[Samseau]

See, the problem with race today is that there is no middle ground when it comes to race.

On one side, you've got namby-pamby multiculturalism, and on other side, you've got full blown supremacist (black, white, asian, don't matter).

But what if you're just a regular guy who isn't either of those? What if you like your culture, your race, and you also like other cultures and other races? What if you just want things to remain more or less how they already are? What if you think a small amount of cross-breeding between races is good and healthy but too much might be a problem? What if you think that your culture should be preserved even if it means less immigrants come to your country? What if you think that some races might be critically flawed in a certain way?

If you espouse any of the above views, suddenly you get called a huge racist, people stop talking to you, and you get put on hate lists. Meanwhile, real racists see your views and call you a pussy faggot multi-culturalist.

There is no middle ground. Either you support full-blown assimilation or you're a raving racist. The fact that people are attacked for holding moderate views on race is why race discussions turn into shit so fast, and it's why political discussions of race in the USA are toxic.

But seriously: Why can't people hold moderate views about race?

[Quintus Curtius]

There are many people, perhaps a majority, who do hold reasonable and moderate views on the subject. The essay in my previous post, above, reflects my own views.

But their voices are not heard. The media, by its very nature, is attracted to the extreme, the perverse, and the provocative. In every age, like ours, most people went about their business the best they could, trying to earn a living and fulfill live's tasks; but since their stories are mundane, no one wants to hear them.

The historian seeks out the crimes and follies of history, because they are novel, and buries the good. You hear the bad stories, but you never hear the good ones: in our own time, the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, the steady upward social progress of diverse immigrant populations in the West, and the relative lack of racial antipathy (in comparison with older generations) in the young today.

Who would dare write a history of human kindness?

Racial discussions so easily degenerate into pointless bickering because mankind has not yet left behind those tribal and acquisitive instincts that were so useful to him in the hunting stage of social development. Man's instincts, it must constantly be remembered, were formed during hundreds of thousands of years of hunting and wandering across the steppes of Africa, Asia, and, later, Europe.

He had to be greedy because he could not know where his next meal would come from, and so he ate to the gastric capacity of his stomach. He had to be aggressive and cruel, because he needed to defend his tribe and himself from other tribes. And he preferred to mate with those whose appearance matched his, as his innate vanity was disturbed, perhaps, by the sight of a hominid different from himself. These were the "virtues" of the hunting stage.

But in the civilization stage of development, what were once virtues are now vices. Greed and acquisitiveness have to give way to cooperation and sharing; cruelty and clannish pride have to give way to justice and fairness.

We feel occasional racial antipathy because it is a residue from the primitive stage of our development. The task of civilization and morals is to restrain these base impulses (violence, cruelty, greed, tribalism) and replace them with virtues more conducive to social order. Racial pride is a mark of our vanity, our preference for those who look like us. It is also a measure of our fear and insecurity, as humans instinctively fear what is different or unknown.

The only cure for such feelings is education and cultural development.

So be patient with mankind. He is still that "trousered ape" in many respects, wandering the grasslands of East Africa. He has changed little, if at all, in recorded history. And if we concede that his nature has not changed, we must also concede that any advancement in man's technology has only brought about a more efficient means of achieving the same purposes. The instrumentalities change, but the purposes remain the same. And his genetic inheritance is indistinguishable, the anthropologists tell us, from the Cro-Magnon man who first wandered out of East Africa so many tens of thousands of years ago.

Given another hundred thousand years, I think we'll be fine.

[Lika]

(03-30-2014 12:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

But seriously: Why can't people hold moderate views about race?

Because multiculturalism is a religion actively promoted by mainstream media and elites. It is tightly linked to the "shoa" religion (to protect Israel and its racist policies: the chosen people) and the "feminist" religion (to dis-empower men and promote an emotional and innocuous approach to politics and power issues)

The real question is why people who are not racist but who think that "a small amount of cross-breeding between races is good and healthy but too much might be a problem" (including Africans, Asians, whites) are demonized and nazified to an extreme?

(03-29-2014 03:30 PM)Don Juan Tenorio Wrote:  

Black women are not pretty. Not most of them, for very obvious reasons: hair, eyes, physical constitution, etc.
The very same things that make you black guys look masculine to the eyes of females of other races are the ones that make black women look unfemenine to us

I don't agree with that. In the USA it might be a different situation but in Africa, you have a great variety of ethnic groups and some amazingly hot and feminine women.
For many Sub-Saharan women, what they loose in femininity, they gain in spectacularly hot bodies and raw sexuality.

On the other hand, traveling in Africa is not an easy thing: first of all, transports (planes) and accomodations are very expensive and not comfortable compared to other continents. It is quite dangerous and it lacks sometimes basic amenities like running water and electricity (power and water failures even in "expensive" hotels).

[berserk]

(03-30-2014 12:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

But what if you're just a regular guy who isn't either of those? What if you like your culture, your race, and you also like other cultures and other races?

That sounds like 90% of all people everywhere.

Quote:

What if you just want things to remain more or less how they already are? What if you think a small amount of cross-breeding between races is good and healthy but too much might be a problem?

Now you are entering the area where certain political ideologies come into play. I do believe your viewpoint, which I share, is the common, natural way most people have used to think about things. As you say, outside dna is very important biologically so that there can be sufficient gene competition. Jews have many strange problems for this reason, that only affect them, due to lack of interbreeding. On the other hand, going from there - a smaller amount of outside DNA - to full on inviting dominant DNA into your recessive traits, that is where some us does start feeling a bit threathened on a biological level. Again, I believe this is the normal status quo for most people to feel.

Quote:

What if you think that some races might be critically flawed in a certain way?

Here is your only controversial aspect and you know it. Scientists can tell the race of a person from their DNA with ease. Race is - scientifically - much more than just the color of your skin. There have been mixings and interbreedings between different kind of hominids besides sapiens, such as neanderthal and denisovans. There is a lot to learn still. At the same time, the fact that all animals adapt to their surroundings is the basis of the widely accepted theory of evolution, in fact, if you do not accept natural selection and evolution, then people call you a religious crackpot, but when it comes to humans, many people seem to throw Darwin out of the window, to totally ignore how evolution may have worked on humans.

[TonySandos]

I'm at a disconnect with that. How do African diaspora women lack femininity in popular notion? The western African American women are only at fault of lacking their effeminate nature when you have the problems associate with broken culture present. The rest of them are more commonly feminine than other long standing American ethnic groups that have been here as long. Humility is more common and they've better developed social skills to communicate differences. I understand this so well that I don't see the problem dating women who come off to most white men as the ghetto type. It's a stand out quality to me among black women in the states that if they don't see you like that or disagree with you, they'll maintain common human decency. I have never been to Africa so I can't speak on that

[berserk]

African women are plenty feminine, of course the short hair may be a turnoff for some, but many do wear wigs. Still, I find a lot of African women attractive and their behavior is certainly much more feminine than most Europeans.

[TonySandos]

I'll tell a personal story to hopefully start some introspection.


My dad worked as a locksmith for around 18 years and had worked at the city college for at least 6 years. One day I came to my parents house and they were arguing like I hadn't seen in a long time. What I came to find out is that he got fired for calling someone a nigger. That immediately sucked in my mind because I knew better than to think he did it. This man welcomed multiple black girls into the house during high school whenever one of us had a girl friend of the type. When I was running with the wrong crowd, he was still cordial and helpful to my drug dealer associate by fixing his car, when he really knew what was going on with our activities. He was generally good to people and I wasn't raised by a ideology. I was allowed to form my own views.

The long story short is his manager, who found out my pops was filing a complaint over his incompetence, accused him of racial slurs the same day(which I believe was 2/3 days after) he discovered that to successfully sabotage the complaint. His strategy worked and the complaint was overshadowed while my dad was under review and later fired.

The lowest part about watching the ordeal:
None of his better coworkers came to his aid out of fear or were malicious to begin with.
These were the same faculty reviewing the case, and knew I was his son, that reviewed my case when a fraternity was harassing my girlfriend by calling her nigger.
The white guy who was the other accuser, was covering up for a sexual harassment charge himself-bandwaggoning another to misdirect from yourself
The manager who started the entire madness was legitimately unable to do the job and fired anyway, my father still didn't get his job back.

So in saying that, everyone has chips in the debate over racial policies in and just because you're white doesn't mean you haven't been cut by policies and power structure. It's jaded me some to look at people as, "that's the way people are", but I try to counter pessimism in myself. I'm sure it's jaded my dad with being the focus of a case of that nature. White folks who do have a moderate view of race are hurt by accusations of racism. It's an attack on your character, morals and mental aptitude so of course it's offensive.

In short: You drive away well-meaning people when you accuse them off loose evidence or views that you take personally. We don't have a fighting chance to explore middle ground without assuming better of individuals before we suspect or have proof of the worst.

[Samseau]

The fact that people (men, especially) are shamed for holding moderate views of race pretty much guarantees future disobedience to existing power structures. If enough people get fed up, it becomes violent. Moderate views on race do not win elections and there are too many politicians whose livihoods depend on keeping blacks angry at whites, so moderate views are polarized as quickly as possible in order to retain power.

I wish people were intelligent enough to see through this and stop being played, but no matter how many times I repeat that is possible to have moderate views on race it always seems taboo to even discuss such a matter.

[Deluge]

(03-30-2014 08:39 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I too found it quite odd how places like Norway have to be 'diversified' to make up for their colonial past, when they didn't have any colonies in Africa/Asia etc, however Athlone gave the best explanation I've heard on the subject. Combine that with super progressive ideologies in Scandinavia and I think that explains it.

If the states mainly wanted to take in immigrants out of white guilt, they'd mostly be taking in refugees instead of economic migrants. At the end of the day the main reasons they take in immigrants are economic: cheap labour, expanding the domestic consumer base (and therefore GDP), off-setting their ageing populations to keep the welfare state viable and cherry picking the best and brightest from overseas. I'm not sure specifically about Norway, but most states humanitarian intake pales in comparison to their skilled intake, shows what their motives are.

[TonySandos]

Where are all the members that had so much to say beforehand?

They should be the ones hear to converse on the subject now. Things are more civil and the tensions eased

[speakeasy]

(03-30-2014 05:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The fact that people (men, especially) are shamed for holding moderate views of race pretty much guarantees future disobedience to existing power structures. If enough people get fed up, it becomes violent. Moderate views on race do not win elections and there are too many politicians whose livihoods depend on keeping blacks angry at whites, so moderate views are polarized as quickly as possible in order to retain power.

I wish people were intelligent enough to see through this and stop being played, but no matter how many times I repeat that is possible to have moderate views on race it always seems taboo to even discuss such a matter.

The nature of some topics makes it hard to have a moderate position. Debating about racial equality by its very nature has a very polarizing outcome. It's like debating about gay marriage. You either support it or you don't and there's not much of a middle position. It's not like debating the merits of competing economic philosophies where there's lots of wiggle room in the middle.

Also, there is a lot of vested political interest in keeping whites angry at blacks. It works both ways. There's a reason the Southern Strategy works. Just about every Republican presidential candidate has employed it. George W. Bush's strategies pulled it out against rival McCain claiming that he had an illegitimate black baby. Turns out the baby was E. Indian and adopted. But it nonetheless destroyed McCain's campaign and he lost the South Carolina primary. The irony of this game is that if blacks vanished tomorrow in America, it would be the end of the Republican party. The Republican party gets the vote of poor, rural whites in the heartland and south. It would not survive without them. Not because their policies are in the economic interest of these people, but because the Democrats are branded as the party of blacks and multiculturalists and those who want to take money from hard-working whites and give it to lazy n*ggers. Without that racial resentment, many of these poor whites would vote Democrat and see that their interest do not line up with Wall Street. But their white identity and opposition to blacks is more important to them than their economic standing. This is simply the red pill truth.

(03-30-2014 01:38 PM)berserk Wrote:  

African women are plenty feminine, of course the short hair may be a turnoff for some, but many do wear wigs. Still, I find a lot of African women attractive and their behavior is certainly much more feminine than most Europeans.

I think black women get too bad of wrap, and white women are over hyped for the most part. When you look around and really pay attention, you start to notice that there are tons and tons of mediocre looking white women. White females benefit from great media exposure. What most people think of when they envision white women is in actuality the top 5-10% of them. They are pretty much outliers. But their entire demographic benefits tremendously by great advertisement. Similar to how many people think black men are great at sports because the top 10% of us are very good at it. But an average black man is probably not particularly endowed with athletic talent. Another thing I notice is that the "black women are ugly" thing is primarily a N. American Anglo sentiment. Dudes in places like Italy and Argentina for example go crazy over African women that I wouldn't even give a second look at. I've also read that men in China are starting to marry African women. Which isn't the first time that's happened. Many of the Chinese men that build the railroads in America ended up marrying black women(marriage was banned between whites and Chinese).

[TonySandos]

Speakeasy I feel inclined to introduce you to alternatives from the Kool-Aid

http://www.amazon.com/Dream-Deferred-Bet...lby+steele

Democrats have gained and lost the black church time and again over traditionalism ideals. It's arguable that the base of republican voters are the religious and gun owners. Why? The party has not swayed from upholding those positions for decades. Each side has proven to not be more reliable in economic policy. Don't believe the hype and think that either party has a greater interest in black issues, or poor white for that matter. I was a extremist on the democratic end of politics before opening my eyes to how the party gains more by keeping its black voters heads above water enough to swim, but not pulling them out.

I'll also argue that there is middle ground to be found in debate on race. It's not a singular issue or made of one debate. My points are:

Post colonialism-what are moral and reasonable solution in the new century?
Immigration-what's reasonable and what's not.
Multiculturalism-what is the appropriate amount of oversight in a free market/civil system?
Integration-what is the difference between inclusiveness, absorption and takeover?
Racialism-what defines separating pride from imposing on other groups?
Cultural preservation-what is ethical and how should cultures be preserved?

From those questions you can bring up relevant discussion about the immigrants in UK trying to impose an Islamic caliphate in London, starvation in Africa, technology trading, cultural preservation in the Asia Minor, Europe, Northern and Central Africa and the first nations of North America etc.

[speakeasy]

(03-30-2014 08:39 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I too found it quite odd how places like Norway have to be 'diversified'...

Btw, who exactly is saying Norway has to be diversified? Is there some significant party or politician running in Norway that says it's their aim to turn Norway into a multicultural state? Maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't Norway like 99% white? If that's the case it doesn't sound like there's much immigration there.

I often hear about "someone" that wants to diversify Scandinavia but I never hear who this someone is specifically.

If there is pressure for more immigration from non-white countries in the future, guilt won't be the source of it, it will be the demographic winter from Europe's dwindling fertility rate.

[berserk]

(03-30-2014 07:17 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I think black women get too bad of wrap, and white women are over hyped for the most part. When you look around and really pay attention, you start to notice that there are tons and tons of mediocre looking white women. White females benefit from great media exposure. What most people think of when they envision white women is in actuality the top 5-10% of them. They are pretty much outliers. But their entire demographic benefits tremendously by great advertisement. Similar to how many people think black men are great at sports because the top 10% of us are very good at it. But an average black man is probably not particularly endowed with athletic talent. Another thing I notice is that the "black women are ugly" thing is primarily a N. American Anglo sentiment. Dudes in places like Italy and Argentina for example go crazy over African women that I wouldn't even give a second look at. I've also read that men in China are starting to marry African women. Which isn't the first time that's happened. Many of the Chinese men that build the railroads in America ended up marrying black women(marriage was banned between whites and Chinese).

White women is and was the norm for me the first 23 years. I used to have a hard time understanding the fascination with blondes that foreigners had, because they were plentiful where I lived.

Then I discovered asian women and had the yellow fever bad for a couple of years, then I found african women and still have much curiosity to satisfy there, but in general I've found that once you've had your curiosity satisfied, you simply begin seeing a hot girl as hot regardless of race and the same with mediocre women.

I have zero experience with american black women. If they're anything like the big fat opinionated stereotypes from television shows, then I think I will pass. If they're anything like Gabriel Union, then I'll be lusting after them like the thirstiest dude you've ever met.

I still would vastly prefer, an almost requirement, to eventually end up with and start a family with a white woman, preferably with blue eyes. I would think most people would have similar beliefs and I can't see why people would have a problem with it, but seemingly they do.

[Feisbook Control]

speakeasy: I was going to post this in response to you yesterday, but didn't have time. I see that in the meantime, many others have written similar things.

Anyway, here it is.

To be honest, I don't care who has sex with whom racially. Just like I don't care about homosexuals. In all likelihood, if I have children, they're going to be part white (of at least three different ethnicities) and part Asian, and given Taiwanese genetics (~83% of Taiwanese have some aboriginal blood), they'd be a real mixed bag. For all I know, I might have some Australian aboriginal genes. I'm not discounting that possibility, given that at least one of my ancestors arrived in Australia more than two centuries ago.

As I, and others, have written, changes within populations should be natural and organic. Small groups of outsiders are absorbed over time. In situations where large numbers of outsiders enter a population, we have historically called it an invasion or colonisation (or both). This is what people are upset about, because it's not just a naturally occurring process that is going on now. It's actually a very unnatural process that has occurred in great volume and quite rapidly because of political reasons (more on that below).

For instance, there is a great fallacy regarding the U.K. and immigration there, that the U.K. has always had immigration. That is simply not true. People typically point to examples such as the Huguenots in the seventeenth century. There are two things to say about that. The first is that the Huguenots were not very distinct from the British in either genetics or culture. The second is that there weren't actually very many of them. The population of the U.K. in the seventeenth century was ~4 million at the start and ~5 million at the end. The Huguenots numbered 50,000, or 1%. Even the Norman invasion in 1066 did not represent a massive genetic change, as it was mostly at the upper echelons of society (and thus, it was not a complete cultural change either, which is why English is a West Germanic language, not a Romance language). We'd need to go as far back as the Anglo-Saxon invasions, or possibly Viking invasions a few centuries later, but both more than one thousand years ago, to see the kind of changes occurring now. The British population has been quite stable for at least a millennium. This is true in much of the rest of Europe also. People are very aware of this, and that is why they are upset about it, because it is not occurring naturally, but is occurring at the level of an invasion or colonisation.

This is all political, and here is where my response to you dove-tails with my response to Excelsior. I understand that there has been a spillover of white guilt to countries that should have no white guilt (such as Finland), and why, but again, none of that addresses the fact that the multiculturalists are just about salivating at the idea of turning Korea, Japan or Taiwan into a Benetton ad, though they're not so keen on that happening in Africa, for instance (witness the growing talk of Chinese colonisation of the continent). In this respect, I think it's part of the unholy alliance between willing idiots who buy into cultural Marxism (that we all have to end up with the same shitty monoculture where everyone is equal in being shitty) and an international cabal who profit off destroying organic networks and practices, i.e. cultures, that have taken hundreds or even thousands of years to develop.

This manifests itself in many forms such as mosques blasting the call to prayer, or the business practices of Coca Cola in Mexico and it claiming the title of fattest nation on the planet, with some 70% of adults overweight or obese. In the latter case, we could at least argue that it's market conditions (though it's not that simple). In the former, it is something that has been forced upon the local populace either without their consent, or even against their desires.

It is possible to have organic change, and as I wrote above, whether it's interracial relationships, homosexual relationships or anything else, most people don't have a problem. What they do have a problem with is these things being crammed down their throats and the bien pensant overclass forcing mainstream cultures to be changed in very inorganic ways and shouting them down as a bunch of Nazis for not acquiescing.

Yet this is like pushing a balloon below the water. It's not going to stay there forever. At some point, it is going to come up, and the harder it gets pushed down, the harder it's going to pop up. The backlash against all of this social meddling is going to be awful. Golden Dawn is only the tip of the iceberg for what it's going to look like. When support finally collapses for conservatives and people go full on neoreaction, it's going to be ugly. As someone else in this thread pointed out, it doesn't even necessarily matter whether angry white men are right or wrong. What matters is whether they feel they're being persecuted. In the best case scenario, they just follow the perverse incentives (economic and otherwise) and opt out (either moving abroad or just downsizing where they are), and the economy takes a massive hit or stagnates, with all that that entails (e.g. an even greater loss of social cohesion). In the worst case scenario, they start directing their energies into very counterproductive avenues.

This concerns me greatly because the bien pensant class are -- ironically, with their talk of Nazism -- actually sowing the seeds of Nazism 2.0. I don't want to see full on race war in the streets, pogroms and all the rest of it, but at this point, I think there's a rapidly narrowing window in which to avert that, both in Europe, and to a lesser extent in the U.S. and the Anglosphere (except the U.K., which I think is going to be one of the likely candidates for Ground Zero of the Shit Hitting the Fan). Of course, the bien pensant overclass probably won't be affected by this as they will have multiple passports and/or homes worldwide, and so will probably be able to dodge the worst of it.

[Feisbook Control]

(03-30-2014 08:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:39 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I too found it quite odd how places like Norway have to be 'diversified'...

Btw, who exactly is saying Norway has to be diversified? Is there some significant party or politician running in Norway that says it's their aim to turn Norway into a multicultural state? Maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't Norway like 99% white? If that's the case it doesn't sound like there's much immigration there.

I often hear about "someone" that wants to diversify Scandinavia but I never hear who this someone is specifically.

If there is pressure for more immigration from non-white countries in the future, guilt won't be the source of it, it will be the demographic winter from Europe's dwindling fertility rate.

I haven't looked into Norway's political scene in detail, but my limited understanding of it is that the major political parties there are all very pro-immigration. In neighbouring Sweden, all of the major political parties are. Sweden, being in the E.U., also has to contend with the clowns in Brussels.

Anyway, the notion that the Nordics are 99% Nordic/white is not true.

Demographics of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

[speakeasy]

(03-30-2014 08:26 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

speakeasy: I was going to post this in response to you yesterday, but didn't have time. I see that in the meantime, many others have written similar things.

Anyway, here it is.

I'm not sure why you addressed all that to me. I'm not an advocate for mass immigration. Far from it.


@Samseau

Something I forgot to mention earlier. Given that you are half white and half Asian by your own admission, what is your opposition to multiculturalism based upon? You are basically the product of it. And since you are concerned about preserving races wouldn't it make sense if you no longer sleep with any white women or Asian women and only go for Asian-white mixed women?

[Feisbook Control]

(03-30-2014 09:53 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:26 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

speakeasy: I was going to post this in response to you yesterday, but didn't have time. I see that in the meantime, many others have written similar things.

Anyway, here it is.

I'm not sure why you addressed all that to me. I'm not an advocate for mass immigration. Far from it.

To show you that a certain percentage of what goes on online about white guys bitching about race has nothing at all to do with them being pissed off with black guys having sex with white women, but rather, multiculturalism being crammed down their throats.

Hence, why Samseau can hold what you seemingly find a contradictory position to his own identity. Hence why I can be a minority in the country in which I live, but neither expect, nor want, mass immigration here nor my own culture to be crammed down the throat of the locals. I think why you're getting so much flak in this thread is because you're having trouble seeing a range of nuanced positions that either exist between, or even outside, the regularly constructed dichotomy of pro-Benetton world family at one end and Aryan Nation at the other.

[speakeasy]

(03-30-2014 10:14 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

To show you that a certain percentage of what goes on online about white guys bitching about race has nothing at all to do with them being pissed off with black guys having sex with white women, but rather, multiculturalism being crammed down their throats.

We may be going in circles at this point. We are talking about two different things here. Excelsior made the point that any post that touches on the topic of white women with black men strikes a raw nerve like few topics can. I agreed with this and defend his statement. I've seen this time and time again on the manosphere. I remember when Heartiste made a post about Justin Wayne that showed him macking on some white chic and in the comments it basically turned into stormfront. This had nothing to do with advocating multiculturalism or mass immigration. It was a visceral reaction of angry white males who didn't like what they saw. I said nothing about advocating multiculturalism or mass immigration, so I don't know why those views are being foisted upon me.

Quote:

Hence, why Samseau can hold what you seemingly find a contradictory position to his own identity. Hence why I can be a minority in the country in which I live, but neither expect, nor want, mass immigration here nor my own culture to be crammed down the throat of the locals. I think why you're getting so much flak in this thread is because you're having trouble seeing a range of nuanced positions that either exist between, or even outside, the regularly constructed dichotomy of pro-Benetton world family at one end and Aryan Nation at the other.

Well you're entitled to whatever beliefs you want. But you must live in a world of cognitive dissonance when you feel it's okay for you to immigrate, so long as others that look like you don't do the same thing you're doing.

[TonySandos]

Speakeasy, you're coming off fearful and obstinate with the responses when Feisbook is laying it out there as comprehensible as he could have made it. Seems like a nice time to ask questions and delve further instead of backpedaling over already stagnant comments.

You want to understand better obviously because you keep coming back, but you're your own obstacle on this. Sometime it's better to sit and digest a reading than fire of remarks because you're passionate about the topic.

[Feisbook Control]

(03-30-2014 10:45 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 10:14 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

To show you that a certain percentage of what goes on online about white guys bitching about race has nothing at all to do with them being pissed off with black guys having sex with white women, but rather, multiculturalism being crammed down their throats.

We may be going in circles at this point. We are talking about two different things here. Excelsior made the point that any post that touches on the topic of white women with black men strikes a raw nerve like few topics can. I agreed with this and defend his statement. I've seen this time and time again on the manosphere. I remember when Heartiste made a post about Justin Wayne that showed him macking on some white chic and in the comments it basically turned into stormfront. This had nothing to do with advocating multiculturalism or mass immigration. It was a visceral reaction of angry white males who didn't like what they saw. I said nothing about advocating multiculturalism or mass immigration, so I don't know why those views are being foisted upon me.

Sure. You're right. Yet maybe you're extrapolating from a self-selecting group within a self-selecting group. The large majority of people who don't give a toss about the issue probably won't even be at the site to begin with. Then, even within those who are there, there are probably a lot of people who don't feel very passionate about the issue and don't comment, or who feel intimidated by what they see as the group think going on. This then creates a feedback loop whereby the comments become increasingly extreme. I posit that it's very difficult for any website to retain a diverse range of opinions over time.

Then, of course, there's the fact that a lot of people end up with the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" syndrome and tolerate certain things because they feel as though they've both been disenfranchised.

I am simply saying that not every angry white guy in the manosphere feels a burning rage for blacks (or anyone else) as individuals, or even collectively as a race. In my opinion, the real issue is to do with class and culture, rather than race. That's one of the reasons why I can think what I think below.

Quote:

Quote:

Hence, why Samseau can hold what you seemingly find a contradictory position to his own identity. Hence why I can be a minority in the country in which I live, but neither expect, nor want, mass immigration here nor my own culture to be crammed down the throat of the locals. I think why you're getting so much flak in this thread is because you're having trouble seeing a range of nuanced positions that either exist between, or even outside, the regularly constructed dichotomy of pro-Benetton world family at one end and Aryan Nation at the other.

Well you're entitled to whatever beliefs you want. But you must live in a world of cognitive dissonance when you feel it's okay for you to immigrate, so long as others that look like you don't do the same thing you're doing.

No, of course not, for several reasons. Firstly, obviously, the first person to arrive in a place wants to keep what he has. This is not peculiar to this situation. If I go to the beach, I might be cool with ten other people at the beach, but not ten thousand.

Secondly, at a more fundamental level, if I wanted to live in a little Australian ghetto, then I'd go and live in a small town in the outback, or even many of the suburbs of the major cities. The real cognitive dissonance would be me leaving those things and then insisting that such things be recreated in my new home.

There are a whole lot of expats who are living in [insert non-/semi-Western country] because they feel their country of origin has gone to crap (even if they're not consciously aware of, or willing to admit it, or attribute it to other things), be it because the women are fat and nasty, the government taxes and regulates the crap out of them, the education system sucks, crime is rampant, etc., who then complain how the new country doesn't have more of the same nonsense they wanted to escape in the old country. You can never satisfy these people, because their progressivism is actually the most narrow-minded religious zeal in the world, perhaps matched only by Jihadists in its intolerance and deleterious effects, which is why I don't want masses of them around me. Even if they can't vote, once they get to 10-20% of the population, they inevitably end up wielding economic power, and so vote indirectly anyway, plus they get their claws into the local media, education system, etc. and influence the locals who want bragging rights for being "cosmopolitan". These people simultaneously talk about the "authenticity" of Culture X, how chilled out it is, etc., but then want to flood it with more of the same feminism, big nanny state politics and so on that have made their home countries awful. Seriously, get on any expat forum (I thought it was just Taiwan, but I spent time on such sites for other countries too a while back, and they were eerily similar). I used to complain, too, but now I complain a lot less. That doesn't mean that things don't still piss me off, but I just realise that to a large extent, you take the good with the bad. Every time I'm driving my car and someone does something crazy, I have to tell myself that if I were in Melbourne, I'd do 4km/h over the speed limit or walk my dog without a leash, and some government goon would jump out of the bushes and yell "Gotcha!" and slap me with a hundred dollar fine.

What pisses me off about this is that these clowns will be the same people who will get what they want inevitably, and they will fuck up Taiwan and turn it into Toronto II in twenty years. Then they'll be complaining about how Taiwan has gone to shit. Leave it alone now then! Yet they, and their progressive mind virus, can't leave it alone. There's never a happy median for them, because there always needs to be "progress". That's why I don't want masses of them around me anymore than I want a bunch of Pakistani mullahs calling for Sharia Law. Unfortunately, as far and as hard as I run from these tools, they seem to follow me!

[Teedub]

(03-30-2014 06:37 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:39 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I too found it quite odd how places like Norway have to be 'diversified' to make up for their colonial past, when they didn't have any colonies in Africa/Asia etc, however Athlone gave the best explanation I've heard on the subject. Combine that with super progressive ideologies in Scandinavia and I think that explains it.

If the states mainly wanted to take in immigrants out of white guilt, they'd mostly be taking in refugees instead of economic migrants. At the end of the day the main reasons they take in immigrants are economic: cheap labour, expanding the domestic consumer base (and therefore GDP), off-setting their ageing populations to keep the welfare state viable and cherry picking the best and brightest from overseas. I'm not sure specifically about Norway, but most states humanitarian intake pales in comparison to their skilled intake, shows what their motives are.

Maybe that's true for America, but an enormous amount of Islamic immigrants in Europe are on welfare. Worse still, this includes all of the hate preachers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9875954/...wance.html

(03-30-2014 08:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:39 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I too found it quite odd how places like Norway have to be 'diversified'...

Btw, who exactly is saying Norway has to be diversified? Is there some significant party or politician running in Norway that says it's their aim to turn Norway into a multicultural state? Maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't Norway like 99% white? If that's the case it doesn't sound like there's much immigration there.

I often hear about "someone" that wants to diversify Scandinavia but I never hear who this someone is specifically.

If there is pressure for more immigration from non-white countries in the future, guilt won't be the source of it, it will be the demographic winter from Europe's dwindling fertility rate.

All the cultural and academic elite as per usual.

Oslo has been pretty much ruined due to, sorry to say it again, but Islamic migrants. Mainly North Africans and Somalis I think.

100% of the rapes (the drag someone by knife point kind) over a 5 year period were committed by non-Western men. Yet the leftists push for more immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6k9P7L3tYk

It's usually asylum seekers according to police. What a lovely way to thank those generous hosts.

[Parlay44]

You know I think the thought behind allowing immigration into a country is that they will come in and take all the low paying menial jobs that nobody wants which in turn elevates everyone in the middle class a little higher up the totem pole.

Immigrants these days are smarter. They come as engineers, programmers. They pool together and start small businesses like convenience stores or gas stations. They buy up franchises like 711 or Dunkin Donuts.

They're not taking jobs that people don't want. They're taking over the middle class. But at the same time they bring they're old world bullshit with them and ruin the host country that now feeds them instead of assimilating into it.

That's my view of immigration.

[Sourcecode]

(03-31-2014 06:01 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 06:37 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:39 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I too found it quite odd how places like Norway have to be 'diversified' to make up for their colonial past, when they didn't have any colonies in Africa/Asia etc, however Athlone gave the best explanation I've heard on the subject. Combine that with super progressive ideologies in Scandinavia and I think that explains it.

If the states mainly wanted to take in immigrants out of white guilt, they'd mostly be taking in refugees instead of economic migrants. At the end of the day the main reasons they take in immigrants are economic: cheap labour, expanding the domestic consumer base (and therefore GDP), off-setting their ageing populations to keep the welfare state viable and cherry picking the best and brightest from overseas. I'm not sure specifically about Norway, but most states humanitarian intake pales in comparison to their skilled intake, shows what their motives are.

Maybe that's true for America, but an enormous amount of Islamic immigrants in Europe are on welfare. Worse still, this includes all of the hate preachers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9875954/...wance.html

(03-30-2014 08:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:39 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I too found it quite odd how places like Norway have to be 'diversified'...

Btw, who exactly is saying Norway has to be diversified? Is there some significant party or politician running in Norway that says it's their aim to turn Norway into a multicultural state? Maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't Norway like 99% white? If that's the case it doesn't sound like there's much immigration there.

I often hear about "someone" that wants to diversify Scandinavia but I never hear who this someone is specifically.

If there is pressure for more immigration from non-white countries in the future, guilt won't be the source of it, it will be the demographic winter from Europe's dwindling fertility rate.

All the cultural and academic elite as per usual.

Oslo has been pretty much ruined due to, sorry to say it again, but Islamic migrants. Mainly North Africans and Somalis I think.

100% of the rapes (the drag someone by knife point kind) over a 5 year period were committed by non-Western men. Yet the leftists push for more immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6k9P7L3tYk

It's usually asylum seekers according to police. What a lovely way to thank those generous hosts.

have you been to Oslo Norway?

[Teedub]

^ No.

I'm sure it's very pleasant in the right places. However, there's a reason Anders Brehvik was as angry as he was!