What are people going on about France for?
It's all France to the Conservatives.
The four received the Legion of Honor from the French President today. Well done, France.
Apparently it's all France to the French, as well? Or perhaps I was correct in feeling that, despite not happening within their borders, what took place here is intimately connected to France nonetheless. It is clearly being perceived as an event which happened to France even if it did not happen within France technically.
And I suppose the USA should remain the place where native americans are?
You mean North America? The United States is a white social construct. Prior to whites arriving and making a nation here, the Amerindians had no concept of this continent's dimensions, no sense of cohesion between one another, and existed largely as roving stone age bands of hunter gatherers who routinely committed genocide upon one another.
It was never destined to remain under the control of such people in the modern age, just as Australia was not going to reasonably remain under the control of its aboriginals. These were people that time forgot, and they were going to be pushed aside by someone. The only question was who. I'm very glad it was my group which got control of this continent because well, it's
my group and they objectively did some very amazing things here which the natives showed not even the slightest hint of ever being likely to do.
I am open about my use of double standards, by the way. I have allegiance to my group and I want to see the best for my group take place. I consider our civilization to be an upgrade to all but a select few others.
This sort of double standard is utterly commonplace. The same groups who complain about the history of white colonialism are currently colonizing Europe in the ways which they are able to get away with. People will make whatever arguments and engage in whatever mental gymnastics put their group in a more favorable position and gain them more influence, more territory, more power.
Human beings are tribal and biased. I see very little effort on the part of any nonwhites to even attempt to be even handed. That's pretty much a white thing. A suicidal white thing.
It bothers me deeply to see the ancestral lands of my group being filled up with outsiders. It bothers me significantly more to see that than it does to fret about my group displacing others in the past. Even if I were bothered by it, it's done. I can't undo what my ancestors did here or Australia or anywhere else. So because what's happening to my people and their lands is happening
now, it is obviously something which will draw my attention more. All of this is so incredibly natural and obvious. I have never made a claim that I strive for objectivity on this sort of thing. Objectivity is a crazy thing to expect on issues of identity and group survival.
I think it is probably hard for a dyed in the wool racist to understand, but seeing people as people means that such hateful feelings can be avoided.
Dyed in the wool is a term which designates someone as ideologically unmovable and tends to indicate someone who is, root and stem, that way and always has been. I was a hard core Marxist progressive and racial egalitarian until a few years ago. I don't think I qualify.
I see people as people. I also see them as biological beings who have variations like any other species does. I also value the preservation of those distinct differences, especially in relation to those of my own group.
More importantly, I understand human nature and history well enough to know that multiracial societies are absolute powder kegs and this is becoming more obvious all the time. Whatever you may wish or dream about humans' capacity to get along, reality merits a great deal of cynicism about this. Is the risk of balkanization, civil war, and blood in the streets worth pursuing what you hope can happen?
Have you ever worried that you might be overly optimistic and that people with your sorts of views are setting a lot of countries up for horrible conflict?
I certainly didn't worry about it when I had your sort of views. I was just convinced of my righteousness and impressed with how tolerant and progressive I was. I was also considerably less informed and worldly then than I am now.
lol
Very good come back to the redneck
Redneck? Not by any definition I've ever seen. I'm an educated, intelligent Yankee and I work (and have worked) in technical fields. Rednecks are typically lifelong conservatives whose views are based in nothing more than ignorance and fear and they are most clearly defined by the work they do and their culture. That work, in order for them to be a redneck, needs to be some sort of outdoor physical labor, typically. That culture tends to include country music, NASCAR and the confederate flag.
If you knew me, you'd be hard pressed to find someone further from that mark. The only qualification I fit is being white.
My views are the result of a great deal of consideration and agonizing. I did not reach them easily, quickly, or lightly. I did not
want to end up with the views I now have. I have frequently wished I could go back to thinking what I did before, because it was a great deal more comfortable and I was much less distressed about the state of the world and the look of the future.
I have no use for confederate flags, racial slurs, country music, or NASCAR. In fact, I really loathe all of the above.
I'm merely someone who has been forced to see things a certain way by the use of my logical faculties. If I'm wrong (and I sincerely hope I am, actually) then it is wrongness honestly come by and sincerely arrived at. It is by no means the result of mindless cowardice or knee-jerk fear of change and the unknown. Rest assured of that.
I can also guarantee you that there are a LOT of former progressives who are where I'm at now. I have met so many of them. We're seeing more all the time. You would be amazed, and no doubt frightened. A lot of people find it very comfortable to believe "racism" and nationalism are these dead things which exist only in a few very old people and are on their way out. Passed down only in extremist families. Oh how wrong they are. Brace yourself for a real shock as these kind of views become more and more commonplace. You will note that the converts are coming primarily from the ranks of progressives, not milquetoast conservatives. Just watch.
I recall that racists have been peddling this sort of bollocks for the last 50-60 years, usually claiming it would happen within 10-20 years. Time has proved them wrong.
I can't speak for what anyone in the past was claiming, and I don't care whether they had their time predictions wrong or not. If you have any sort of familiarity with the current birth rates of various groups, and the volume of immigration, then you know there is really no debate about what is happening.
Have you looked at the racial makeup of London primary schools? Or just the racial makeup of London itself? It's majority non-English at this point. That is absurd. Point me to the nonwhite city on the planet which has undergone or is undergoing that sort of complete transformation with the native ethnic group being displaced in that way.
It is openly acknowledged (and celebrated) by people on the other side of this issue, and by the mainstream demographers and governments, that the UK, the U.S, France, Sweden, Germany, etc. are demographically locked into patterns now which will make them majority non-white. Most of these projections say it will hit around 2050 for some of these places. I know that in the U.S. they've revised the time table for this multiple times, always making the projected date SOONER.
There is absolutely unprecedented mass immigration. Almost all European countries have native populations with below replacement birth rates. Governments which should be attempting to solve native birth rates with public information campaigns and tax incentives, are instead just deciding to "solve" the issue by replacing the populace through third world immigration.
Based on what a couple of you have said, am I to believe you think that any person who wants European nations to remain European in their populations, or at least in their majority populations, is a "racist" ? Would this be true of a Japanese person who wanted Japan to stay overwhelmingly Japanese, racially?
I'll take that as a compliment, and presume you also recognized it as the satire it was meant to be.
