Angry people in general which well extends to nonwhite people also.
It wasn’t just white people that voted for him contrary to the bullshit being spewed fourth by the mainstream media.
What’s anarchist? Wait, what?
Thumbs up this post
Believed by everybody? 
Sure, there are those people who came from another country and who don’t want the USA to become the country they emigrated from.
And since they haven’t been cucked by the media in their head for decades, they realise why Mexico is like Mexico is and they realise why any country is the way that country is. Why is a neighbourhood the way a neighbourhood is - because of the people who live there.
Nope, socio-economics is not the reason but a symptom of the genetics of its people.
Race is not going away, it never has, it’s only getting more pronounced with a change of people, of races, of demographics.
By the way, legal immigrants of the first generation are more right wing than their children who were born and have grown up in the USA. The reason is regression to the racial mean. The children of people tend to regress towards their racial mean. So the children of intelligent parents tend to be somewhere between the IQ of their parents and the average IQ of their ethnicity/race. Likewise for all other qualities. So immigrants tend to convert a place to eventually look like where they came from.
Is everything golden in an ethno-state? No, there are many other factors but there is no peace in a multi-racial empire or state. Violence will only continue to escalate and FYI, other races are not as generous as Europeans when it comes to minorities among their midst. They never were and they never will be, no matter how nice you are to them or how nice you have been to them in the past.
I married a Cambodian bisexual so that I could get a divorce and stay in the basement while paying the bills for her empowered life with Bubba.
Who is the sexist, racist, homophobe now??
Anything I can do for social progress…
Both race and culture can change, but how I view it it works like this.
Culture exists as a product of environment, for example in a rock sunny environment with certain aesthetics, people will act a certain way.
Culture functions the same way as religion, it is established by the ruling leaders and enforced via group think on the larger body of people.
Race influences determine to what extent the brainwashing of culture and religion will occur. Certain genetic codes are easily brainwashed, others are more resistant.
Mexicans eat burritos because corn is in the habitat, they are not inherently the genetic creators of burritos.
Rap music seems to exist due to the laws of physics, if a group is attracted to drum beats, and is too rigid in gender roles to enjoy singing (a feminine activity that requires males to feminize), rap music is the inevitable result.
Ironically, this rigidity in gender roles is precisely because the group is feminine, males are literally too afraid of the opinion of the group to act like females.
Yep to be a white person is regarded racist if u dont apologize to the brownies
So fine Im racist.
Hail White Man
best man alive
Let’s go back to the OP. Should the city of Toronto have taken down the signs? Is that the right thing or the wrong thing to do? Is the Alt.Right’s perspective on the white race the right one or the wrong one.
Now, from my point of view, with respect to questions like these, the moral objectivists – from both the left and the right – come to embody the following politically/philosophically:
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
And this psychologically:
[b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/b]
Now, how would you answer the two questions above relating to the signs and the Alt.Right’s views on the white race?
Are your answers basically political prejudices embedded in dasein and conflicting goods, [as mine are] or are you actually able to demonstrate to us that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think like you do? To become “one of us”.
All I can do is to note the particular political prejudices that I subscribe to here and now. And to ask the objectivists how their own value judgments are not entangled in this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
So, shall we give it a go?
Well, if you do then you are.
On the other hand, only to this extent: that the manner in which I understand objectivism “here and now” is the most rational.
But: I have no capacity to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think like this. It is merely what “here and now”, existentially, I happen to believe subjectively/subjunctively “in my head”.
My view then is that it is precisely this frame of mind that the objectivists here are most disturbed by. Why? Because what if I am right and it is applicable to them?
As it is, we have all these objectivists at ILP embracing all manner of conflicting moral and political value judgments while all claiming that their own narrative/agenda is truly the most rational, objective, ideal, natural.
Right?
Okay, fine. Then you are not one of the objectivists that concern me the most. Instead, I try to imagine folks like Turd or uccisore or Is_Yde_opN or Ha Ha Ha or Random Factor in actual positions of power.
Whether here or in the Oval Office. 
This is more or less the point that moreno kept coming back to. If someone were to think like me what would be the point of engaging in exchanges like this at all? Best to just shrivel up somewhere in a world all your own until the day you die.
But:
1] I start with the assumption that even my own point of view is unable to escape my own point of view. In other words that, in being an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy [pertaining to the world of is/ought], it is always subject change.
2] And that, as such, I may well be wrong to think what I do is a reasonable point of view. Here all I can do is to engage in exchanges like this one. To, in other words, encounter other points of view that may well be able to yank me up out of that dilemma.
3] Besides, if one chooses to interact with others, he or she is going to find him or herself in situations where others expect them to favor “one of us” over “one of them”.
And over and again I note that my own value judgments are just political contraptions entangled existentially in one or another rendition of this:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
All I do here is to tap the objectivists on the shoulder and ask them to explain how their own value judgments [when in conflict with others] are not entangled in it.
What I have not abandoned is Marx’s rejection of idealism, his speculation as a “dialectical materialist” — as a “left Hegelian”.
Okay, then you seem to be acknowledging this: that 1] in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, and 2] given new experiences, new relationships, new sources of information etc., you can well imagine changing your mind about both nihilism and anarchism.
But: the objectivists that I focus the beam on [turd, uccisore, the KT crowd etc] seem incapable of imagining reality [pertaining to value judgments in conflict] as anything other than which they assert it to be. Instead, they have invariably nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who are not “one of us”.
They are, in my opinion, meatminds.
That’s easy, vegetable brain.
It’s not a question of should - the should question is reserved for an in-group to decide for themselves, among themselves.
There are inherently different interests for different kinds of people.
Does that mean that there is no need, or no point for a rational approach to moral questions?
- Of course not.
But one should not expect that everybody shares the same morality as an outcome of this inquiry. The rational part is more about examining whether or not what you are doing and how you are doing it is really how you are going to achieve and get what you need.
Take your own example, by nature you are more of a liberal than a conservative and that’s why after leaving the formative years of your childhood you developed towards becoming liberal.
Consult Jonathan Haidt, he did some research about the different moral foundations of liberals and conservatives. Why they have different outlooks on life.
I guess this has been big news in Huffpoo and co.
Some might be confused now. Aren’t the people who propagate this White as well?
Not in this case, they identify as something else.
This is so Weimerica.
The woman on the left holding up the card saying Fuck Whiteness is white
Now she may not identify with being white but that is what she actually is
Dude, that’s a 2% minority, check your majority white privilege.
If you are a White-who-officially-hates-Whites, or, just for example, a Christian-who-officially-hates-Christians, a Jew-who-officially-hates-Jews, a Nazi-who-officially-hates-Nazis, a capitalist-who-officially-hates-capitalists, … and so on, then you have good prospects to get respect - at least officially. The more you are officially (thus: not really) a self-criticist, the more respect you get - at least officially.
The method is very easy: You jump with your “thesis” (e.g.: “X is evil”) into your “synthesis” (e.g.: “if X is [not] well treated, then X [remains evil] is good”) - the role of the smiling third - by suppressing the “antithesis” (e.g.: “X is good”) and telling the lie that “the antithesis has always the chance to oppose and is always using its opposing role”.
the cosmic immutable law of rhythm swings in full force. As long as you analyze the issue through your own bubble of cultural perception, nothing will change but get a lot worse. And of course those being the takeover of the planet know this.
It is not just the problem of the caucasian culture but many other dominant ones. They all are paying the heavy price for their military interventions and/or economic invasions. China doesnt escape this pattern as tensions are mounting. Westerners are absolutely clueless about geopolitics, mainly because the white culture has had the supremacy for centuries, they didnt see anything come.
Westerners didnt see anything wrong either with bombing iraq which had nothing to do with 911, and lately libya or syria because their banking systems is usury-free and prohibiting western special interests (rothschilds, rockefellers, etc) from having stakes in them. Because these countries also used oil revenues to help directly their own citizens. Because the christian white population was unable to prevent to prevent such bombings nor the palestinian genocide, it is now their turn to suffer, Europe is being culturally destroyed and so the same side effects may reach america.
Instead of fighting for one’s own race, because now all the races are equally threatened, people should stand up against war and demand to call the troops back home. That the only worthy solution out there. People worry about their cultural identity but it is WAR the problem.
THE METAPHILOSOPHICAL ISSUE of divide and conquer
“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” ― Jiddu Krishnamurti
The opposite is true.
Because many Europeans have been trained to want to alleviate all suffering they are cucking themselves out of existence.
You know what is easy? - To let all those refugees just come in.
What is tough is to defend your borders and to regularly clean house. To say No to eternally whining morons.
I can cite many stories of western plunder mainly in africa and still on going, such as the coltan war, coltan being a mineral needed for electronics, and which has killed more than 5 million african as I type this. We all have blood on our cellphones.
Beside humanitarianism has ALWAYS been a joke, CEOs charities earning a high six figure is the evidence. The war cartel takes care about the damages, then we send in the red cross and the like to alleviate all suffering. =D> People do not see what is wrong with this paradox. The left and the right are complementary ideologies. There is no opposite but ignorance
The faith in money, and the way wealth is perceived, will have dire consequences.
ABOLISH WAR and teach economics in high school, that the best way to defend peace. Borders are but a fiction because the elites use WAR to redesign the borders as they see fit anyway. But people will cross any border when bombed or when not able to cope with destructive economics.