Analgesic.Spectre

Damn, what's up with "invaders" "pests"...?! You mean immigrants. 

Without recent immigration, the US's population may only be +200 million instead of the +300 millions it is today. If the US wishes to compete in the future economic stage it must maintain a large population. in a couple decades 3 other countries (namely, Indonesia, Pakistan & Nigeria) will surpass the US's current population. Without immigration, it's unlikely that the US would've been able to overwhelm the USSR or Japan as it did in the 90s, or compete with the EU.

Besides, haven't we heard the same being said about the Irish when they came, & then the Italians as well. 

So it's a question of constituency & voting potential? Don't illegals have no right to vote?

This would've made more sense if you were talking about a European country, but North America is not a White native territory, virtually everybody there is an immigrant at some point. 

But again, this isn't an immigration issue at heart, it's a post-modern issue in the West. Despite having a 1/3rd of its population from immigrants, Saudi does not rule by democracy & does not have things like "freedom of speech".

Those were natives mistaken for Mexican immigrants.

Regardless, your contention here touches on a much deeper issue, these are just symptoms. It's the whole system that the West has gotten itself into...

It's not a 'Paris' thing or an 'African' thing, it's a tourist thing. & I can tell you, it's way worse than Paris in some of these places. You simply should never buy stuff from tourist areas, with the exception of food. What does that have to do the wall? 

I agree with some of this, but there will DEFINITELY be much more shooters like this. The inter-political divisions within the West pretty much necessitate it. If you've read the manifesto like I have, you've seen his stated goals. He's not wrong about the political state of the West, and our news media and political pundits are doing exactly what he said he wanted them to do. Their response is going to be a purge of right wing people from Twitter, Reddit, and other platforms. They will clamor excessively to it, and the platforms will cave. The decadent, neoliberal ruling class has legitimately gone insane; they seem to think that once they get a gamergater, a Nazi, a trump supporter, and a traditionalist Christian kicked off of twitter those people just... disappear. Out of sight, out of mind. They don't, they fall into the underbelly of the internet, and they all start talking to each other, and as they fall further and further through the cracks the Nazi has a more and more outsized voice among these outcasts. That's just human nature; people who feel cornered are much more receptive to hatred of the outgroup. I'm sure that over the next few months, more and more people are going to be pushed into radicalization echo chambers, and that the alt right will only grow because of this. They also might try to push gun confiscation, which in America will absolutely stoke the very sentiment that they are trying to stamp out.

I don't think that's accurate at all; if it were, phenomena like the Cagots would never have existed. In reality, the group which presents the biggest threat to rural whites (the majority of whites) are urban whites.

Black people, on their own, would not be pushing for massive Latin American immigration. They have no reason to want that. They certainly want more resources and political autonomy, but its simple self-interest. The real danger to working class whites are the urbane bourgeoisie liberals who control the means of production and want a proletariat class which is as divided, materially desperate, and impoverished as possible. Those are the people who have all of the incentives to provoke ethnic replacement and economic disenfranchisement. These are the people who materially benefit from said division, and from the exploitation of cheap labor.

Every intense ethnic hatred is borne towards the proximal, not the distal.

The Germans didn't hate the Japanese with a genocidal passion, they hated German Jews. The Soviets hated the Kulaks, the English hated the Irish. And the American upper class hates rednecks. The idea that vastly disparate cultures hate each other and compete more intensely is bunk; that only happens when community boundaries are dissolved (which, again, the urban whites do against the wishes of all communities involved. Look at the history of busing in Boston.)

White working class people, very rightly, don't see white people who are part of this country's privileged power structure (but hilariously larp as socialists) as 'brothers'. Those people hate us from on high, and they want nothing more than for us to die pathetically. The only black people who think like that are the ones who have, through social climbing and 'bourgeoisization', embedded themselves into our decadent urban power structures and alienated themselves from their own communities in the process. But that's not your average black person; most black people have simple self-interests which can be reasonably appealed to (like any healthy human being does).

Trying to make racial appeals to a class which, for hundreds of years, has been bounded by a clan-based ideological system and haunted by a deeply-rooted, cultural fear and loathing of anything which is rural or rustic, is insane. I'd gladly join arm in arm with any group which wanted to tear these degenerate Brahmins down from their ivory towers and neutralize them.

Money aside, why do you support the wall? I've come to realize that it's rarely ever about money, though makes for a good case. 

People do not as a rule sneak into the country on foot or by camelback they come via internal combustion vehicles.

Seating vessels and aircraft will not be hindered by a wall in any way and the cast majority of land vehicles must go through customs to get into the country. I think 5% is an unrealistically high expectation.

And you would know how. A bill of rights does not bestow freedom of speech, go ask MLK jnr. You numpty.

Locks only stop honest people numpty.

A large percentage of illegal immigrants arrive to the country by airport or sea port and simply overstay their visa. www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/aug/24/kevin-mccarthy/mostly-true-visa-overstays-account-half-all-people/ there is no point in discussing the economic social or political ramifications of building a huge impractical and exorbitantly expensive structure if said structure lacks efficacy.

Shaddup and answer the question.  

MORE than half the illegals here are because they overstayed a visa, dimwit. 

My lack of confidence is born from watching Israeli forces -continue- to battle (literally battle) an group of militarized (wonder how that happened....) forces outside said walls.  That and this new fangled thing called "ropes", "chains", and "internal combustion engines".  

You are asking for the largest modern day edifice yet built by man to be manned.  24 7.  Please don't let that escape your thinking.

You need to pay people to patrol the wall.  That is the bottom line.  Said people will cost money, for as long as you would like to keep disastrous policy in force.

Both legal and illegal immigrants are human beings and human beings tend to.use vehicles as their primary means of transport. Vehicles like planes and boats. Most immigration (legal or illegal) will be completely unaffected by any wall fence ditch or moat we decide to construct.

Fraser Anning, Poorlean Handmedown. If Aus didn't have free speech you wouldn't hear from those fascists.

America is fairly unique in its unregulated approach to hate speech among other 1st world countries. This indicates to me that regulation of hatespeech is more of a 1st world policy, or at least there's an equivalence between 1st, 2nd and 3rd world views, with America being an outlier in this overall trend. Why do you think differently?

Do you feel as though a huge unmanned structure would prevent crossings to make it worth while?

56K a year is the cost, give or take, of a border patrol officer, time and and equipment depending.

I just don't have confidence in an edifice being a real deterrent, thats all.  

I don't think this is how leftist whites works. Their outgroup isn't black people, or asians, or Jews, or Muslims. Their outgroup is rural whites; that's who they hate with a visceral, borderline genocidal passion. Compared to white liberals, blacks in my personal experience have much less of a fervid hatred for white people, and it's usually the UMC white liberals who push the blacks to have more hatred for rednecks...

Are you just gonna echo chamber the resident racist or do you want to debate with me on the last paragraph which is the only part where you actually agreed with her?

This won't be the most compelling argument...but I have a really, really strong intuition for this kind of thing and I can just "sense" the progressive narrative on race fading away

...

and believed for a long time and that's a problem...but what is really fading is the INTENSITY of emotion, imo. There are a TON of emotions/motivations that go into the anti white hatred stuff, but a big part of it is that elite attitudes absolutely do trickle down into the mainstream. It's not a coincidence at all that black lives matter riots came to an immediate halt the moment that progressive elites realized they actually do more harm than good, and that they got Trump elected.

It's both, but it comes more from white liberals going totally insane in the past decade or so. Check this out: "Take the issue of discrimination as a factor holding back African-American advancement. White liberals are to the left of black Democrats, placing a much stronger emphasis than African-Americans on the role of discrimination and much less emphasis on the importance of individual effort."

Because getting rid of ~40% of the country is impossible outside of ethnic cleansing/mass murder. If I could go to a world where the 1965 immigration act didn't happen I would do so, but attempting to undo it now would not return America to an idealized version of the 1950s. It would result in a much more callous and cruel country. 

There is no way to keep the US free of racial conflict (and not just between whites and blacks, hispanics on the west coast have been ethnically cleansing black neighborhoods for decades now) but you can definitely minimize it. Elite consensus absolutely does trickle down to the people, and a dem nominee who unapologetically rejects the anti white narrative and talks about white people who are hurting with kindness would go a very long way in cooling things down. We CAN all live together in (relative) harmony, but first we have to break the taboo about talking about certain things. 

Example: ... These are the things that sane multiethnic countries throughout history have done and they'd go a long way here

Do you know that it's white jobless people who are draining the economy, if you would actually look at the data? The reason that blacks have a large portion of then also that poor is because of how low they began a few generations ago vs how high the whites began even more generations back.

You're a complete lunatic if you think that end results prove some kind of cause in it being wrong to integrate. If you were to measure the happiness and general quality of life in nations that live other races and nations that don't, you'd see precisely how bullshit and brain washed your ideology is. Instead, you think only staying rich matters and even the. Those nations outperform.

True, but look at how those statistics have changed in the past decade or so. Liberals took a SHARP left turn on racial issues, and we're in the middle of that purity spiral right now. I'm not sure how long the current racial narrative can last because a lot of it is just objectively not true (for example, liberal whites rating white people and christians as more violent than black people.) I think a lot of the current behavior on the left is defensive in nature as their narrative is coming apart pretty rapidly as the pre civil rights era fades further and further into the past. The civil rights movement, WWII, and the holocaust are the founding myths of progressive ideology and all of these things are fading from living memory quite rapidly. It's really really tough to say but I don't see this current era lasting. Millennials as a generation are a complete mess though, so who knows. 

I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but the most important thing you can do to minimize the politics as a proxy for racial conflict is to reduce the stakes of politics. So when I say there's a sane way to govern a multi racial society, what I mean is that we need to just accept the fact that large parts of the American southwest are majority hispanic now, and that they don't necessarily need to be governed the same way as a 90% white state like Iowa. Decentralization is the key...the problem is that as this stuff is rapidly comes to a head people have less and less incentive to give up power whenever their group attains it. And as Yang points out, add some economic instability with the demographic changes and you have a recipe for some very rough times. I have no idea why we are importing tens of millions of people into the Western world to do jobs that may not exist in a few decades

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/no-link-between-trans-inclusive-policies-bathroom-safety-study-finds-n911106

i notice all you've established is that abuse could be possible, but no one has still shown any examples, which would be possible if they occurred. 

Yes.  Obama and Trump had made compromises to get what they wanted.  For example, Obama made it harder for Planned parenthood to get federal funding and had more border security in exchange for Obamacare.

They want more freedom for women.

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not a lawyer. In any case, your previous post is a proof.

This is definitely true, the team that shows up is always going to win the game. I'm almost glad that the left has overplayed their hand to the extent they have with the anti-white stuff because it makes it clear what's happening.

Whites are an interesting case because in some ways you can contribute our behavior to the overwhelming pressure of mass media brain washing for the past half century but I think it's more complex than that as well. When liberal whites talk about how much they hate white people they aren't talking about themselves. Too bad they're too stupid to realize that their vote for Bernie isn't going to save them if they're ever in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't really disagree with a lot of what you say, racial/ethnic groups have interests and they're going to pursue those even if its to the detriment of the society at large...it's why a multi ethnic society without a clear majority is something that should be avoided if possible. In the case of the United States it isn't something that can be avoided. So I'm more interested in finding out how we can manage this. For example, while there will always be conflict, you don't have to exacerbate it by telling black people that all of their problems are whiteys fault. And while there will always be racial prejudice, there will also be people (like Yang) who are capable of looking past it and viewing other groups with compassion. There's a sane way to govern a multi racial society and we aren't doing it.

I don't think I can put into words how refreshing it is to hear someone talk about the fact that 500,000 white people needlessly died "deaths of despair" in the past decade, or talking about who the opioid epidemic is really hurting, especially as a white person with family whose lives have been destroyed by prescription pain killers. Even Trump, the avatar of working class white America, is too much of a pussy to say it...Yang is sticking his neck out for people who are suffering even though he doesn't have to.

do you have any evidence that men abuse the system? i read that there was a study that showed almost no one abused the system when transgender people use their choice. and, school systems who have considered the problem ive seen often come to the same conclusion. me thinks the problem is all in your head.

i'm not sure what exactly you're saying, but i take it as an acknowledgement that you dont have evidence of people abusing trangender bathroom rights to take advantage of women in their restrooms

I think I should.  I want certain policies and I'm willing to compromise to achieve them. 

The Left claims to be willing to compromise and I could present a chance for them to do so.

It's evil in the sense that this behaviour is profoundly inmoral. This is what I think, but let's say it's just inmoral so you don't get it wrong.

This is the same strategy you use in all your arguments, trying to conflate definitions so it looks as if you are right.

There is a tremendous difference between persuation and manipulation, this last usually involves something inmoral, which is the case for manupulative women.

Persuation uses rational arguments and actions in order to influence people to do right things. By contrast, manipulation is the influence intended to benefit oneself at the expense of the other.

How could I define the woman who lies in the bed and wide open their legs in order to take advantage of a man that she doesn't love? Persuation? This is manipulation at its best.

I'm not saying this is the case of every woman, but the cases are increasing exponentially. When they see the man running out of resources, they start looking to another man with the same or more resources. And this is not just a theory, I've seen it, women that just get tired of her partner (because she found another man, more attractive or wealthier) and asks for the divorce. Eventually, the woman keeps half of the man's wealth and the custody of the children. And I saw some cases in which the man is not the father of one of the children.

I don’t know what’s going to happen if we get to the point where your 100 IQ average joe can’t do anything

Yes and no...I don’t think it’s possible for a multi ethnic society to ever get as unified and as high trust as 1950s white America was, but the US isn’t really that much more diverse than it was 10 years ago but race relations have gotten way worse because of this insane culture war.

Yang even pointed out in his interview with Joe Rogan that to much of the Democratic Party if someone is a white man it’s like their suffering doesn’t matter. I don’t think things have to be that way although there will always be some level of conflict and resource competition between groups 

I disagree. This is not the reason women want to continue being sex objects. Rather, the reason is much more evil and unexpected. Women know how powerful they can be if they use their vaginas at their advantage. Esther Vilar already pointed that out in her book, "the manipulated man". Women have everything calculated, they use their sexual appealing as a tool to manipulate men. It doesn't matter how attractive the man is, what really matters is that the man has all the resources the manipulative woman needs. It's a sad truth, but very useful for men out there trying to understand the real nature of women. And this is the main reason I turned MGTOW, not because I'm ugly, because I'm not, but because I know now very well what women are up to. 

I decided to take the red pill and now I can see.

At any rate, eventhough women still manipulate men whenever and however they want, it's awesome that women keep showing themselves as a sex object, obviously because we can still enjoy such spectacle, especially in the sex market in the shape of pornography and prostitution.

I can say the same thing about feminists, that they're horrendous, bitter, filthy, and unactractive persons as YOU can imagine. Lol.

These are just stereotypes that don't have anything to do with the reality.

Feminism have long been fighting agaisnt the treatment of women as sex objects.

Yes. That is "la raison d'etre" of this movement. MGTOW is a response to feminism, evidently. Besides, It's not necessary for a womam to be feminist to behave like a feminist at her convenience.

1) He's promised us all NEETbux 

UBI is the wrong answer to the right question--how do we as a society reckon with coming technological changes that threaten to radically change the job market? This has happened before--see the Industrial Revolution which, while ultimately a very good thing, caused a lot of unnecessary misery among the rural English peasant class that could've been avoided had it been implemented better. He is getting the ball rolling on this extremely important question

2) He cares about all Americans 

American Andy speaks about white people dying of drug overdoses more kindly than any Republican politician (even though 90% of their voters are white) ever has. Moreover this is not a dog whistle. He is not some sort of white nationalist (obviously) he just genuinely cares about the American people, ~60% of whom are white. He has a chance of actually uniting the country in some way 

This is the second thread that I see you open about the same subject. I don't think this is that serious, this movement is going nowhere.

What I can say though is that if you are fed up with these women, go MGTOW.

I hear the argument that making a special protection for LGBT folks is redundant given the good protections available under earlier law.  As I've said twice, the law is probably less necessary in California than anywhere and if someone opposed the law as political grandstanding or time-wasting they might find me in agreement.  The question we're working on here is whether the law is tyranny.  My answer remains no.

I wonder what is your opinion re: the state of transgender rights in Australia?

Isn't that the distinction between common courtesy and mere courtesy?  Courtesies are the rules of polite behavior according to a variety of social divisions but common courtesies are those rules that apply at any court, across social division. (i.e. the manners of the courts of the Kings of England are quite different from those of courts the Kings of Siam but common courtesies are those behaviors that show and demand respect in any court, whatever the culture or social division)  When I say common courtesy I mean behaviors due to and from any human, whatever the social context.

good on ya, mate.  

Every criminal penalty is a state imposed threat.  Every criminal penalty carries some potential of taking your money from your criminal's metaphorical wallet, right?  Therefore every potential victim has their metaphorical hand in your criminal's wallet.  I understand you don't think your criminal is a criminal but how is this metaphor meant to illustrate that point?  I think you are suggesting that common courtesies are "mere requests" and violation ought never merit criminal penalty but we know that's not true: it is common courtesy to not strangle strangers for cash but if you do you'll risk criminal penalty in any court, correct?  Many common courtesies are enforced by law.  

I agree that simple reference or address is quite a different context than imposition.  ... A healthcare provider in a LTC receives the majority of their compensation from the state and is licensed by the state and therefore represents the state to a liable degree.  No law says you can't be cruel to the dying.  This law says that if you are cruel to the dying while working as a State of California healthcare provider, whether or not you lose your job you may be subject to a fine.

Let's say you're walking down the street and you meet a stranger walking a dog down the street.  You say, "Cool dog, what breed is he?" and the stranger replies "Oh, she is a mutt." Wouldn't you effortlessly change pronouns out of common courtesy?  If you persisted in calling the dog he the stranger would assume you were suffering from some social deficit and move on quickly.  The sick and elderly wish to be extended the same common courtesy in their own bedrooms that any ordinary person would extend a dog in the street.  That's it.  They don't wish to know what you or Jesus or Rush Limbaugh or anyone really thinks about their identity, they just want you to do your job politely and professionally.

Imagine you lived your whole adult life as a man until you have an accident and live in a comatose state for 10 years, during which your healthcare providers decide that you are woman in their books and so they dress you in skirts and apply rouge and lipstick to your helpless body.  Wouldn't you consider that a humiliating violation?

Now others are harassing said person because mod gets away with it. 

I lovingly handed-crafted this thread specifically for you. You know that right. I noticed it had been 0.62 hours since you'd said anything was beneath your intellect, and a critical 1.32 hours since you'd made a judgmental psychoanalysis of someone else's life, and I knew you had to be jonesing bad and getting the sweats and shakes. I thoughtfully created an opportunity for you to get a fix and you didn't even thank me. Rude. 

Anyway, I dunno, does my thread history support that I don't make serious threads? No point denying that there haven't been a lot of engrossing topics lately, mostly due to low traffic methinks, but your post comes too close to "no fun allowed". As long as other legit discussion is available, there's nothing wrong with horseplay in principle. Maybe it's because I only showed up on DDO in its last two years, but I didn't see any appreciable difference between the quality of its threads and DART's. I think you need to stop expecting every thread on an internet forum to be a Stanford dissertation and stop complaining when that doesn't happen. Anyhow, I think this is the only goof-off thread on the entire first page of this subforum. If just one thread pisses you off this much I'd say you're easily pissed off, ASp. 

ASp is the nickname I have settled upon for you, make a note. It is superior because it is both a correct shortening and a fitting description. I'm incredibly pleased with myself. 

R.I.P. Castin

I agree. For what it's worth, this site does have a small handful of intellectually worthwhile users. But that group isn't large or ideologically diverse enough to sustain a forum. I find it easier to just specifically seek those people out via PM when I have something I want to discuss.

Don't see you apologizing for essentially saying that I shouldn't be allowed to post here

and that I should pretty much go and die.

I'm still blocked by you.

But I'm the one who is full of hate.

No apologies. 

It's not really about racial struggle against external threats. One of the best overviews of this is Spengler's The Hour of Decision. Despite the laughably inaccurate synopsis of the work available online (this work was banned by the Nazi party, it didn't 'inspire' them), the essay isn't about white Europeans having to 'fight' the 'colored races'. It is a pessimistic outlook on the future of Europe based on the decadence and weakness of European civilization, which, in Spengler's view, doomed them to lose 'by default' against other, more healthy civilizations in the long run. It's not a question of racial struggle at all, but of the state of fundamental weakness into which the European soul has collapsed.

'Added to all this is the universal dread of reality. We "pale-faces" have it, all of us, although we are seldom, and most of us never, conscious of it. It is the spiritual weakness of the "Late" man of the higher civilizations, who lives in his cities cut off from the peasant and the soil and thereby from the natural experiencing of destiny, time, and death. He has become too wide awake, too accustomed to ponder perpetually over yesterday and tomorrow, and cannot bear that which he sees and is forced to see: the relentless course of things, senseless chance, and real history striding pitilessly through the centuries into which the individual with his tiny scrap of private life is irrevocably born at the appointed place. That is what he longs to forget, refute, or contest. He takes flight from history into solitude, into imaginary far-away systems, into some faith or another, or into suicide. Like a grotesque ostrich he buries his head in hopes, ideals, and cowardly optimism: it is so, but it ought not to be, therefore it is otherwise. We sing in the woods at night because we are afraid. Similarly, the cowardice of cities shouts its apparent optimism to the world for very fear. Reality is no longer to be borne. The wish-picture of the future is set in place of facts - although fate has never taken any notice of human fancies - from the children's Land of Do-Nothing to the World Peace and Workers' Paradise of the grown-ups. 

I don't see the whole demographic displacement as some aberration; it is what to expect of a civilization which has become spineless. It's the Wandering of Nations all over again.

The real unique issues that I see are ecological devastation and overpopulation. Overpopulation is not just a matter of 'too many people', but of the collapse in conceptual space which happens in low-trust environments. This collapse makes the deleterious psychological effects of overcrowding become much more pronounced, which can eventually completely dissolve social structures.

I nominate this kid for Creepiest Teen on Fucking Earth. All in favor?