The Left's war against Whites

I'm not going to dignify a question that attempts to rehash what is an established, widely-known, well understood issue, with an answer.

Ah! There's the "Hitler card".
I look at content. The right commonly looks at empirical and superficial identifications without concern for content, like when they challenge the left's support of Bernie because he has a couple of houses worth about what mine is, or when they condemn Marxist principles and concepts because Stalin was a butcher.

Your closest relative most likely enjoys a good steak or ice cream. So did Hitler and most of the Third Reich. Should you now reconsider your affection for your closest relative?

 

Why do you keep going to the "white supremacists said it" argument? Can you go beyond this and actually advocate for your views without going back to how what someone said violates your beliefs by endlessly making references to whether or not you think a "white supremacist" did it? Pavlovian responses aren't pretty to look at, dude.

What specifically is "antisemitic" by pointing out heavy Jewish influence on US media? You seem to not care whether or not the statement is factually accurate, but that it violates an ideology you've internalized.

 

You haven't defined what white supremacism is. Appealing to popular opinion doesn't remove your burden of proof for defending the terms you're invoking. I've yet to see anyone use the term accurately as is defined by legitimate dictionaries and not activist re-writes for which some people prefer. Define the term if you're going to use it.

All you've done is repeat CRT talking points with rants against the dictionary because you don't like how it doesn't conform to an ideology.

So do white people have a right to homelands, national sovereignty, and cultural existence? Yes or no.

Interesting considering I was responding to a person who pulled the "white supremacist" card to illustrate how nonsensical his argument is and oddly you take issue with ME.

Are you even reading the posts you respond to?

 

You don't get it, do you? You don't use a definition at all to settle the matter, as you pretended.

You obviously didn't read the link. Here it is again: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/27/Appeal-to-Definition

That is a definition that is much more adequate for this debate. However, as any definition, it doesn't end the debate. It only starts it. It's your insistence on ending a debate by giving a definition what is ludicrous.

What "conspiracy" are you talking about? There is no "conspiracy". It's you and you alone making a fool of yourself.

The fact that you now change the subject to "right to existence..." clearly indicates that you had none to support your original statements. So, in this new subject, obviously whites have a right to exist. We have a right to a homeland like everybody else. But have no right to a homeland "as a group" The concept is immoral And the United States fought a war near the middle of the 20th century to eliminate such "group right".... many people died fighting against that so-called "right". But, in the end, we won. You lost!

 

The United States fought a war against such non-existent immoral "right" around the middle of the 20th Century. And we won it!

News flash: Your side lost it!

 

Jewish supremacists in Israel who bash what you call "white people" (which, in this context, can only be interpreted as a racist term for people who are not jewish) and others, are most certainly racists. However, the jewish religion is not dominant in the United States.

 

Ok you are not going to have an easy time here. Everything you're presenting is racist, white supremacist crap. That "Boomer" video is nothing more than the opinions and analysis by a fellow white supremacist without reference to any independent sources to support his assertions. Go to his website and read and listen to his other "work".

This is all very slick racism that depends on slick but very flawed "analysis" of supposedly "racist" comments and deeds of others whose words happen to be malleable and easily distorted into looking like they support the racist's claims.

Can you prove you're not a Russian troll?

 

Can you prove you're not a Russian troll?

 

Can you prove you're not a Russian troll?

 

trump does not, which is why no valid proposal exists

 

Yeah. But, if that's a troll, I'd love to get the Russians to give us one who is better informed than that one..

 

Reported

 

Reported.

 

How are you going to pursue the glorious utopia with a federalist one world government?

 

What law is that, and when was it passed?

 

1) Hitler isn't "my side," so don't resort to argumentum ad Hitlerum
2) We didn't fight WWII to fight sovereign ethnic homelands. If we ever fought such a thing, we'd have destroyed Israel and Ghana by now.
3) What's wrong with sovereign ethnic homelands? Do you think Indian Reservations are bigotry and supremacist? Are reservations evil?

 

In what manner specifically is it "racist and supremacist crap"? Can you define what a white supremacist is?

Now since places like Israel and Ghana are sovereign ethnic homelands, are you saying that those two countries are "racist supremacist crap"? If not, why, specifically?

Your posts are your opinions and they contain repeated claims that people are "white supremacists" without your providing one iota of evidence toward that claim other than expressing a generalized dislike for their views.

Throwing labels around isn't an argument. What specifically is wrong with what you're supposedly trying to rebut? All you're doing so far is crying that they aren't ideologically conforming.

Why can't diverse ethnocultural groups have homelands for themselves? What specifically about that is "supremacism"?

 

Amusing since you've repeatedly attacked the dictionary as not suited to you, and you defer to a definition that was coined by the radical neo-Marxist left.

You're actually trying to attack me for citing the dictionary of the English language and using it accurately.

You try to end debate by labeling people "supremacists" without qualifying the term. In that you're having difficulty moving forward by accurately using the dictionary shows the inherent structural flaws of your argument.

The left's endless conspiracy theory that white people and capitalism are why the world has large swaths of non-progressing populations and why non-white minorities within white-founded, white-majority countries' lots in life are all the result of a white oppression plot against them.

I changed the subject? Only in your mind. Why do human beings not have a right to have sovereign ethnic and cultural homelands? Indeed, the United States has helped to create such places as when it helped dismantle Yugoslavia and when it supports Israel, Ghana, etc.

Do you feel that Ghana's Right of Abode law for diaspora blacks is an act of wanton black supremacist bigotry that must be demolished by the United States launching a war?

Do you believe that whites are obligated to take in masses of third world immigration and give them suck?

No it's natural which is why we have such a patchwork of amazing, distinct ethnic groups on earth. Why do you feel threatened by their being preserved?

We did no such thing in spite of the left's penchant to seemingly endlessly re-write history to its advantage. There is no "you" here as you are falsely calling me a Nazi again.

Keep in mind, Einstein, the United States at the time it fought WWII had a white-only immigration policy. You're telling us they fought Germany for having a similar policy that it already enacted. THAT is some funny ****!

 

I don't believe in "Jew conspiaracies" in the sense of the puppet mastery David Duke is peddling, but there is a clear pattern of their very disproportionate presence in both media and political left wing leadership which is accompanied by a marked shared agenda in things that are "good for the Jews" such as liberal immigration law, etc.

There's a very good book called The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State by Benjamin Ginsburg. It illustrates this perfectly.

People have no problem in believing the concept of white-favoring bias wherever whites are predominant, but oddly they don't wherever there is a high percentage of Jews. That makes no sense.

 

so do you think all the Jews are in on that or just a few? It's odd you didn't mention house so many Jews run Banks.

why do people tell people about really good books I'm not reading this.

If you read it then you understand how he made the case why are you so bad at making the case?

I have a hard time believing the concept of white favoring bias. The further you point out that white favoring bias exists when whites are predominant Jewish people have never been predominant in the US they're actually a very small minority and we're not talking about a race of people we're talking about a religion.

 

It's a cultural attitude shared by many Jews and it's expressed in many ways be it Democrat bloc voting or otherwise.

Why ask why? I stated why I mentioned the title. If you aren't interested, why ask these questions?

You don't know what the book contains and you admit you aren't reading it, thus you have no place to comment about the book.

White-favoring bias basically doesn't exist anymore. Whites have lost their sense of peoplehood and identity due to their allowing left wing ideologues and foreigners to dictate what identity they're allowed to have. Whites are stuck on this self-denying "universal" concern while non-whites are out for their own only.

Jewish is an ethnic group as well as a faith, and most Jews aren't religiously practicing.

 

Oh boy, the entire planet can be a low IQ toilet instead of just a lot of it! We're not automatons and we have a right and duty to resist parasitic, opportunistic globalist border-busters.

No, they don't have an argument. They didn't grow up from the ground, they migrated from Asia. Whites are indigenous to Europe and even there, the globalists and leftists attack their indigenous rights.

"Immigration reform" is a common political term referring to one of several amnesty schemes. That's not reform we need. What we need to do is remove all immigration laws enacted from 1965 onward.

 

So Jews are some sort of hive mind?

I didn't see a reason.

Clearly you haven't read it either, or you're really bad at imparting its wisdom, or it contained no wisdom.

So there has to be white favoring bias in order for white people to have "peoplehood?"

Lol if they don't practice Judaism they aren't Jews, they are just atheists.

 

You're the only one mentioning Hitler. What we fought against and defeated was the concept of "sovereign ethnic homelands"

You lost!

"Destroyed"? You think the world is some sort of video-game?

Israel is precisely the evidence that we did fight against "ethnic homelands" that excluded others. Israel is a mult-cultural, multi-religion state where racism exists. Just like here, because of their history.

First question has many answers Including the genetic consequences I already explained to you. Let's summarize with this: because it's immoral. Citizens of a country have the right (this is a human right) to live wherever the hell they want within their country, so long as this doesn't negate other people's human rights, without discrimination because of gender, ethnic identity, religion, sexual orientation, etc..... Second, an Indian Reservation is an area of land. Therefore it's an inanimate object. Objects cannot be racists. Only people can be racists. But people of any ethnic identity can live in an Indian reservation, if they so chose. Third:same as two. Assuming you mean "immoral" Only children believe that inanimate things can have human characteristics.

 

No idea what that is.

Pay attention: I am not attacking you. I am attacking what you say. Because it violates a "rule of logic.". And I am trying for you to correct your logic by quoting a fairly long article that explains in detail why this is a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/27/Appeal-to-Definition

Here are a couple more.... you can chose any of them, or you can chose to remain in ignorance. Makes no difference to me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/argumentum_ad_dictionarium

You got stuck in a Dictionary. And you don't want to move ahead from there because you know you would have no more arguments beyond that. The definitions in a dictionary are accurate but incomplete. This is why, if you are going to discuss "racism" or "white supremacists", simply arbitrarily selecting a "convenient" definition from a dictionary, though it might save you from the intricacies of a complex debate, it does not advance our knowledge at all.