PDA

View Full Version : The Sixth Extinction


phuckphace
November 10th, 2016, 12:29 PM
this thread is about "identity politics" and the existential struggles both sides face or claim to face in the past, present and future.

first, a warning. laugh and sneer all you want, but I would strongly advise you to read it and take it to heart.

let's fast forward to the future. it's 2060, and non-whites are now an unopposed super-majority in our formerly White European nation. the unopposed ruling party is a descendant of the current Democratic Party, which has since morphed into something resembling Mexico's PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) headed by a corrupt autocrat who can be thought of as a blend of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. he may or may not be explicitly autocratic in name, but in practice his influence is extensive, his power is consolidated and he can set monetary policy on a whim. he has installed cronies and yes-men that he controls in every level of government. he has enriched himself considerably by siphoning off wealth from taxation, extortion of businesses and destruction of his political enemies, and this wealth he uses to live extravagantly in villas and mansions while the non-white super-majority he claims to fight for subsists in destitute poverty. the Constitution is long gone - as it turns out, it is only as useful as far as there is a populace that cares about it, and once Whites are gone, it becomes a meaningless scrap of paper.

Whites will comprise perhaps 20% of the population, and even fewer than that could be considered distinctly "white" in the present sense as intermixing slowly renders them unrecognizable as a group. you and your descendants will of course suffer immensely once Whites lose their hegemony - this is undeniable and inarguable. your grandchildren, if you have any, will shuffle to the breadlines down an eroded street riddled with potholes, past the burned-out shell of what used to be a thriving business, in an obvious parallel with today where we can see decaying Googie-style buildings dating from the 1950s covered with graffiti in formerly White dominated areas. the Internet or its close analogue will be gone, and if it still exists at all access will be a privilege restricted to the small handful of elites who now control 95% of what wealth still remains. elections, if they are still held, will of course be heavily rigged in favor of the ruling party, and any protests or uprisings on the part of the impoverished populace will be violently put down by military police wielding machine guns.

this is the ultimate fate of our nation - at best, the Trump administration will only delay it by a decade or so, but the demographic tipping point has already been reached. in exchange for welfare handouts and empty gestures in the direction of "equality", you are getting this in return. ask yourself - is it really worth it?

Hopefully the Dems get a wave effect election in their favor in 2020 and that gerrymander ALL the districts to favor the Dems. That and demographics.

be careful what you wish for, because you will probably get it, and by then, it will be irreversible (no offense, but if this is really and truly what you want, you need to get out of my country).

Vlerchan
November 10th, 2016, 12:39 PM
Sumisiˇn

Porpoise101
November 10th, 2016, 05:14 PM
Brown Hordes huh. I'm still unconvinced there is anything intrinsically special about Europeans genetically. And if the issue is culture, why is it eluding you that the 'Brown Hordes' can possibly learn and adapt to the ways of America.

To me the New World is unique. It isn't like the Old World where certain common haplotype-sharing people can have a homeland. The ethnic cleansing and subsequent mixture with the natives has completely transformed the human geography of the New World. It has been settled by foreigners for hundreds of years now and unless you can show me that this is a really bad idea, I will keep on thinking that the New World plays by different rules than say Europe or Asia. Even there it is somewhat sketchy to say that there are certain areas predestined for a certain ethnic group as human populations have always moved and shifted.

Now, if you want to talk about race, then I don't know even where to begin. In my view, race is pretty ridiculous. It is always redefined and there is not even a real consensus on what is white. Are Arabs white? What about Caucasians? What about Turks? The vast majority of their DNA comes from Indo-European Anatolian peoples after all. Race is an idea that was invented to separate colonists to the New World. You can argue that there is a white American culture as a result of immigration and mixture between mostly-European peoples. But to say there is a culture intrinsic to the 'race' is just dumb.

As for gerrymandering, I'm definitely against it. I think it should be done by a publicly accessible algorithm instead.

Nice bait thread tho

phuckphace
November 10th, 2016, 11:26 PM
And if the issue is culture, why is it eluding you that the 'Brown Hordes' can possibly learn and adapt to the ways of America.

because it's loony left-wing fanfic, Poindexter, and makes even less sense in the context of multiculturalism where the native culture is seen as valueless and integration is explicitly rejected. demographics is destiny, and this is no less true simply because you see yourself as a model immigrant or offspring of same and are deluded that this will carry over to all the rest. it won't.

seriously. it's a waste of time to try and spin the 1000th rehash of the "magic dirt" meme. the Third World, especially a certain subcontinent that's topped by the Himalayas, is a nonstop rape carnival rolled into a Scheisse porno flick, and it's flat out absurd to claim this will suddenly evaporate as soon as they set foot on our magic dirt and read our magic Constitution.

if you replaced all the planks, sails, oars and riggings on Theseus' ship with different planks, sails, oars and riggings, it's not the same ship. if you went back and edited 100% of your dumb post to be less dumb, it would be a new post. get it?

I don't care about haplotypes and don't see how it's relevant here. the point is that a nation is a collective of people with a shared culture, language and history, and outsiders who refuse to assimilate destroy the cohesiveness which leads to a "low-trust society." outsiders who do not share our history or culture have no reason to value it, and as I already noted this renders our values meaningless.

once again, the same people who argue in favor of mass immigration also overlap heavily with the people who claim that a White European hegemony is intolerable and racist and in urgent need of destruction, and that's no accident or coincidence.

Hyper
November 11th, 2016, 05:54 AM
Well while I do despise them SJW & 3rd wave feminists. I also despise any kind of authoritarianism and I don't believe any of western societies good points in terms of history & culture have to do with our genetic profiles.

Sadly our skin color only remains relavant due to people using it as a divisive tool. Hilariously while people with racist views like yourself do it, you are in an overwhelming minority compared to the SJW/3rd wave fem crowd who are insanely racist as well.

But that aside... The rule of law hasn't been an uniquely western or white concept, though as far as we know from history it mostly has been. Some variants have for the rule of law have been observed in history, with some deviations such as the elite being above the law but similar deviations existed in the cradle civilization of this concept as well (Ancient Greeks), i.e China, some Middle Eastern societies.

I'm not sure where this identity politics and its ideology came from honestly, but I think I understand what it relies on, what runs it.

Empathy & authoritarianism, as far as I've seen all SJW/3rd wave fem types are either heavily empathetic (even towards bullshit) and/or authoritarian - the belief that You know better and that you have some kind of right to control the lives of others for ''the greater good'' is an inherently authoritarian notion.

This ends up working in a simplified manner in this way: authoritarian SJW feels genuinely distressed over whatever - empathetic SJW or yet to be SJW, sees this distress and immediately rushes to the defense of the authoritarian SJW, basically they feel the need to nurture and protect them.

Auothoritarian SJWs then, in their distress and the validation of said distress by others, continue to get even more distressed, they start seeing the world in darker and darker colors in their echo chambers and sooner or later the solutions ''all make sense''.

,, We have to destroy the patriarchy! Dismantle the white supremacy! White western society is evil! '' - but if its so evil then something has to be de facto good (otherwise going on living is a pretty shitty prospect) that's why when you look at the most extreme SJW/3rd wave fem types they seem to completely ignore the kind of horrible shit that goes on in most parts of non-western society, because the opposite to the evil western society MUST be good!

I don't know what the future looks like, but in general big cultural changes tend to start at the ''higher level'' (the educated elite) and the scary thing to me is that these people have massive control of the educational system and especially colleges, where the ground is ripe with impressionable and mostly peer pressure folding youth...

The rhetoric is of course scary too, horseshoe comes to mind, when you disagree you are immediately strawmanned a racist & misogynist & islamophobe and whatever else.

When you oppose their views they will actively try to ruin your life because they believe that anyone who ''isn't with us is against us'' - an overtly totalitarian authoritarian concept that has always led to really nice things in history :P

Personally... I have nothing against immigration or multi culturalism but of course only when A) The immigrant does ''as the Romans do'' - there is nothing wrong with keeping your own culture when you immigrate, though what you keep has to be compatible with the culture you are moving into, in fact that's how ''multi culturalism'' works in my mind.

People move somewhere else, they bring their culture, values, traditions, food (yum yum) and it mingles and mixes with the local equivalents or simply becomes a foreign addition. But ultimately the immigrants culture & values should be subservient to the natives, because when it isn't there isn't any assimilation and it is in essence an invasion, which just leads to the natives becoming distrustful, even hating of the immigrants if their cultures & values differ too greatly.

That's the way it goes in history as well, immigrants who don't want to assimilate become invaders and if their might makes right they will make right. (Pssst America).

ThisBougieLife
November 11th, 2016, 12:11 PM
The immigrant does ''as the Romans do'' - there is nothing wrong with keeping your own culture when you immigrate, though what you keep has to be compatible with the culture you are moving into, in fact that's how ''multi culturalism'' works in my mind.


This I think is an important point. Immigration should not mean that the country with the immigrants must change their values or laws. Would a Westerner be able to move to the Middle East and expect to behave entirely the same as they do in the U.S.? Probably not. Why should it be different the other way around? By all means, immigrate, but do it legally and accept that some parts of your culture may not be able to mesh with the new culture you are adopting by immigrating.

This is why places like France have such trouble; rather than allow the immigrants to assimilate, they ensure they remain outsiders and corralled into ghettos. And they wonder why they become disenchanted and radicalized.

phuckphace
November 11th, 2016, 03:30 PM
This is why places like France have such trouble; rather than allow the immigrants to assimilate, they ensure they remain outsiders and corralled into ghettos. And they wonder why they become disenchanted and radicalized.

the issue with this is that it doesn't quite align with reality. the fact is that most are "radicalized" already (as you'd expect from people who quite literally just stepped out of a boat sailing from an Islamist country) and form ethnic enclaves on purpose because they want all the advantages of living in a Western country and a home away from home while also having zero desire to integrate and adopt Western values. there's nothing stopping them from assimilating into French culture (discrimination is illegal in France) it's only a matter of will. their will to do so, in turn, is minimal if non-existent because they view Western culture as decadent and Satanic, and Westerners as degenerate kaffirs. in short, they're here because they found out we're giving away free money and that's it.

I have some Internet friends who live in the Third World (Gaza, Pakistan, etc.) and here's something I hear often: "hey it's almost 10pm here, the electricity will shut off soon, goodnight man." just to be clear, we're talking about societies that have trouble keeping the lights on, and who stare slack-jawed at a power plant as if it's some bleeding-edge futuretech like the Large Hadron Collider or something. a given society is only as good as the sum of its parts, and when said parts are lacking, the aggregate will be just as mediocre. the fact that immigrants are fleeing failed states to begin with should tell you something about the capability of a society comprised of these people - they can't function at home, and all the free cash in the world won't make them functional in the West.

Jinglebottom
November 11th, 2016, 04:15 PM
"hey it's almost 10pm here, the electricity will shut off soon, goodnight man."
This is such a big and widespread problem in this country (pathetic). Our corrupt ass government cannot even provide 24/7 electricity for its own citizens. You'd at least expect the capital to have that, right? Nope! There are some neighborhoods where you will not see even one light in-between certain hours, usually lasting 4 to 8 hours on average. Personally, I have a UPS so I don't feel the effects, but I'm aware that not everyone can afford one and I feel awful for those who can't. Meanwhile, some town in the mountain range has managed to provide 24/7 power for its inhabitants. Yet the capital can't. Now if that isn't fucking hilarious...

phuckphace
November 11th, 2016, 05:14 PM
the Third World in general is eternally plagued with mind-boggling levels of corruption and ultra-low trust, and this seems to sync up nicely with their tribalistic mindsets. nevermind their aggressions aimed at external enemies - the concept of noblesse oblige, while quickly declining in the West, has never really existed at all over there. whoever ends up with the most dinars and camels, he's going to flash it ostentatiously before the commoners in the cheesiest and most shameless way possible. socioeconomic status tends to take precedence over nationality, in that they've got their little clans and their family honor (stupid) but don't see themselves as belonging to a nation of their fellow countrymen. they'll just as soon pick up a gun and slaughter their countrymen over trivialities as they would when going to war against a foreign enemy.

basically, it's Galt's Gulch in the desert amped up to a million with the added bonus of shitty fatalism. Hell on Earth. we should airdrop all ancaps into Saudi Arabia.

Vlerchan
November 11th, 2016, 07:09 PM
Chile is a multiethnic society in South America. It is roughly 30% white, 65% mixed-race, and the remainder is indigenous. Towards the end of the 20th century it went from being an under-performer in the region, to one of its most prosperous nations. Between 1985 and 1998 it saw growth rates averaging around 7%. Between 1989 and 1999 poverty fell from 45% to 21%, and by 2015 it was at 7%. Inequality is high, but it's GINI from 90:10 is 0.37, about the average measurement for a European State.

It's strong state is descendant from the 1830s, a reflection, in particular, of reforms under Portelos. Concentration along the Santiago-Valpara╠so corridor and Concepcion contributed to there being a fused political and economic elite - residing in a tight social network. There homogeneous interests facilitated state centralization but inhibited pluralism. So whilst the Chileans had a public service superior to other states in the region, for example, its development was slow as politics was ran in the interests of a narrow elite. In other words, it had effective but ultimately extractive institutions.

This structure began to disintegrate in the 1950s. Electoral reform resulted in Elites losing their strangehold over civil society and Land reform affected this further still. The Freis-Allende-Pinochet regime ultimately opened up civil society. And, yes, I mean Pinochet: whilst he was to a certain extent counter-revolutionary - for example, he undid vast amounts of the gains from Land Reform - his free market policies created a more meritorious structure, which fostered growth and development. It has been commented by multiple scholars that the high degree of centralization of the state undoubtedly enabled the successful liberalization process - It was also noted that there was very little corruption in the privatization and deregulation processes.

The economic gains of the 1990s were broadly a reflection of earlier Liberalisation efforts - and the 'democratic shock'*.

Chile is a multiethnic society in South America. It is roughly 30% white, 65% mixed-race, and the remainder is indigenous. Towards the end of the 20th century it went from being an under-performer in the region, to one of its most prosperous nations. It's institutions guided development: centralization allowed it to effectively host a market economy and pluralism ensured that the direction of this economy wasn't swamped in the interests of an Elite.

Extractive institutions inhibit growth and Extractive institutions are just what was set up in recourse-rich colonial states during the 1500s - 1800s, which just happen to make up the vast majority of developing countries. When decolonization occurred, indigenous elites maintained these structures. The lack of state centralization, as it affects Africa, in particular**, makes it difficult for anything about this to really change. This isn't the entire story. I'm convinced that human-capital and legacy differences are as great, if not greater, drivers of development. Nevertheless, this cultural-backwardness narrative has been used as an excuse for hundreds of years to just not give a shit about poor people, when the last hundreds of years have only ever suggested that when you give a nation the chance to prosper they typically do just that.

Africa is having what's called a Growth Renaissance at the moment. Returns on investment have been far outstripping anything seen elsewhere in the world for the last decade or so. Literally hundreds of millions of people have been pulled out of poverty in Asia over the last 20 years. Sali-I-Martin wrote a famous paper about growth in the mid-2000s called 'Falling Poverty and... Convergence, Period', and that's exactly what's happening, 'Convergence, Period.

---

* i.e. the return, in 1989, to democracy in itself was beneficial, greater policy certainty resulted in the expansion of firm's policy-horizons.

** For whatever reasons, it happens to be the only region in the world where wars didn't further state centralisation.

Porpoise101
November 14th, 2016, 04:57 PM
demographics is destiny, and this is no less true simply because you see yourself as a model immigrant or offspring of same and are deluded that this will carry over to all the rest. it won't.

This is where I diverge. I see geography as something that shapes man and culture and not people. The Briton didn't make boats because he is a Briton. He made them because he's on Britain. Americans expanded to the West not because of a desire to spread Christianity or WASP culture, it was because of geographic isolation and a desire to profit off of the natural bounty of the land. Communism never spread to the US on the basis of a staunch republican ideology alone, instead it was because we are far off comparatively from the world of the European factory worker.

In the same vein, as technology becomes more advanced, we can circumvent these geographic differences. This is what has happened and it is what is happening. The US' culture will finally come closer to the rest of the world because of these forces, as will the rest of the world to us. It is our destiny to have one mass culture, and that is what will happen, not because of demographic composition, but technology narrowing the gap of geography.

Sure, composition has some relevance, but it's nothing compared to the forces of our physical situation and our abilities to circumvent them.

seriously. it's a waste of time to try and spin the 1000th rehash of the "magic dirt" meme. the Third World, especially a certain subcontinent that's topped by the Himalayas, is a nonstop rape carnival rolled into a Scheisse porno flick, and it's flat out absurd to claim this will suddenly evaporate as soon as they set foot on our magic dirt and read our magic Constitution.

Perhaps this is more to do with the fact that a consistent and absolute system of rule of law haven't developed or are still developing. 'Nonstop rape carnivals' with corrupt governments can become model nations. It's what happened to Europe during industrialization and it's what is happening in ascending powers. If you want a good example, take Taiwan. This island nation of former Third World cronies became a strong democracy. You can't use the "Westerners instilled these values" excuse either because Taiwan was never once colonized, occupied, or reformed by the West.

if you replaced all the planks, sails, oars and riggings on Theseus' ship with different planks, sails, oars and riggings, it's not the same ship. if you went back and edited 100% of your dumb post to be less dumb, it would be a new post. get it?

This is such a great analogy, because just like Theseus and his ship, mythical 1950s glory-days America did not really exist as we romanticize it today. We've always had these parts, and we've passed them down in the same way.

outsiders who do not share our history or culture have no reason to value it, and as I already noted this renders our values meaningless.

Ridiculous. Of course they will value our national history because it is still relevant to their present. Even if the US becomes majority nonwhite, George Washington still is relevant. That's the great thing about the past: It can't change no matter how much the interpretation does. In fact, if the US becomes more diverse (notice how I didn't say multicultural), then there will be more histories and a wider breadth of heritage to explore. In the past, the heritage and values of mostly White and Black Americans was explored simply because they were the people who lived in the US. Now we are going back and actually learning to appreciate the other communities and histories which have been erased or forgotten by time.

As far as values go, you kind of have to adopt them if you want to live and breathe outside of your little immigrant enclave. You need them to go out in the greater world and connect with other people and make friends. Some will say that the values you have to pick up are 'white' values as those are the ones people seek out. But I'd argue that's just because of geography and the fact that there are more white people living outside cities.

Fleek
December 17th, 2016, 05:13 PM
This seems very racist. I am disappointed.