Kill whitey

seems to be a going chant. i'm white, thought i'd get your thoughts on the matter.

If you have any issues with the accelerating pattern of forced integration of white people in all white countries, and only white countries, by unrelenting movements of other peoples into your lands, then you must be a racist and a nazi, even though ironically your people the white people are being replaced by other groups of people from other countries where they have isolationist migration policies, last I checked the TV wasn't calling anybody racist but white people, because I think only white people can be "racists." If you're white then you are simply not authorized to share any views about race in any way, unless it's about how much faster you should be replaced by anybody but more people that look like you.

The reason is the more immigrants = more lending. The white people have already been bled dry from bankers during the past century, and now the bankers demand whatever different groups of people they can get, brown yellow or black it doesn't matter, to move into your neighborhood on a loan, start a business on a loan and begin their way towards the rest of the American dream on loans. The reasons become more clear when you realize these days all money is lended into existence.

People want to talk about modern day slavery, whether in other countries or here with corporations, not unlike Thailand or China and many other countries, and that's alright. . .but if you mention that the banking system we've got here is modern day financial slavery, you'll be labelled a evil nazi, and that wouldn't be nice would it?? ha ha ha

I find interesting George Washington's immigration act of 1790, where only white people of European descent could migrate to the US and be granted citizenship. Now that I mentioned that, I'm sure this post will be deleted.

Wikipedia:
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." It specifies that such children "shall be considered as natural born citizens," the only US statute ever to use the term.[1][2]

Even our nations' history is racist, so if you like your nation's history, you're a racist nazi !! ha ha ha ha ha

Those are some of my thoughts on that issue you mentioned in regards to increasing division between various diverse groups and white people anyway.

I could go on about how this is all part of a reoccurring trend or cycle of nations, where up next step in the process is known as the "red terror" of a Bolshevik style revolution and eventual installing of a communist regime, so we can have our resources further centralized. . . in Soviet Union there were multitudes of poor and increasingly diverse people, but there was a group of very rich oligarchs overseeing the situation at least . . . .

I expect this post to be deleted by somebody stricken with guilt because this post wasn't diverse enough, specifically it wasn't pro some group other than white people, or my post wasn't anti white people enough, so at some point I'll also be labeled by somebody a racist and a nazi and a bad bad man and somebody will remind me of how bad Hitler was, the only bad person that the world had ever seen.

I could elaborate more on this issue but then my post will surely be removed, if it will not already be anyway. . .

Poor white people, we've always had it sooooo tough lol

So white peoples societies weren't "tough" enough, we should let various different groups of people from tough societies all over the world move in next door to me and culturally enrich our societies so that we can be tough as well. You should hand over your job to them also because it doesn't sound like you've had it tough enough.

That's the problem with white people, they build societies that aren't tough enough to prevent people from everywhere else from wanting move into the land of white people and displace white people. Fortunately for you who would rather we have not so weak societies, at present trajectories, there won't be white people in your not too distant future. . .so there won't be racist white people either !! and then we will have finally at last defeated racism ??? ha ha ha ha ha

good lord man what are you smoking?

I'll just say I don't believe hardly anything at all that I hear or see on mainstream sources such as television news and mainstream newspapers, and perhaps I look at the world a lot differently than most, hows that?

I can come down to your level and throw down a emotional response as well. One minute . . let me gather some "feelings" . . . .

OK I'm ready. What are YOU smoking man??

Was that good? How was that ? ? Oh man wasting some mind power to create some reactive emotional wavelengths to form a more relatable response to you is a drain that was almost exhaustive. I tried to make myself you know, more like you, specifically by that I mean more in tune with these useless mind processes that they call "feelings," which are almost always void of logic or reasoning, but generally allow for rapid statements based on no science or statistics, comprised entirely of positive or negative intended "emotions," usually automatically regurgitated from triggered perceptions imprinted by social conditioning from social engineers via exposure to banker television and other heavily biased and filtered bank backed entertainment and media sources. . .

If your emotional vibrations were disrupted by my message, then I advise you be more careful what you message on Internet, as you don't always know who will respond. You can listen to me, I'm just some damn guy.

what is this BS about?

Hey that is my Job.

EYE or I dont see about is what BS ?? we sure EYE or I is OK ???

ha ha never mind what I've said, I know I went too far again now sharing my perspectives in regards to white people. That wasn't PC of me in a politically correct PC game on the PC and I think most white people would disagree with my perspective anyway.

If you're listening to the TV, that's your problem right there.
John Wests's quotes ITT.
[quote]I'll just say I don't believe hardly anything at all that I hear or see on mainstream sources such as television news and mainstream newspapers[/quote]
[quote]last I checked the TV wasn't calling anybody racist but white people, because I think only white people can be "racists."[/quote] (sarcasm noted)
You don't believe "hardly anything at all" from MSM sources, yet you seem to have accepted the emotional content and let it cloud your judgement and color your opinions on the matter.

My take is that racism holds a prominent place in a perfect society; although this opinion usually meets with strong opposition. However, racism is highly effective at maintaining the integrity of racial and cultural 'enclaves'. Such enclaves of racial and/or cultural purity is necessary to promote a more healthy society as a whole. Without them, the social and genetic makeup of the world society (which has no practical use for racism), becomes monochromatic (so to speak). Genetic and social diversity are best maintained by regular infusions from "pure" enclaves. Genetic and social diversity are most desirable because they are the last line of defense against pandemics.
However, these enclaves of 'purity' must remain small enough that they cannot forcibly impose their social order on anyone else. They should remain disenfranchised enough that they remain insular and racist by necessity - to preserve and protect their way of life. However, they should never be allowed to forcibly prevent anyone from leaving - thus preserving their purpose of infusing the world society with their social and genetic uniqueness.
Thus, I envision a world at large free of racism where cross breeding and the cross pollonization of ideas and cultures is encouraged, within which thousands of insular enclaves maintain their genetic and social uniqueness. Enclaves that contribute a constant stream of diversity to the world at large; thus preventing it from becoming too monoculural/monogenetic.
"Whites", in such civilization, would be just a few of these enclaves. "White purity" would be just a preservation of certain genetic and cultural traits, while "White power" would hardly exist at all.

I believe in true muliculturalism and diversity -that is all groups of people should have more than only some share of influence in different lands, but rather their own geography where their societies are not diminished to minority communities. Although I understand that this perspective is not the trendy way of looking at things that is usually encountered amongst most people of this last century, I however think people of this last century are on average dumber than at least the previous few centuries and that is somehow a contributing factor to this issue. When they eventually succeed in mixing everybody up, there will be no multiple cultures anymore, there will be only one worldwide culture, and the world as a whole will be less of a creative force interacting with different civilizations and an increasingly dull place to live where everybody is the same and inevitably part of the same one world civilization where inevitably there will be only one set of traditions, one language, one set of superstitions, and only one of everything else and etc. So I think the most logical thing is have policies to preserve all different cultures, not to discourage legit travelers business or otherwise, but encouraging the permanent residence of different peoples to remain in different geographic areas so that they can pass their traditions down to descendants . . .it's a challenge, but this is something our Governments were supposed to handle?? Here's an example of but one policy action to preserve different cultures: Only citizens of [any country here] can own land or businesses in [that country]. I just made that up like duct tape to a complex issue, but seems a lot more logical to me than not. In this alternate scenario I presented, regardless whatever your country is, if the rest of the world wants to trade with your side of the world, and your country has that policy in effect, than the rest of the world has to deal with you the one who lives there, rather than deal with somebody who has never been to your land, and just owns your land (or whatevers worth owning around your land anyway) from some distant land, like a tax haven in the Caribbean. . .

and yeah I mentioned TV because I believe it has had and continues to have a powerful influence as it seems its something universal that multitudes, perhaps most people, are in tuned with to at least some degree whatever they've been told by those glowing screens. . . .

but thats just how I look at it anyway, I'm sure I've said too much, and so I think I'll just leave it at that. .

At the very least, we two agree on the problem. However, continuing to carve up the world into country sized portions is problematic - there's not enough room for both a world culture and diversity. This gives rise to the same problems of the past - nationalism, stateism, supremism, imperialism, exceptionalism, etc.. The nation state, based upon a culture and/or genetic traits, holds sway over too many people - harming too many for the benefit of the few. Unfortunately for me, my idea gives rise to the specter of a one world govt. limiting the influence and reducing the area of control of the nation/state. Most people don't like that idea.
I believe our species needs a social reorganization.

As we've turned this into an intellectual exercise, rather than an argument, feel free to express yourself.

Eddy Bernays, perhaps the most evil man who ever lived, wrote in his book, "Propaganda",
[quote] "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons [...] who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world."[/quote]
I should note, that E.B. believed democratic participation should be reserved to an ultra-wealthy few. He believed the masses were too stupid and emotional to rule themselves. Thus, to avoid disfavor, he continued to use the word 'democracy', but redefined it to mean what we call an oligarchy. So he was able to speak his mind openly without eliciting mass disfavor; only occasionally saying something that didn't make sense if you didn't know he had redefined the word. The rest of us, he felt, should be relegated to slaves, educated only to perform specific tasks; like trained monkeys.

Blast, I think I'll never figure this forum out. How does one post a quote here? A simple smiley face?

Edward Bernays was accurate, that's precisely what's going on right now !! haha

Not sure what the ongoing issue with race is on here -must be a lot of Americans on the forum.
When the robots take over it won't matter what race you are -as will all be a number -how's that? lol

Michael is right!
The singularity is nearing and cylons don't see color.

The people will accept that number and the mark that bestowed with it.

Indeed there actually is no color, that is an illusion of processing the presence of photons within a particular vibrational spectrum detected by rods and cones photoreceptor cells, and that vibrations trigger an elchemical reaction that is then converted into electronic wavelengths transmitted via biowiring into the electromagnetic fields in our heads aka brainwaves, which is then translated by a trick of the mind into what we perceive as colors, objects, etc.

Regardless of this process if I understand it accurately that is, to desire to control all [groups] of people is one thing, but to throw all people into the same group I believe will increase division and lower overall productiveness of said group, because I recognize there are measurable baseline behavioral tendencies beyond the immediate layer of illusion/perception specifically different overlapping ranges of adaptabilities depending on environments of the originating groups of people now thrown together that will always create spectrums of observable patterns of inequality and inevitably division, unless of course the powers that be eventually succeed in fully breeding everybody together into the same vibrational sets, themselves excluded of course. Than I admit a total one world financially enslaved culture is plausible. However I also find it rather unlikely for that scenario to ultimately be realized despite massive gains towards that goal in the last century, as all actions have equal and opposite reactions in the energy field, a diverse group I expect should inevitably splinter into diverse groups and back forth again. . .but again you can argue that "people," "groups," and other things are mere illusions in themselves and that as you punch through all the layers of illusion there is perhaps but only one energy wavelength taking different forms in the manner of people, inanimate objects, etc. ??. . . .I simply argue that if all these "different peoples" recognized their perceived differences rather than discard them, and maintain within their respective originating groups, than life would be simpler and division would be moreso restricted to between groups, rather than between frictioning communities within a single group. Not at all am I implying that would eliminate division entirely because that's not what I said, but merely minimized more than not.

If we were all meant to be in the same group than why aren't we all exactly the same such as a specific breed of ant???? Indicators suggest to me the energy field /world consciousness that is known as "reality" is striving to create as different perspectives upon itself as possible, and so more varied groups rather than less seems to me the natural path rather than one merger of all peoples, despite the financial agenda of a few. . .anyways perhaps I'm going to stop posting here altogether because I don't expect anybody to get my perspective with exception perhaps of that roving EYE which might get what I mean . . ..but it just moves around and calls everything BS so who knows ha ha whatever I guess . ..

I would appreciate if whoever bored enough to respond to my perspective has a actual enlightening perspective themself based on logic rather than just regurgitate a conditioned triggered response and label me a racist nazi, but somehow I do not expect anybody to have anything meaningful to say in regards to what I'm saying other than something they've heard some where from some banker financed social engineer that programmed into their mind what to think according to the politically correct bias. . . .

but you know after sharing this much of my perspective, I've realized I've probably traversed too far again out of the politically correct spectrum of acceptable thought patterns, and so perhaps I should just withdraw entirely from this thread before the wrath of the thought police comes down upon me. .

If only I could administer mild electric shocks to people through the internet.

Andy make it happen. You're my ace.

Says the one who bears the name of a group of social engineers . . . .as you did not specify I assume you directed that emotional response to me, the last one that had posted. .how am I not surprised . .

you can't fool all of the people all the time Mr BILDERBERG, you're just upset because some of us are onto you !! ! ! haha

and you are here, but don't you have some regime to switch out with your puppets somewhere ??

That's also something I see differently than most.
I see a common root to all manner of "social problems". Racism, racial supremacy, nationalism, exceptionalism; these are all the basic universal social more of loyalty gone awry - applied too fervently and/or inappropriately.
Loyalty, in it's most basic form, is universal; meaning it exists in all societies, in all people in one form or another - with the notable exception of psychopaths. (sorry for the lecture, folks). There is no loyalty more universal than that between mother and child. Which obviates the purpose of this loyalty - survival. Love supports loyalty. Which, in turn, promotes survival. But from there, we have loyalty (and loves) extended to ever larger groups of people; family, tribe, community, state, race, nation. At each level, we create an 'us V. them' mentality complete with different standards of treatment. This is perfectly natural for us humans to do. In fact, in terms of evolution, it makes sense to do so. The guy who is suspicious of all but his family may not make a lot of friends; but he is unlikely to be killed by a stranger. The guy who embraces all strangers may make a lot of friends, but may not survive long enough to pass his loving nature to his children. This is so natural, in fact, that we like to create sides to belong to in any situation - be it cafeteria cliques, the National Football League, or war between nations. And who doesn't like that feeling of belonging in a larger group (asides from psychopaths and schizoid personalities)?

But this also gives rise to many 'social problems'; racism, nationalism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide, segregation, and all manner of hatreds and violence; even war and slavery in many cases. For example, a person who feels his nation is superior to all others purely because it's the one he was born into. It makes no sense because that same person should logically expect everyone else on the planet to feel the same way about the nation they were born into. And certainly, not every nation on Earth can be superior to all the others. Patriotism - loyalty to one's nation/state is perfectly natural. But nationalism - the idea that ones own nation is better than all the rest - is nonsense. It all a matter of what metric one uses. And there's no question that exceptionalism - the idea that one's nation should be allowed to do things no other nation should be allowed to do - is obviously immoral (it breaks another universal social more; that of fairness).

In the past, I've made arguments to people who do not believe morality should be used at all on the national level. That the foreign policy of nation/states should not have to be moral. That any lack of morality demonstrated by any government is no reflection on the morality of its people. I consider this nonsense as well since, through patriotism, nationalism, and exceptionalism, the people governed has already impressed their morality upon their government. Even the dictatorship reflects the morality of the dictator.

Tl;Dr: Many of our worst social traits are actually our morality gone horribly wrong. We extend our loyalty inappropriately and enforce it too fervently.

And sorry to burst your comparison, there. But two different hives of the same species of ant will attack each other. Even the slightest difference in their chemical language is enough to pit them against one another. It's like having every variation in the French language, no matter how slight the accent, is enough to make them instant enemies.

The Tazmanian Devil pandemic is a fine example of why the singularity (thank you, Jonni. I had forgotten the term) is undesirable. It also slows scientific progress and innovation. While it might cure racism, et. al., it exchanges one set of problems for another.

That is a very deep an interesting comment again from jdlech. I agree with all said with one exception. I will disassemble what you said where I disagree.

"But nationalism - the idea that ones own nation is better than all the rest - is nonsense. It all a matter of what metric one uses."

I argue that nationalism is merely love for ones country, according to the logic you presented, and it is NOT exceptionalism.

"And there's no question that exceptionalism - the idea that one's nation should be allowed to do things no other nation should be allowed to do - is obviously immoral (it breaks another universal social more; that of fairness)."

and this one I just think is funny because what you say reminds me of my country the USA, which I have been reminded on occasion is an "exceptional" nation. ha ha. and I agree with your perspective that "exceptionalism" is not right.

In regards to ants I stand corrected, yet I would say your correction reinforces my perspective

The other day I walked into a pub in Dublin, quite a popular one, and everyone inside was wearing a fez. Immediately a noticeable quiet descended upon the place, and many of the patrons turned to look at me.

This debate reminds me of that moment. I slowly backed out and went next door.

That was probably a bunch of masons you walked into while they were having a drink.

Possibly, but there was a distinct lack of people getting hammered.