[B0ycey]

You misunderstood me. I agree that there are racists in the far right that believe whites are superior. Sadly, the left affirms this by complaining of white supremacy. Why do they complain about it?

They only complain about it when it exists.

When you read or hear complaint, it is usually justified.

In any event, most conservatives condemn European superiority and racism. However the left has no limits. The more woke and lefty the better. The left also fails to police its own racism. They think is is perfectly OK to fight racism with more racism. However, this lefty racism is accepted or even celebrated. And let's not forget the condescending racism of low expectations white lefties have on so-called dark skin people.

Do you have any examples? This is ramblings with little context but prejudice. I am sure there are racists who are "Lefties". But mainly it is Conservatives who don the White hoody whilst waving the General Lee at "fuck off back home" and "lets keep this statue" rallies who have no limits to what they will do to keep their views relevant. What were the no go limits at Charlotteville again?

[Julian658]

They only complain about it when it exists.

When you read or hear complaint, it is usually justified.

Racism is real! Members of different tribes often think badly of members of another tribe. However, I have issues with the word racism. It implies some sort of superiority of one group over another. A much better term is simply bigotry or discrimination. I also dislike the term supremacy. There is only a single human race and to use the term white supremacy is an abomination.

Do you have any examples? This is ramblings with little context but prejudice. I am sure there are racists who are "Lefties".

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellect and character are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

The term white cis straight man is a pejorative on the extreme left. It means someone with those traits is not to be trusted. It is basically fighting "so-called racism" with racism.

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority. Ayn Rand

As much as I dislike Ayn Rand for her excessive view on individualism she had a good set of definitions regarding racism and discrimination.

But mainly it is Conservatives who don the White hoody whilst waving the General Lee at "fuck off back home" and "lets keep this statue" rallies who have no limits to what they will do to keep their views relevant. What were the no go limits at Charlotteville again?

The Nazis are a diabolical bunch and need to be rejected, but Nazism is not the biggest problem in America. Truthfully, I have never seen one or heard about them until Charlottesville. I am certain they are hiding somewhere, but they are not the biggest problem facing the average minority in the USA. I understand some in the left call NAZI anyone to the right of Karl Marx, but that is another story.

[SpecialOlympian]

It is refreshing to see a true lefty. You pretend to be tongue in cheek, but deep inside this is your dream.

Yes, there is no limit on the left. The more socialist and woke the better. Meanwhile the right has a no go zone which is white supremacy.

Lmbo it's never been a no go for them. Prior to Trump they were just using dog whistles instead of megahorns.

Reagan started his presidential campaign in the same city where three civil rights activists were murdered and made his speech about state's rights. As governor, Reagan also limited gun rights in California because Black Panthers were exercising them.

The GOP hates everyone who isn't white, male, and straight. Now all the propaganda they've been funding for decades to encourage racist thought, couched in "logical" and "non-racist" terms that guide people to the same conclusion a racist would come to, is yielding predictable results. And only the idiots who thought they weren't really racist are surprised by this.

Rick Santorum summarized this pretty well with his "I don't want to help 'blah' people" comment. He said black people because he felt comfortable enough to break kayfabe. But if you accept his explanation, he just didn't want to help people who were kinda meh.

Considering that America is an incredibly racist nation built upon slave labor and founded by slave owners, it's not a complicated thought exercise to figure out that people who want to "conserve the status quo" are either openly racist or idiots trying to justify racism and inequity through complicated thought exercises. On top of that, the GOP loves child rapists (the power imbalance between a child and their abuser is analogous to the ideal society your average reactionary wants, hence why the GOP loves child rapists), which is why they put Jim Jordan on the Impeachment panel. They wanted the strongest and most representative GOP member to lead the way.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

As a general rule the right has a no go zone: Racism and the idea of supremacy. Ideally no right winger crosses into that area. When someone does the pay the price.

However, the left has no known limits. There is no boundary that makes a lefty a dangerous person. Do you know of any limits on the left?

The limits are very obvious. In 2008, Obama had to drop his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (ironic name ...) like a hot potato to stand a chance of getting elected. Wright had said "America's chickens are coming home to roost", and that the US government has ... gasp ... lied a lot! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_ ... ernment%22

Claiming that the government had been lying was, of course, the basis for Trump's campaign, and it got him support from the centre-right, and then elected. But cast doubt on the US state from the left, and the centre-left will disown you.

Reagan said "the government is the problem", and is adored by Republicans for it. Say the same thing from a leftist point of view, and the Democrats will shun you.

[Julian658]

Lmbo it's never been a no go for them. Prior to Trump they were just using dog whistles instead of megahorns.

Reagan started his presidential campaign in the same city where three civil rights activists were murdered and made his speech about state's rights. As governor, Reagan also limited gun rights in California because Black Panthers were exercising them.

The GOP hates everyone who isn't white, male, and straight. Now all the propaganda they've been funding for decades to encourage racist thought, couched in "logical" and "non-racist" terms that guide people to the same conclusion a racist would come to, is yielding predictable results. And only the idiots who thought they weren't really racist are surprised by this.

Rick Santorum summarized this pretty well with his "I don't want to help 'blah' people" comment. He said black people because he felt comfortable enough to break kayfabe. But if you accept his explanation, he just didn't want to help people who were kinda meh.

Considering that America is an incredibly racist nation built upon slave labor and founded by slave owners, it's not a complicated thought exercise to figure out that people who want to "conserve the status quo" are either openly racist or idiots trying to justify racism and inequity through complicated thought exercises. On top of that, the GOP loves child rapists (the power imbalance between a child and their abuser is analogous to the ideal society your average reactionary wants, hence why the GOP loves child rapists), which is why they put Jim Jordan on the Impeachment panel. They wanted the strongest and most representative GOP member to lead the way.

I agree, racism is universal, but America is now one of the least racist nations on Earth. So now black activists have to constantly invoke the past to keep alive the idea that a white straight male is evil. That thought in itself is racist.

The "built on slavery nation" is highly questionable as the north was always more prosperous than the south. However, I agree the phrase is a good propaganda tool to keep racism in the forefront. The black activists and media need the concept of racism so they can have a job or purpose.
IN AMerica top athletes, entertainers, music, and artists are mostly black. Most large cities have an overwhelmingly black government. Ironically the all black government in large cities like baltimore have done NOTHING for the blacks.

BUt, I agree racism is still a problem-----------particularly among the left elite whites that constantly practice condescending racism of low expectations on the blacks. This has been so effective that the blacks welcome the condescending remarks and pandering. The left white assumes blacks need a white savior. And sadly the blacks love people like Biden and the Clintons. At the same time blacks hate Mayor Pete because he is homosexual. Oh, the irony!

[Julian658]

The limits are very obvious. In 2008, Obama had to drop his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (ironic name ...) like a hot potato to stand a chance of getting elected. Wright had said "America's chickens are coming home to roost", and that the US government has ... gasp ... lied a lot! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_ ... ernment%22

Claiming that the government had been lying was, of course, the basis for Trump's campaign, and it got him support from the centre-right, and then elected. But cast doubt on the US state from the left, and the centre-left will disown you.

Reagan said "the government is the problem", and is adored by Republicans for it. Say the same thing from a leftist point of view, and the Democrats will shun you.

That was the recent past. IN this era the most WOKE lefties get the most praise. And there is no limit or boundary as to how radical they can be.

As racism keeps going down the protests against racism go up.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

That was the recent past. IN this era the most WOKE lefties get the most praise. And there is no limit or boundary as to radical they can be.

As racism keeps going down the protests against racism go up.

No. Joe Biden has led the Democratic primary from the start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... ggregation

You appear to be mistaking internet comment that gets highlighted by opponents for reality.

Whether "racism keeps going down" is arguable; after all, just in this thread, maz has empahsised this:

The elephant in the room is demographics. Not even progressives any longer pretend that mass migration won’t, at the rate we’re going, transform America into a majority-minority nation within our lifetimes.

So we see that maz's fundamental worry is about race (that whites will become a plurality in the USA, not an absolute majority) - he calls it "the elephant in the room". He thinks that's what conservatism should be about. And the president, the favourite of the Republicans, agrees with him on that. He thinks black countries are "shitholes", and that American immigration ought to come more from very white places like Norway.

[Potemkin]

That was the recent past. IN this era the most WOKE lefties get the most praise. And there is no limit or boundary as to radical they can be.

Of course there is a limit. Calls for violent revolution or terrorist campaigns would be shut down pdq. This is true for both the far left and the far right.

As racism keeps going down the protests against racism go up.

Indeed, and this should surprise nobody. Most people are conformists and cowards. While racism was strong in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most people kept very quiet about it - after all, most of mainstream American society seemed okay with it, and they didn't want the KKK planting burning crosses on their front lawn, or worse. Now that racism is political and social poison, of course, almost everybody has jumped on the bandwagon, because now all bien pensant people oppose racism, and - most important of all - because it is now safe to do so. Once the racists became so weak that they could no longer plausibly threaten people, the floodgates opened. Lol.

[Rich]

Its funny that nobody ever to ask why the Nazis had such demented hatred of people of Jewish decent?

Of course lots of commentators pretend to ask this question while actually avoiding it. The answer lies in the way I formulated the question. Because the Nazis and most of the modern Jew haters that preceded them hatred was not inspired by people of Jewish descent who practised their religion, it was inspired by people of Jewish descent who were atheists and most strongly rejected Jewish religion.

The reason for this is not really hard to fathom. Christianity is by its nature a Cuck's religion, requiring the absurd belief that the Creator of the Universe chose the Jews as his chosen people. What could be more insulting to a Christian than when a person of Jewish descent rejects this nonsense. When a Jew says God didn't really make us the master race. This is the fundamental problem of identity for the Conservative Right. What exactly are they trying to preserve? Who are the we that they wish to defend?

It doesn't have to be a problem. Just because I'm a Pagan doesn't mean I have to deny the superiority of European Christian civilisation over its Muslim, Confucian and other competitors. It doesn't mean I can't appreciate the towering heights of European Christian culture. It doesn't even mean I can't appreciate Christianity itself. Just because I reject the narcissistic Jewish fantasy that the Creator had set them up as masters of the universe.

[maz]

So we see that maz's fundamental worry is about race (that whites will become a plurality in the USA, not an absolute majority) - he calls it "the elephant in the room". He thinks that's what conservatism should be about.

What do you think conservatism should be about? Do you think conservatives win by embracing liberal policies like increased immigration as long as it's legal and LGBT?

And the president, the favourite of the Republicans, agrees with him on that. He thinks black countries are "shitholes", and that American immigration ought to come more from very white places like Norway.

If that is really true, then why hasn't the president begun campaigning for mass immigration from very white places like Norway? And why would Norwegians even want to come to the US in the first place?

And why would that even be a bad thing? I've worked with Norwegians before and the ones that I worked with were great people! They were friendly and smart.

[Potemkin]

What do you think conservatism should be about? Do you think conservatives win by embracing liberal policies like increased immigration as long as it's legal and LGBT?

What is American conservatism? This is a serious question. Ever since the days of the Founding Fathers, American conservatism has been caught in the logical contradiction of trying to conserve a revolution. It has therefore always suffered from an identity crisis. In the South in particular, conservatism was all about race. As George Wallace put it so eloquently: "It is very appropriate that from this cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us time and again down through history. Let us rise to the call for freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever." In today's world, that won't wash any more. So, maz, what do you think conservatism should be about...?

[maz]

What is American conservatism? This is a serious question. Ever since the days of the Founding Fathers, American conservatism has been caught in the logical contradiction of trying to conserve a revolution. It has therefore always suffered from an identity crisis. In the South in particular, conservatism was all about race. As George Wallace put it so eloquently: "It is very appropriate that from this cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us time and again down through history. Let us rise to the call for freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever." In today's world, that won't wash any more. So, maz, what do you think conservatism should be about...?

Who said that was conservative? Personally I think conservatism should be about a having a cohesive society first. Literally the opposite of what we have now.

[Julian658]

Indeed, and this should surprise nobody. Most people are conformists and cowards. While racism was strong in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most people kept very quiet about it - after all, most of mainstream American society seemed okay with it, and they didn't want the KKK planting burning crosses on their front lawn, or worse. Now that racism is political and social poison, of course, almost everybody has jumped on the bandwagon, because now all bien pensant people oppose racism, and - most important of all - because it is now safe to do so. Once the racists became so weak that they could no longer plausibly threaten people, the floodgates opened. Lol.

I fully agree with the above. But, it seems the black community had a greater degree of positive values when they were not able to raise their voices. Once the civil rights movement started the racist barriers were physical and easy to see: school segregation, white only signs, etc. Now the signs of racism are subtle and not easily identified. For example racism is now defined as follows: If the black population is 13% then one must see 13% of everything in every profession or position. If that is not the case then there is racism. People use the same technique to say women remain oppressed. Since most engineers are men this must mean women are discriminated. Most on the left cannot see the flaw of this argument.

Racism remains a real issue but only 53 years passed between Rosa Parks at the bus and the election of Obama. That is a gigantic achievement that is seldom mentioned. Instead they bemoaned that all prior presidents were white. The persistence of keeping the past alive is astounding.

Imagine what it must be like to be born black and be told every day 24/7 by media, family, and political leaders that YOU have NO CHANCE because you are black. This is hurtful and causes anger, despair, depression, low self esteem, and even nihilism. That is why foreign born blacks do so well when compare to native American blacks.

[Julian658]

Who said that was conservative? Personally I think conservatism should be about a having a cohesive society first. Literally the opposite of what we have now.

A society needs both conservatives and liberals. The former preserve what has worked in the past and the latter come up with new ideas.
Conservative tend to be conscientious and organized, they plan for the future. Liberals are more creative, tend to be disorganized and idealistic, they have disdain for the old values. A society entirely made of liberals or conservatives would not work.



English MP Jacob Rees-mogg

[Julian658]

So we see that maz's fundamental worry is about race (that whites will become a plurality in the USA, not an absolute majority) - he calls it "the elephant in the room". He thinks that's what conservatism should be about. And the president, the favourite of the Republicans, agrees with him on that. He thinks black countries are "shitholes", and that American immigration ought to come more from very white places like Norway.

The left favors migration from the 3rd world or from non-white nations. Do you think the purpose of this philosophy is to have a USA where whites are a minority?

[Pants-of-dog]

The left favors migration from the 3rd world or from non-white nations. Do you think the purpose of this philosophy is to have a USA where whites are a minority?

This thread is about the difference between two camps: the conservative right and the reactionary right.

Both of these groups favour the economic conditions that cause migration.

Both of these groups oppose migration.

Most importantly, both groups are opposed to whites no longer being a majority.

Why do you guys oppose having whites as a minority?

[SpecialOlympian]

So now black activists have to constantly invoke the past to keep alive the idea that a white straight male is evil. That thought in itself is racist.

White people are so racist they invented "Blue Lives Matter" because black people asked if they could please stop being murdered.

White people would rather militarize the police than acknowledge the humanity of black people (this is why white culture is failed and degenerate).

[B0ycey]

Racism is real! Members of different tribes often think badly of members of another tribe. However, I have issues with the word racism. It implies some sort of superiority of one group over another. A much better term is simply bigotry or discrimination. I also dislike the term supremacy. There is only a single human race and to use the term white supremacy is an abomination.

What does it matter what you think? The terms have specific meanings and hence have as much merit as any other words that you will find in a dictionary. Although as nepotism is a thing and the wealthy are primarily white, anyone with half a brain can see white supremacy is a problem and that this should be addressed. BTW have you heard of George Stinney?

The term white cis straight man is a pejorative on the extreme left. It means someone with those traits is not to be trusted. It is basically fighting "so-called racism" with racism.

I have no time for SJWs. I find them no different to the far right, only they happen to be on opposite sides of the political divide. Although I cannot say I have ever seen such insults on PoFo or in real life from them. Not that the modrate Left should be associated with SJWs anyway - as I assume you think Conservatives shouldn't be associated with Nazis for the same reason. Having said that, take a tour in the SJW thread on PoFo one of these days. Within there you will only see insults from the PoFo right and hardly any from the left against liberals. Which again shows you there isn't these so called "no go" zones. The far right will go to great lengths to attack the left.

The Nazis are a diabolical bunch and need to be rejected, but Nazism is not the biggest problem in America. Truthfully, I have never seen one or heard about them until Charlottesville. I am certain they are hiding somewhere, but they are not the biggest problem facing the average minority in the USA. I understand some in the left call NAZI anyone to the right of Karl Marx, but that is another story.

The point is these individuals do exist. Sure there are moderate Conservatives like Drlee and hopefully they are the majority in America. But when you have a racist piece of lying shit running the show in the oval office and the right flock to him like flies to manure you have to question whether the American right are these reformers and polite and courteous individuals you think they are.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

What do you think conservatism should be about? Do you think conservatives win by embracing liberal policies like increased immigration as long as it's legal and LGBT?

Some conservatives do support legal immigration. It provides a growing young workforce without the cost of educating it, and often willing to work for less than the equivalent people born and raised in the country. For instance, the USA was built on immigration, so being conservative in the USA would, on the face of it, be pro-immigration, as long as it's regulated. The work ethic of a typical immigrant fits a conservative profile quite well. Being pro-LGBT can be conservative, if it is about, for instance, encouraging same sex marriage, and thus the formation of committed, stable couples.

If that is really true, then why hasn't the president begun campaigning for mass immigration from very white places like Norway? And why would Norwegians even want to come to the US in the first place?

His open campaigning is limited because he does know that saying the racist bits out loud still puts off some potential voters for him. But the point is that in private, that's exactly what he says:

Trump mentioned Norway in derogatory comments about other countries of migration as U.S. senators briefed him on Thursday on a newly drafted bipartisan immigration bill, according to two sources who asked not to be identified.

One of the sources who was briefed on the conversation quoted him as saying: “Why do we want all these people from Africa here? They’re shithole countries ... We should have more people from Norway.”

In one of several Twitter posts on Friday, Trump defended his stance on a bipartisan Senate immigration deal, but denied using the vulgar language ascribed to him.

“The language used by me at the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) meeting was tough, but this was not the language used,” he said. He also later denied using derogatory language about Haitians.

“On behalf of Norway: Thanks, but no thanks,” tweeted Torbjoern Saetre, a politician representing Norway’s Conservative Party in a municipality near Oslo.
...
Christian Christensen, an American professor of journalism at Stockholm University in neighboring Sweden, tweeted:

“Of course people from #Norway would love to move to a country where people are far more likely to be shot, live in poverty, get no healthcare because they’re poor, get no paid parental leave or subsidized daycare and see fewer women in political power. #Shithole”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1F11QK

So, yes, they are put off. By having people like Trump in charge.

The left favors migration from the 3rd world or from non-white nations. Do you think the purpose of this philosophy is to have a USA where whites are a minority?

No, the left just doesn't care about the colour of their skin. It's caring about the colour that's racist, by definition. Your 'philosophy' is a strawman. But your attitude shows that racism important in certain parts of the US electorate.

[Julian658]

No, the left just doesn't care about the colour of their skin. It's caring about the colour that's racist, by definition. Your 'philosophy' is a strawman. But your attitude shows that racism important in certain parts of the US electorate.

You think a white minority will not be oppressed by another majority group?