[Geomann180]

Quote:

More and more I'm starting to think that a failure to recognise and defend our identity is precisely what drives interracial conflict, like a dog showing weakness to other dogs and is attacked by those dogs precisly because it shows that weakness.

And that identity is based on skin tone or principle?

When I was born in the US, I identified myself as a Virginian. State I was born and raised in.

When I was 6 and a half years old - I moved to Europe for 13 years. I identified as American.

When I returned to the US for college and work I started to think of my identity in terms of being a white guy after about 2-3 years. Mostly because I was reminded on a constant daily basis that I was white by shitlibs, no matter their color.

Funny that.

G

[Comte De St. Germain]

(12-02-2016 02:52 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

Quote:

More and more I'm starting to think that a failure to recognise and defend our identity is precisely what drives interracial conflict, like a dog showing weakness to other dogs and is attacked by those dogs precisly because it shows that weakness.

And that identity is based on skin tone or principle?

When I was born in the US, I identified myself as a Virginian. State I was born and raised in.

When I was 6 and a half years old - I moved to Europe for 13 years. I identified as American.

When I returned to the US for college and work I started to think of my identity in terms of being a white guy after about 2-3 years. Mostly because I was reminded on a constant daily basis that I was white by shitlibs, no matter their color.

Funny that.

G

Which is why I focus so much on principle. These shitlibs focus so much on their principles that are intrinsically related to skin tone that it's synonymous with who they are.

It's devolved so badly now that LGBTWEADASDADADE or white/black is not enough. Gays are sexist against women. Trans call lesbians transphobic. Islam>LGBTASASAEDFA. Immigrant blacks immigrating from Africa have more privilege than American blacks.

Cannibalization of their own coalition. And I'm firmly stand behind the principle that when identity starts to trump principle we'll fall into that same pothole.

Marx was right about one thing. "History repeats itself twice. The first time as tragedy and the second as farce." Don't know if the shitlibs are a farce of the 60s-70s or we'll outdo them at a failure in identity politics.

Edit: Tonight is one of those nights. I'm not sleeping as it is and too wired for my own good.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(12-02-2016 01:36 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

...
Identity politics divides. It will start a race war if given long enough to simmer. American identity is the focus.
...
And that identity is based on skin tone or principle?
...
No one cares about your life or anothers as a group. #NoLivesMatter. You have to stand up for yourself. Your fellow white man will not necessarily defend it as well if his principles are different. Granted that's what the WNs want to do so I have no argument on that level.

I just put the principle before the tribe.

Quote:

It's entirely possible that defending white identity (while not prosecuting non-white identity) will restore a sort of natural balance and order.

And what does protecting white identity entail? Is it defending the principles of the white identity or protecting the race itself? Every WN puts as I've said earlier here the cart before the horse.

Try to survive under Communism or more specifically its tribalistic, warmonger equivalent Fascism as a group. You'll be culled and even if you succeed you'll start culling your own. Nothing is more disgusting than animal that eats itself alive over its own supposed imperfection(or racial impurity). The Soviets did this with class. Even when everyone was a "worker" they continued to talk about the Kulak, reactionary threat and used it as a mechanism to get rid of undesirables from masses of people with no power to threats in governmental bureaucracy.

Edit: I use the term Fascism more specifically for Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Italy and Dollfuss' Austria were interesting experiments that didn't reach their natural conclusion and Francoist Spain was much more religious so who knows where that lies. They actually didn't want war hence why Dollfuss was assassinated by Nazi agents and Mussolini succumbed to an alliance with Hitler then followed his lead.

You're devolving into hyper-academic gobbledygook that ignores obvious real world current day trends.

I'm not talking about re-segregating the population and lining up the cattle cars.

I'm talking about white people being able to talk about white people shit the way black people talk about black people shit and latino people talk about latino people shit, and telling anyone who has a problem with that to fuck off.

I'm not interested in any nonsense about white people actually being french/german/spanish/anglo/saxon/whatever, just like black people don't preface every speech about black people with their specific tribal lineage and skin shade designation.

Everyone should be able to do it, or nobody should be allowed to do it, and since we can't exactly forbid people from talking race then it has to be on the table for whitey to talk up his own achievements and struggles in precisely that context.

What's the alternative? To go back to pretending that black/latino/asian/indian America will suddenly get on board and join whitey in a post-racial America? Nonsense. However maybe, just maybe, if whitey gets the right to his identity back then suddenly the whole racial grievance mongering game loses its appeal.

If you always do what you've always done then you'll always get what you always got. Telling every race other than whites that they can talk race but we can't is in itself a specific admission of guilt, and those days are over.

Quote:

I just put the principle before the tribe.

Nature will consign you to the dustbin of history. Survivors have the luxury of carrying principle forward. The rest get footnotes in history books.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(12-02-2016 02:52 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

Quote:

More and more I'm starting to think that a failure to recognise and defend our identity is precisely what drives interracial conflict, like a dog showing weakness to other dogs and is attacked by those dogs precisly because it shows that weakness.

And that identity is based on skin tone or principle?

When I was born in the US, I identified myself as a Virginian. State I was born and raised in.

When I was 6 and a half years old - I moved to Europe for 13 years. I identified as American.

When I returned to the US for college and work I started to think of my identity in terms of being a white guy after about 2-3 years. Mostly because I was reminded on a constant daily basis that I was white by shitlibs, no matter their color.

Funny that.

G

Racial division is a powerful tool being used by the globalists who need to divide us to conquer us, which is why regaining white identity might at first seem counter productive. But the reality is that you can't stop blacks from practicing it, or latinos, or asians, or indians, or arabs, and so we have to start practicing it too in order to demonstrate we will no longer provide a weak opening for them to exploit. In doing so they might decide that putting down the race-shiv is a better option than provoking white hostility.

Will it work? Who's to say? But we can say with certainty that while globalist money still runs the coloured movements then "stay the course" is doomed to failure, and in this case failure can reasonably be defined as the fall of the West.

[I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE]

(12-01-2016 11:55 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

And fuck I hate the term white. Shared European heritage my ass. French, German, English, Russian, Serbian, Croatian, Romanian, etc. There's so many and each had their own view on life and own culture.

All these white nationalists harp on about some kind of great white monolith, but that's the farthest thing from the truth. Even today there's small bits of animosity between Sweden and Denmark over a few bits of land.

Funny thing, isn't it? Realizing that "white" and "asian" and "black" is just a vaguely defined label. But it's a label that one is forced to use to defend and promote ones own interests. Other groups have absolutely no qualms about uniting under a label such as "Africans" to present a unified front to promote their interests as a group. Internally they will bicker fiercely among themselves about whose tribe is shit, redbones, mulattos, who's blacker, who's a high yella etc. but on the outside, the facade is rock solid. Same thing with Asians, koreans, chinese and japanese will still have some animosity among themselves, BUT TO PROMOTE THEIR INTERESTS AS A GROUP, they are united. It's not about going autistically about it and trying to actually narrow down a group as if it's a monolith, it's about interests and self-preservation of some vaguely defined overarching group.

For Europeans, it's "white". You might get a swarthy and dark haired Swedish guy and some lily white blonde-haired Spaniard from down south, but overall, the short-hand term would be simply "white" or "European" (usually used as synonyms for many contexts). It simply doesn't matter all that much if the German bickers with the Italian because he seems lazy and the Italian thinks the German is a stiff rule-driven peon, once a group gets big enough intra-group conflicts and bickering are bound to happen. It's nothing unexpected or contradictory. It's normal.

Side note: funny that you mention that Europeans are so hard to lump together under one simplified banner because of their rich................. diversity. Diversity is our strength, ain't it?

[262]

(12-01-2016 08:32 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(An attempt to get this thread back on track, which failed)

[Leonard D Neubache]

Of course there is always another option.

A suitably motivated group could go entirely through the looking glass and become militantly ultra-nationalist-hyper-inclusive, actually campaigning directly against groups that lobby for specific demographics on the basis that those groups are divisive and therefore anti-American.

Think of an 'all lives matter' protest actually crashing a black lives matter protest with the full intention, not of reaching across the aisle but putting the opposing movement on their heels and shamelessly running them out of town.

Such a group might frame itself as ultra-American and shamelessly, unapologetically attack anyone who uses any terminology or frame of reference which divides Americans between race/religion etc. They would have to be seriously hostile in order to gain any momentum. In effect it would be something of an anti-SJW front of reactionary shock troops. Whether something like that is even possible is beyond my ken. Most right wing red-pilled guys have jobs, which is why the SJWs have been so successful. They've largely got nothing better to do than take to the streets and cause trouble.

That kind of movement would be a real blast, but unless you had funding then at the end of the day people would have jobs to go back to and the movement would sputter out.

[262]

[262]

(12-01-2016 08:32 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

[Roosh]

Well, at least there are no personal insults.

[Atlanta Man]

(12-02-2016 10:45 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Well, at least there are no personal insults.

Give it time.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(12-02-2016 03:33 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

You're devolving into hyper-academic gobbledygook that ignores obvious real world current day trends.

Near the end I was more or less going in loops in my own head. Balancing work with posting online at 2 AM isn't exactly helpful when trying to argue. How about a response to my more coherent post right before that one where I argued about why the Don won and his rhetoric. There's your damned real world trends.

You're a stuck in a microcosm online that makes you believe your microphone is bigger than it is. You're not magically going to make your ideas more palatable. Although I was convinced/reminded as to why there needs to be a full stop on immigration in that post I also mentioned why the very concept of focusing so hard on race is bad(then later repeated and elaborated above).

I specifically mention why this happened and I got no response, but of course I only get it to the less coherent post.

Quote:

I'm not talking about re-segregating the population and lining up the cattle cars.

You're not but the Alt-Right is.

Quote:

I'm talking about white people being able to talk about white people shit the way black people talk about black people shit and latino people talk about latino people shit, and telling anyone who has a problem with that to fuck off.

YOU HAVE BEEN. Damn the West has a large history of written and oral tradition. The greatest leaders in the history of the world. You don't need to preface that with white or black.

If anything my own ancestors were hardcore imperialists and I'm damned proud of them for it.

Say you're proud to be American. Everyone does. Why? Because everyone is proud of the principles enshrined in this country. You don't need to talk about some obscure white author from the backwoods of South Carolina that exemplified what it meant to be white(looking at you Faulkner).

From Plato to now you have a long history to be proud and can be proud of for more reasons than them being simply white.

Quote:

I'm not interested in any nonsense about white people actually being french/german/spanish/anglo/saxon/whatever, just like black people don't preface every speech about black people with their specific tribal lineage and skin shade designation.

Well you know what they fucking do. Have you listened to any of these shitlibs talk? It's all about their damned specific Native American tribe, or intersectional black trans feminism, or Cuban-American experience.

They're imitating the long history of English, French, German, etc. authors. Out of pure jealousy and spite.

Quote:

Everyone should be able to do it, or nobody should be allowed to do it, and since we can't exactly forbid people from talking race then it has to be on the table for whitey to talk up his own achievements and struggles in precisely that context.

I don't think anyone should talk up their skin tone. The history of the world started before skin color. Races were divided by geography now magically in America it's all about the simple color of the skin.

No one is forbidden to talk about it. It's just when you preface things with race it's almost embarrassing as there's no cultural context to it. There's nothing really to be proud of because now it's suddenly all whites when you've been fighting each other for centuries.

Read any book from early 20th or 19th Century those authors talk about the people from the Orient or the Natives of Africa etc. You're American if you're born here and your parents were born here. It takes 3 generations in some countries for people to become of that ethnicity. There's a historical context to that.

Sure the experience varied 20-50 years ago, but since all the legislation was put in place de-segregating everyone it's only a matter of time until everything is normalized and the ideology is diffused. All the modern era is right now is a diffusion of ideals and why the radicals such as the Alt-Right and BLM are being scoffed it by everyone in the center.

Donald Trump is a centrist candidate. Ya'll seem to forget that. No one else, especially the workers who are starving and vets suffering from PTSD have more pressing concerns than muh history, cares about race.

It's because you've put yourselves up in this Internet ivory tower that you fail to see this. You harp on about heritage like the sheltered blacks in BLM about race like its some magic fix everything button.

Volunteer a bit and take a look around the average small town community shit even a single homeless shelter and you'll see a bunch of homeless vets and workers that happen to be white, but could care less they want food, a job, and, for some vets, proper medical help. You can't eat racial history.

Quote:

What's the alternative? To go back to pretending that black/latino/asian/indian America will suddenly get on board and join whitey in a post-racial America? Nonsense. However maybe, just maybe, if whitey gets the right to his identity back then suddenly the whole racial grievance mongering game loses its appeal.

You know what we just might. The great fucking unifier. We have a better Teddy Roosevelt. This nation needs to heal and cool away from foreign immigration and needs to go back to its core principles that made it great.

Quote:

If you always do what you've always done then you'll always get what you always got. Telling every race other than whites that they can talk race but we can't is in itself a specific admission of guilt, and those days are over.

No race in the United States should talk about "race". That's how they divided us. And why all our energies were so devoted to this damned argument that we forgot that they're stealing money and power from everyone's pockets. Then making out like bandits.

It's like two people with knives in a cage with an open door. Each has a gun to their head and the person behind each of them with a gun is telling them it's the other guy's fault. They'd rather turn on each other over trivial bullshit than turn on the people with the guns.

The politicians, bankers, and assorted nest of evil laughs while you fight for "self-determination". Enjoy your self-determination in a bled and economically ravaged country.

Quote:

Quote:

I just put the principle before the tribe.

Nature will consign you to the dustbin of history. Survivors have the luxury of carrying principle forward. The rest get footnotes in history books.

History remembered Cicero, Cato, Caesar, and Augustus. They had principle and motivation to do what they did.

Crassus, Pompey, Antony, and poor Lepidus are consigned to the trash because they were too focused on their own self-promotion.

If anything I'll see you among the rubbish. An army whose only real cause is its pride will fall without just cause and principle for war. Satan fell to Earth due to his pride and his/those whom followed him's "self-determination". I feel like there's a nice little similarity in there.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(12-02-2016 04:32 AM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  

Funny thing, isn't it? Realizing that "white" and "asian" and "black" is just a vaguely defined label. But it's a label that one is forced to use to defend and promote ones own interests. Other groups have absolutely no qualms about uniting under a label such as "Africans" to present a unified front to promote their interests as a group. Internally they will bicker fiercely among themselves about whose tribe is shit, redbones, mulattos, who's blacker, who's a high yella etc. but on the outside, the facade is rock solid. Same thing with Asians, koreans, chinese and japanese will still have some animosity among themselves, BUT TO PROMOTE THEIR INTERESTS AS A GROUP, they are united. It's not about going autistically about it and trying to actually narrow down a group as if it's a monolith, it's about interests and self-preservation of some vaguely defined overarching group.

Everyone is laughing at these trite dipshits. Look here:



This was an actual campaign where people are trying to somehow magic away stereotypes and are getting laughed at in the comments.

Not to mention have these groups actually been getting what they want? Have they become successful?

Were those Ferguson Riots or BLM protests somehow did anything but embarrass these people?

I don't want to emulate losers because we're winners here folks.

Quote:

For Europeans, it's "white". You might get a swarthy and dark haired Swedish guy and some lily white blonde-haired Spaniard from down south, but overall, the short-hand term would be simply "white" or "European" (usually used as synonyms for many contexts). It simply doesn't matter all that much if the German bickers with the Italian because he seems lazy and the Italian thinks the German is a stiff rule-driven peon, once a group gets big enough intra-group conflicts and bickering are bound to happen. It's nothing unexpected or contradictory. It's normal.

Only in America.

Quote:

Side note: funny that you mention that Europeans are so hard to lump together under one simplified banner because of their rich................. diversity. Diversity is our strength, ain't it?

Diversity if anything was stolen from the heavy European tradition as it is. It went from ideological view point and way of life to skin color. Makes me .

There's stylistic differences and complete different contexts from say the Goethe or Dumas. And that's because there was so much difference even though they're from the time period on how these peoples viewed the world.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(12-02-2016 05:53 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Of course there is always another option.

A suitably motivated group could go entirely through the looking glass and become militantly ultra-nationalist-hyper-inclusive, actually campaigning directly against groups that lobby for specific demographics on the basis that those groups are divisive and therefore anti-American.

Did we not elect Donald Trump for I believe most of those reasons? He is hyper-nationalistic and is draining the swamp/getting rid of Anti-Americanism in politics. Hopefully which will translate into the culture once the media blockade is done.

Quote:

Think of an 'all lives matter' protest actually crashing a black lives matter protest with the full intention, not of reaching across the aisle but putting the opposing movement on their heels and shamelessly running them out of town.

Why would you want too? Again all these idiots do is embarrass themselves and start riots. It's the reason people like Milo got famous. They did one hell of a job embarrassing these fools and feminism.

Quote:

Such a group might frame itself as ultra-American and shamelessly, unapologetically attack anyone who uses any terminology or frame of reference which divides Americans between race/religion etc. They would have to be seriously hostile in order to gain any momentum. In effect it would be something of an anti-SJW front of reactionary shock troops. Whether something like that is even possible is beyond my ken. Most right wing red-pilled guys have jobs, which is why the SJWs have been so successful. They've largely got nothing better to do than take to the streets and cause trouble.

Which is why everyone that has a job just feels inconvenienced. Blocking those roads and looting those stores isn't going to help feed all those people trying to make a living.

Quote:

That kind of movement would be a real blast, but unless you had funding then at the end of the day people would have jobs to go back to and the movement would sputter out.

For the same reason the SJWs are sputtering out and are only kept alive by funding from Soros and his ilk. They've already lost ideologically and I've been long saying for even years now that they've been in their death knells.

If you've kept your ears to the ground and go among the Gen-Z kids they'll tell you how fucking retarded this is. If anything they just want to drink and party with no plan for the future.

Which in and itself creates issues. The SJWs stand out and any reasonably sane person avoids them like the plague. An SJW barely survive in their coffee shops imagine how much they'll get shit on in a night club or college party. Might get themselves roasted out of the room.

[I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE]

(12-02-2016 11:10 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

Not to mention have these groups actually been getting what they want? Have they become successful?

Were those Ferguson Riots or BLM protests somehow did anything but embarrass these people?

Al Sharpton, AIPAC and all the other "Community Interests" coalitions would like to have a word with you if you honestly don't think that banding together and hustling for benefits hasn't been an enormously successful tactic. Hell, unions are the same thing, and they now have the industry by the balls. There is the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus X Group Caucus in all sorts of places. Why do you think cuckservatives are so eager to appeal to black and hispanic voters? Because there people build a monolithic voting block that has to be bargained with. That is the power of banding together and building a united front.

[Valentine]

(12-02-2016 10:45 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Well, at least there are no personal insults.

Even if the thread is steering a bit off-topic it's good that we're able to discuss this openly without the discussion being quickly curtailed.

As a group so deeply curious about the nature of human psychology it's only natural we'd all have opinions about race too.

Whilst in public life race discussions are studiously avoided and old media only discusses race to increase white hatred, being able to discuss it here calmly and rationally amongst a group of morally-guided masculine men is perhaps the way forward to de-fang it from being used as a weapon against our interests and instead as something that unites us.

It's a huge fallacy that race has to divide us. Gays and women got behind Trump even though he's "going to hang gays" and supposedly grabs every woman he meets by the pussy.

Like Scorpion and myself have already said, ethno-nationalism, the desire for ethnic natives to be a majority in their nation, benefits all races, as long as we go about it the right way.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(12-02-2016 12:08 PM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 11:10 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

Not to mention have these groups actually been getting what they want? Have they become successful?

Were those Ferguson Riots or BLM protests somehow did anything but embarrass these people?

Al Sharpton, AIPAC and all the other "Community Interests" coalitions would like to have a word with you if you honestly don't think that banding together and hustling for benefits hasn't been an enormously successful tactic. Hell, unions are the same thing, and they now have the industry by the balls. There is the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus X Group Caucus in all sorts of places. Why do you think cuckservatives are so eager to appeal to black and hispanic voters? Because there people build a monolithic voting block that has to be bargained with. That is the power of banding together and building a united front.

2 Things

1. What is the plight of the average black man and worker because of Al Sharpton and Unions respectively? Last I checked the mob bosses in all these SPECIAL INTEREST organizations are taking the money to buy luxury cars and a new mansion. You think copying them is magically going to help you and not enrich a few? Jobs are still going overseas and the problems of the black community have never been worse.

A great model right?

2. You voted in the candidate up there that was against these SPECIAL INTEREST, LOBBYIST, and UNION organizations to begin with. The principle that these organizations are bad was one of the things that elected Donald Trump. So you're going to go around and advocate for something we're been fighting against. OUT! OUT! OUT!

[nomadbrah]

While we're on the topic of race, does anyone else feel insulted by the use of the term People of Color to encompass Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Blacks, Latinos under one umbrella - everyone but whites. The clear attempt to create a coalition of increasingly willingly anti-white groups. It is ludicrous to lump the above mentioned into group and there is no excuse for it except anti-white racism.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(12-02-2016 03:02 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

While we're on the topic of race, does anyone else feel insulted by the use of the term People of Color to encompass Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Blacks, Latinos under one umbrella - everyone but whites. The clear attempt to create a coalition of increasingly willingly anti-white groups. It is ludicrous to lump the above mentioned into group and there is no excuse for it except anti-white racism.

Agreed this coalition bullshit needs to go. It's a clear boogeyman tactic. Muh white people are evil business is the scummiest thing in politics to date.

[Irenicus]

(12-02-2016 10:45 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Well, at least there are no personal insults.

...yet.

If they do not appear in the next 10 pages, I will have Hitlery as my avatar picture for a week.

[Kona]

(12-02-2016 03:02 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

While we're on the topic of race, does anyone else feel insulted by the use of the term People of Color to encompass Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Blacks, Latinos under one umbrella - everyone but whites. The clear attempt to create a coalition of increasingly willingly anti-white groups. It is ludicrous to lump the above mentioned into group and there is no excuse for it except anti-white racism.

My little sister goes to an extremely progressive (and expensive) university in California. It is so progressive that it has a seperate-but-equal dorm, although calling it that is not PC.

There are people at the school that want to use terms such as "unpigmented" or "colorless" to describe the white folks.

The rationale being that the negatives go with them for a change.

Aloha!

[Rhyme or Reason]

(12-02-2016 03:27 PM)Kona Wrote:  

My little sister goes to an extremely progressive (and expensive) university in California. It is so progressive that it has a seperate-but-equal dorm, although calling it that is not PC.

It's so progressive it's regressive!

[I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE]

(12-02-2016 01:44 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 12:08 PM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 11:10 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

Not to mention have these groups actually been getting what they want? Have they become successful?

Were those Ferguson Riots or BLM protests somehow did anything but embarrass these people?

Al Sharpton, AIPAC and all the other "Community Interests" coalitions would like to have a word with you if you honestly don't think that banding together and hustling for benefits hasn't been an enormously successful tactic. Hell, unions are the same thing, and they now have the industry by the balls. There is the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus X Group Caucus in all sorts of places. Why do you think cuckservatives are so eager to appeal to black and hispanic voters? Because there people build a monolithic voting block that has to be bargained with. That is the power of banding together and building a united front.

2 Things

1. What is the plight of the average black man and worker because of Al Sharpton and Unions respectively? Last I checked the mob bosses in all these SPECIAL INTEREST organizations are taking the money to buy luxury cars and a new mansion. You think copying them is magically going to help you and not enrich a few? Jobs are still going overseas and the problems of the black community have never been worse.

A great model right?

2. You voted in the candidate up there that was against these SPECIAL INTEREST, LOBBYIST, and UNION organizations to begin with. The principle that these organizations are bad was one of the things that elected Donald Trump. So you're going to go around and advocate for something we're been fighting against. OUT! OUT! OUT!

Feels like you're (deliberately) misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make: organizing yourself as a group WORKS, that's my main point. As for Al Sharpton & Co. using that organization to enrich themselves, that's beside the point. These kinds of organizational efforts have to happen each time you're a minority and want to gain enough influence and power to force through your interests against a majority.

Now you'll also notice that funny enough, the majorities in the countries where they are a majority don't feel the need or a requirement to organize in such a way, simply because it's implicit without saying that the majority which was already there will work for itself and its people first and foremost, and most outsiders have to conform to that. You won't find Japanese Caucus in Japan, Mexican Caucus in Mexico etc. simply because it's common sense and it goes without saying that the governments of those countries have to work for their people first. Sadly, this "it goes without saying" doesn't seem to apply for European type countries, somehow those are for everyone else to enjoy and the native population better adjust to foreign interests.

Thus, even though it's an absurd notion that shouldn't even be needed in the first place if we lived in a common sense world, white Europeans have to organize as a bloc to defend and advance their own interests. As natives in their own countries. Sad state of affairs but hey, if such organization efforts work and they're effective, might as well use them.

[Roosh]

[url=https://twitter.com/SeventhSonTRS/status/804496810203025408][/url]

[Yatagan]

(12-02-2016 03:02 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

While we're on the topic of race, does anyone else feel insulted by the use of the term People of Color to encompass Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Blacks, Latinos under one umbrella - everyone but whites. The clear attempt to create a coalition of increasingly willingly anti-white groups. It is ludicrous to lump the above mentioned into group and there is no excuse for it except anti-white racism.

What's comical is that it groups Latinos/Mexicans like this as "People of Color":



Or Arabs like this as "people of color"