White nationalism is NOT white supremacism.

The income quintile data which shows the income data split into 5 sections is actually a work experience distribution. The younger less experienced workers populate the lower quintiles whilst the older more experienced workers populate the higher income quintiles.

 

My "entire point" is that the history of the United States is the story of regional cultures creating and maintaining a cultural coalition.

Now, I want you to think about why I might be discussing this. The Hispanic population that has exploded in the American Southwest is but one of many new subcultures coming in to "dilute" those that came before. If maintaining our coalition, respect for and acceptance of this new subcultures is the order of the day.

 

Oh, you don't know about European dealings in Turkey, Lebanon, or Libya meant to keep the brown people out?

The Europeans have put up a pretty good humanitarian facade, but the reality shows that they're just as racist as ever.

Lol, "decades."

 

Please tell us all about that. Which countries are keeping brown people out.

The American culture is decades/centuries old. It is based on the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

 

Immigrants come to the US because of the American culture based on the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. It has nothing to do with food, music, or dress.

 

Germany, France, the entire EU.

The Declaration and Constitution aren't the "basis" of a culture, they're an artifact of cultures.

 

You are claiming that all the countries in the EU have immigration policies to specifically exclude brown people from legally immigrating to those countries ??? What is the source for that ??

They are absolutely the basis for the American culture.

 

Now, c'mon.

The last is a cheap shot. English only has one plural inflexion. Maybe we should borrow some grammar from certain Austronesian languages and have several plurals, increasingly plural so to speak. Then @AFM could have modified 'decades' with the greater paucal. Given our base-ten positional-exponential numbering system, he can only say "years ago", "decades ago", "centuries ago", or "millenia ago" or (out of the powers-of-ten progression now) "eons ago".
"Decades ago" is the closest fit to "a hundred and eighty years ago", which is what he no doubt would have said had he wanted to take the time to look up the publication date and be precise, or perhaps "many decades ago" or "nearly two centuries ago".

The problem with cheap shots -- like ostentatiously correcting your opponent's grammar or spelling -- is that people who like fair play and who may be reading the debate, and perhaps being persuaded by you -- immediately have a reaction... whoa, this guy hits a little below the belt. It deprecates your other arguments.

No one likes Nazis, believe it or not, and that includes grammar Nazis.

 

I paraphrased where he addresses both "breeding" and an "infestation" in virtually the same breath.

Trump is opposed to and is blocking legal immigration of Hispanics even though legal immigrants have roughly 1/4th the violent crime rate when compared to native born American.

Trump condemns illegal Hispanic immigrants that enter the US illegally to apply for asylum because Trump denied their legal right to apply at a US port of entry even though illegal immigrants commit violent crimes at roughly 1/2 the rate of native born Americans.

To claim that Hispanic immigrants represent a "crime infestation" is pure BS and so Trump is saying that native born Hispanics are responsible for a criminal infestation of America.

People go to great lengths using word-picking to try and defend Trump's White Nationalist/White Supremacist beliefs and agenda. Why is that when it's so obvious. People don't have to believe me or any other average American. The leaders of White Nationalism/White Supremacy have already identified Trump as one of their own.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/il...mock-trump-assassination-photos-at-fundraiser

Maybe you should fear white people huh? Dems get away with this kind of B.S. imagine mitch McConnell doing this about Barrack the bobo .

 

To say nothing about the poor quality of many "made in China" products.. I'll gladly pay double for American made tools, using Chinese made junk is just too dangerous. And food stuffs from china are not fit for man nor beast, quality control is not a Chinese concept, and why should they care? We are their enemies.

 

Globalists have no idea what a world dominated by china would look like

They are not the harmless panda bear to wish to appear

 

Globalist can see what China will do by looking at what they do in their own countries, Globalist don't care, they figure they'll have their mansions and vacation homes and all the money they'll ever need and being to oppress the masses will just be another benefit to Global domination.. Think back to the attitudes of the European peerage before America nd freemen came to dominate the thinking of the World. Bill Clinton (for example) would like nothing more than to grab someone's hot wife off the street and kill the husband if he resist.

 

Race quotas are racist.

 

In my field, you sometimes come across a misguided statement aimed at reluctant learners: "Mathematics is Fun!" Horsefeathers! It can be satisfying, if you can go some way to master it, the way 'summitting ' on a high peak can be ... but fun it is usually not. Whenever you hear the urgent affirmation that something is good, you can be pretty sure that it's a dubious statement. Soldiers don't wear little buttons saying "Machineguns work!")

In fact, 'dubious' is perhaps too soft a word. Maybe more relevant are the slogans the citizens of Orwell's dystopian republic had to be bombarded with every day: "War is Peace!" "Ignorance is Strength!" And 1984 has long passed.

A question for you. Is this statement a "should" or an "is"? That is, is it an expression of your (very decent ) values, which I share, or is it a statement of empirical fact, something that is subject to testing?

I apologize in advance for the long screed which follows, but I suspect you are a thoughful person who might appreciate the chance to think this out with the rest of us. I promise to read every word you write in reply.

So, "is" or "ought"?

If this is not clear, here's an analogy: suppose I say, "If you give some money to charity on a regular basis, you will have a significantly lower risk of developing cancer." That's an empirical, testable proposittion. We have to work out what we mean be "some money" "charity" "a regular basis", "significantly lower" and perhaps even "cancer". We would have to agree a sufficient time frame before which we could draw a conclusion. We might quibble about the level of stastisticial significance we would accept, and the importance of effect size. But we can frame a thesis and test for the null hypothesis.

All kinds of problems of course: getting a sufficiently large sample size, randomizing it, holding all other possibly-relevant factors equal (if we can identify them!), testing the veracity of the reporting (self-reporting for things like amount donated to charity being notoriously unreliable).

But we could do it. And perhaps we could say either, "No, while giving to charity is a meritable behavior, it doesn't prevent cancer", or, "Wonderful, not only is giving to charity a good thing to do, but it helps prevent getting cancer. By doing good you do well."

Now in your case, the tricky part is "making us the most powerful nation in the world".

(Let's assume, as fellow American nationalists, that this is unequivocally a good thing, although I could introduce you to more than a few people who might dispute the proposition.)

Do you mean militarily powerful, economically powerful, scientifically powerful ... just what are the components of this power?

I'm assuming you don't mean, or only mean, "morally powerful" as in, for example, setting a good example to the world, in which case the proposition is a tautology: ethnic diversity makes us more powerful because ethnic diversity is in and of itself, regardless of any other consequences, a 'power'.

This is the sense in which Sweden used to call itself a "moral superpower", although I understand that many Swedes are having second thoughts about that and are wishing they weren't quite so morally powerful.

If you mean something like scientifically, economically, militarily -- all those things being pretty tightly coupled -- then you certainly have a point with respect to some ethnic diversity, fthe most outstanding example of which are the Jews. Whoa, no Jews, no atomic bombs. Thank you very much, Adolph!!! You kicked out your A-bomb team. Smart move!

Also no wonderful angsty introspective novels, no Hollywood as we know it, no probing journalists, no SpaceX, no International Mathematical Olympiad championships, beating those dratted Russians (really, our Jews vs their Jews but never mind)j, no vaccine against polio (well, actually there were two independently-developed vaccines against polio, oral and injectable -- guess which one a Jew discovered? Answer: BOTH of them, and they both gave them to the world for free, those grasping Hebrews), no Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry and medicine, no chess grandmasters .....and on and on. Of course, only some of those things contribute to real power -- the ability to make the other guy do what you want him to do whether he likes it or not

But, yes, without our Jews ... a less powerful America. [How I would love to take every anti-Semite and say, "Hey, you want to be freed of that satantic Jewish influence?" And then be able to grant their wish. The ones who wouldn't be dead from disease would be dressed in animal skins and picking up dead birds off the ground to eat.]

And their sense of humor??? Sure, we'd still have toilet jokes and banana skins ... but that wonderful sense of black [no no , not that black , that's spelled with a reverential capital letter, we're definitely not talking cultural appropriation here] Jewish humor, stemming from two and a half millenia of dealing with the world as it really is, not as it pretends to be, when you've got the terrible curse of being the smartest kid on the playground.

Let's take a break with an example:
A good Catholic widow is about to drop off to sleep.
Then there is a rustling at her bay windows... they're flung open ...and into the room leaps ... a vampire!
She is startled, but not afraid. Quickly she reaches up on the wall behind her, and pulls down ... a crucifix!!! She holds it triumphantly in front of her ...
but the vampire just sadly shakes his head, and says, "Oi vey lady ... are you in trouble!"

What is it about those people? Jesse Jackson famously said that when he went to "Hymietown" all the "Hymies" there as he so charmingly put it, wanted to do was to talk about Israel. But they must take a break occasionally, to talk about things Jackson couldn't understand. (Can't be anything to do with their genes of course, that gives them an IQ one Standard Deviation higher than the rest of us. Must be their culture. Mother makes them do all their homework. That's how you get all those Nobel Prizes and discover the Special and General Theories of Relativity --- mom made you do your homework.)

And for pedants, yes, there would not have been "no" scientific discoveries, new inventions, and innovative businesses, just fewer of them. Suppose we had rejected all our would-be Jewish immigrants trying desperately to flee the ovens, and, in a better world suppose the Arabs had welcomed all of them and had given them a little slice of land for their own out there --- dear God, the bloody Middle East would now be the center of the effing world -- Jerusalem would be London and Vienna rolled into one, with shrewd Arabs and clever Jews coining money hand over fist. (After WWI, Vienna became the intellectual capital of Europe -- in mathematics, philosophy ('the Vienna Circle'), music -- then the stupid Austrians (oops, is that racist?) murdered all their Jews and now it's just a bunch of beautiful buiidings and quaint little cafes where you can get apfelstrudel and a really excellent cup of coffee.)

But nooooo ... the Grand Mufti must have thought, hey, we've got 400 million Semites already, can't handle another three million ... even if they would raise our average IQ by 20 points and turn this place into a world center for science and technology and finance and business ... their brains and our labor and money and after a while our brains too because back when they were part of this place a thousand years ago together we led the world in intellectual advances ... nah ... back to sleep.

Now to be fair, those Jews didn't send us every talent. Scientists, mathematicians, musicians, businessmen, novelists ... yes.
But they sent all their brilliant military guys out to the Grand Mufti's area for some reason.
(Okay, let's be fair ... some great Jewish athletes, but not that many. I once read that it was because the Jews saw some ice hockey games, all those goyim hitting each other in the face with sticks, and decided to go into dentistry.)

Or if all those Jews had been replaced by Irishmen. Great literature, great cops on the beat, some good jokes about the English ... but a lot less of the vaccines and atom bombs and Mathematical Olympiad championships. Not all diversity is equal.

Chinese, Japanese, our new India-Indians -- yeah, that makes sense. All those start ups in the Valley.

And they win the Spelling Bees now.
WHITE SUPREMACY, 2019


And the Chinese are replacing the Jews in the International Mathematics Olympiads -- look here: where're all those white kids, if they're so smart? On their iPhones watching porn I guess. Yes, there's a member of the Master Race there in the middle of the photo, don't know what he's doing there though.
The actual 2018 team was: Adam Ardeishar, Andrew Gu, Vincent Huang, James Lin, Michael Ren, and Mihir Singhal. Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans ...No whites at all. (That white boy is probably the Reserve.) Read it and weep, white supremacists. Beat the Russians into Second Place and the Chinese into Third, wa-hoo!.

USA, USA, USA!!! No flag burners here. (Not that a flag-burner could even understand the
first sentence of the first problem on an IMO pre-qualifier test, much less the real thing.)


You see, this is what a free society is all about. Grandad and grandmom get on the boat which already has water splashing over the gunwales,
and flee the new Vietnamese Communist paradise, or
get tired of bribing factory inspectors in Gujarat, and come to America, open a restaurant or
get a job that whites don't want to do, produce your parents who pull themselves up the social ladder and produce you,
and you sit down and work hard and ... guess what ... those horrible white
racists who run the new country your parents or grandparents came to ... they actually WANT smart people,
they mark the tests fairly and ..you win! And no one thinks, "Hmmm... probably affirmative action...."

Another joke, from California:
QUESTION how do you know when your home has been broken into by a Vietnamese or Chinese teenager?
ANSWER: Nothing has been stolen, but all your homework has been done.

But somehow ... I don't think that's what you mean ... you don't mean selective diversity, from groups known to contribute out of proportion to their numbers to those fields that mean real strength, blood-and-iron, Ultima Ratio Regnum strength.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's all one to you if we took in 25 million Nigerians and Kenyans and citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, on the one hand, or 25 million Russians and Germans and Norweigans, on the other. Or 25 million Indians and Vietnamese and Chinese on the third hand. In fact, the former intake would make us a lot more diverse, and hasten that blessed day when the whites -- or light-skinned people in general -- are outnumbered in America... so I think you would prefer the former.

Because "diversity makes us strong".

Anyway, to cap it: do you mean diversity makes us strong by taking in people who are smarter than the indigenous population?
Or does diversity make us strong because it makes us more diverse which is stronger by definition?

(The logic here being that five men with guns, all of them from the same ethnic group, are much weaker than men from five different ethnic groups, all holding rainbow flags.)

@Golem: I don't mean to be sarcastic here. Your values are wonderful, just what the poor old human race needs to adopt as we slowly pull ourselves up out of the mud, toward that world which will exist someday, when distinctions of race are as important as hair color is now. And there are people on the Right who don't understand that.

But ... mixing heterogeneous substances is an art. A pinch of this, a little of that, some of the other -- mix them slowly -- and get the right proportions. Then you will get the wonderful results we see in those two photographs above. But pour in too much of something ... and we'll turn into Yugoslavia. By and large, if you look around the world ... Cyprus, Georgia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, India, almost anywhere in Africa -- indiscriminate diversity -- 40% of this and 20% of that and 40% of the other -- means bloodbaths.

So, all kudos to you for your good human values. But good intentions are not enough. We have to face the reality of the nasty hairless tailless ape that we are, and go slow, with our eyes open.

 

Not necessarily.

 

A paraphrase isn't put into quotation marks. That's called deception.

Excuse me, "deception."

 

Which we have thanks to our diversity. Our acceptance of people of all ethnic groups. Racist Germany rejected the Jewish... and we, a society open to cultural diversity, got Einstein, von Neuman, Bethe, Fermi (his wife was Jewish) and others.... And without them, it is doubtful we would have that "military might" today.

I don't have to "believe" ... I just proved it.

 

A good example of the kind of cultural diversity we should accept, and be accepting. Lots of Jews and now, Chinese and Indians and Koreans. Others too -- no one should be excluded because of his race -- but it's a question of proportion.

We could just give would-be immigrants an IQ test, and use 115 as a cut-off, and let in anyone who scored above that.

But here's the rub: we admitted lots of Jews before WWII -- well, 'some', but that's another story. (See the terrible tale of the SS St Louis.)
Suppose we had admitted Nigerians instead. Not just a few tens of thousands, but a few tens of millions. (It's a thought experiment, okay?)

I submit that this would not have been a good idea: no atom bombs from them, for sure. Lots of cheap unskilled labor, driving wages down, which I am sure would have been appreciated by the indigenous Black and white workers, just trying to form unions at that time.

So ... isn't it the case that we have to be selective in our admissions ? Both in quality and in quantity?

 

Your post is too long. I would suggest, not only making them shorter, but establishing your point at the beginning. That way the reader will know what to pay attention to.

I'm not sure what your point is, but as for why cultural diversity is our strength... you mention some of the most obvious. Others are more difficult to quantify. but you can get a broad idea by looking at the whole picture. Asking yourself how immigrants from, for example, Mexico or Cuba or other Latin American countries have made us stronger. You can look at why South Florida developed more rapidly and is financially stronger than North Florida. Or the same for Texas. Or how the states with more cultural diversity are, for the most part, the ones that contribute most to our GDP.

But these are not as easy to quantify or explain I could point to the many studies that prove the positive impact of immigrants in our economy, and in all economies that receive them. But that would make this post almost as long as yours So you can use the A-bomb example. It proves the point and it's so easy to understand that even some (not many, but some...) white supremacists might be able to get it.

 

Unity is strength. Diversity is weakness.

You are intelligent enough to know exactly what that means.

 

You do know what the reason the inventor of the IQ test had to invent it, right?

That's nonsense! Immigrants of all IQs are important. We don't need only immigrants who can build an A-Bomb.

Yes. But your "litmus test" is nonsense. We need to keep out criminals and undesirables.

 

I know exactly what it means. But if I say it, a mod is going to delete my post.

So let's just say that it is nonsense.

 

Thank you for a civil reply.

Yes, I know no one reads my term-paper posts. I do them mainly to think out loud and hopefully, occasionally, to provoke a thoughtful rebuttal. Your point about an initial summary is a good one. I do try to tempt readers onward with interspersed, relevant jokes. Check out the vampire one, and the Asian house-breaker one.

I absolutely agree that getting cheap labor in might be helpful, although ... you've got to keep in mind the effect on existing labor. Unlimited entry of cheap labor is actually a Libertarian position, because they're principled people [they also want to auction off the National Parks], and a Republican-donor-class position, because they're greedy b********ds. Or maybe just ordinary capitalists, same thing.

I think people who want to see the gradual melding of the peoples, over generations, and who don't believe the US is somehow immune via divine protection from the terrible, bloody upheavals of many other countries where ethnic diversity exists (or existed), must be very careful about how this is done.

I've read a few papers by economists proving that large scale immigration of low-skill workers does not affect the general wage level, but I treat them as I treated the pieces by people telling me that we would find atom-bomb factories in Iraq, once we had pushed our way through the dense crowds of happy Iraqi's throwing roses under our feet.

I think people on the Left, who taunt American whites, especially lower class whites who cannot move easily and who are not able to live in gated communities, and who cannot go from being assembly-line workers to website designers, with soon becoming a minority -- are playing with fire. I cannot imagine a more insane thing to do. They must have a huge amount of faith in the submissiveness and good nature of those people. Or maybe they own stock in AR15 ammunition supplying enterprises. (I read that these sold out of ammo last week.) Or they must believe with Pat Robertson that America is under Divine Protection. Can't happen here.

I'm still not sure if we really agree, and just disagree on matters of emphasis. Do you agree with me that immigration must be controlled for both quality and quantity, taking into account the importance of maintaining an ethnic balance in the country which is the destination of immigration?

 

Yes, I know just a wee bit about IQ tests and their history. I probably first encountered the subject nearly thirty years ago in Steven Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, only later discovering that this amiable fellow, who wrote such interesting collections of essays on the byways of evolution, was an intellectual charlatan when it came to this issue. (I'm sure his motives were pure.)

Or it may have been a bit earlier, in Not In Our Genes, written by socialists whose interpretation of the biological connection to our behavior is as bankrupt as the socialism they advocate.

As for low-IQ immigrants -- do you really believe they are an economic necessity when high-IQ machines are going to be driving our trucks, and much else? If we have to go over to Basic Income, because half the population are incapable of making a positive economic contribution to society, we need even MORE people with an IQ below 90???

This sounds like a moral argument to me, not an empirical one. More diversity because it is a good in itself, not more diversity because we really need a lot more unskilled low-IQ labor.