White Ethnomasochism

So, capitalism is a bad thing when it is used by Jews to accumulate wealth? Bubby, in every single instance of Jewish expulsion, the expellers WON BIG! Its really a simple strategy that worked well for many a bankrupt kingdom.

Seems a rather appropriate fate for the "Christ Killers", dont' you think.

Pretty much all of it. Of course there is "ethocentrism". It might be a stupendous shock to someone of your ethnic persuasion, but EVERY ethnic group suffers from a degree of ethnocentrism. From Catholics, to White Americans, from Ubangi tribesmen to Russian nationalists.

And guess what? A whole bunch of jews believe in nationalism and are patriotic to their nations. Why I bet you can find jews in the US armed forces, in the intel community, in the judiciary, in congress, in industry all waving the American Flag.

Rather easy. Neither China nor Japan were built on the backs of immigrants. Slaves and all kinds of oppression, but the fabric of their societies is not composed of the same stuff as the western world. You are familiar with world history are you not?

Firstly, white people within your white nationalist framework constitute "white culture".
Secondly, you call it ethnomasochism, while I call it tolerance, acceptance, selective embrace, enrichment of my culture and a strengthening of our society. You appear to want a trouble free, no risk white only policy to preserve your whitness, whereas I believe nothing worth striving for is going to be easy or smooth.
I sure as hell don't rely on anecdotal evidence of "immigrant evil doing" to assess the actual situation, its risks, threats and outcomes.

Who advocates for open borders? Not even in the EU do they do so, except amongst MEMBER NATIONS. (aside from a few of the inevitable loonies we see on the fringes of the political spectrum).
Who has this desire to compeletely change the ethnic makeup of their nation? What political parties in what western countries espouse policies with that intent? Can you at all substantiate thru existing laws or proposed legislation that demonstrates this? (Hint: refugees are not illegal immigrants or economic migrants).

 

How was Europe built on the backs of immigrants? And, more importantly, why does that somehow make it imperative for those countries who had immigrant laborers in their beginning to open their borders to them en masse later on?

And you're one of the whites the video talks about. No other race is comprised of high numbers of people who cheer on their race, cultures, and homelands blended out of existence or taken over by others. And of course you don't take the negative consequences of immigration into consideration with your support of it.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...become-the-party-of-white-nationalism.500128/

The way some on the left absolutely salivate over the idea of whites becoming minorities in their own countries is especially noteworthy.

 

Was this buzz word thot up by the fevered brain of some one infected with Trump derangement syndrome?

 

How? thru wars and the inevitable population migrations spawned by them. You don't appear to understand European history very well.

Who said anything about "imperative"?
As to your question, I'd say when a country ignores its roots and those that contributed to attaining its preeminent position of wealth and power, it becomes a defensive attitude designed to keep what they have , rather than continue to build upon that foundation.

I'd have to say you are completely wrong in your assessment. Unlike you I happen to be a human that believes that there is only one race - the human race. I don't care about color or cultural baggage they may have, as long as they accept the values, laws and freedoms of my society. Its there for ALL citizens to enjoy, regardless of their ethnic background.

 

..

 

How are "wars and inevitable population migrations" the same thing as building their countries "on the backs of immigrants", which was your original argument as to why white countries need to be accepting of immigrants? Every race of people have had wars in their history, yet only whites are expected to open up their countries?

Semantics. You called it an "inevitable progression", despite evidence of multiple areas that have resisted mass immigration and yet still maintain a 1st world standard of living.

That's really ironic considering that white Europeans are at the root of Western civilization and culture, and have contributed far more than any other group has to them.

I don't think you really believe that, but even if you did, it demonstrates the point of the OP and the video perfectly. Only white Westerners have this perspective. No other race thinks it is a good thing that their own people and cultures are becoming the minority in their own lands. The OP explores why this is unique to white people.

 

Oh yes I do understand it quite well. Perhaps you should examine today's genetic profiles of euorpean countries. Who is saying that only whites are expected to "open their countries"? Who are these "race" traitors?

Well, Japan wouldn't be an economic power today if it wasn't for the US - you know that little spat back in the 1940's.
As for characterizing china as as first world standard of living, you apparently aren't familiar with the economics nor demographics of that country.

Er, you do realize that "Western civilization and culture" was literally BUILT on the wealth of the "third world" don't you?

So now you profess to know what I "really" believe? OMG. No wonder no amount of knowledge or data can make a dint.

There is no other race, we are all one species. As to why WESTERN societies think that their cultures can be enriched by others, I guess you could say its a direct result of understanding our own roots and previous social attitudes with a view to truly accept the notions of shared human values, rights and freedoms. You know the ones that made WESTERN society so dominant in the first place.

 

The OP asks the question why only whites are advocating for mass immigration into the countries where they hold the majority. No other race is currently doing this.

And what's your evidence for this? You have some way of knowing what Japan would have been like today but for WWII? I doubt it.

Strawman. The area in question was Hong Kong, not overall China, and yes I do know the economics and demographics of that country. The video makes it very clear. It is overwhelmingly Chinese, and has a high GDP.

No it wasn't. The Renaissance happened over 100 years before any significant colonization was done by any European country.

Western society didn't become dominant by allowing other societies, cultures, and peoples to take over Western lands. Quite the opposite. Europe, Australia, Canada, the US, and other Western nations were overwhelmingly white and monocultural until roughly the 1960's when the progressive social revolution began to take hold. Your left-wing perspective on what Western society is has only been the norm for about 50 years.

 

Who exactly are these whites who are advocating MASS MIGRATION into their countries? I can't seem to identify any country or any major politician who is advocating this. so please, tell us all who these "white folks" are?

My evidence for this is simple. Its called history.

Hong Kong? You are of course familiar with the fact that Hong Kong was a British COLONY for 160 or so years and as such had western institutions and law? Or maybe not.

Heard of the Crusades? Heard of the Holy Roman Empire? I do agree however that as the renaissance began, it empowered the europeans thru TECHNOLOGY to explore the world thereby accelerating long standing expansionist strategies.

Canada was most definitely not mono-cultural and neither was much of the US for that matter, until rampant consumerism took hold in the 50;s
This myth of american monoculture is ridiculous as Taco Bell and Panda Express will attest.

 

You'll know them as your fellow progressives, who believe that the US needs to become more racially and culturally diverse, and that it's a good thing that white Europeans are becoming the minority.

[video]

"History" isn't capable of supporting arguments that you are making based on "what if" scenarios that never happened.

So what? The point the OP was making is that Hong Kong didn't need to change the demographics of the area in order to be successful. The overwhelming majority of the population is Chinese, and they have no desire in changing that. And, if you haven't heard, China is growing much faster than the diverse US, and has been for a long time. It has since become the largest economy in the world. They were able to accomplish this without "diversity" from the 3rd world.

Yes, they were a response to hundreds of years of Islamic aggression and imperialism. Nearly 2/3'rds of Christendom at the time was taken over by Muslims before the first Christian Crusade ever began.

What about it?

The Renaissance was proof that Western culture and civilization began before colonialism took place, which refutes your silly white-guilt argument that Western civilization only became advanced because it robbed from non-Western, non-white lands. If your thinking process had any merit on this subject, Mongolia should be the most advanced country in the world.

 

The ones to blame are the weak, white men who have let their societies slip into turmoil. The kind of basement-dwelling Pornhub-addicts who do nothing but jerk off and look for the "Joo" everywhere.

White men are insanely emasculated and the only one they can blame is themselves. Take some responsibility! Stop focus on identity politics, stop crying about the "Jew Boogeyman" and be a man!

 

I'd say Biden's comments are one helluva long way from MASS MIGRATION.
AS for mixing of ethnicities its been going on since time immemorial, the Europeans are as much a genetic and cultural hodgepodge as the Chinese, but because its all about skin color AND religion (or so it seems) it makes perfect sense to consider it some sort of sick "race treason" now.

Of course your initial preposterous position has not been supported by the evidence you presented. Qu'elle suprise.

PRECISELY. Glad you got the point.

You obviously know NOTHING about either the history of Hong Kong or China.

China had much of its " cultural diversity" painfully and bloodily cut out of it thanks to Mao, but still boasts over 400 million people who do not speak Manadarin as their principle language - the basis for standard chinese being used by the chinese and taiwanese governments . Hong Kong speaks Cantonese.

Yes, China has been growing faster than the US for some time, and that is because it has had one helluva lot farther to go. But for some strange reason many westerners cannot fathom that China is an ANCIENT land with thousands of years of history. They have never been unsophisticated and the rich in China have always been spectacularly rich - in some instances for dozens of generations. Don't attribute any of China's success to its lack of diversity, because they have taken their pick of almost everything western technology and production can offer.

I see my point was not clear. My contention was and still is because its fact, that western civilization was BUILT on the riches of what you refer to as the third world for a couple thousand years at least. Its in the history books, its not a controversial perspective, in fact I'd venture to say it is a mainstream understanding of the development of civilizations.

Wrong. "Colonialism" was taking place all over the damn place. The ROMAN EMPIRE was ALL about colonialism - it spread its laws, infrastructure, culture. Its exploitation of its "provinces" was the foundation of its wealth.

That you wish to believe that Imperialism and Colonialism are not for all intents and purposes the same sheep in different wool, so be it. But the age of euro colonialism dates back a tad farther than merely the15th century.

As to your strawman, your complete lack of understanding of history on this particular topic demonstrates your thinking process quite well.
[

 

Because it's not real guilt. It's just posturing (for your audience .. who are looking for signs of disobedience).

 

I have no guilt. Why would anyone have guilt?

 

Try reading between the lines. The Vice President of the United States is stating openly that it's a good thing that whites like himself are going to be in the minority, even while they are still over 60% of the population, down from about 80-85% of the population just a few decades ago. Only mass migration could have been responsible for this, and progressives like himself are in favor of it (for political purposes).

We are talking about mixing races. If a Scottish person mixes with an Irish person, they still have a white child that looks like they do. Not so much when somebody who is sub-Saharan African mixes with a Nordic person.

How so?

What point? That you're making up scenarios with absolutely no evidence to support them?

The issue is whether or not it is truly "inevitable" like you claim that we have a globalized world and whether or not it is necessary to have a successful country. Hong Kong and Japan prove otherwise, and there are other examples. These are areas that have made it a point to stay homogenous and resist multiculturalism. Despite the weak arguments you have put forth to the contrary, the West is capable of doing the same. It was, in fact, able to become the dominant force in the world at a time when it didn't need "diversity" from non-white, non-Western areas.

Your point was, and still is, weak. You claim that Western civilization is strong because of wealth stolen from 3rd world areas, and cite the Crusades as an example, yet you ignore the fact that 2/3rds of what was the West at the time was conquered by Muslims, and it remained that way for generations. Because of your anti-white worldview, you choose to focus on only those instances where whites have colonized others, ignoring the fact that many other groups at the time were doing the same thing. The Mongol Empire was able to colonize pretty much the entire continent of Asia. Arab Muslims were able to conquer vast swaths of land stretching from North Africa all the way to the Pacific (and elsewhere). Yet, those peoples and those civilizations were not able to match the historical successes of the West. You give those groups credit for any successes they have put forth, while shrugging off Western European successes as them simply stealing what belonged to others. That's pretty much the definition of anti-white.

Probably because the writers of those history books are ethnomasochistic left-wingers who share the same worldview that you do.

Every group has been imperialistic at times and has taken over land and resources for themselves. Only with whites do you claim that "they didn't build that" (to paraphrase a former President who has a similar worldview).

 

It typically affects wealthy whites who have had a very comfortable life. Since they didn't struggle for anything, they feel it is their moral obligation to help out the struggles of others (for political and ideological purposes).

 

Ah yes, another blame the Jews thread. Guys can't catch a break

 

Right, why suspect that arguably the most left-wing group in history could possibly do something wrong?

 

White guilt. Ha. It is my belief that Democrats are absolutely insane.

 

"Insane" would be easy to defeat. I use the term "diabolical" because that is far more accurate. They know exactly what they are doing, and the strategies they use are designed to manipulate people based on the worst aspects of human nature. It's a truly evil ideology at its core.

 

Yes, I see your point . I stand corrected. Diabolical Democrats it is.

 

So luntzian. Its not what he said, its what they heard. MIght want to do the numbers. Mass migration would require the influx of about 60 million non whites for whites to become 50% of the population. Don't know a single politician that is advocating anything of the sort, but of course that won't stop the xenophobes and white fellas from their churlish chicken little nightmare.

So what? I bet there's hundreds of millions of people in the world that are glad they don't look like their parents.

Oh sorry I guess its your turn to read between the lines.

Sorry, seems you didn't get the point. Don't bother looking up.

 

Nobody ever suggested mass migration was the only way to make whites minorities in their own countries. Progressives are banking on those groups having more children than the majority population.

You have evidence that hundreds of millions of people in the world are glad they are not the same race as their parents?

You haven't explained how I did not support my argument in this thread.

You don't seem to have a point, so why would I? You have absolutely no way of knowing what Japan's economy would be today if WWII never took place. You don't possess some sort of superhuman ability to know the outcomes of hypotheticals like this one.

Hong Kong and Japan are very homogenous societies compared to the US. The video makes that pretty clear. I'll let people decide for themselves whether your unsubstantiated say-so is more persuasive than what has been presented so far.

Yes you did, what a shock.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades

Yes, let's move off the topic that you weren't able to gain any traction on. Good job, I would have done the same.

Repeating yourself isn't persuasive. By your warped anti-white logic, the Mongols should have been the most advanced society in the world based on how much exploitation they were able to do during their reign. Similar claims could have been made about the Persians and the Ottomans. Every group, including sacrosanct groups like Aztecs, Mayans, Bantus, etc, at some point, had imperialistically conquered lands, yet it was only white European societies that were able to advance to the high water mark known as the West.

Would that be the kind of faux-intellectual that typically gravitates towards worthless majors like Anthropology? I'll have to ask my Starbucks barista all about it the next time I go.

I'm not ignorant of it, I simply reject the kind of "knowledge" that would be found in those types of left-wing sources. Those kinds of liberal arts majors are crawling with crypto-Marxists who disseminate the same kind of anti-white propaganda that you are putting forth in these threads. I'd rather shoot it down like I have been to pop that little bubble you live in where you can appeal to some unnamed intellectual in Academia and pretend you're correct about something. There's a reason you can't explain why other groups who were more imperialistic than the Europeans were not able to take that stolen wealth and build something like the West, and it has a lot to do with the argument put forth in the video presented in the OP.

That's the exact argument you are putting forth. Europeans "didn't build that" because they stole wealth from others, but you would never say the same thing about any other civilization on Earth, particularly if they were built by brown people. You are the quintessential example that the author of the video was referring to. Congrats.

 

slip slidin' away.

Every kid is the same race as their parents. You do know how it works dont' you?

By failing to account for the enormous number of other factors that contribute to economic success. But by all means use a galactic sized generalization to "prove your argument".

amazingly you seem oblivious to exactly how fallacious your point is. Yes, hypotheticals are generally useless for making anything other than a rhetorical point. Which was my point, hence the reference to "history" being the sole measure of your original hypothesis about race. You seem to have trouble following.

I can see how your ignorance of both cultures and your "racial" bias would compel you to believe as you do. Beware of getting your "understanding" of something you know nothing about from a video such as the one you posted. Might rot your brain with bullcrap.

Apparently you are not familiar with the fact that anatolia, palestine etc have never been considered part of european civilization, even when conquered by europeans.

however, I'll rack it up to lack of precision in your language since you provided a reasonable source for the 2/3rds.

Changing the example to prove my point is not moving off topic. My point remains completely valid. But I can see that you might consider it such.

Again with the fallacious nonsense.

it seems that you can only consider one causality and one correlation when in fact the history of empire weaves an incredibly complex web of them some within and some without human or social control.

since this complexity is lost in your simple minded devotion to the notion that white nationalism and rejecting anything other than white immigrants, of the right religion of course, is a winning formula for America. Who knew the way to make America Great AGAIN was to "retreat and dig in".
.

Gotta luv that "faux intellectual". If you had any clue how influential the contributions of science of anthropology has been to our fundamental understanding of ourselves and the forces that shape our societies you might not be so sneering in your ignorance. But then again

Well considering you denial is followed by a demonstration of precisely the opposite, I don't believe you. Once again, there isn't A reason, there are dozens of reasons that are interdependent. Your insistence on some sort of racial superiority as the sole reason is not supported by overwhelming majority of the facts, despite your massive generalization from cherry picking one or two.

Strawman. Do you like arguing with the words you put in your opponents mouth? I am not surprised to find such intellectual disingenuousness in a person of the white nationalist persuasion.

 

Context is important.

Apparently you don't. A mixed race kid would be half the race of his mother, half the race of his father.

Isn't that what you were doing when you suggested that the West was built because of the exploitation and theft that occurred in the 3rd world?

You made a claim that Japan only became wealthy because of WWII. That assumes that you possess information on what Japan's economic situation would have been like had WWII not happened. In reality, you don't have any clue on how Japan would have turned out without WWII happening.

Again, I'll let people decide on their own if your unsubstantiated say-so's and obvious desperation to portray yourself as the smartest person in the room are more persuasive than the information presented in the video. I have my own opinion about it, of course.

Strawman. I never said they were part of European civilization. I said they were part of the West but I meant to say Christendom to illustrate my point about the Crusades. They took place after hundreds of years of Islamic imperialism, with much of Christendom being conquered before the very first Crusade began. Anti-whites like to bring up the Crusades to show how intolerant and violent Christians are, but they leave out crucial context. Some do this intentionally, while others are simply ignorant. I have some theories on which one we are dealing with, here.

I'm not so sure your point about the Crusades is valid at all. You were attempting to make an argument that Western civilization was built upon the stolen wealth and exploitation of the 3rd world, and used the Crusades as an example, apparently ignorant to the facts that I have already given about it being a response to hundreds of years of Islamic imperialism, theft, and exploitation of Western/Christian lands - not to mention the fact that Western civilization had already existed prior to the Crusades.

It's so complex that progressives like you attempt to minimize it as nothing more than theft and exploitation.

Historically it has been a winning formula. The US was able to become the world leader with an overwhelmingly white population that is predominantly Christian. It didn't need the "diversity" and "multicultural" policies that became the norm after the mid 1960's. Spreading the demographics and politics of Chicago all across the country (sparing rich, white, progressive suburbs with high housing values, of course) is a progressive social experiment, and it's all theoretical on whether the kind of "fundamental transformation of the country" that the left has been pushing hard for during at least the last 50 years is going to result in a stronger or weaker country. Of course, I have a theory that they don't want a stronger country, but that's another issue.

Yes, so many scientists of Anthropology working as Starbucks baristas. I think it's worth mentioning that it is a "social science", and it may not even be that, as the American Anthropological Society has scrubbed the word from its mission statement. Regardless, it's a good major for people who simply want a college degree to hang on the wall, and don't have any aspirations to have a good paying career unless they want to remain in Academia and become Anthropology professors.

I believe it is more cultural, and white Europeans have not only developed Western culture, but they remain the largest practitioners of it. Despite the introduction of Soviet Marxism, it remains the best, most productive culture on Earth, and most of the America hating left would not choose to live anywhere else in the world that didn't have a white Western European culture at its core. It's why they want to flee to Canada, Scandinavia, Denmark, etc.

Oh, so when you argued that the West was built on exploitation and theft, that's not what you meant?