The Twin Pillars that Trump's presidency relies on

Why do you say I don’t care that you want the US to be mostly white? I think your way of thinking is disgusting and ignorant.

 

I meant you wouldn't mind if the US were mostly white.

Of what am I supposed to ignorant?

 

It doesn’t bother me that the US is still diverse. Clearly it bothers you. Pity.

 

What in hell are you talking about? In the past the US was an insignificant backwater, generally seen as mostly a howling wilderness by Europe's Great Powers. Only our geography saved us from being taken back by the British in 1812 or the 1840's. The Confederacy might have allied with GB and would surely have won the ACW if they had not been made an international pariah by being a nation based on white supremacy. As time went on our power grew; NOT by denying immigration but by becoming the world's refuge and hosting the greatest human migration known. Some 25 millions streaming here from a Europe mired in wars waged by people who would not recognize that the world now demanded they all live together. As we have become more diverse we have become more and more powerful and wealthy until we are now the most influential and prosperous entity that has ever existed anywhere. Europe, which nearly destroyed the world defending the precepts you advocate, is now the backwater

You need to stop listening to Rush, Glenn and Donald and pick up an actual BOOK on US and World History. You also need to understand that History did not begin when you were born.

 

So the reason violent right wing gangs attacked Berkeley, was not because it is an iconic liberal institution, but because of the fact that Asian students now outnumber White students?

 

I was referring to the anti war posturing in general that Blue would often stand on - which wasn't difficult given the hard core neocons on the right. Talking before Obama - who was very Neocon .. and not that Clinton Wasn't - but the posturing and the dialogue included anti war pronouncements and arguments from the other side .. same with the Media.

Now there is no sign of non neocon (sans a very few) - and dialogue is quashed - Enter Tulsi Gabbard - labeled a Putin Apologist - an Assad Apologist - for speaking the Truth - and asking tough questions.

Nope - but not much interesting there.

The interesting comment was that Blue's environmental policy sucks - meaning - is bad for the environment - is ignoring the main environmental threats we face. Did you not find that interesting ?

 

I am not familiar with that attack, so I couldn't say.

 

I don't equate a country being a good place to live with being powerful and wealthy. Rather it is a place where the people live with one another in amity and accord. That seems to have been in decline for the past fifty years as diversity has increased.

 

Very well said, Sir. This forum is blessed to have your wisdom presented on these pages. Thank you.

Spiritgide for President!

 

Uh huh, sure. I guess we lived in harmony with all the Indians as we killed them and with all the slaves, but then again the Wild West was the very model of brotherhood, wasn't it?

And you may be the first conservative EVER to say that a country's being a good place to live is dependent on something other than being powerful and wealthy.

Tell me, what country in the world today approaches your utopia of homogenous accord? What nation most illustrates the truth of the precepts you advocate?

.

 

See all the bad stuff that diversity caused us?

 

Funny...those examples show whites as being the problem. As it was whites who slaughtered Native Americans and whites who enslaved Africans. Go figure

 

New Mexico is half Hispanic and Colorado is a quarter. But then before the war with Mexico, All of New Mexico and half of Colorado were part of Mexico. Most Whites and Mexicans get along just fine. A lot of interracial marriages. But then there is always that small minority.

 

Native Americans also slaughtered whites and each other and Africans enslaved Africans.

 

Is that not what one is supposed to do to the enemy - Slaughter and enslave them ?

 

You believe things that are not true, which are easy to recognize as untrue... Do you now they are untrue and choose to pretend they are not, or do you actually believe they are and refuse to question them?

Example-
"this country was founded by White Supremacists and ruled by White Supremacists for most of its history."

Was it founded and ruled by white people? Yes. But why are they now supremacists? That part is either a pretense, or misunderstanding you don't want to question.

I've read many of your posts, although I haven't replied to many. I see this kind of pattern frequently. You aren't alone of course, it seems to be becoming an accepted practice of many to tell themselves that what they believe or want to believe is automatically true. Lots easier than asking yourself if you are supporting a factual conclusion or not.

 

No, not really, not even the Romans usually went to war with that objective in the beginning.

When did we ever declare war on the Indians? When did the white race go to war with Africa?

 

Yeah - was being facetious - although the Romans did do their fair share of slaughtering and enslaving.

 

Looking through the continuation of the thread, I don’t see any need to revise my previous take. But I wouldn’t say the left is winning the culture. Leftism is pushed into the furthest abyss of academia, while the prevalent society is more consumerist, illiterate, and obedient to authoritarianism.

Washington is absurdly removed from the everyday people it represents, left and right are just narratives to keep things dramatic. The disembodiment of a nation and its people drive the scapegoating, cheerleaded by power seeking imbeciles.

 

This is a lame claim in general given the norms of the day. You had religious leaders promoting the idea that non white races were "sub-human" - Jews too because of course they killed the savior.

That said - I don't think some of the founders felt that way.

 

Yes in reaction to whites killing them. Were they supposed to just not fight back?
Africans enslaved Africans in the US?

 

Before American was colonized, native Indian tribes warred with each other. Though they didn't relate to the concepts of land ownership or borders, they fought over bloodlines and ancestry to keep their tribes and customs separate and pure.

African slave trade originated where? In Africa. The African elites became rather wealthy, capitalizing and expanding on their own slave use, selling slaves to America and to the Middle East. When we abolished slavery, African states had to develop different forms of commerce to make up for lack of slave trade revenues, and they used slaves to build other commerce avenues.

Essentially, Native Americans slaughtered Native Americans before whites Europeans killed for territory. Africans enslaved Africans before profiting enormously by selling slaves to whites European Americans (and Arabs). The current demonization of white people...if those whites aren't white progressives....is purely political. World history shows that regardless of color, race, creed or culture, men have fought men for reasons of profit and/or to maintain purity of culture.

If and when America's diverse culture and core identity is destroyed, there won't be peace on Earth. Some other country and its allies will claim victory and dominate by force. Looks like the Chinese Communist Party is well-positioned and ready to take over economically, while we a ensnared in a battle to avoid being re-colonized by people from Central & Latin America, and people of countries from all over the world who want our land, our freedom, and our prosperity. It would appear that the new cultures currently colonizing the U.S. will divide into tribal regional communities in America, according to their own ancestry and culture.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer during that period

Which do you think had more to do with the outcome?

 

Humankind has never modelled brotherhood, except within separate an unique cultures. Men are not altruists by nature. People globally fight for dominance over each other to secure and maintain survival of their culture. The best model of brotherhood is between brothers, and even then there is sibling rivalry.

American and Europe are being demonized for being more successful. The next alternative to fill our shoes of world dominance appears at the moment to be China.

 

Obsess about that much?