You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
12
MI7BZ3EW on scored.co
1 month ago12 points(+0/-0/+12Score on mirror)3 children
We were naive back then. We saw the third world as a civilized part of the world, probably because colonialism was still strong. We lived in a peaceful, rational society and we thought that this extended beyond our hometowns and into the cities and into surrounding nations.
We thought we could civilize everyone, that it was the environment that made people bad or good, and that if we could just expose people to the right environment we could reform them into civilized people. We thought we could take the lion out of the jungle and make them a pussycat.
We also felt like we could achieve a post-racial utopia where blacks and whites could live side-by-side in peace and possibly mutual cooperation.
We didn't realize how wrong we were until 9/11 and Obama.
Everything since then has dramatically shifted our worldview.
Today, "diversity is our strength" is obviously subversion. Back then it was a dream we all shared.
1 month ago11 points(+0/-0/+11Score on mirror)2 children
A lot of that could be because when Americans traveled, the people in the places they traveled to would clean up their area and act civilized so they could get dat sweet sweet fiat cash.
But now that they *have* it, you get to see the "real" version of them.
Back in the 80s, people like Khaddafi were purging their populations of subhuman degenerate filth. And they weren't showing it on TV, so Americans weren't saying "Stop killing all the gay people!"
Physical Removal was a thing and Reagan tipped his hat to it.
When I travelled I noticed White people assume browns are just like us, but brown. And it is only the unfortunate lottery of the starting position that make any difference to the outcome.
1 month ago9 points(+0/-0/+9Score on mirror)1 child
Diversity was never our strength. Diversity is *expensive* but we were so wealthy and successful that we could afford it. Now, when the situation is loss rosey, we can clearly see the cost.
In the 80%, we only accepted a tiny number of immigrants, and usually the top 1% of the 1% in terms of ambition and conscienciousness and any others (Cuba refugees in Miami, ex-slaves and border hoppers in the south) stood out like sore thumbs. We were able to lull ourselves into the idea that we were great *because* of those people instead of recognizing that we were supporting them the entire time, to our cost.
Yes, but we must not shift the narrative to the economic impact.
The other side can insist that non-whites invaders are good for the economy, and if we prove they aren't, then you get someone like Trump who wants every shitskin on earth to come to America as long as he's economically productive.
The problem with non-whites is not that they are not economically productive. The problem with non-whites is that when they become a majority after reproducing like cockroaches they will simply vote to take all our wealth away and kick us out of our countries. This happened several times during "decolonization". They kicked White people out of, for example, Algeria even if those White people had been there fore several generations and they settled the land.
Non-whites are an existential threat because they will either deport us or put us in camps or just slaughter us all once they have the power to do so.
1 month ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
not naive. brainwashed. denying reality. no one thought like this in the early 1900s. well, except for the eastern european communist jews we had just begun importing.
egalitarianism is a lie. it always has been. western civilization back to the romans and greeks knew this and wrote about it. if people wanted to read about these ideas the books were always available. the vast majority of people chose to let jews interpret _our_ history and they read books written by jews about the "important lessons" we should take from our history.
We thought we could civilize everyone, that it was the environment that made people bad or good, and that if we could just expose people to the right environment we could reform them into civilized people. We thought we could take the lion out of the jungle and make them a pussycat.
We also felt like we could achieve a post-racial utopia where blacks and whites could live side-by-side in peace and possibly mutual cooperation.
We didn't realize how wrong we were until 9/11 and Obama.
Everything since then has dramatically shifted our worldview.
Today, "diversity is our strength" is obviously subversion. Back then it was a dream we all shared.
But now that they *have* it, you get to see the "real" version of them.
Physical Removal was a thing and Reagan tipped his hat to it.
In the 80%, we only accepted a tiny number of immigrants, and usually the top 1% of the 1% in terms of ambition and conscienciousness and any others (Cuba refugees in Miami, ex-slaves and border hoppers in the south) stood out like sore thumbs. We were able to lull ourselves into the idea that we were great *because* of those people instead of recognizing that we were supporting them the entire time, to our cost.
The other side can insist that non-whites invaders are good for the economy, and if we prove they aren't, then you get someone like Trump who wants every shitskin on earth to come to America as long as he's economically productive.
The problem with non-whites is not that they are not economically productive. The problem with non-whites is that when they become a majority after reproducing like cockroaches they will simply vote to take all our wealth away and kick us out of our countries. This happened several times during "decolonization". They kicked White people out of, for example, Algeria even if those White people had been there fore several generations and they settled the land.
Non-whites are an existential threat because they will either deport us or put us in camps or just slaughter us all once they have the power to do so.
egalitarianism is a lie. it always has been. western civilization back to the romans and greeks knew this and wrote about it. if people wanted to read about these ideas the books were always available. the vast majority of people chose to let jews interpret _our_ history and they read books written by jews about the "important lessons" we should take from our history.
They knew that individuals are not equal, which even cuckservatives acknowledge, but they didn't know about race.
The understanding of racial differences and genetic inheritance is something that was understood only at the end of the 19th century.
When Marx published his Communist Manifesto nobody knew about racial differences, I shit you not.
Egalitarianism is an idea that was developed in the 18th century, *before* the understanding of race, not after.