Liberals: An Observation

Liberals seem to have no premise for anything they say. Their arguments will leap from premise to premise as long as it supports diversity.

For example, they’ll cite history if it supports diversity. I had a liberal tell me “If the white people didn’t want diversity, then they shouldn’t have brought the blacks over in chains”. So I pointed out that the blacks weren’t brought over to create diversity, the blacks were brought over as little more than farm animals, to do manual labour. They weren’t supposed to be citizens, and most white people wanted them shipped back to Africa after they were freed. I pointed out that the Founding Fathers didn’t envisage America as a rainbow melting-pot of diversity, they envisaged it as a white country, an off-shoot of Europe. And then all of a sudden he tells me “I don’t give a shit what the Founding Fathers wanted, they were racist pieces of shit”. Hang on, you seemed to care a great deal about what historical white Americans wanted when you thought they wanted diversity. Now suddenly you don’t care what they wanted.

He also said I was a “racist” because I opposed diversity. But he wasn’t neutral on the subject of diversity, he thought diversity was superior to homogeneity, he actively wanted more racial diversity. He wasn’t just indifferent, it was an active goal for him. so race did matter to him. Isn’t that racist too? Why is it “racist” to say racial diversity is bad, but not racist to say racial diversity is good? The neutral, non-racist position would be “racial diversity is no better or worse, so I don’t particularly support or oppose it”.

If you think race doesn’t matter, then surely your position on racial diversity would be indifference? How can you say that race doesn’t matter, and then say that we need more racial diversity? The positions are inconsistent. If someone was really non-racist, then they wouldn’t mind a racially homogenous country, since race doesn’t matter.

Liberals also seem to conflate totally different groups of people. Like they’ll raise the issue of the Native Americans and the blacks, and say things like “the Native Americans were here first”, and “the blacks were forced to come here, so it’s white people’s fault”. Now that’s fine, there is a debate to be had about the Native Americans, and there is a debate to be had about the black slaves. But this has NOTHING to do with a bunch of Arab, Somali, Chinese, Mexican immigrants entering the modern US today! America was about 90/10 white/black, with a few Native Americans. But Liberals look at that and say “look! diversity! we were always diverse!”. If 90% white is diversity, then I don’t have a problem with diversity. But liberals obviously don’t mean that.

It’s true that the Native Americans were there first. But no one’s complaining about Native Americans being there. No one’s complaining about Native American immigration. It’s true that the blacks were taken to America 400 years ago. But the black immigrants arriving from Africa today aren’t being forced. The Arabs aren’t being forced. The Mexicans aren’t being forced. So let’s have an honest argument here, one with a consistent premise. And let’s not just say “diversity” for any and all ethnic groups. Australia had Aboriginals, then whites. But until 1973 it had a White Australia immigration policy. So one racial majority and one racial minority is not “diversity” the way the liberals want it.

Although, this particular liberal I’m talking about also keeps telling me he doesn’t know anything about other countries and doesn’t care about other countries, he only cares about his own country. While also telling me he’s against countries and thinks we shouldn’t have borders. He says the American borders are “imaginary”, but they seem to exert a very real influence on his concerns.  That’s the problem with American liberals, they think America =  the world. So if white people are the majority in America, they must be the majority in the world. If white people have white privilege in America, they must have white privilege in the world. What I’m trying to explain to you is that it’s okay for there to be some countries for white people, because there are other countries for non-white people. We don’t want to rule the world, we just to rule our own countries.

Complaining about White Privilege in White Countries makes as much sense as complaining about Fish Privilege in the ocean. If you don’t want to live somewhere with Fish Privilege, don’t move to the ocean. Fish Privilege isn’t everywhere, nor is White Privilege. Isn’t it interesting that White Privilege is apparently so evil, but everyone wants to live in the places it exists? Maybe white privilege is good for a country, it seems to correlate very strongly with stability, prosperity and freedom. If white privilege is so bad, then the world’s immigrants would be queuing up to get into enlightened, modern, non-racist countries like Somalia and Pakistan. But they’re not, they’re queuing up to get into countries with white privilege.

This is the guy I was debating with. A self-proclaimed Christian Anarchist.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Liberals: An Observation

  1. Bobby J says:

    That kid is your typical brain-washed white teen. A product of the public school system and mass media. Notice please that only whites have drank the self-hatred kool-aid.

    Two quick points:
    1) Only non-whites benefit from diversity. It provides nothing good for whites.
    2) A study of human sociology and anthropology ultimately arrives at an undeniable truth — that all people need their own countries composed of their own kind. Nations have borders for good reason.

  2. RP says:

    I saw he prompted you for more and more personal info. It may have been so general that it’s ok, but remember, these “Antifa” sorts have NO problem w. violence, especially VAW. If you say anything against mass migration, you know, you’re this and that name, so it’s ok to do just about anything to you. And they go on to condemn violence. It’s completely schizophrenic.

    It reminds me of a friend of mine who goes on and on about how wgays need to be able to get married, there are thousands of rights and benefits conferred by marriage- oh, but, “I would never get married.” You see, it’s only ok if it’s non-traditional, if it’s an attempt to deconstruct society. I don’t particularly care if it is allowed, since they are such a minority. My issue with my friend’s mentality is that this person really doesn’t believe marriage is necessary at all- if it’s so unimportant, who cares? There is no way to embrace such a contradiction except that one has accepted it through programming.

    • RP says:

      Another thing this person argues vehemently about is bringing back the marriage requirement for public assistance. Vehemently against it, that is. Only those widowed, divorced in some cases (esp. if the husband leaves) or fleeing domestic violence would qualify. I don’t even think giving it to single parents who suddenly become unemployed would be that bad- the biggest problem is with setting up teens and very young people as single heads of household who have no means of being a household and no experience working- little inclination to do so, either. You can’t really be a head of household if you don’t have the means to pay for yourself. Having a child unmarried is the best way (statistically) to become poor and stay that way. Look at the composition of the poor- lots of young women and children.

      American blacks have been thrown into total disorder because of this. There is actually a documentary on Netflix called, “What Black Men Think.” You should watch it and tell your little “anti-racist” buddy to watch it. Blacks tell the story themselves- in the 60s civil rights, all the MAJOR barriers to achievement were won- hands down. Now I’m not saying people could ever “just get along” (when and where has that ever happened in a significant and prolonged way, right?) But they got what they wanted, but continued along with the hippies to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Marriage and legitimacy rates were both over 80% among blacks, but then, “if it feels good, do it” and welfarism came in. One interviewee explains that there were 2 schools of civil rights (the film is US based) one was, “Leave us the heck alone so we can get on with our lives,” and the other was welfarism. Lyndon Johnson explained it as a footrace where the larger society would be perpetually responsible to support the “disadvantaged.” With welfarism, almost the entire current generation of young blacks were born out of wedlock, 80-90% in the US. This is far more destructive than even divorce- this is a total failure to form families in the first place. Most of those 80-90% were born to mothers on assistance and born into poverty. When Antifas and “anti-racists” ponder the achievement gap, they should always be reminded of this. “Privilege” and racism are not the main things contributing to black poverty in America TODAY, or even a significant factor. Blacks had better health, social, education, and criminal outcomes before the state ruined their chances of any real independence w. welfarism. Even Jim Crow did not achieve the destruction of the black community in this way. It’s important to remember at this point, as well, that whites are becoming losers, too, through welfarism. The socialist globalist welfare mongers wouldn’t be able to continue to flood the west with immigrants if a significant portion of whites did not support it. 40% of whites are now born out of wedlock in the US, also much higher than ever before. So there are a lot of people voting themselves a check. The checks and food stamps artificially cushion the public from noticing that the elite continue to move their factories, etc., elsewhere. Along with political nationalism being bad, economic nationalism, even in minor forms is considered worse- and a totally globally inegrated economy that the elite can milk for labor, resouces, and whatever else they want is the entire point. Nationalism of any kind detracts from this scheme. Socialism and welfarism w/o mass immigration would eventually incapacite the west. But importing tens of millions of non-western immigrants is only going to speed up the process.

      Now people will say about single mums “What will they do?” When you give something, people will take it, so what they will do is first adjust their thinking. People will, largely, do just fine because illegimacy rates will drop, maybe not as low as they were before the 60s and 70s, but they will go back down. It doesn’t have to happen overnight so that we render people on aid homeless- but more importantly we have to make sure that eligibility for new people is cut off. Old participants should be transitioned- that means the people we have need jobs- sorry, we can’t take any more.

      When everyone knows that having an “oops” and then a kid on aid is no longer incentivized, indeed not even an option, people will, for the most part, adjust their behavior. I don’t think all unmarried people will stop being sexually active, but some will, and at least it will become acceptable. And those who continue will be forced to actually use the free birth control the government throws at them. (Have you ever noticed that liberals think education will solve everything? Apparently that’s not true when you go and incentivize the very same thing.) There are actually lots of things people can do- use birth control, have an abortion, give up the child for adoption, get married, live with parents, or, if necessary get several jobs. It’s not like the 18th century where you’d get fired from your factory job like in Les Miserables or something. People have more rights and education than they have ever had in human history. Not all of this is bad (very few people want to go back to the 19th century wholesale.) But having the ability to exercise those rights beyond what you can pay for through subsidies means, in this case, an artificially created underclass. And it means forcing the taxpayers to pay, eroding their wealth while the transnational elite don’t seem to be getting any poorer.

      Anyway, my friend’s defense of the idea comes down to “discrimination” against the unmarried. Sorry, not paying for someone to live is now discrimination?? People today have enough autonomy to have all the options I mentioned above. Not all are acceptable to everyone, or easy. But if you think about it in terms of overall suffering, denying the few who would pay no attention to all the ways they can avoid being in that situation is far better than creating a whole generation of poor, dispossessed children, as well as subsidizing immigrants and hostile minorities to have more children who will hold whited responsible for their poverty (not their ancestors poverty) no matter what you give them or for how long. Such individuals will not be happy until the west is flooded and whites are 5 or 10% of the population. But when the white middle class is gone- who is going to pay the welfare checks then? The elite who will have total control by then?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s