Based Korean man
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (27)
sorted by:
It's truly tragic just how far off the mark we are nowadays, as a society, and as people.
Calling out that this is "completely novel," and only started relatively recently. If I were to nitpick, I'd say 60 years isn't completely accurate, but that's certainly around when it ramped up.
It is legitimately sad how obvious this is, but how oblivious people are. Modern insanity is just that, modern. It wasn't always this way. And, although we have certainly made improvements in many areas, there are also plenty of cases where, yes, the old ways are better. I'd - strongly - argue this issue is one of those cases.
Then the part about assuming fundamental natural patterns is also true. A good example is how the Founding Fathers did say that it needed to a moral - and implied Christian - people, for the system to function. I'm not even Christian myself, and I can see that. You can agree or disagree with the assumption, but it was certainly there. The leftists don't even want to acknowledge that.
So, yeah, this really is just sad, because it's so correct, so basic, and outlines just how much ground we've lost...much of which can either never be recovered, and cannot be recovered without much blood and/or absolutely abominable actions.
The time to stop this nonsense was decades ago.
Protecting the borders and the culture has historically bin and should always be one of the core functions of a nation. Most nations have completely failed while adding more and more petty regulation and tax to the citizens
I'd say it depends on the western nation. If we were talking the US/Canada, that's probably around right give or take a decade. If you're talking Aus/NZ, I'd easily add 20 years to the number, and if you're talking about the UK, then I wouldn't entirely argue against a century as being the early start of it. I'd say it was definitely early days, since mass immigration wasn't exactly that prevalent in the 1920s, but to deny the early examples of it is also silly.
You'd also have to do a similar breakdown of Europe. There's a big difference between the mass immigration rates of countries like Germany and Poland.
We have a clear example in our own history of what happens to the locals when mass migration occurs.
The new migrants cluster and take over, they do not integrate and instead they destroy and exterminate the locals.
We are now on the receiving end of colonization.
It never ends well for the natives.
This is why they push the "quotas were RACIST" narrative so hard. They were not. Immigration quotas are NECESSARY for the host nation's health. All immigration should be kept to rates lower than the replacement rate of the host population, to force assimilation. When this isn't done, they build enclaves instead, which is unacceptable.
There's no mystical principle here. Protect your shit or lose it.
Good point. The Bible, and almost all older texts, philosophers, and theologians never anticipated the world would get as insane as it currently is. Much of their writings are based on basic assumptions, that they assume the reader would also know. For example, the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn transgenderism, but, it didn't need to be said.
Many Christians today forget that are two works of God. The Bible, and the universe itself. Truth is inlaid in both. Acting in accordance with truth results in success and life. Acting is discordance with truth results in failure and death. The Bible doesn't contain the sum total of all information, truth, and logic. It would need to be infinitely big to do so. But, we don't need it to be. We have the universe itself to learn from. Even atheists and agnostics are capable of learning God's will, so long as they remain logically sound and consistent (i.e. in accordance with the laws of the universe). So, if a Biblical passage doesn't make sense in relation to the basic logic of the universe itself, it probably means the passage is being misinterpreted in some way. Or, if a Biblical passage doesn't exist to explain a basic truth, it's probably because it's assumed the reader should already know it.
It actually did: Deuteronomy 22:5 -
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for all who do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."
So there were clear gender roles to be followed, and men trying to dress or act like women was considered an abomination, the same as women trying to dress or act like men.
But you're also right, that a lot of this didn't need to be spelled out specifically, especially regarding more transgressive acts such as hormone therapy and mutilation via surgery.
Ah, yes, you're right.
I was more referring to the fact that the Bible didn't explicitly outlaw transgenderism, using clear, modern language, leaving zero doubt for such adherents. Many people, including Christians, misinterpret the Bible to mean what they want it to mean, to make themselves feel better, to justify their sins. I suppose, though, it wouldn't matter how well articulated the Bible is for those people. It would never be enough for them.
What qualifies as a "mass scale"? When does the importation of immigrants go from good to too much? I need a defined set not up to the Federal Government's discretion.
Dropping a single Mexican family in a small town can forever change that town's demographics within a few generations because of the speed of their breeding. Heck you don't even need the family, just one of their women could do it with a little time. For a race purist her very existence will now One Drop Rule that town into being non-white eventually on its own.
This isn't some "based" guy saying the truth. Its massive compromise to not sound "extreme" or "racist" by dancing around the issue with saying its okay kinda sometimes but this particular (vague and undefined) way is bad.
Sane and reasonable policies that exist prior are no longer viable because the things that made them work (lack of technology, shared culture, uncrossable lines) are gone. We can't baby step back into them by being "based" and dunking on people online.
At best we can overshoot and then scale back from there, which requires being willing to say things that will get you cancelled and called a bigot/evil/whatever. Including not playing "one of the good ones" with minorities like this Korean here.
OK, let's do the math. If a family of five Mexican kids each has 5 kids per generation in the same town for 2 generations that's only 125 grandchildren, all quarter Mexican, which isn't even noticeable depending on the white admixture of the original couple. Even in a small town of 5k that's not crazy.
If it's 3 generations that's 625 great-grandchildren, which sounds significant except they're all 1/8 Mexican and 7/8 white. This is why historical intermarriage with American Indians is treated as a joke, why natives are so insecure about being eroded (basically correct, coupled with their dysgenic culture), and why mass migration is wielded as a demographic weapon, not quota migration.
The one drop rule is a meaningless concept that would disqualify the majority of hard right activists off the bat.
And that's 625 people who still have a cultural background that is completely different than the rest of their town, one they probably feel more strongly about pushing because its different than the norm of the white one.
I used the example because it literally happened in my own town. One single family was hyperbolic on my part (and bad math so you got me on that), but they brought in like 4-5 to rebuild after Katrina and and in a single generation since the area they live in and its school is a completely shifted place unlike anything around it. And of course once they were "established" all their extended family came to, which made the number of them explode.
And its already happening with now restaurants and signs nearby adding Spanish to it, which we all know how that progresses.
Being disqualified has never stopped anyone from screaming about it. People still take Nick Fuentes seriously and he is probably the living example of it. And most people here would not stop for a moment in attacking someone if their great great grandmother was Jewish.
Either way, that was just a poorly exaggerated example I made too late into the night to think through, the rest of the point still stands.
4-5 families arriving at once with extended relatives (as Mexicans tend to carry) is like 60+ people who will probably interbreed over mixing, thereby putting up to 100+ fullblooded and halfblooded Mexican kids in the local school in just one generation, so no kidding it changed the entire area. The enclave is self-sustaining at that point, no real need to mix.
Proportionately, that's like importing whole percentage points of the national population, as is the case now. Your town was effectively subject to mass migration.
Fair enough, I'm not sure which way you're going on this though. I think you're pointing out the absurdity of it.
The arrival was a handful of dudes, with the wives/kids arriving months later (this was all spoken about in the local news because of its uniqueness and worries about issues with the Haitians). The extended family was years later, because hurricanes mean Mexican laborers have huge amounts of work. But because they were family they were both able to easily enter and then stay permanently.
Point being that a very minuscule amount of people is still enough to have notable effects, especially, as is always the case, when they refuse to assimilate and instead retain their own culture. And that the post's insistence on it only being "mass" paints a very different picture than reality in which a tiny number is still enough to effect.
If we go with the full 60 people, it was less than 0.05% of my town's population. A rounding error of a number that wouldn't even phase most people still could have a noticeable effect on local populations.
And the point about Race Purity was pointing out absurdity of how/when its applied, yes.
OK gotcha
I agree, but my point is that a shipment of migrants around *.5% of the population is actually mass immigration. Against the US population that would be 1.7 million migrants, and people are rightly sounding the alarm for numbers around that size or less.
For comparison, the immigration quotas before Hart-Cellar were 1-2% of the population of the migrant's race, with no chain migration. And indeed, that kept the demographics of the US stable at 90% white until the law was changed.
You clearly have numbers and definable limits to bring to the table, which is all I really wanted. Most discussions on this have none of that, just vague feeling about what is and is not bad based on emotion.
For example, 1.7 million across the US and its infinite unincorporated towns would be a literal nothing amount if spread out. Might be a a few dudes per town spread so far you'd never see them, which wouldn't even trigger a response from anyone as an issue. Wouldn't even be enough to change the demographic to anyone except an extreme Purityfag.
But in its current form, its giant clusters which then allow extreme insulation and growth, which then spread from there. Which is why people are sounding the alarm, because they can see entire Somalian towns springing up in places.
Point being, we can't just scale it back based on vague feelings of what looks bad. It has to be an extreme push back to a near zero number to have any true effect and control.
I agree, those are important points that will need to be defined as momentum picks up.
access to huwites (and asians) isn't a biblical right
based indeed, however:
At the end of the day, it's all about what they can get away with, and that's a lot, apparently. Instead of scaling back for a period of consolidation, they've instead hyper accelerated, taking inspiration from the Americans. The MSM in many countries have been waging a nonstop propaganda war against citizens to facilitate the madness.
Traditional structures mean nothing, anymore. They've seen that people are extremely pliable and manipulable. They are easily swayed by pathetic victimhood narratives and can be manipulated to shoot themselves in the foot.
Different ethnics can live together, but in specific ways:
This is not a hard concept.