Does not Anti-White in only western white countries but not eastern white countries promote whites to move from the west (legal, drug)

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Checkmarkblue

Between the czar and the communist regime. The state Duma.

I couldn't live in Russia. Too many political issues to deal with. As many crazy things that happen in America, it's more democratic than Russia is. As much cynicism as I have regarding the division in America, I don't think Russia is the model everyone should emulate in terms of running a country.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Ken_N

Eastern Europe may ironically end up being the savior of Western Civilization.

I really don't get how that would be.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Ambitions people also tend to expect more out of life. When you're ambitious, you have a higher likelihood of not accepting "No" for an answer.

What do they expect? What do they really want? What were the "suffragists" really fighting for?

Originally Posted by green_mariner

What sucks about being poor is how hard it is to get out of poverty. What sucks is being set up to stay in poverty. Desperation does breed crime. However, if more people could get out of poverty and had hope of doing so, this would stop alot of problems.

Pretty much all of our ancestors lived in poverty. Who was happier, us or them?

And what is poverty? How much does it cost to live? What is the difference between poverty in the United States and in other countries? Is it better to be in poverty in the United States than in poorer countries?

What we call poverty in America is "relative poverty". It isn't that the poor can't acquire the basic necessities, but that they are poor relative to other members of society, and thus fall below a "decent standard of living".

So what then is rich? The rich in the future will certainly be richer than the rich today. And the rich of today are certainly richer than the rich of the past. Thus rich is not an absolute state, but rather a relative state. To the extent rich is an absolute state, it means having the means to acquire anything you want with little to no effort. Or to put it another way, it is a person who lives wholly or largely off the work of others. Thus there cannot be rich unless there are poor. The rich require someone to provide labor and services for them to enjoy.


When we examine the evils and miseries of poverty more closely, we'll see that it all stems from the same thing, inequality. Life without cell phones doesn't suck on its own, but it does suck when other people have them and you don't. Inequality is the seed of hatred and resentment.

This obsession with poverty is a waste of time. Not only because poverty is not as important as it seems, but because it distracts us from the greater evil, inequality. The reason we focus on poverty is because so-called solutions to poverty always mean more money for the producers and the distributors. Thus paradoxically, it is the rich who want to solve poverty far more than the poor, so long as they are in a position to profit.

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Here is the thing. We don't live in India. Most people don't want to live in a caste system. Being limited in what you can do according to what caste your in, that isn't freedom. It doesn't get you out of poverty. What matters most is being able to better your life. You should have the opportunity to better your life. Having freedom helps.

My point wasn't that a caste-system is good. My point was, people are happier where there is less in-group inequality, and where they are competing against fewer people. If there are two people, then there is one winner and one loser. If there are a hundred people, there is one winner and ninety-nine losers.

Imagine your slave ancestors. They had wives and families, big families, but how? Who would want to marry a slave? That's simple, another slave. But what if you were the only slave? Who would marry you?

A lot of people complain that slave-masters having sex with their slaves was rape, regardless of it was consensual, because of the "imbalance of power". But slave women mostly had sex with their white masters because they were rich and could give them better better conditions, better food, less work, or no work at all. So what is the fundamental difference between that and gold-diggers today? And isn't gold-digger just a fancy name for prostitute?

Furthermore, we have to look at the nature of a society. Throughout almost all of human history, we lived in small tribes/clans of extended family. Small groups tend to self-regulate. It is difficult to imagine many prostitutes in a medieval village. Prostitution is always and forever an urban phenomenon, where everyone are strangers, and thus feel no responsibility for anyone else. They're only out for themselves.

There is a huge difference between competing with your friends/family, and with strangers. Your family cares about you. Thus even if your brother wins, you'll likely benefit in some way. But if you're competing against strangers, they'll take everything and leave you with nothing. Thus the competition among strangers is necessarily ruthless, callous, and selfish.

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Blacks were not living separately because they wanted to. The rest of society restricted Black people because Blacks were despised and not wanted around, other than for transactional purposes. Blacks were still competing with White people, just in separate spaces.

I agree somewhat, but I also disagree somewhat. The primary motivation for most things men do is sex. To gain access to women we compete among other men for a position in society. The highest positions generally get the first choice of women.

If you're only allowed to marry black women, and black women are only allowed to marry black men, then your competition for sex is limited only to other black men. Thus whether Norwegians are richer than me doesn't matter to me as long as they stay in Norway.


With that said, I am not in favor of segregation. I am for separation. I hate this world of strangers. I want to create a world of family. But you can't have a world of family with 8 billion people all following their temporary economic interests wherever it leads them.

You seem eager to compete against me, but why are we together in the first place? Do you actually want to be with me? Why won't you just let me go? Is this your country? Is this your land? How did this become your land? What right do you have to anything?

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

What do they expect? What do they really want? What were the "suffragists" really fighting for?

Suffragists wanted to vote. They wanted a say in matters regarding the government, in matters affecting them. Same thing any American citizen would and should have.

Pretty much all of our ancestors lived in poverty. Who was happier, us or them?

I don't know. I don't think my ancestors were that much happier than I am. I look back at what they had, and what I have. I am happier to live today than back then. I can shout if I'm unhappy. I don't live in as much fear as Black people did back in the days of Jim Crow.

And what is poverty? How much does it cost to live? What is the difference between poverty in the United States and in other countries? Is it better to be in poverty in the United States than in poorer countries?

I cannot believe you would ask such a contrarian question. Everyone knows what poverty is. You know what it is. And I wouldn't want to be poor anywhere. Life is hard being poor. It may be harder being poor somewhere like India or Mexico than here. However, I wouldn't want to be poor ANYWHERE.

What we call poverty in America is "relative poverty". It isn't that the poor can't acquire the basic necessities, but that they are poor relative to other members of society, and thus fall below a "decent standard of living".

Being poor often means your quality of life suffers. Being poor means you will live is quite shoddy housing. The food you eat won't be that good. Go somewhere like rural Appalachia or some rural areas of the Mississippi Delta. Many places look similar to 3rd world areas.

So what then is rich? The rich in the future will certainly be richer than the rich today. And the rich of today are certainly richer than the rich of the past. Thus rich is not an absolute state, but rather a relative state. To the extent rich is an absolute state, it means having the means to acquire anything you want with little to no effort. Or to put it another way, it is a person who lives wholly or largely off the work of others. Thus there cannot be rich unless they are poor. The rich require someone to provide labor and services for them to enjoy.

Rich of the future may be richer than the rich of tomorrow. However, I wasn't even talking about being rich. I did talk about rising out of being poor.

When we examine the evils and miseries of poverty more closely, we'll see that it all stems from the same thing, inequality. Life without cell phones doesn't suck on its own. It only suck when other people have them and you don't. Inequality is the seed of hatred and resentment.

And where does inequality come from? It comes from not being able to raise one's self out of certain conditions. It often comes from barriers being put in place to make it harder for people to achieve. Life with a cell phone is getting harder. It's difficult to get a job (even an entry level job) if you don't have a number someone can call you at. Consider this. If you're poor and don't have a car, it's hard to get around. Many jobs are located in places where public transportation doesn't go to. Or in many case, some poor people live where no buses go (such as rural areas). Inequality is created when one group is favored over another. Jim Crow created alot of inequality.

This obsession with poverty is a waste of time. Not only because poverty is not as important as it seems, but because it distracts us from the greater evil, inequality. The reason we focus on poverty is because so-called solutions to poverty always mean more money for the producers and the distributors. Thus paradoxically, it is the rich who want to solve poverty far more than the poor, so long as they are in a position to profit.

No it isn't a waste of time. Poverty and inequality are linked. You can say what you will about some rich people. However, the reason poverty is an issue is because of the desperation that comes from it. Poverty and inequality are linked in the larger picture.

My point wasn't that a caste-system is good. My point was, people are happier where there is less in-group inequality, and where they are competing against fewer people. If there are two people, then there is one winner and one loser. If there are a hundred people, there is one winner and ninety-nine losers.

There will be winners and losers. However, one of the ways inequality gets created comes from people not being allowed the opportunity to compete. When you can't even compete, that creates inequality. When race determines whether or not you can compete or not, it becomes a bigger problem. And something you need to understand about the caste system. It is inequality in itself.

Imagine your slave ancestors. They had wives and families, big families, but how? Who would want to marry a slave? That's simple, another slave. But what if you were the only slave? Who would marry you?

Slaves were often sold off and separated from their families. This was a big problem. If one was the only slave, said slave got sold off. And there was plenty of inequality from the slave system. Slaves living in the rude shacks of the slave quarters while the master and his blood family lived in comfort. Inequality right there. How do you prevent any kind of resentment? You convince the slave that he is inferior and that slavery is his fate in life. You convince the slave that because of his skin color, he's destined to be a slave, and to make him accept his fate.

A lot of people complain that slave-masters having sex with their slaves was rape, regardless of it was consensual, because of the "imbalance of power". But the truth is, slave women had sex with their white masters mostly they were rich, and could give them better better conditions, better food, less work, or no work at all. So what is the fundamental difference between that and gold-diggers today? And isn't gold-digger just a fancy name for prostitute?

Well, when you are considered property, you don't get much say in terms of consenting to sexual relations. You just learned to accept what was. And alot of those "rich slave women" were often in Louisiana, and were known for being in "left handed marriages". They were lighter-skinned concubines. Most females slaves didn't even get this fate. I've read enough about slavery to know that what you're saying isn't totally correct.

Furthermore, we have to look at the nature of a society. Throughout almost all of human history, we lived in small tribes/clans of extended family. Small groups tend to self-regulate. It is difficult to imagine many prostitutes in a medieval village. Prostitution is always and forever an urban phenomenon, where everyone are strangers, and thus feel no responsibility for anyone else, they're only out only for themselves.

There is a huge difference between competing with your friends/family, or with strangers. Your family cares about you. Thus even if your brother wins, you'll likely benefit in some way. But if you're competing against strangers, they'll take everything and leave you with nothing. Thus the competition among strangers is necessarily ruthless, callous, and selfish.

There are times people within your own group will turn on you because of what you have. People who lived in clans tended to self-regulate voluntarily. And consider that back in those days, human movement wasn't as vast as it is now.

There are many cases where family members have turned on each other. Human beings will do horrible things even to their own families.

I agree somewhat, but I also disagree somewhat. The truth is, the primary motivation for most of the things men do, is sex. And to gain access to women, we compete among other men for a position in society. The highest positions generally get the first choice of women.

If you're only allowed to marry black women, and black women are only allowed to marry black men, then your competition for sex is limited only to other black men. Thus whether Norwegians are richer than me doesn't matter to me as long as they stay in Norway.

Sex isn't always the reason many men do what they do. In alot of cases, MONEY is the reason many a man do what they do.

Historically, the men of high positions married women of high positions. However, consider this. In many cases, it isn't always the men with the most money getting the women. I've seen it for myself.

If you aren't limited in terms of who you can marry, it might open you up to alot of competition. However, it will open other people up for competition. What if you don't fit in to the culture you live in? What if you get rejected by your own women? If you're not limited, you can always go somewhere else. With infinite freedom, there is infinite competition. But there are also more chances you could win.

With that said, I am not in favor of segregation. I am for separation. I hate this world of strangers. I want to create a world of family. But you can't have a world of family with 8 billion people all following their temporary economic interests wherever it leads them. Capitalism destroys communities and families. It must die.

What is really the difference between segregation and separation?

[ukrkoz]

Originally Posted by Ken_N

Eastern Europe may ironically end up being the savior of Western Civilization.

True. They already had it done MANY times. Buffered west from Mongols. Buffered west from Tatars. Helped quite a few western monarchs to fight their enemies.Napoleon wars. Beat him few times. Ottoman Turks. WW1. WW2. And I likely missed quite a few.
At least "Eastern Europe" is about the last civilized country that has some family and ethical principles left standing.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by Ken_N

Eastern Europe may ironically end up being the savior of Western Civilization.

I have considered this a lot the past few years. I think a case could be made for it. Of course, none of the eastern European countries are perfect, but most of them have lived through the hell of communism and hardcore socialism and they know what it's like. They (many of them) are moving away from it, whereas we smart Americans are moving towards it... thinking that the result will somehow be different than it has been every other time. (a good definition of insanity)

I've worked with several people over the years who escaped communism in the USSR and eastern Europe. Their eyes were open. Ours are closed. It's pretty sad when Russia and the former east block (at least much of the population who knows tyranny and wants no part of it) is trying to move in the right direction and we are trying to emulate the hell that was the USSR. Thinking communism 2.0 will be somehow better than communism 1.0

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

1) Suffragists wanted to vote.
2) I look back at what they had, and what I have.
3) And I wouldn't want to be poor anywhere.
4) The food you eat won't be that good.
5) And where does inequality come from? It comes from not being able to raise one's self out of certain conditions. It often comes from barriers being put in place to make it harder for people to achieve.
6) Life with a cell phone is getting harder. It's difficult to get a job (even an entry level job) if you don't have a number someone can call you at. Consider this. If you're poor and don't have a car, it's hard to get around. Many jobs are located in places where public transportation doesn't go to. Or in many case, some poor people live where no buses go (such as rural areas).
7) There was plenty of inequality from the slave system.
8) When you are considered property, you don't get much say in terms of consenting to sexual relations.
9) There are times people within your own group will turn on you because of what you have. People who lived in clans tended to self-regulate voluntarily. And consider that back in those days, human movement wasn't as vast as it is now.
10) Sex isn't always the reason many men do what they do. In alot of cases, MONEY is the reason many a man do what they do.
11) If you aren't limited in terms of who you can marry, it might open you up to alot of competition. However, it will open other people up for competition. What if you don't fit in to the culture you live in? What if you get rejected by your own women? If you're not limited, you can always go somewhere else. With infinite freedom, there is infinite competition. But there are also more chances you could win.
12) What is really the difference between segregation and separation?

1) Suffragists were just part of a larger feminist movement comprised almost entirely of middle and upper-class women who wanted political and economic power. I don't blame them, but they're no heroes.

2) You have more material things, more comforts. They had better relationships.

3) I would rather be a medieval serf than live on the southside of Chicago. I would rather live in a tent in the woods and eat unseasoned food than live on the southside of Chicago. What sucks about being poor in America is having to be around other poor people. It probably wasn't so bad to be poor in Sweden or Britain back in the 1970's, but now it is miserable, especially if you're white.

Reminds me of that George Carlin quote... "The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the sh-- out of the middle class. Keep them showing up at those jobs."

4) You'd be so lucky to eat like a medieval peasant.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVcey0Ng-w

5) Inequality is 100% natural. Even if there were no obstacles, there would be inequality. An anarcho-capitalist system would be even more unequal than America is today.

6) You need a car because cars exist. You need a cell phone because cell phones exist. But what if they didn't exist?

7) I was just using slavery and the caste-system to explain a concept pertaining to competition.

8) There were certainly many slave women who preferred to be a concubine because it afforded them special privileges. So while I agree that the slave system was by its nature coercive, many were basically the slave-equivalent of a gold-digger. Regardless, my focus was not on slavery, but the "imbalance of power". I was more trying to make an analogy to wealth-imbalances generally, and the concept of "hypergamy"(people want to "marry up"). Thus if you're a male slave, and you're at the bottom economically and socially, you would have very few options if not for the existence of female slaves, also at the bottom, in a time where miscegenation was illegal.

9) Families are far more likely to stab each other in the back today than in the past. Family isn't as close as they used to be, and people can basically get away with things because they can always go somewhere to escape any social consequences. My sister does meth and basically lives like a hoodrat criminal. But that is only possible because there is a whole swath of the city filled with people like her. If she lived with her family, separate from the rest of "society", she would have been a good person.

10) But why do they want money? Isn't the primary desire for money, women? You know, buying a big house, a nice car, etc, what's it for?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD0-Zo4ZnrQ

11) While what you said is theoretically true, if you look at the historical record, that is never what happens. But I think you misunderstand me. You're imagining New York City but where people only marry people within their own group. As I said before, I don't believe in segregation, it doesn't work. Either we must separate, or we must come together.

12) Separation means to live in a completely separate society/government/etc. France is separated from Germany(more so before the European Union). The Jews were segregated into ghettos in Medieval Europe. Blacks were segregated into their own part of town. But they still lived in the same society, had the same government, with the same laws, paid the same taxes, fought for the same Army, etc.

[ReineDeCoeur]

LOL @ this thread.

Originally Posted by Leona Valley

I understand the post. And he’s right. For example eastern Euro countries don’t tolerate illegal immigration and destruction of their own country and race. The west does. Why are western whites suicidal. Why are they afraid of defending their race from injustices? Or even talking about it?

I’m a first generation American. Parents and grandparents came from an eastern Euro country. Perhaps that was a mistake seeing the way things have been going in the U.S. in recent decades.

Eastern Europe largely stayed out of other people’s countries around the world. Western European descendants are not indigenous to the U.S. so they aren’t in the position to claim it all as theirs alone. Eastern Europeans, on the other hand, can do that in their nations. So since you think that it might have been a mistake for your parents and grandparents to immigrate to the U.S., will you be going back to your country of origin? Are you arguing that people of Western European heritage should do the same?

[geekigurl]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

to the east? Are liberals fighting for Russia while pretending to fight against it? The Pedophile who rigged the election is now helping Putin setup a pipeline while destroying and shutting them down here.

What the **** are you talking about?

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by ReineDeCoeur

So since you think that it might have been a mistake for your parents and grandparents to immigrate to the U.S., will you be going back to your country of origin? Are you arguing that people of Western European heritage should do the same?

In the some hypothetical world where all whites go back to Europe, it doesn't revert what has been done. It just hands the country over to some mix of Hispanics, blacks, and Asians. And while the Hispanics love to claim ownership of America. Aztecs and Mayans never owned any part of the United States. Spain did, and ruled over the various tribes, including peoples like the Pueblos and Navajos, but the Southwest tribes are not Mexican, and want nothing to do with Mexico.

So what should be done? The truth is, some kind of amicable separation is impossible. And the United States is too "mixed" geographically, and to some extent racially. Thus there are only two options. Either a complete political collapse, or the total amalgamation and assimilation of all the peoples of the world.