Actually, if history is any indicator, whites will probably be both fine, and actually excel.
This is the reality of the situation: racial discrimination doesn't actually work.
If you use it to "uplift" or "protect" people, it just makes them dependent on the institution and they inevitably fail.
If you use it keep people down, and the people you are oppressing are competent and capable; they will likely innovate around it and end up with better outcomes than the population you weren't discriminating against.
It's still wrong to do, but whites will very likely preform the way overseas chinese, indians, koreans, and jews did: form parochial communities with tight family bonds for security & culture, focus on saving money and (real) education, and building families in order to create generational wealth. Works every time.
There will be institutional set-backs, but the whites whom are going to suffer the most are any that live in Leftist hive cities that hate them. Whites whom are dependent on these corrupt institutions will pull away or otherwise suffer. In the long term, the institutions will suffer a crisis of competency (see: Rhodesia), and will end up falling apart as a parallel economies are created.
Yes, we'll have one generation that's going to suffer a bit, but the next one will be fine because we'll build something for them to work with.
South Africa is a completely different problem (and even there, whites are responding in the same way).
In South Africa, you have communists actively hunting minority populations and Anarcho-Tyranny. Whites are still the vast majority of the country, despite most of the lies being bandied about. Additionally, White Flight also prevents whites from having to live as minorities where they can be scape-goated.
Despite all that, I actually do recommend a visit still as it's some of the most unique land I have ever seen (especially Cape Town). If possible, drive across the border to Botswana and you will get a different vibe.
Imo it's the Zulu who are a mess in South Africa, but that's a whole other discussion.
You misunderstood what I said. Whites are in the majority in the US, not South Africa. I said that part of the reason South Africa was the way it was was because whites were in the minority.
White Flight only works if you have somewhere to land. Virtually every institution in the country is dedicated to making that impossible. It's not the same as things like Jim Crow where blacks were dumped into ghettos with other blacks. They are dumping violent people into our neighborhoods instead. They are trying to break us apart, not cluster us together.
It's true that we can survive this by clustering together, but we must understand that it's necessary, proactively do it, and resist attempts to intrude.
guy pretends destruction of whites isn't real and the elites just want to divide and rule via ethnic political bosses, if you accept that premise, then of course the elites will let whites have their own ethnic enclaves
We've argued this before, and you know personally that White Flight does work in those grievous enough situations. Hell most of the areas that experienced White Flight in cities were typically Jewish Flight, re-framed as White Flight, not to point out that black populations displaced jews in inner cities and suburbs.
However, again, most situations will not actually be grievous, and self-segregation is already the norm in almost every blue city.
The Left's mission is to cattle everyone into a Lebanese style identarian, sectarian, system. Not to destroy whites. They're just today's punching bag.
It's still wrong to do, but whites will very likely preform the way overseas chinese, indians, koreans, and jews did: form parochial communities with tight family bonds for security & culture, focus on saving money and (real) education, and building families in order to create generational wealth. Works every time.
The government doesn't just want to exclude white people, it wants to annihilate them. I agree that parallel communities will help, but mostly in the sense that as huwhites bond tighter together they'll realize that their survival is at stake and actually start self-organizing.
Whites whom are dependent on these corrupt institutions will pull away or otherwise suffer. In the long term, the institutions will suffer a crisis of competency (see: Rhodesia), and will end up falling apart as a parallel economies are created.
Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is a cheery story, but not exactly in that model. The white people were actually booted out of the country, the fields went fallow, then they were invited back. So point A the whites didn't build a parallel institution, they mostly had to leave, and point B the happy ending is only possible because the government of Zimbabwe has some incentive to keep Zimbabwe alive. Western leaders, on the other hand, hate their own countries and applaud the suffering of their native populations.
The government doesn't just want to exclude white people, it wants to annihilate them. I agree that parallel communities will help, but mostly in the sense that as huwhites bond tighter together they'll realize that their survival is at stake and actually start self-organizing.
It doesn't, that's just the most recent rhetorical target of the 'bourgeois' classification. They'd be perfectly happy eliminating 'white' as a concept and replacing it with only sub-groups; that way they could go back to having the Irish and Italians bicker with Anglos, who could then be targeted as a different bourgeois group.
Alternatively, and this is why Richard Spencer is correct, they will adopt the "White Affinity Group" method. By intentionally "racializing" whites, they'll become another aspect to machine politics and identity politics. This is what he's waiting on. He knows, correctly, that white racialism will come to him sitting on the political Left, rather than try to subvert Conservativism on the right.
The white people were actually booted out of the country, the fields went fallow, then they were invited back.
Whites were not booted out of the country (as a whole). Their land was seized and re-distributed, and they were removed from positions of political power. Many whites left, but plenty stayed, and some voluntarily came back.
the happy ending is only possible because the government of Zimbabwe has some incentive to keep Zimbabwe alive. Western leaders, on the other hand, hate their own countries and applaud the suffering of their native populations.
Zimbabwe, South Africa, and the Black Congressional Caucus are run entirely by the same ideology. Certainly Zimbabweans hated their country because they scrapped the country and re-named it. Same with South Africa. Again, these Leftists do not want to kill every man, woman, and child in their country (they just lean towards that by default). At a certain point, something intervenes to stop that from happening (even if it's forgein communists like in Cambodia). Sometimes, like in Ethiopia, they just give up and realize they were spoon-fed bullshit (though this is rare).
The west wants to perpetuate the petro-dollar and maintain the pension racket. Eliminating the entire white race is not on the menu, or even a mild concern. White lives don't matter (to them).
Actually, if history is any indicator, whites will probably be both fine, and actually excel.
This is the reality of the situation: racial discrimination doesn't actually work.
If you use it to "uplift" or "protect" people, it just makes them dependent on the institution and they inevitably fail.
If you use it keep people down, and the people you are oppressing are competent and capable; they will likely innovate around it and end up with better outcomes than the population you weren't discriminating against.
It's still wrong to do, but whites will very likely preform the way overseas chinese, indians, koreans, and jews did: form parochial communities with tight family bonds for security & culture, focus on saving money and (real) education, and building families in order to create generational wealth. Works every time.
There will be institutional set-backs, but the whites whom are going to suffer the most are any that live in Leftist hive cities that hate them. Whites whom are dependent on these corrupt institutions will pull away or otherwise suffer. In the long term, the institutions will suffer a crisis of competency (see: Rhodesia), and will end up falling apart as a parallel economies are created.
Yes, we'll have one generation that's going to suffer a bit, but the next one will be fine because we'll build something for them to work with.
Until you are murdered. See South Africa.
South Africa is a completely different problem (and even there, whites are responding in the same way).
In South Africa, you have communists actively hunting minority populations and Anarcho-Tyranny. Whites are still the vast majority of the country, despite most of the lies being bandied about. Additionally, White Flight also prevents whites from having to live as minorities where they can be scape-goated.
Whites aren't even close to the majority, and most have to rely on black security guards to protect their property most nights:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_South_Africa
There's even some white ghettos and they definitely aren't doing well:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3E-Ha5Efc
Despite all that, I actually do recommend a visit still as it's some of the most unique land I have ever seen (especially Cape Town). If possible, drive across the border to Botswana and you will get a different vibe.
Imo it's the Zulu who are a mess in South Africa, but that's a whole other discussion.
whites are doing fine in south Africa, don't worry about it
goyguyYou misunderstood what I said. Whites are in the majority in the US, not South Africa. I said that part of the reason South Africa was the way it was was because whites were in the minority.
White Flight only works if you have somewhere to land. Virtually every institution in the country is dedicated to making that impossible. It's not the same as things like Jim Crow where blacks were dumped into ghettos with other blacks. They are dumping violent people into our neighborhoods instead. They are trying to break us apart, not cluster us together.
It's true that we can survive this by clustering together, but we must understand that it's necessary, proactively do it, and resist attempts to intrude.
The Left's mission is destroying us.
guy pretends destruction of whites isn't real and the elites just want to divide and rule via ethnic political bosses, if you accept that premise, then of course the elites will let whites have their own ethnic enclaves
We've argued this before, and you know personally that White Flight does work in those grievous enough situations. Hell most of the areas that experienced White Flight in cities were typically Jewish Flight, re-framed as White Flight, not to point out that black populations displaced jews in inner cities and suburbs.
However, again, most situations will not actually be grievous, and self-segregation is already the norm in almost every blue city.
The Left's mission is to cattle everyone into a Lebanese style identarian, sectarian, system. Not to destroy whites. They're just today's punching bag.
That would work, if left alone. Actors in the government who are granted unlimited funds to create the situation will not leave it alone.
So what you're saying is that we should stop with the whole unlimited funding thing.
You're right. Taxation is theft.
Afuera.
One can only dream.
The government doesn't just want to exclude white people, it wants to annihilate them. I agree that parallel communities will help, but mostly in the sense that as huwhites bond tighter together they'll realize that their survival is at stake and actually start self-organizing.
Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is a cheery story, but not exactly in that model. The white people were actually booted out of the country, the fields went fallow, then they were invited back. So point A the whites didn't build a parallel institution, they mostly had to leave, and point B the happy ending is only possible because the government of Zimbabwe has some incentive to keep Zimbabwe alive. Western leaders, on the other hand, hate their own countries and applaud the suffering of their native populations.
It doesn't, that's just the most recent rhetorical target of the 'bourgeois' classification. They'd be perfectly happy eliminating 'white' as a concept and replacing it with only sub-groups; that way they could go back to having the Irish and Italians bicker with Anglos, who could then be targeted as a different bourgeois group.
Alternatively, and this is why Richard Spencer is correct, they will adopt the "White Affinity Group" method. By intentionally "racializing" whites, they'll become another aspect to machine politics and identity politics. This is what he's waiting on. He knows, correctly, that white racialism will come to him sitting on the political Left, rather than try to subvert Conservativism on the right.
Whites were not booted out of the country (as a whole). Their land was seized and re-distributed, and they were removed from positions of political power. Many whites left, but plenty stayed, and some voluntarily came back.
Zimbabwe, South Africa, and the Black Congressional Caucus are run entirely by the same ideology. Certainly Zimbabweans hated their country because they scrapped the country and re-named it. Same with South Africa. Again, these Leftists do not want to kill every man, woman, and child in their country (they just lean towards that by default). At a certain point, something intervenes to stop that from happening (even if it's forgein communists like in Cambodia). Sometimes, like in Ethiopia, they just give up and realize they were spoon-fed bullshit (though this is rare).
The west wants to perpetuate the petro-dollar and maintain the pension racket. Eliminating the entire white race is not on the menu, or even a mild concern. White lives don't matter (to them).
Unless it's donors on Martha's Vineyard.