@Serendipper
True, but so what? We have the right to steal property because the owners are not developing it to our liking?
To reiterate: wilderness sparsely populated by nomads, does not a country make.
If it's not a country, it's no man's land, if it's no man's land, anybody can settle, and do as they please with it, including make their own country.
1) A nomad can occupy land, but he can't own land, because he hasn't mixed his labor with it.
Mixing land with labor is kind of how humans mark their territory.
It's a way of letting everyone know it's yours, like putting your signature on it.
You're also investing something in the land, and you should be able to make a return on your investment, not someone else, even if you temporarily leave it.
Property doesn't make much sense without labor.
If they can't own land individually, they can't own land collectively, so it's up for grabs.
2) Nomads without a government aren't a collective capable of thinking and acting as a unit, therefore they can't claim anything as a unit, including land, the way settlers with a government can.
You don't see that as hypocritical as hell? "We had no right to take it, but we have the right to keep it!"
People shouldn't be punished for what their ancestors did.
If my ancestors murdered some of your ancestors, should I be murdered?
Or if my ancestors took something from your ancestors, should I return it to you?
After generations of it being in our possession, we're far more familiar with and invested in it than you.
Contemporary demographics include brown people. Antiquated demographics included white people.
But brown people are still a minority, white people are the majority, so our happiness matters more, because there's more of us.
All other things being equal, hundreds of millions of heads are better than millions, so our insight into and say in things matters more.
Our ancestors built this country for us, so we're far more acquainted with and adapted to it, so again, our insight into and say in things matters more.
Also, our countries are kind of admittedly better than yours (that's why you're coming here), so you need us more than we need you.
White people are selling their countries short, if anything, minorities should go way, out of their way to accommodate us, not the other way round.
Change is the only thing that stays the same.
In that case, why defend and maintain yourself and your property at all?
Arrogant whites are being punished for their arrogance today. Be nice and everything is cool.
If more men like Trump come to power, pretty soon it'll be arrogant minorities and progressives who'll be punished.
Whatever you say. Genetics doesn't mean that much to me. People are people.
Genetics play a major role in determining human variability.
People with common genetics, are more likely to share other things in common, as well as care for one another.
Race is extended family, just as we often prioritize our families interests ahead of other families, we often prioritize our races interests ahead of other races, even unbeknownst to ourselves.
Or just as we prioritize our species over others, or other sentient mammals over unsentient unmammals.
If you're illegal, then you should be deported, but brown people who are born here shouldn't be treated as if they are illegals nor told to go home when they are home; that's an egregious insult and especially because of the hypocrisy that the whites are also not indigenous.
Indigenous is a spectrum.
Whites have been here for many centuries now.
We may be a little less indigenous than so called 'native Americans' (Euramerican hybrids, mestizos), but we're far more numerous than mestizos, and we're far more numerous, and indigenous than Asian immigrants, so if anything, we should be entitled to more privileges over both mestizos, and Asian immigrants.
Ah... protection of the oppressed (weak), so you do it too. Nothing wrong with that!
On the contrary, it's a form of weakness to forbid yourself from verbally attacking people who verbally attack you, because we're essentially saying your life and opinions matter more than ours.
I say either we can all verbally attack each others race, or none of us can.
That's fairness, fairness is strength.
Laws against hate speech scare me. I think the people issuing the hate speech should knock it off, but we don't need a law lest hate speech become a slippery slope to any speech.
I'm not saying we should have laws against hate speech, necessarily, just if we're to have any, they should protect whites just as much, at least, if not more.
Idk, I honestly think a brown woman would represent my interests and the interests of people I care about better than an old white dude in government.. unless that old white dude is Bernie, but there aren't many of them. Who is more likely to focus on the poor? Who will resolve the healthcare situation? Who will address wealth disparity better? Who will have more empathy? Yeah, a white man may correlate to those attributes, but if we have nothing else to go on, then voting for the brown woman is a better play on the odds.
A brown person is going to put brown peoples interests over my peoples.
I'd rather have a white person with from a working class background represent me.
How do I make MY life better? My life is better if people in general aren't sick and deep in debt and slaving for low wages in the spirit of capitalism. I have to worry about people I love because some bumpkins are more worried about how much money the rich get to keep because they can't stand the fact that someone might get something for nothing unless that someone is already rich and doesn't need it; then rooms get comped, banks do favors, cops let them go, they find tax shelters, live in coddled nests in protected neighborhoods, but giving them a tax cut is preferable to giving to the poor because the poor are lazy brats who don't deserve to live.
I would like to see what I see as a fairer distribution of wealth.
That being said, if you can work, but won't, you're not entitled to room and board.
And if you can't support kids yourself, than you shouldn't bring them into this world.
Slavery used to not be criminal, so in those days if one were to complain about slavery, he would be demonized for criticizing the system that was legal. What is legal now is not necessarily a yard stick to determine what is right and I'm assuming that the ones complaining are complaining about something that is not right, but legal.
Murdering, raping or stealing from a brown person is a crime to me, but a small business only hiring WASPs, because he feels more comfortable with WASPs, or a cop predominantly scoping out Mulatto and Latino neighborhoods, because they're more likely to commit crime, is not a crime.
The problem is if you allow that discrimination, then crime results and it becomes a self-sustaining problem: discrimination causes poverty which forces people into crime which causes discrimination. Where on the circle do we break the cycle?
Yes but a lot of bad behavior committed by Mulattos and Latinos is probably due to their biology and culture, and they're responsible for their culture.
You're thinking it's because we expect (or is it because they expect themselves to be bad?) them to be bad, but I'm thinking it's probably mostly, or wholly because more of them are bad...which's not to say all, most or even many of them are bad, just a larger small minority of them than the small minority of us.
I will say this in Mulatto and Latino peoples defense, Jews, whites and Asians may commit more white collar crimes than the them, but white collar crimes are so much more difficult to ascertain, of course.
Blacks commit more crime than whites, but whites more than asians.
Depends on the Asians, I don't think white people commit more crimes than west Asian or south Asian immigrants, I would imagine west Asians and South Asian immigrants commit more crime.
As for east Asian immigrants, I'm not entirely sure about them, I heard white women for instance commit less crime than any other demographic.
However, whites are more inventive, for good and bad, than other races, for whatever combination of reasons, east Asians may score a little higher in iQ, overall (whites are better with linguistic iQ), but they're not a very creative people.
I don't think we need laws. It's hard to imagine that in 50 years anyone will give a hoot about color.
Reducing race to color makes it sound superficial, it's not.
Virtually every cell in my body has more in common with an Irishman or Italian than it does an African or Asian.
So you're pro-slavery? Forcing people who can work to work is slavery. We live in a world that can bestow upon everyone the right not to work without facing impoverishment thanks to the army of machines toiling away, yet incentivize those who want to work to be better than the Joneses. Why should the fruits of the machinery be hoarded by the few? A person has a right to a minimum standard of living and to deny that is to punish the poor in order to reward the rich.
While we have come a long way sociotechnologically in some regards, and there is less work to be done to feed and take care of everyone, there's still is work to be done, and there probably always will be.
I don't see us progressing towards some sort of star trek communist utopia anytime soon, in fact I'm expecting the opposite.
With high sociotechnology, you take a few steps forward in the short term, and often a few steps back in the long (global warming, nuclear warfare, etcetera).
While I support what I see as a fairer distribution of wealth, and less frivolous productivity, so we can spare the environment, If we allow people who don't work to prosper as much as people who do, they will pollute us with their inferiority, which will be a few steps back.
Hatred of the poor is deeply indoctrinated and subtle; you may not know you harbor it.
If you're white, self hate can also be deeply indoctrinated, you may not know you harbor it, but you do.
Blacks are 84/8 democrat. Hispanics are 63/28 democrat. So if almost no blacks and very few hispanics are republican, then who are the republicans? (Whites)
And here we can see they are old people
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... 52/2_8.png
And here we can see they are uneducated
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... 48/2_6.png
So old + white + uneducated = republican.
As the great Max Planck, himself the originator of the quantum theory in physics, has said, science makes progress funeral by funeral: the old are never converted by the new doctrines, they simply are replaced by a new generation.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/09/25/progress/There is no way to convince old people who are set in their ways.
There is no way to convince uneducated people they are wrong (see Dunning-Kruger).
As long as those people have the right to vote, then death is the only solution... and according to Pew, nature is taking care of that for us (though some leftists appear to be in a violent hurry).
There's almost no difference between democrats and republicans.
Both are corporatists, globalists and imperialists.
Both are anti-white and anti-male.
At least Trump, who is not a traditional republican, isn't anti-white and anti-male, and more of a pacifist and protectionist.
He's also pro-gun, which's of utmost importance in a democracy.
