Consume Product

Rest assured that in some other context she would say: 'Whites are illegally on stolen land built by stolen labor', even though that blatantly contradicts this context-dependent claim that 'no one is illegal'.

This is Schrodinger's indigenous land: 'nobody is illegal on stolen land' but 'Whites are illegally on stolen land' at the same time.

Thus, the context-dependence: when non-whites want to stay on land, e.g., non-whites in America: 'Nobody is illegal'. But when Whites want to stay on land, e.g., Whites in that very same America: 'Whites are illegal'.

Flip-flop between these two mutually contradictory positions as context demands it.

Why are these mental gymnastics required? What they really want to say is something actually non-contradictory: 'Nobody is illegal *except* Whites', but that raises all kinds of issues in a country where such things as equality and non-discrimination remain ideologically valued. Furthermore, isn't everyone legitimized by an illegitimate people and government also illegitimate? How can an illegitimate White regime legitimize anyone else? How can criminals write laws? Thus the legitimacy of all non-indigenous non-whites, whose legitimacy was conferred by the illegitimate White regime, is completely fraudulent.

Hence this sort of beating around the bush and non-whites not saying what they would really like to say to the Whites, which is: 'We don't care about you or the indigenes. Or who is illegally or legally here. We just use indigenism as a cudgel to beat you with. Same with arguments about legality and illegality. We want this land for ourselves, because the money and material in it is vastly superior to anything that we can come up with on our own.' If they come out and admit this truth, it opens up all kinds of issues that anti-whites would rather not have to deal with, so they seem to be stuck making all kinds of mutually contradictory Schrodingerian arguments and celebration parallaxes as they bide their time, waiting for their numbers to grow and their power to increase, at which point they will better be able to say what they would really like to say.

Now, *everyone* who is 'on stolen land built by stolen labor' - except the indigenes - should be regarded as 'illegal'. If that encompasses the Whites, well, guess what? It also encompasses all of the other non-indigenous non-whites. It's all or none.

'Delishia Porterfield' doesn't sound like an indigenous name, furthermore, she looks African-mixed. Time to get off of that stolen land, malevolent, mutant-looking, mongrel mud mutt. True decolonization doesn't just mean that 'racists' or 'Whitey' must leave: it means that *all* must leave. Chinx, niggers, spix, yids, and all the rest need to bugger off so that whatever is left of the feather Indians can roleplay as Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, but with the material and money of the Whites, which they wrongly think they can maintain and improve upon in their absence. Chiefs Crazy Car and Sitting Truck.

And, of course, none of these non-indigenous non-whites would want that if they realized the full implications of true decolonization, because they simply benefit from being on that land far more than Whites do. Whites can live and prosper almost anywhere, like the Oranians in the desert parts of South Africa. This woman, by contrast, lives best when Whites live around her on 'stolen land'. Doesn't she realize that she and others like her are the biggest beneficiaries of colonialism?

These idiots are too stupid and short-termist to realize that they're biting the only hand that will ever feed them. Of course, the Whites are almost as stupid and short-termist for feeding them. Don't you realize that the descendants of these people will one day attempt to slit the throats of your own?

Those Whites chose to live in the desert in part because they knew that the niggers they wished to escape wouldn't even drive out there in convoys for the purpose of attacking them - like the EFF threaten but are too lethargic to attempt - let alone march or live there. That is smart. What is stupid is allowing such a situation to ever develop in the first place, such that you feel that the most inhospitable part of the country is also the most hospitable part left available to you: you only arrive at that conclusion once you have already lost everywhere else.