In so far as that is comprehensible, an independent peer-reviewed citation please.
Sure. While I'm at it, I'll dig up peer-reviewed citations as to why Hillary is a corrupt piece of shit--Oh wait, she hasn't been indicted, so you'll reject any conclusive statements on being corrupt.
As such, you'll probably reject, as evidence, every glaring example of state-sponsored population and social engineering programs that discourage the growth of families under the spectre of overpopulation (e.g. taxpayer-funded abortion and birth control) or Christian culture-shaming (see also: universally liberal hatred for the Duggar family), or the states telling illegal immigrant families that the taxpayers will support them and their subsequent children because they're poor and unfortunate even as the primarily white middle class (what's left of it) suffers heavy taxation and inflation, or Sweden and Germany actually telling its citizens to go out and mingle with migrants--who are counseled by the government on how to get them to fuck on the first date (with intercourse diagrams to boot).
You'd probably still tell the South Koreans that there's no evidence of the 8 Goddesses cabal since it wasn't a "peer-reviewed citation" that finally exposed them and Park to the entire country even though people have been making claims of its existence for years--and were called sexist conspiracy theorists for their trouble.
First, please explain how the advocation of immigration leads to calling "Euro-descendents" "racists" and "xenophobes."
Where is the precise correlation between advocation of immigration and calling whites "racists and xenophobes"?
Please explain your logic succinctly.
Succinct enough?
a. State-sponsored organizations lead the charge on pushing policies and cultural complexes that discourage families and child-birth among Europeans while developing policies that give economic and medical relief to minorities.
b. [Majority] White population is diminishing [while minority populations increase].
c. Solution proposed by me: immigration.
d. Pariah's conclusion: allowing brown people in will lead to "artificially breed [white people]--and their cultures--out of existence".
This is called a false dilemma. You say one must lead to the other, excluding all other scenarios.
Fixed that for you. But, incidentally, the clarification just makes more apparent why your claim that immigration being a solution to the root problem doesn't make any sense. Instead of fixing the issue that caused the decline, you suggest swallowing a cat to catch the rat. This is opposed to the more logical solution of reversing policies that caused the decline in the first place.
You really think this decline just appeared out of nowhere? What am I saying, of course you do. "Beaver Cleaver and the Nuclear Family weren't sustainable!" On the contrary, they were. But Soviet-sponsored Critical Theorists wormed their way into Western Civilization's upper echelons of education and politics and told us otherwise under elite, unquestionable auspices, and therefore pressured us to engineer our cultural values and sense of tribalism out of our preconceived notions so that we'd always see ourselves as inherent oppressors (see alos: Feminist Theory, Race Theory, Gender Theory, Marxist Theory, etc.). Next thing you know you have Ivy League college professors telling white students that they have a duty to breed only with someone of a different race and political Twitter feeds that regurgitate hashtags such as #WeHateWhiteChildren and #OffWhiteOnly.
The sad thing is that I bought into that tune by listening to people like you and Whomod, and allowed you to craft a faulty narrative as a premise for me to operate upon for over a decade: "Well, yeah, the Crusades, Colonialism, Nazis, Apartheid, Rhodesia, Confederates, Aboriginal Genocide....but...." and then I'd give ground under misapprehension when the reality is that I was never in the wrong.
First, did I ever say I cared for the European phenotype?
Okay, so you sympathize with the downtrodden white man because he could be your father--as someone with the same facial features and skin color as you--but you're going to imply that your sense of tribalism demarcates at some point before the phenotype?
Or are you simply implying that you don't care for the European genetic signature at all (which wouldn't surprise me since liberals are notoriously self-loathing cucks), and that any attachment you feel as a white man to any other white person is somehow irrational (read: racist).
Tee-hee. I'm a eugenicist! Citation, please.
You think high taxation, massive inflation, subsidized birth control, etc. don't deter families and population growth? Have you even been paying attention these past hundred-plus years? We slid down the slippery slope and crashed straight into a dimension where all of the end results of decades of liberal policies are exhibited in full display and horrifying detail. It won't be denied.
Yeah, I noticed you used permutations of that word quite a bit. But you don't get to throw around pejoratives such as "xenophobe" without being guilty of attempting to influence people's behavior by socially shaming them into submission.
"Oh. You're against immigration? Then you're a xenophobe. That's not an insult or a critique mind you. I'm just making an objective observation--even though, of course, the accusation may be enough to get you unemployed. Have a nice day. Hey honey, get a look at the xenophobe!"
I wonder what you think of African-Americans in that context? Or Hispanic-Americans? Because I think where we are going with this is that you like racial purity.
And now you're going for broke.
I make an observation that minorities, and they're rapidly growing families--and illegal immigrants--the vast majority of whom are characterized by non-whites--are the primary recipients of welfare and tax benefits for which the primarily (dwindling) white families have had to foot the bill--and, incidentally, they're also the root cause of crimes committed against whites. Conclusion: I like racial purity.
The US has a root culture. That root culture consists of white Americans--and a fairly decent portion of Asians. To this day, that culture has served as both the bread-basket to, and a common bulwark for, every other subculture in the US. This arrangement both rewards those subcultures for being dependent and gives greater accommodation for them to reproduce since their medical benefits are covered by safety-net programs that are financially supported by the root culture. Needless to say, this creates an artificially-produced strain on the white root culture and dissuades them from investing in furthering their own families, property, or business endeavors.
I've mentioned this before, Dave. I can't remember if you responded or not, but it bears repeating regardless: in the US, it isn't just folks like myself who are bothered by the shrinking number of Euro-Americans, it's typically the non-white legal immigrants that show up in the US that tell me they're scared of the receding Anglo-majority because Hispanics, Asians, and Black Americans tend not to get along with each other as subcultures in the US. Once the root culture--which is characterized by European Americans--is gone, you're only left with these tumultuous, friction-laden subcultures. In fact, legal Hispanic/Asian/Black immigrants tend to be the only ones to point this out since whites are conditioned to either disregard or simply not notice it.
Dark-skinned people breed like rabbits.
Welfare-recipients tend to breed like rabbits. These individuals just so happen to be dark-skinned. If the situation were reversed, it would be just as unjust.
Ho-ra!
We're close enough to South Africa down here for me to have heard all of this before.
Are you really going to dig the hole deeper by mentioning South Africa? After Mandela oversaw the slaughter of whites--and his legacy continues to oversee that slaughter with rape, murder, inflicted poverty, and intimidation of the few whites that are left (might as well be talking about Rhodesia as well)? If people in South Africa are saying what I'm saying, they're spot on--And they're in a good position know it too since they watched their prosperous nation turn into a third-world country just so people would stop calling them racists and imperialists. They committed suicide for the sake of people with mindsets such as yours.
Ironically, if someone were to tell you that the Israelis were making a calculated effort to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, you'd probably buy it outright. But since you've been raised and taught to believe that your skin color makes you inherently evil, it's just too difficult for you to wrap your mind around the idea that anyone could want to ethnically cleanse your own race.
Oh, sorry, you have your unassailable shield of me emotionally blackmailing you and calling you racist and xenophobic because I disagree with you. This excuses you from listening and rationalising a differing perspective, and it on your logic prevents me from knowing an elephant from a zebra.
I listen to what you say, Dave. I always have. The issue tends to be however, that your perspective is so theory-laden and needlessly complex that I couldn't even begin to entertain it as fact. What bugs me is that your ilk tries to hide that complexity by wrapping it in simple terms (e.g "racist", "xenophobe") that seemingly say everything while explaining nothing in the process.
Once, you were a rational guy with out-of-the-box views which I found challenging and thoughtful. I think as you have become older, you have become less curious generally, but especially about thinking - even unorthodox thinking - which doesn't conform to your paradigm on life, and have transformed your intelligent suspicion into an insular paranoia. You've blinkered yourself to different views, and exclusively listened to your own views mirrored back at you by your peers. That's an unfortunate waste.
I'm tempted to go on at the risk of patronising you, but I recognise that the likelihood of you being able to take this on board and process it is remote. You are now, for the worse, unable.
The rest of your rant - not a reasoned response - seems unnecessary to address as it an equally irrational jigsaw.
You have vent your spleen, and not just refused to give consideration, you have utterly failed in persuasion - and indeed, having seen where your perspective on life leads I have no desire to drown in self-conceit and insulation.
There is no measured debate here. Accordingly, no need to respond, Pariah, although I'm sure you'll want the last message-board word.
Word.....
...But seriously.
Instead of critiquing my character, I think you should just come to terms with the fact that you said something that made me explode at you, then consider exactly why I find it to be so outrageous, and move on. But in the interest of tit for tat...
Intelligent suspicion (assuming I was ever intelligent to begin with) must reach a point of reconciliation or you become forever adrift in theoretical uncertainties, decidedly unconvinced by anything since absolute truth exists as an anathema to relativistic ambiguity as a philosophical principle. As a subscriber to Nicomachean ethics, I've always been out to find absolute truth and I've gotten closer to it over the past few years.
I would argue that you, on the other hand, have progressed very little in the years that we've interacted. As far back as I can remember you've subtly taken positions that are popularly affirmative and tend to adopt the typical oppressor v. oppressed binary, which are characterized by any number of permutations alluding to social justice (off the top of my head, Israel v. Palestinians, State v. Illegal Immigrants, Traditionalists v. Gays, West v. Islam, Whites v. Everyone). You then proceed to go into semi-drawn out spiels that usually emphasize theory of practice instead of saying one way or another whether it's good or bad before ultimately arriving at a conclusion that's metarelational to your criteria. I don't necessarily have a problem with your chosen format, but you tend to try to play this game both ways by neither affirming the validity, or denying the veracity, of what is said contrary to your inductive argument, thus preserving your relativistic tone even amidst material evidence that contradicts your deconstructive approach. Suddenly, everything said by someone else--who doesn't favor postmodernism--becomes "unconvincing" and "extreme". And, of course, the only conclusively wrongheaded argument is the one made from an absolute position that doesn't acknowledge your proffered social justice binaries. If any material evidence is brought to bare that contradicts your point of view, your immediate reaction is to type out a laundry list of logical fallacies that address its concrete nature as though its an abstract despite the fact that its substantive. Taking, for instance, the Stars and Bars thread, in which you challenged us to justify even having a public discussion about flying the battle flag: you were provided with extensive historical evidence that demonstrated how there can be no inherently racist or white supremacist meaning attached to it beyond pop-culture labeling. In the end, this evidence was irrelevant to your agenda and you typed out a post that justified taking it down on the grounds of a critical public perception that emphasizes feelings and operates irrespective of hard evidence, which is the exact same sentiment that gave Dylan Roof the impetus to go on a killing spree under that flag in the first place.
Ignoring this antipathy for hard evidence, your postmodernist armor has some pretty severe chinks otherwise. As open as you claim to be to positions that defy what you perceive to be beneficial to the oppressed underdogs, you have a tendency to pick and choose your underdogs according to the antecedents of popular social justice narratives with which you've deigned to shape your weltanschauung. When it comes to a point that a given oppressed or disenfranchised group decides to think for themselves and divorce their ilk from the establishment, you become less than supportive since it's the very source of your chosen intellectual paradigms that becomes a casualty in the war of ideas. Suddenly, your underdog fixation breaks down when we breech the subject of Brexiteers, Populist Nationalist Trump-supporters, and rape victims of Muslims, all of whom are designated as silly and myopic whose woes and pursuits are irrelevant to the larger agenda. It's an outrageous reversal that, interestingly enough, manages to fly without violating your relativistic principles.
Early in the twentieth century, the paradigms to which you have espoused rose to power by pushing the oppressor binary and assigning a grand narrative of subversion to the so-called "have nots". For a hundred years, it was all about taking ill gotten power from the high brow, overfed tyrants characterized by the moderate to right wing establishments. Needless to say, it has worked. But now that the same Critical Theorists who pushed that narrative have siphoned the power and resources from the previous establishment to the extent that they are now the elite, there's less concern with the same "oppression" lip-service that put them in positions of authority and influence. As time has gone on, they've managed to flip the binary so that the working class are no longer the oppressed, but rather the unenlightened, uneducated, and intellectually unworthy masses, whereas the limousine leftists are enlightened, educated, and more fit to rule over what they view to be the unwashed and unruly folk. But despite this deconstructionist 180, they still get away with it–-as usual--since you've managed to convince the masses that whoever defies the enlightened are inherently oppressive in their ever prevalent ignorance and defiance. It's a magic trick, but it's a good one. I'll give you that.
You're not impressed with me, Dave. Fine. But please keep in mind that I have been less than impressed with you of late. While it was the lies fed to me by my boomer parents that set the world up for destruction, it was your and G-man's generation that solidified the narratives pushed post World War II. When World War III hits, all of my blame is going to be directed at both he and you.
