California, with a majority of every ethnic group except blacks and more than 1/3 of blacks voting against it. In California. A majority of Latinos and 1/3 of blacks voted against a proposition, backed by billionaire psychos, that would have given them benefits based on their race.
Why 'white Americans' though? What is it that you have in common with some guy who came in from Ukraine two days ago that you do not with say Clarence Thomas?
Assuming you mean a white Ukrainian, we would be closer in genetics. Things like culture and language would be temporary barriers to finding common ground with a Ukranian. Also, these individualized examples are foolish because that's not how anything works. The relevant question would be whether or not to allow blacks, not specifically Clarence Thomas. Also also, why don't you grill your favorite country's immigration policies, eh?
think you misunderstand political motives for demographic ones. The reason they want to replace white people is because white people are not obedient enough.
The motives don't matter that much, but I still think it's a mix. Ever listen to Tim Wise ranting or Noel Ignatiev? Let's also not pretend that conflict between Jews and Europeans is some new thing, either.
If whites were overwhelmingly Democrats and imported non-whites voted GOP, that would stop in an instant.
The GOP has had plenty of chances to stop this but chooses not to. Instead, they just pander to the "New Americans" and sell out their white voters even harder.
The large gains among Latinos.
At what cost? Your "based" Mayra Flores supports amnesty. I also question how serious this Latino Republican support is. Are they going to stick around after the extremely unpopular Biden admin is gone and after the Republicans end up in charge of a shit economy like the Dems are now?
Proposition 18 going down in flames in California, with a majority of every ethnic group except blacks and more than 1/3 of blacks voting against it. In California. A majority of Latinos and 1/3 of blacks voted against a proposition, backed by billionaire psychos, that would have given them benefits based on their race.
I'm aware of Prop 16. The problem is, it's hard to say that it's them rejecting idpol. Latinos might interpret it as benefiting blacks at their expense and vice versa. A majority of blacks supported CRT and BLM. Affirmative Action has also been a weird issue to track.
A 2018 Gallup poll found that 65% and 61% of respondents said they “generally favor” affirmative-action programs for women and racial minorities, respectively. But when Pew asked in 2019 whether race should be a factor in college-admissions decisions, 73% of respondents, including majorities across racial groups and political parties, said no.
Also, these individualized examples are foolish because that's not how anything works. The relevant question would be whether or not to allow blacks, not specifically Clarence Thomas.
The individualized examples are quite good, because the question is why you would prefer literally any white (including pink-haired SJWs with 19 facial piercings) over someone like Clarence Thomas.
If I had to take in 1 million immigrants, I'd rather take a million Roman Catholics who don't have my race rather than a million Muslims or SJWs who do.
Also also, why don't you grill your favorite country's immigration policies, eh?
Why would I? I like it when countries keep immigrants out.
The motives don't matter that much, but I still think it's a mix. Ever listen to Tim Wise ranting or Noel Ignatiev? Let's also not pretend that conflict between Jews and Europeans is some new thing, either.
Coincidentally, just a few days ago, I archived a large number of posts by Tim Wise in which he basically said that everyone he disagrees with should be 'crushed'. E.g. Trump supporters. (Two years later, he said that Trump's economic plans should be defeated because they 'crush' Trump supporters, whom he earlier said could be crushed).
The Tim Wises and Noel Ignatievs of the world are not the driving forces. The people who are enabling them are. And they have self-serving motivers, like those two do, but different ones.
Your "based" Mayra Flores supports amnesty
You would have reason to complain if she were in a R+20 district. In fact, she's in a D+8 or something district. She's literally the best you're going to get.
Are they going to stick around after the extremely unpopular Biden admin is gone and after the Republicans end up in charge of a shit economy like the Dems are now?
Probably same as everyone else. Incumbents lose support when presiding over a bad economy.
I'm aware of Prop 16. The problem is, it's hard to say that it's them rejecting idpol. Latinos might interpret it as benefiting blacks at their expense and vice versa. A majority of blacks supported CRT and BLM. Affirmative Action has also been a weird issue to track.
Let's say you are correct. First of all, believing that your racial group is unjustly harmed by a given policy is not IDPol, because you're not looking to benefit yourself based on race. Same as it's not IDPol to oppose affirmative action because it harms W&A. Secondly, if blacks and Latinos opposed it because they thought the other group would benefit at their expense (which I doubt esp. for blacks), it would show how easy it is to play groups off against each other in a racial free-for all. It means there will not be a grand anti-white alliance.
So it's a bit weird that the Prop lost.
Do you support <good thing>? Sure! Do you support <same thing phrased in a less pleasant way>? NO WAY!
Not really strange. The margin was very strange, that it lost hugely despite getting unlimited funding from billionaires. Most people, including blacks and Latinos, want just a fair shake. Unfortunately, a lot have been persuaded that they don't get a fair shake, so they think discrimination in their favor is just leveling the playing field.
No, they aren't because that's not how anything works. There is no realistic policy any would craft that allows Thomas and none of the shitty blacks. Regression to the mean is a thing.
We already see the outcome of white people embracing "colorblindedness" all around us, and they are terrible. I don't even see any room for debate here. They are objectively terrible. They've destroyed our cities, schools, culture, and politics. They've made it borderline impossible for us to advocate for our own future.
Your problem is that you are a liberal so to you, one of the worst things you can do is fail to treat someone as an individual. It's not "fair" to exclude the "based" minorities. There is a normally invisible hierarchy of values at work wherein jeopardizing white American's future is a worthy sacrifice in exchange for "fairness" or rather inclusiveness if we are being honest. But none of that stems from an object truth. It's not objectively better to be "inclusive." White people can choose our own future.
Why would I? I like it when countries keep immigrants out.
Israel only keeps gentile immigrants out. It seems to me you just like whatever Israel does, and you will find a way to hamster your way into saying it's good no matter how contradictory it is to your stated values.
You would have reason to complain if she were in a R+20 district. In fact, she's in a D+8 or something district. She's literally the best you're going to get.
Exactly. Her district is the most Hispanic one in Texas. This is what I'm talking about. Republicans aren't doomed by replacement immigration. They will just become more pozzed to win over the Nu Americans, exactly like they are doing here. Elections are a means, not an end. I don't care if pozzed R's win.
It means there will not be a grand anti-white alliance.
No, it means the anti-white alliance isn't invulnerable, but I already knew that.
Not really strange.
It kind of is. AA is way more popular than specifically AA in college admissions. I'm not sure why, but it is.
It shows that your low opinion of Reddit mods is amply justified though.
Why 'white Americans' though? What is it that you have in common with some guy who came in from Ukraine two days ago that you do not with say Clarence Thomas?
Israel is not an ethnostate. It's majority non-white and it exerts itself extraordinarily to bring in say Ethiopian Jews, who are black.
Regardless, there is nothing wrong with an ethnostate, like Japan.
I think you misunderstand political motives for demographic ones. The reason they want to replace white people is because white people are not obedient enough. If whites were overwhelmingly Democrats and imported non-whites voted GOP, that would stop in an instant.
The large gains among Latinos. Proposition 18 going down in flames in California, with a majority of every ethnic group except blacks and more than 1/3 of blacks voting against it. In California. A majority of Latinos and 1/3 of blacks voted against a proposition, backed by billionaire psychos, that would have given them benefits based on their race.
And that is a thing.
Assuming you mean a white Ukrainian, we would be closer in genetics. Things like culture and language would be temporary barriers to finding common ground with a Ukranian. Also, these individualized examples are foolish because that's not how anything works. The relevant question would be whether or not to allow blacks, not specifically Clarence Thomas. Also also, why don't you grill your favorite country's immigration policies, eh?
https://scored.co/c/KotakuInAction2/p/142B5hQHGD/israeli-minister-90-of-ukrainian/c
The motives don't matter that much, but I still think it's a mix. Ever listen to Tim Wise ranting or Noel Ignatiev? Let's also not pretend that conflict between Jews and Europeans is some new thing, either.
The GOP has had plenty of chances to stop this but chooses not to. Instead, they just pander to the "New Americans" and sell out their white voters even harder.
At what cost? Your "based" Mayra Flores supports amnesty. I also question how serious this Latino Republican support is. Are they going to stick around after the extremely unpopular Biden admin is gone and after the Republicans end up in charge of a shit economy like the Dems are now?
I'm aware of Prop 16. The problem is, it's hard to say that it's them rejecting idpol. Latinos might interpret it as benefiting blacks at their expense and vice versa. A majority of blacks supported CRT and BLM. Affirmative Action has also been a weird issue to track.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/affirmative-action-campaign-divides-californians-11603407398
So it's a bit weird that the Prop lost.
The individualized examples are quite good, because the question is why you would prefer literally any white (including pink-haired SJWs with 19 facial piercings) over someone like Clarence Thomas.
If I had to take in 1 million immigrants, I'd rather take a million Roman Catholics who don't have my race rather than a million Muslims or SJWs who do.
Why would I? I like it when countries keep immigrants out.
Coincidentally, just a few days ago, I archived a large number of posts by Tim Wise in which he basically said that everyone he disagrees with should be 'crushed'. E.g. Trump supporters. (Two years later, he said that Trump's economic plans should be defeated because they 'crush' Trump supporters, whom he earlier said could be crushed).
The Tim Wises and Noel Ignatievs of the world are not the driving forces. The people who are enabling them are. And they have self-serving motivers, like those two do, but different ones.
You would have reason to complain if she were in a R+20 district. In fact, she's in a D+8 or something district. She's literally the best you're going to get.
Probably same as everyone else. Incumbents lose support when presiding over a bad economy.
Let's say you are correct. First of all, believing that your racial group is unjustly harmed by a given policy is not IDPol, because you're not looking to benefit yourself based on race. Same as it's not IDPol to oppose affirmative action because it harms W&A. Secondly, if blacks and Latinos opposed it because they thought the other group would benefit at their expense (which I doubt esp. for blacks), it would show how easy it is to play groups off against each other in a racial free-for all. It means there will not be a grand anti-white alliance.
Do you support <good thing>? Sure! Do you support <same thing phrased in a less pleasant way>? NO WAY!
Not really strange. The margin was very strange, that it lost hugely despite getting unlimited funding from billionaires. Most people, including blacks and Latinos, want just a fair shake. Unfortunately, a lot have been persuaded that they don't get a fair shake, so they think discrimination in their favor is just leveling the playing field.
No, they aren't because that's not how anything works. There is no realistic policy any would craft that allows Thomas and none of the shitty blacks. Regression to the mean is a thing.
We already see the outcome of white people embracing "colorblindedness" all around us, and they are terrible. I don't even see any room for debate here. They are objectively terrible. They've destroyed our cities, schools, culture, and politics. They've made it borderline impossible for us to advocate for our own future.
Your problem is that you are a liberal so to you, one of the worst things you can do is fail to treat someone as an individual. It's not "fair" to exclude the "based" minorities. There is a normally invisible hierarchy of values at work wherein jeopardizing white American's future is a worthy sacrifice in exchange for "fairness" or rather inclusiveness if we are being honest. But none of that stems from an object truth. It's not objectively better to be "inclusive." White people can choose our own future.
Israel only keeps gentile immigrants out. It seems to me you just like whatever Israel does, and you will find a way to hamster your way into saying it's good no matter how contradictory it is to your stated values.
Exactly. Her district is the most Hispanic one in Texas. This is what I'm talking about. Republicans aren't doomed by replacement immigration. They will just become more pozzed to win over the Nu Americans, exactly like they are doing here. Elections are a means, not an end. I don't care if pozzed R's win.
No, it means the anti-white alliance isn't invulnerable, but I already knew that.
It kind of is. AA is way more popular than specifically AA in college admissions. I'm not sure why, but it is.