Acknowledging history isn’t white hatred. Snowflakes tend to melt around here if, fwiw. Being anti historical fact might be a growing trend, but it’s not growing with people anyone wants to talk to.
It’s not really worth discussing if we can’t agree whites have a history of taking things by force. So do pretty much all races. It’s the only way land was acquired for centuries.
So now you’re alright with historical facts…
So you refute land was stolen… then go on to note about how common it was? That’s literally what was being said.
I’m yet to have anything taken from me as a result of being white. I’m not sure how you think that compares to historical land conquering.
Which is the real reason whites are losing. That and crippling debt in first world countries, which is primarily where you find whites.
When the good 'ol USA was sucking wind after the financial crisis, Tim Geithner was basically
appointed Secretary of the Treasury because of his Chinese ties, so that he could suck up to them to continue financing the US debt.
Too bad that unlike the good old days of white supremacy, nuclear weapons prevented the US from just waltzing into China and just taking their money that they’re so stupidly intent on saving.
So now you just insult me for the words I use (didn’t realise ‘insouciant’ was such a fancy word) or you simply make racial/class insults against me with no grounding (‘dem ‘dar blacks’ etc). Pretty weak.
You have a very confused grasp of both history and human behaviour.
As usual whenever white demographics are brought up, you get the following responses:
What about the Native Indians?
Whites have always stolen land.
Races are all identical, who cares about demographics?
Yet if point 3 is true, why are points 1 and 2 always raised alongside it?
It would be interesting to hear some original responses, rather than the usual dross that you are both currently spouting.
Where did I say anything about the words you use? Awful trigger happy.
This is awkward for you.
I’ve seen it used to explain the tapering off of white dominance, as they stopped literally dominating other countries and removing their ability to breed.
I still can’t figure out why it’s so critical that whites are losing dominance. I don’t think being white grants me any favors that I’ll lose if the future population demographics shift.
Seems weird you would think I was anything but civil. You were the one refuting, then later acknowledging historical facts, then accusing me of insulting me, but only because you couldn’t read my name.
Edit: Anyways. Obviously no intention of a real talk coming from you. That’s pretty clear. Off to dinner. Have fun boys
So was I … India itself as a land mass from what I understand and have read in various places is technically considered a subcontinent … they, Indians, I think can be considered Asian but they’re not the same “race” as say Han Chinese afaik and Indians are considered Caucasian … Sanskrit belongs to the Indo European language group I believe … again this is stuff I’ve read over the years from various sources … feel free to correct me
I would be open to it, I just hadn’t heard it before. Do Indian people check the caucasian box in their employment stuff? I don’t really operate in that sphere.
The historical facts show that the typical way to take other lands by force is to kill the locals. Dead locals can’t breed.
If you look at historical demographic trend numbers, you’ll note sudden growth in many non white races, immediately following the times that other countries (typically white) would arrive and ‘claim’ it.
I am concerned by all mass immigration, but more so non white immigration for the following reasons.
Multiculturalism will fail. As all history shows, groups will simply become tribal and behave in group interests (eg black majority areas only voting for black representatives, etc). The very idea of a multiculture is an oxymoron and is impossible. It merely leads to atomised societies of individuals living in silos, which is already the case in many major societies, and will get worse. Look at the current divides in outlook in America. I don’t think anybody thinks it is healthy for society to have such huge, constant disagreement on almost all aspects of existence. Or look at London in England, which has no sense of community at all.
How does mass immigration of any kind benefit the citizens of the nation? It depresses wages at the lower end, and makes graduate jobs more difficult to obtain at the higher end (eg millions of Indian and Chinese graduates per year). It also puts a huge strain on taxpayers through housing, crime, medical, etc.
Why should the current inhabitants of a society accept huge (tens of millions) of other people with different cultures and beliefs to them, many of which are directly opposed to those of the nation?
Why should the current inhabitants accept millions of people who will rely on the State for money from cradle til grave and/or commit massive amounts of crime?
The US was created by people with the intention of passing on all that they had earned to their descendants. Why should that be open to any and everyone to take advantage of?
Millions of these immigrants, especially non whites, are arriving from low IQ failed societies (eg Mexico, Somalia). How is it going to benefit the average US citizen by allowing such people in?
I will leave it there.
I will add in the obvious caveats that:
No I do not “hate” immigrants or anyone else.
Many (multiple millions no doubt) of immigrants have in one way or another helped the country.
Whites/current citizens cost taxpayers a huge amount/commit crimes/etc.
However, I am of the view that a nation/society should not just be about chasing an inoxerable rise in GDP.
I do not believe America is in a healthy condition and I do not think that importing an endless amount of people from around the world will be of benefit.