RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Paul Ryan. Plus the spectre of losing.

So GOP heavyweight Paul Ryan and Donald Trump are now at each other. Seems the Dems just need to sit back and watch the GOP tear itself to pieces.

Now, lads, just suspend argument for a moment as to who is right and wrong in that particular shitfight.

With the "insiders" fighting the "outsiders", there is a massive drain on GOP momentum and resources in dealing with this. There is a month to go and the senior elected Republican official and the Republican presidential nominee aren't going to resolve their differences it seems.

Even the most buoyant of Trump supporters must now on this issue concede that with GOP efforts now directed by the party establishment towards maintaining House and Senate majorities, there is a respectable prospect that Trump might lose.

How do you guys feel about that right now?

Incidentally, as I might have explained, you three are the only direct access I have to Trump supporters, and I see no harm in learning your views. I might not agree but it does help me to understand (I confess have become even a little more sympathetic to American conservative feelings of betrayal by the GOP establishment).

I'm assuming I'm one of the three--unless you're talking about G'nort or LOCH HEXEN. Hope I'm right.

With all due reverence Dave, I don't think your problem is a dearth of samplings from Trump supporters. From my perspective, you're still trapped behind the filter of mainstream media outlets both in and outside of the US. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et al are bad enough without a majority of far left media outlets in pozzed Australia and Europe telling you what's going on under the presupposition that Trump is radically extreme, and thus not electable. You are extraordinarily handicapped, tbqh.

What most people outside the US are, surprisingly, unaware of is that Trump's rise has been motivated by representative betrayals on both sides of the isle. Trump's increased popularity has never been dependent upon the endorsement of career politicians in the first place. As such, it's a little vexing to claim that the republican party's lack of unity signals a death knell for Trump's campaign. I can't speak for Florida-Dave or G-Man, but I and a bunch of other republican voters I know personally lament the fact that Trump didn't try and challenge those cunts McCain and Ryan by endorsing their opponents Kelli Ward and Paul Nehlen--not to mention the fact that we're stuck with Rubio again. Taking these feelings toward republicans into consideration, it's rather difficult to argue that Trump challenging Ryan for his backstab is anything other than a plus for his anti-establishment pitch. Observing these circumstances, we can reason that it's more appropriate to distinguish "GOP momentum" from Trump's "momentum".

It's not an ideal situation mind you, but the voters themselves voiced their discontent for Ryan before Trump took to Twitter to make fun of his cuckoldry. So, while I'd say there is an increase in risk, it has more to do with Ryan and McCain's elections, and not Trump's.

Also, I should mention that what you're probably not gonna hear about overseas is that Clinton's campaign has been extraordinarily low energy. Trump is drawing crowds of tens of thousands whereas Hillary is struggling to fill up high school gyms.

Dave just curious as to what you sympathize with? I think Ryan made the calculation that Trump is going to lose badly and he's doing the best he can in damage control. Trump is Captain of the Titanic upset that his people are going for the life boats. Can't even lead his own party.

Australia-Dave, I don't see that you have a lack of ability to see what the facts are in the U.S. regarding Trump vs. Hillary. You have access from your keyboard to the same sources we read and watch.

As I think many of us have said abundantly in our posts, Trump has made some tasteless remarks, as compared to Hillary who has committed at least 4 different kinds of TREASON, and is therefore not only less qualified, but actually DANGEROUS to the nation.
If that's unclear to you, just re-read my posts for the last few days, where I've detailed that.

The problem is not only the Democrats, but also the establishment wing of the Republican party (the Tea Party wing being the lone opposition to the establishment wing of the Republicans). A dominant group of Republicans within the party that are in near complete collusion with the Democrats, even as they posture with faint noises of protest. So the majority of the two parties are essentially one party, controlled by globalists and campaign finance, subservient to globalist corporations that have no loyalty to the United States or its workers, and globalist idealogues like George Soros, the Wall Street banks, and the globalists in Brussels, Belgium. And the establishment Republicans, just like the Democrats, are enriching themselves by selling out to those interests.

Donald Trump stands in opposition to all that, and would destroy their profitable sell-out of the United States to foreign interests. That's why Trump winning terrifies the Republican establishment, and why they take every opportunity to cripple Trump, and claw at him tooth and nail.
Long before Trump was ever revealed to say something inappropriate, the same establishment Republican attacks were made at Ted Cruz, because like Trump, Cruz also represents a threat to their profitable partnership with the Democrats, selling out our country to lobbyists, against the national interest.
Former speaker John Boehner was overheard at a party saying he would prefer to have Hillary Clinton win than Ted Cruz. And several other Republicans have said the same. Despite having an (-R) next to their names, these are definitely not conservatives representing their constituents or Reagan-Conservative interests.

Trump is an outsider who can come in and clean up the mess made by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, and is the >>>>ONLY<<<< candidate of either party who has seriously addressed the 20 trillion (and rapidly climbing) national debt, the expensive limited foreign wars we're not allowed to win, the threat of Islamic radicalism, common-sense screening of muslim immigration, serious commitment to defeat ISIS, securing the U.S. border, finally stopping illegal immigration, policy that encourages business growth and jobs expansion, and policy that brings back factories and jobs that have left the United States.

The proper comments by Republican leaders, if they were really interested in Republican/conservative values and what's best for the nation, is to say they disagree with Trump on X, Y and Z, but compared to Hillary Clinton he is still the far better candidate, who is the ONLY candidate who will address the above issue, and both strengthen and unify the nation in the process.

Can you not see that the media is not demonstrating the slightest balance and objectivity, and are essentially a branch of the Hillary Clinton campaign?
As I've said often, every poll of the media for 50 years has manifested they are at least 80% liberal. And never more unashamedly liberal-partisan than under Barack Obama, and even more zealously so under Hillary Clinton.

Paul Ryan, McCain and the like are fronting a deception, and the media are perfectly willing, eager, to carry their water and advance Hillary's candidacy.

Deeply saddened that one of the most corrupt women to hold office in my lifetime, a person whose policies are extremely dangerous, will probably get elected president.

G you don't have to dig very far to see Trump is corrupt. He's bragged about buying people and his calls to change laws to go after the media make him truly a threat to our democracy.

You conveniently ignore Hillary actually having gone after the media (and political enemies) and her threats to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will allow her to do so.

Case in point: The three democratic appointees to the Federal Elections Commission have argued that books, movies, videos, etc., are not covered by the First Amendment and Clinton has promised that, if elected, she will propose a constitutional amendment in her first 30 days so that the First Amendment no longer can limit the reach of laws attacking political speech.

You're the one who started on Clinton and ignoring Trump. Read up on how he's conducted business and used his foundation. He's not losing just because he likes to grab pussy without asking.

I sympathise with the white, 50 year old men who have found themselves on the sharp end of the stick with regards to globalisation. Jobs are leaving to other countries and they don't have the ability or opportunity to skill up. Jobs that remain are taken up by younger people, often from other countries. I think that would be vastly unsettling and cause grief and anxiety, particularly for people with children to support.

People in that category (amongst others) turn to someone who promises them a world of relief from the causes of the pain. He doesn't articulate how (probably because he doesn't have any idea himself), nor how he will pay for it.

I really empathise with those people. My dad could have been one of them (he is what we call a fitter and turner - he worked with piping before he retired). If Trump does not win, then they are going to be even more angry and feel a sense of betrayal.

Anyway, no one has answered my question, just provided reasons why Trump won't lose and how biased my media sources are (and more on that in a moment).

I see a Trump supporter somewhere told Pence that if Hillary gets in, it would be cause for a revolution. Pence told her not to say that.

I see also that The Crusaders, an ultra right paramilitary group, were arrested last week. I suspect that they were pumped up in their beliefs by exposure to an increasingly virulent right wing press. They said that they would not even spare babies.

As The Economist pointed out last week, even if Clinton prevails in an election, then out of a population of 280 million or thereabouts, there are 30 million core Trump supporters who have been repeatedly told and believe that Clinton should be in jail. That makes it very difficult to achieve any sort of domestic agenda.

So let me rephrase the question. When Bush won the election in 2000, many Democrats despised him and his inauguration was best by people throwing fruit and whatever at his presidential limousine on his way to be sworn in.

What happens if Clinton is elected? Pariah, you have already foreshadowed that you think the election could be rigged, and Trump himself has been hinting at it.

Going back to mainstream media as promised... there are two issues here.

a. everyone hears what they want to hear. The fragmentation of news sources means that, as I read somewhere years ago, Jewish people can be three blocks away from Palestinian expats in the same city and read precisely what they want to affirm, and worse, entrench their own beliefs. It is like a sort of information Balkanisation. (I personally don't want to read the same thing over and over again. I like to have my assumptions challenged. I accept that this can be confronting to some people though.) I've personally been disappointed by the Washington Post and the New York Times in this election for being unabashedly anti-Trump. There is not a lot of dispassion in the reporting. The Melbourne Age and the Straits Times (Singapore) are regurgitating Post stories and editorials. China Daily and the Moscow Times (the latter is surprisingly judgmental about Russian politics) have been fairly quiet on the US election - the Moscow Times has been more interested in Syria. But, I have a friend in NY who is a Trump supporter, and when I follow the links she posts on Facebook about Trump/Clinton, there is the same, or even much less measured, views on Clinton.

My point is that it isn't enough to blame "the left wing mainstream media" for misleading people as to the current state of the election. The paradigm for reporting is such that you see what you want to see, you read what you want to read, and it feeds on itself.

The other part of it is that Trump supporters might be absolutely shocked if Trump loses. Trump supporters have been exposed to a never-ending, singular news cycle that Trump is winning, Clinton is losing and so on. The conclusion might be that the election must be rigged, simply because no other option other than success was in front of them for months and months.

b. Setting aside all of that, I am pretty confident with the accuracy of information such as the CNN poll. A small part of my job lies in verifying and arguing the statistic validity of surveys. When I read CNN polls and consider the methodology then those give me confidence that they are accurate.

Otherwise, aspects of the stories make inherent sense. Trump has pulled his campaign office out of Virginia which means that Virginia is almost certainly lost. Utah is wavering and because of the reasons for that this should be absolutely no surprise. Pennsylvania was won by Obama and despite blue collar job losses that will be tough to keep. Michigan might go Trump's way for the same reason as might Ohio (despite Kasich). Early in the piece, Trump thought that he might get wins in NJ and Mass., but that seems to have entirely fallen away. North Carolina seems gone - educated white voters and black voters. Florida may be gone because of the Latino community. Arizona might be gone because of McCain and a big Latino community.

The general sense is that Trump has been unable to broaden the Republican voter base, and much of that is policy driven.

I add, in closing, that if John McCain had been running again, my gut tells me that the GOP would easily have won. Popular with Latinos, outside the GOP powerbase to be popular with disaffected GOP voters, a war hero whose service to his country is beyond dispute... Given Clinton's gaffes, even I would have been in favour of a McCain presidency.

That I entirely agree with. I have no idea how the US government will dispose of that debt other than massive cuts to military spending.

Its a commonly cited fact that the US has a navy bigger than the next 20 navies combined, 19 of which are allies. It reminds me of Reagan's victory in the Cold war, which was not won on a battlefield but by bankrupting the Soviet Union in an arms race.




I was actually thinking earlier this morning that the entire thing is a GOP conspiracy to have a moderate, free trade, pro-big business Republican installed as president.

Is it nice and cozy in there, Dave?

For good measure...



Also, for the sake of completism, the original version of the Cave pic:

Has Donald Trump committed 4 different kinds of TREASON against the United States before he even potentially wins the election?

Hillary has.

.... still not answered my question. Pariah, you're starting to look evasive.

All contests have winners and losers. Trump might lose. Setting aside the probabilities of that, then, what are your immediate reactions to that prospect?

Yoo-hoo! Pariah?

Busy. Tomorrow.

Okey-doke.

Not beholden to your schedule, Dave. 13-15 hour workdays with ridiculous commutes don't make for perfectly punctual postings.

Pariah just out-Daved Dave when it comes to messageboard punctuality.

Now, you see, Dave, your tone here is exactly why it's been so hard for me to take you seriously lately. In large part because you, yourself have espoused or encouraged policies that have screwed over European-descended people in the first place--not to mention the very nations upon which they founded their cultures. You have a few choice quotes regarding immigration from the past few decades Dave, but these ones are most relevant to the context:



"Please! Let them come. We don't have enough people anyway!"



Replace the Japanese flag with any other flag belonging to Western Civilization and it's no less accurate. To make it more accurate for the West however, it would be appropriate to point out that intellectual authorities have not simply been using inflation to discourage white birthrates, but also socially engineered stigmas toward the family unit--stigmas that they wouldn't dream of pushing on non-Europeans. So when they--and you--encourage further immigration for the purpose of replacing a dwindling workforce, the intention is made clear that you're not simply scoring Social Justice brownie points by calling Euro-descendants "racists" and "xenophobes", but also serving to artificially breed them--and their cultures--out of existence.

You trying to say that you ever cared for the European phenotype when you've always been in favor of policies that sought to destroy it by means of fostering white guilt and ridiculously expensive, recession-inducing policies that deter white people from breeding--even as you emotionally blackmailed them into supporting all manner of poor, non-white immigrants who fuck like rabbits and eat up benefits--is absolutely fucking laughable. I'm not gonna lie, the first time I read this post, it pissed me off immensely and I had to walk away because I simply didn't want to deal with its insufferably superior tone or your attempt to appeal to a race that you've more or less forsaken in practice if not in conscience. I was less than motivated to respond.



Great cherry-picking. Now what about the violence at Trump rallies perpetrated by people who are overtly pro-Clinton and anti-USA (see also: Hispanics holding upon Mexican flags in Costa Mesa)? What about the people on Twitter saying that they're going to "join the resistance" if Trump gets elected? What about the firebomb thrown into the GOP office with the message stating that Trump is a Nazi? What about the guerrilla tactics employed by the Clinton camp that were designed to paint Trump voters has violent racists (as proven by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas sting) and, in effect, all but stating that it should be open season on Trump voters?

Didn't hear about any of that on CNN?



In which case, if it's true--and it fucking is--what exactly does that say about the election process? What does it mean when an overtly corrupt individual gets into office on the voter power of close to half the country, 95% of the media outlets, and all of the alphabet soup organizations within the government's arsenal? Would not the possibility occur to you that certain divisions have become irreconcilable by dint of a tolerance for the aforementioned corruption?

Lincoln had far, far less cause than we do now.



No need to dance around it, Dave. We're closer to Civil War than any other point in over the last 140 years.

Trump is assassinated. Civil War.

Clinton wins with only the Electoral College. Civil War.

Trump wins--by EC or popular vote or both. Civil War.

...Or massive riots at the very least. Except in the case of a Trump assassination. If that happens, the shit hits the fan.

Despite your implication however, none of these possible conflagrations will have anything to do with any inherently violent tendencies on the part of Trump voters. I say with absolute confidence that you have no evidence of a culture of violence on the part of the Nationalist Populist movement in either the US or Europe. All the violence has originated from the left.



Dave, by your own admission, there is no "news cycle that Trump is winning" since we're inundated with negative Trump coverage and skewed poll numbers. Your message is unclear.

Furthermore, I have to wonder if you're posing the same question to Hillary supporters since they are the ones enjoying "a never-ending, singular news cycle that [Hillary] is winning."

And by the tacit claim of your logic, all instances in which the accusation of rigging take place must necessarily be false and could only be meant to foolproof a campaign by virtue of galvanizing the accuser's voter base's perceptions. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz DNC emails proved that Hilldawg rigged the vote in California against Sanders. Counties in Texas are investigating massive voter fraud. Hillary supporters bragging about destroying mail-in ballots for Trump--And George Soros controls fucking Smartmatic voting machines for fuckssakes!



Unless you work for CNN and will personally vouch for the polling data and accompanying methodologies, there really isn't anything here for me to comment on beyond the fact CNN has proven itself to be totally untrustworthy and in the tank for Hilldawg. Examples:



On top of this, John Podesta's email revealed a list of reporters who Clinton specifically RSVPs due to their "influence", a significant portion of which are CNN reporters.

These people are not going to broadcast morale-killing, low poll numbers for Killary regardless of reality. CNN in particular has been oversampling democrats by over 9%. They, along with every other, MSM outlet have been ignoring certain voters who are going to vote for Trump after abstaining from the last 4 elections since their prior lack of participation disqualifies them from being considered likely voters.



On the contrary, Trump has mobilized more minority voters than prior GOP candidates--he's even got more Muslims voting for him than Romney did.



If this is what you really believe, Dave, then you prove that you have no idea what's really going on. McCain wouldn't have stood chance--especially not against Hillary. Republicans would simply stay home yet again, as they did in 2012. He is a part of the establishment and, therefore, a part of the GOP powerbase. He's also a total asshole who misbehaved before the enemy in Vietnam. Hilldawg would have taken advantage of that.

Gosh you're an odd man.

1.


In so far as that is comprehensible, an independent peer-reviewed citation please.

2.

This is an illogical chain.

First, please explain how the advocation of immigration leads to calling "Euro-descendents" "racists" and "xenophobes."

Where is the precise correlation between advocation of immigration and calling whites "racists and xenophobes"?

Please explain your logic succinctly.

Otherwise
a. White population is diminishing.
b. Solution proposed by me: immigration.
c. Pariah's conclusion: allowing brown people in will lead to "artificially breed [white people]--and their cultures--out of existence".

This is called a false dilemma. You say one must lead to the other, excluding all other scenarios.

This one is a cracker, the next jump from the false dilemma:



First, did I ever say I cared for the European phenotype?




Tee-hee. I'm a eugenicist! Citation, please.



Histronics.



I wonder what you think of African-Americans in that context? Or Hispanic-Americans? Because I think where we are going with this is that you like racial purity.

Dark-skinned people breed like rabbits.
They take taxpayer dollars through government benefits.
They undermine white culture.
Their breeding will lead to replacement of whites by people with dark skin - whites being bred "out of existence".
Whites should be encouraged to breed so as to not be overwhelmed by dark skinned people.

We're close enough to South Africa down here for me to have heard all of this before.

Oh, sorry, you have your unassailable shield of me emotionally blackmailing you and calling you racist and xenophobic because I disagree with you. This excuses you from listening and rationalising a differing perspective, and it on your logic prevents me from knowing an elephant from a zebra.



Once, you were a rational guy with out-of-the-box views which I found challenging and thoughtful. I think as you have become older, you have become less curious generally, but especially about thinking - even unorthodox thinking - which doesn't conform to your paradigm on life, and have transformed your intelligent suspicion into an insular paranoia. You've blinkered yourself to different views, and exclusively listened to your own views mirrored back at you by your peers. That's an unfortunate waste.

I'm tempted to go on at the risk of patronising you, but I recognise that the likelihood of you being able to take this on board and process it is remote. You are now, for the worse, unable.

The rest of your rant - not a reasoned response - seems unnecessary to address as it an equally irrational jigsaw.

You have vent your spleen, and not just refused to give consideration, you have utterly failed in persuasion - and indeed, having seen where your perspective on life leads I have no desire to drown in self-conceit and insulation.

There is no measured debate here. Accordingly, no need to respond, Pariah, although I'm sure you'll want the last message-board word.

I think this particular comment by Pariah bears repeating:



Project Veritas has backed this point up with the Nazi-esque Brownshirts working for the Democrats, on video boasting about their
attacks stoking violence at Trump rallies.

And after DNC and Hillary campaign people have disowned the orchestrators, evidence has revealed these leaders have long
relationships with the DNC leaders and Hillary campaign, and have even visited the Obama White House frequently.

And Pariah can answer on his own, but either ALL, or virtually all, of Pariah's points are answered in a book I've discussed extensively
here, with all the "independent peer reviewed citation" you could possibly ask for. Death of the West by Pat Buchanan.



Including a U.N. study in the second chapter of the decline of Europeans in first-world nations.

All tied in with globalism's stated goal of breaking the nationalism of nations resistant to submitting to globalization. One example
I can cite offhand is Quebec's long desire to secede from Canada. The only thing that has kept Quebecis from passing a majority vote
to secede is the massive wave of immigrants to Quebec, who unlike the French-Quebec natives see it as desireable to remain in
English-speaking Canada, and these immigrants blunted the vote to secede.

Undermining/destroying nationalism in nations to reign them into globalism is the stated goal of Strobe Talbott (a member of Bill
Clinton's White House cabinet) and other globalist/leftists, and bringing in masses of immigrants from third-world nations who are
indifferent if not openly hostile to white/European culture and national institutions is a perfect tool to bring this about.
It follows the goals of Globalists and Cultural Marxists perfectly. And it is part of the stated battle plan
of Cultural Marxists, as Buchanan lays out in the chapter "Four Who Made A Revolution". They openly plot to achieve cultural
revolution and destroy capitalism by partisanly bombarding the capitalist system with false attacks, until (despite the falsehoods
projected) the sheer volume of attacks that the capitalist/democracy system is inherently unfair and racist, that the new generation
culturally indoctrinated in its alleged unfairness makes them indifferent to defending it, and passively accept the new Marxist
social order (by whatever name) that replaces it. And its stated goal for doing this is to take over the pillars of culture to
indoctrinate this message, and overthrow the capitalist system with a coalition of the far left, and indoctrinated discontented minorities
of racial groups, gays and other discontents, to achieve power. This perfectly describes the campaigns of Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton.

As well as similar Marxist/socialist rises to power in Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina. All gave freebies to the brown-
skinned poor, and voiced similar hostility toward ruling whites, to "take back" their countries from white/European conquerors.

I know you like to mock and be dismissive of anything that doesn't gel with your own U.N.-centric globalist ideology, and dismiss
anything that counters that ostensibly globalist ideology as bigoted, racist, or otherwise ignorant or silly, but there it is
right in front of your face, if YOU choose not to be ignorant and closed-minded, and actually look at it.

Sure. While I'm at it, I'll dig up peer-reviewed citations as to why Hillary is a corrupt piece of shit--Oh wait, she hasn't been indicted, so you'll reject any conclusive statements on being corrupt.

As such, you'll probably reject, as evidence, every glaring example of state-sponsored population and social engineering programs that discourage the growth of families under the spectre of overpopulation (e.g. taxpayer-funded abortion and birth control) or Christian culture-shaming (see also: universally liberal hatred for the Duggar family), or the states telling illegal immigrant families that the taxpayers will support them and their subsequent children because they're poor and unfortunate even as the primarily white middle class (what's left of it) suffers heavy taxation and inflation, or Sweden and Germany actually telling its citizens to go out and mingle with migrants--who are counseled by the government on how to get them to fuck on the first date (with intercourse diagrams to boot).

You'd probably still tell the South Koreans that there's no evidence of the 8 Goddesses cabal since it wasn't a "peer-reviewed citation" that finally exposed them and Park to the entire country even though people have been making claims of its existence for years--and were called sexist conspiracy theorists for their trouble.





Succinct enough?



Fixed that for you. But, incidentally, the clarification just makes more apparent why your claim that immigration being a solution to the root problem doesn't make any sense. Instead of fixing the issue that caused the decline, you suggest swallowing a cat to catch the rat. This is opposed to the more logical solution of reversing policies that caused the decline in the first place.

You really think this decline just appeared out of nowhere? What am I saying, of course you do. "Beaver Cleaver and the Nuclear Family weren't sustainable!" On the contrary, they were. But Soviet-sponsored Critical Theorists wormed their way into Western Civilization's upper echelons of education and politics and told us otherwise under elite, unquestionable auspices, and therefore pressured us to engineer our cultural values and sense of tribalism out of our preconceived notions so that we'd always see ourselves as inherent oppressors (see alos: Feminist Theory, Race Theory, Gender Theory, Marxist Theory, etc.). Next thing you know you have Ivy League college professors telling white students that they have a duty to breed only with someone of a different race and political Twitter feeds that regurgitate hashtags such as #WeHateWhiteChildren and #OffWhiteOnly.

The sad thing is that I bought into that tune by listening to people like you and Whomod, and allowed you to craft a faulty narrative as a premise for me to operate upon for over a decade: "Well, yeah, the Crusades, Colonialism, Nazis, Apartheid, Rhodesia, Confederates, Aboriginal Genocide....but...." and then I'd give ground under misapprehension when the reality is that I was never in the wrong.



Okay, so you sympathize with the downtrodden white man because he could be your father--as someone with the same facial features and skin color as you--but you're going to imply that your sense of tribalism demarcates at some point before the phenotype?

Or are you simply implying that you don't care for the European genetic signature at all (which wouldn't surprise me since liberals are notoriously self-loathing cucks), and that any attachment you feel as a white man to any other white person is somehow irrational (read: racist).



You think high taxation, massive inflation, subsidized birth control, etc. don't deter families and population growth? Have you even been paying attention these past hundred-plus years? We slid down the slippery slope and crashed straight into a dimension where all of the end results of decades of liberal policies are exhibited in full display and horrifying detail. It won't be denied.



Yeah, I noticed you used permutations of that word quite a bit. But you don't get to throw around pejoratives such as "xenophobe" without being guilty of attempting to influence people's behavior by socially shaming them into submission.

"Oh. You're against immigration? Then you're a xenophobe. That's not an insult or a critique mind you. I'm just making an objective observation--even though, of course, the accusation may be enough to get you unemployed. Have a nice day. Hey honey, get a look at the xenophobe!"



And now you're going for broke.

I make an observation that minorities, and they're rapidly growing families--and illegal immigrants--the vast majority of whom are characterized by non-whites--are the primary recipients of welfare and tax benefits for which the primarily (dwindling) white families have had to foot the bill--and, incidentally, they're also the root cause of crimes committed against whites. Conclusion: I like racial purity.

The US has a root culture. That root culture consists of white Americans--and a fairly decent portion of Asians. To this day, that culture has served as both the bread-basket to, and a common bulwark for, every other subculture in the US. This arrangement both rewards those subcultures for being dependent and gives greater accommodation for them to reproduce since their medical benefits are covered by safety-net programs that are financially supported by the root culture. Needless to say, this creates an artificially-produced strain on the white root culture and dissuades them from investing in furthering their own families, property, or business endeavors.

I've mentioned this before, Dave. I can't remember if you responded or not, but it bears repeating regardless: in the US, it isn't just folks like myself who are bothered by the shrinking number of Euro-Americans, it's typically the non-white legal immigrants that show up in the US that tell me they're scared of the receding Anglo-majority because Hispanics, Asians, and Black Americans tend not to get along with each other as subcultures in the US. Once the root culture--which is characterized by European Americans--is gone, you're only left with these tumultuous, friction-laden subcultures. In fact, legal Hispanic/Asian/Black immigrants tend to be the only ones to point this out since whites are conditioned to either disregard or simply not notice it.



Welfare-recipients tend to breed like rabbits. These individuals just so happen to be dark-skinned. If the situation were reversed, it would be just as unjust.

Ho-ra!





Are you really going to dig the hole deeper by mentioning South Africa? After Mandela oversaw the slaughter of whites--and his legacy continues to oversee that slaughter with rape, murder, inflicted poverty, and intimidation of the few whites that are left (might as well be talking about Rhodesia as well)? If people in South Africa are saying what I'm saying, they're spot on--And they're in a good position know it too since they watched their prosperous nation turn into a third-world country just so people would stop calling them racists and imperialists. They committed suicide for the sake of people with mindsets such as yours.

Ironically, if someone were to tell you that the Israelis were making a calculated effort to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, you'd probably buy it outright. But since you've been raised and taught to believe that your skin color makes you inherently evil, it's just too difficult for you to wrap your mind around the idea that anyone could want to ethnically cleanse your own race.



I listen to what you say, Dave. I always have. The issue tends to be however, that your perspective is so theory-laden and needlessly complex that I couldn't even begin to entertain it as fact. What bugs me is that your ilk tries to hide that complexity by wrapping it in simple terms (e.g "racist", "xenophobe") that seemingly say everything while explaining nothing in the process.



Word.....


...But seriously.

Instead of critiquing my character, I think you should just come to terms with the fact that you said something that made me explode at you, then consider exactly why I find it to be so outrageous, and move on. But in the interest of tit for tat...

Intelligent suspicion (assuming I was ever intelligent to begin with) must reach a point of reconciliation or you become forever adrift in theoretical uncertainties, decidedly unconvinced by anything since absolute truth exists as an anathema to relativistic ambiguity as a philosophical principle. As a subscriber to Nicomachean ethics, I've always been out to find absolute truth and I've gotten closer to it over the past few years.

I would argue that you, on the other hand, have progressed very little in the years that we've interacted. As far back as I can remember you've subtly taken positions that are popularly affirmative and tend to adopt the typical oppressor v. oppressed binary, which are characterized by any number of permutations alluding to social justice (off the top of my head, Israel v. Palestinians, State v. Illegal Immigrants, Traditionalists v. Gays, West v. Islam, Whites v. Everyone). You then proceed to go into semi-drawn out spiels that usually emphasize theory of practice instead of saying one way or another whether it's good or bad before ultimately arriving at a conclusion that's metarelational to your criteria. I don't necessarily have a problem with your chosen format, but you tend to try to play this game both ways by neither affirming the validity, or denying the veracity, of what is said contrary to your inductive argument, thus preserving your relativistic tone even amidst material evidence that contradicts your deconstructive approach. Suddenly, everything said by someone else--who doesn't favor postmodernism--becomes "unconvincing" and "extreme". And, of course, the only conclusively wrongheaded argument is the one made from an absolute position that doesn't acknowledge your proffered social justice binaries. If any material evidence is brought to bare that contradicts your point of view, your immediate reaction is to type out a laundry list of logical fallacies that address its concrete nature as though its an abstract despite the fact that its substantive. Taking, for instance, the Stars and Bars thread, in which you challenged us to justify even having a public discussion about flying the battle flag: you were provided with extensive historical evidence that demonstrated how there can be no inherently racist or white supremacist meaning attached to it beyond pop-culture labeling. In the end, this evidence was irrelevant to your agenda and you typed out a post that justified taking it down on the grounds of a critical public perception that emphasizes feelings and operates irrespective of hard evidence, which is the exact same sentiment that gave Dylan Roof the impetus to go on a killing spree under that flag in the first place.

Ignoring this antipathy for hard evidence, your postmodernist armor has some pretty severe chinks otherwise. As open as you claim to be to positions that defy what you perceive to be beneficial to the oppressed underdogs, you have a tendency to pick and choose your underdogs according to the antecedents of popular social justice narratives with which you've deigned to shape your weltanschauung. When it comes to a point that a given oppressed or disenfranchised group decides to think for themselves and divorce their ilk from the establishment, you become less than supportive since it's the very source of your chosen intellectual paradigms that becomes a casualty in the war of ideas. Suddenly, your underdog fixation breaks down when we breech the subject of Brexiteers, Populist Nationalist Trump-supporters, and rape victims of Muslims, all of whom are designated as silly and myopic whose woes and pursuits are irrelevant to the larger agenda. It's an outrageous reversal that, interestingly enough, manages to fly without violating your relativistic principles.

Early in the twentieth century, the paradigms to which you have espoused rose to power by pushing the oppressor binary and assigning a grand narrative of subversion to the so-called "have nots". For a hundred years, it was all about taking ill gotten power from the high brow, overfed tyrants characterized by the moderate to right wing establishments. Needless to say, it has worked. But now that the same Critical Theorists who pushed that narrative have siphoned the power and resources from the previous establishment to the extent that they are now the elite, there's less concern with the same "oppression" lip-service that put them in positions of authority and influence. As time has gone on, they've managed to flip the binary so that the working class are no longer the oppressed, but rather the unenlightened, uneducated, and intellectually unworthy masses, whereas the limousine leftists are enlightened, educated, and more fit to rule over what they view to be the unwashed and unruly folk. But despite this deconstructionist 180, they still get away with it–-as usual--since you've managed to convince the masses that whoever defies the enlightened are inherently oppressive in their ever prevalent ignorance and defiance. It's a magic trick, but it's a good one. I'll give you that.

You're not impressed with me, Dave. Fine. But please keep in mind that I have been less than impressed with you of late. While it was the lies fed to me by my boomer parents that set the world up for destruction, it was your and G-man's generation that solidified the narratives pushed post World War II. When World War III hits, all of my blame is going to be directed at both he and you.

Okay.