NationStates

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Blakk Metal wrote:You never said that. You said, "Yep, there you have it; racism is good as long as it benefits white people only. Fuck everyone else."

And that's flamebaiting how? Because you don't like what I'm understanding from your arguments to be thrown back at you?

Also, you DO realize I am a minority, correct? That would mean I am flamebaiting myself.

When I confirmed your claim that Apartheid was primarily meant to 'them negroes in their place', and then added that the white administration was superior to the current system, which I can confirm using sources, you falsely claimed that I believed "racism is good as long as it benefits white people only." Either you are very bad at English, which is impossible, since you can use NSG, or you must have been trying to flamebait me.

Mushet wrote:

Libertarian California wrote:
No. It is that we will be reduced to a minority in the country that our ancestors founded, which will occur by 2042.

Also, there is the plethora of negative consequences of having a large third world population in America.

Being a minority isn't about numbers it's about power.

And how do you know America won't just assimilate certain "Hispanics" into being white? Y'know like it did with Italians and Irish and pretty much everyone that wasn't of Anglo descent.

And that last statement comes with many problematic assumptions, like that anyone with descent from a "third world" country is still "third world" after their family probably lived in a "first world" nation for generations, which will likely be the case with those born and raised here outnumbering the immigrants. Also that people with descent from a place that is now "third world" is automatically a problem.

No real need to assimilate entirely or just half way since unlike the above groups there is this.

This US based company is worth $20 Billion.


This US based company is probably close to that.

Kelinfort wrote:

Blakk Metal wrote:It was. The better conditions was just a benign side effect.

Yea, better for the whites, but African living conditions were the same as elsewhere. Also, you never explained Angola or Mozambique. Not to mention, by your own argument, slaves should've ruined American when they were freed.

The blacks have always been a small proportion of the population.

Blakk Metal wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
And that's flamebaiting how? Because you don't like what I'm understanding from your arguments to be thrown back at you?

Also, you DO realize I am a minority, correct? That would mean I am flamebaiting myself.

When I confirmed your claim that Apartheid was primarily meant to 'them negroes in their place', and then added that the white administration was superior to the current system, which I can confirm using sources, you falsely claimed that I believed "racism is good as long as it benefits white people only." Either you are very bad at English, which is impossible, since you can use NSG, or you must have been trying to flamebait me.

Or I was just saying what I thought your thought processes were and you could have explained yourself better.

I don't have to do mental acrobatics to understand you and shouldn't be expected to; perhaps if you explain yourself a bit better about how apartheid south africa was a million times better for South Africa than their current government then perhaps I can see something you're not telling me. As it is all I see is someone who is trying to use apologetics to justify Apartheid and institutionalized racism, but I could be wrong so try to explain yourself, in concise words, as to why is it that post-Apartheid South Africa is worse than Apartheid South Africa and why should institutionalized racism be brought back.

Blakk Metal wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:Yea, better for the whites, but African living conditions were the same as elsewhere. Also, you never explained Angola or Mozambique. Not to mention, by your own argument, slaves should've ruined American when they were freed.

The blacks have always been a small proportion of the population.

So have whites in South Africa.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Blakk Metal wrote:When I confirmed your claim that Apartheid was primarily meant to 'them negroes in their place', and then added that the white administration was superior to the current system, which I can confirm using sources, you falsely claimed that I believed "racism is good as long as it benefits white people only." Either you are very bad at English, which is impossible, since you can use NSG, or you must have been trying to flamebait me.

Or I was just saying what I thought your thought processes were and you could have explained yourself better.

I don't have to do mental acrobatics to understand you and shouldn't be expected to; perhaps if you explain yourself a bit better about how apartheid south africa was a million times better for South Africa than their current government then perhaps I can see something you're not telling me. As it is all I see is someone who is trying to use apologetics to justify Apartheid and institutionalized racism, but I could be wrong so try to explain yourself, in concise words, as to why is it that post-Apartheid South Africa is worse than Apartheid South Africa

Starting in the early 1990's the rate of crime and AIDS skyrocketed.

Kelinfort wrote:

Blakk Metal wrote:The blacks have always been a small proportion of the population.

So have whites in South Africa.

So you want proof of a little effect on the US?

Blakk Metal wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Or I was just saying what I thought your thought processes were and you could have explained yourself better.

I don't have to do mental acrobatics to understand you and shouldn't be expected to; perhaps if you explain yourself a bit better about how apartheid south africa was a million times better for South Africa than their current government then perhaps I can see something you're not telling me. As it is all I see is someone who is trying to use apologetics to justify Apartheid and institutionalized racism, but I could be wrong so try to explain yourself, in concise words, as to why is it that post-Apartheid South Africa is worse than Apartheid South Africa

Starting in the early 1990's the rate of crime and AIDS skyrocketed.

So have other countries. Does that make it necessary for apartheid South Africa to be brought back and why the U.S. should implement Jim Crow laws again?

Rio Cana wrote:

Mushet wrote:Being a minority isn't about numbers it's about power.

And how do you know America won't just assimilate certain "Hispanics" into being white? Y'know like it did with Italians and Irish and pretty much everyone that wasn't of Anglo descent.

And that last statement comes with many problematic assumptions, like that anyone with descent from a "third world" country is still "third world" after their family probably lived in a "first world" nation for generations, which will likely be the case with those born and raised here outnumbering the immigrants. Also that people with descent from a place that is now "third world" is automatically a problem.

No real need to assimilate entirely or just half way since unlike the above groups there is this.

Also there's the fact that Hispanic immigrants in the U.S. tend to assimilate just as fast to their regional cultures than everyone else based on some reports.

Arkinesia wrote:

Libertarian California wrote:No. It is that we will be reduced to a minority in the country that our ancestors founded, which will occur by 2042.

Also, there is the plethora of negative consequences of having a large third world population in America.

“Majority world” is a rapidly-dying concept.

Bill Gates is way ahead of the curve, but he's also right in predicting that by 2030, Africa will mostly be middle-income, and will still be the poorest continent on the planet. But living standards will have improved so much worldwide by that point that Africa's middle-income status will be the new poor. But it won't be poverty.

Bill Gates is a fool to think that Africa will be that successful in the next 100 years. Perhaps a few nations will be but not the majority. Namibia and Botswana and Rwanda have made improvements (although AIDS rates are a problem). Look at the crappy leaders they keep in power for years on end like Mugabe. Look at the AIDS rates (sub-Sahara). Look at the fact that governments can't control terrorism in their own nations (Somalia, Nigeria) or like to rape women and children and have child soldiers (Dem. Rep. of Congo).

Why eastern DR Congo is 'rape capital of the world'

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/24/world ... index.html

Bill Gates should be working on fixing Latin America instead of Africa. At least Latin America has hope for change and a more civilized culture. Most of Africa is hopeless. Plus, Latin America is closer to the USA, let Europe worry about Africa.

Blakk Metal wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Or I was just saying what I thought your thought processes were and you could have explained yourself better.

I don't have to do mental acrobatics to understand you and shouldn't be expected to; perhaps if you explain yourself a bit better about how apartheid south africa was a million times better for South Africa than their current government then perhaps I can see something you're not telling me. As it is all I see is someone who is trying to use apologetics to justify Apartheid and institutionalized racism, but I could be wrong so try to explain yourself, in concise words, as to why is it that post-Apartheid South Africa is worse than Apartheid South Africa

Starting in the early 1990's the rate of crime and AIDS skyrocketed.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, you are seriously making a defense for a system of racial segregation?

Seriously?

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Arkinesia wrote:“Majority world” is a rapidly-dying concept.

Bill Gates is way ahead of the curve, but he's also right in predicting that by 2030, Africa will mostly be middle-income, and will still be the poorest continent on the planet. But living standards will have improved so much worldwide by that point that Africa's middle-income status will be the new poor. But it won't be poverty.

Bill Gates is a fool to think that Africa will be that successful in the next 100 years. Perhaps a few nations will be but not the majority. Namibia and Botswana and Rwanda have made improvements (although AIDS rates are a problem). Look at the crappy leaders they keep in power for years on end like Mugabe. Look at the AIDS rates (sub-Sahara). Look at the fact that governments can't control terrorism in their own nations (Somalia, Nigeria) or like to rape women and children and have child soldiers (Dem. Rep. of Congo).

Why eastern DR Congo is 'rape capital of the world'

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/24/world ... index.html

Bill Gates should be working on fixing Latin America instead of Africa. At least Latin America has hope for change and a more civilized culture. Most of Africa is hopeless. Plus, Latin America is closer to the USA, let Europe worry about Africa.

He's not a fool. Africa has been dramatically improving in recent decades, and is much, much better off than it was when it dominated by European colonialists. Africa has lots of problems, and shit leaders, but it's foolish and downright cynical to say that Africa is hopeless.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Arkinesia wrote:“Majority world” is a rapidly-dying concept.

Bill Gates is way ahead of the curve, but he's also right in predicting that by 2030, Africa will mostly be middle-income, and will still be the poorest continent on the planet. But living standards will have improved so much worldwide by that point that Africa's middle-income status will be the new poor. But it won't be poverty.

Bill Gates is a fool to think that Africa will be that successful in the next 100 years. Perhaps a few nations will be but not the majority. Namibia and Botswana and Rwanda have made improvements (although AIDS rates are a problem). Look at the crappy leaders they keep in power for years on end like Mugabe. Look at the AIDS rates (sub-Sahara). Look at the fact that governments can't control terrorism in their own nations (Somalia, Nigeria) or like to rape women and children and have child soldiers (Dem. Rep. of Congo).

Why eastern DR Congo is 'rape capital of the world'

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/24/world ... index.html

Bill Gates should be working on fixing Latin America instead of Africa. At least Latin America has hope for change and a more civilized culture. Most of Africa is hopeless. Plus, Latin America is closer to the USA, let Europe worry about Africa.

Improving the standard of living in Africa is also in our interest.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Arkinesia wrote:“Majority world” is a rapidly-dying concept.

Bill Gates is way ahead of the curve, but he's also right in predicting that by 2030, Africa will mostly be middle-income, and will still be the poorest continent on the planet. But living standards will have improved so much worldwide by that point that Africa's middle-income status will be the new poor. But it won't be poverty.

Bill Gates is a fool to think that Africa will be that successful in the next 100 years. Perhaps a few nations will be but not the majority. Namibia and Botswana and Rwanda have made improvements (although AIDS rates are a problem). Look at the crappy leaders they keep in power for years on end like Mugabe. Look at the AIDS rates (sub-Sahara). Look at the fact that governments can't control terrorism in their own nations (Somalia, Nigeria) or like to rape women and children and have child soldiers (Dem. Rep. of Congo).

Why eastern DR Congo is 'rape capital of the world'

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/24/world ... index.html

Bill Gates should be working on fixing Latin America instead of Africa. At least Latin America has hope for change and a more civilized culture. Most of Africa is hopeless. Plus, Latin America is closer to the USA, let Europe worry about Africa.

I think that Bill Gates being a businessman and a philantropist has more credibility than people who think indentured servitude and institutionalized racism is the way to go for the U.S. quite frankly.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Arkinesia wrote:“Majority world” is a rapidly-dying concept.

Bill Gates is way ahead of the curve, but he's also right in predicting that by 2030, Africa will mostly be middle-income, and will still be the poorest continent on the planet. But living standards will have improved so much worldwide by that point that Africa's middle-income status will be the new poor. But it won't be poverty.

Bill Gates is a fool to think that Africa will be that successful in the next 100 years. Perhaps a few nations will be but not the majority. Namibia and Botswana and Rwanda have made improvements (although AIDS rates are a problem). Look at the crappy leaders they keep in power for years on end like Mugabe. Look at the AIDS rates (sub-Sahara). Look at the fact that governments can't control terrorism in their own nations (Somalia, Nigeria) or like to rape women and children and have child soldiers (Dem. Rep. of Congo).

Why eastern DR Congo is 'rape capital of the world'

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/24/world ... index.html

Bill Gates should be working on fixing Latin America instead of Africa. At least Latin America has hope for change and a more civilized culture. Most of Africa is hopeless. Plus, Latin America is closer to the USA, let Europe worry about Africa.

Yeah, no. Once again, you prove that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Africa is the fastest growing continent in the world.

Othelos wrote:

Libertarian California wrote:
No. It is that we will be reduced to a minority in the country that our ancestors founded, which will occur by 2042.

Also, there is the plethora of negative consequences of having a large third world population in America.

oh my god. clearly nonwhite americans = third world.

and white people don't have a high enough fertility rate to maintain the population. the white population experienced a natural decline last year, 10 years ahead of when predicted. if all non-whites left the country, we'd be in the same situation as germany demographically.

And how is this bad? A world with 3 billion people would be better than a world with 9 billion people. Look at the forests cut down, endangered animals killed, rising pollution, starving people, etc.. Should the world population keep rising forever? The world needs less people-not more. More people=more demand for resources but we don't get extra land for these resources. If demand exceeds supply we might even have wars over things like water. People in need often become savages after natural disasters.

Look at what happened in Catholic nations, remember these are people that are taught to follow the Bible and that stealing is wrong, their morals go out the window at the first sign of trouble, imagine when things get REALLY bad:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/l ... e-1.172695

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_11_10/Mas ... oons-4593/

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Othelos wrote:oh my god. clearly nonwhite americans = third world.

and white people don't have a high enough fertility rate to maintain the population. the white population experienced a natural decline last year, 10 years ahead of when predicted. if all non-whites left the country, we'd be in the same situation as germany demographically.

And how is this bad? A world with 3 billion people would be better than a world with 9 billion people. Look at the forests cut down, endangered animals killed, rising pollution, starving people, etc.. Should the world population keep rising forever? The world needs less people-not more. More people=more demand for resources but we don't get extra land for these resources. If demand exceeds supply we might even have wars over things like water. People in need often become savages after natural disasters.

Look at what happened in Catholic nations, remember these are people that are taught to follow the Bible and that stealing is wrong, their morals go out the window at the first sign of trouble, imagine when things get REALLY bad:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/l ... e-1.172695

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_11_10/Mas ... oons-4593/

show me where i said that a declining population was a problem.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Blakk Metal wrote:They were able to get close.

Yea you mean South African Apartheid which not only caused the country to be worse off but also was cut off of all international trade and collapsed in the 1980s under the leadership of Nelson Mandela? THAT SA?!

Because honestly, if you're saying Apartheid South Africa was a paradise you might want to review history a little bit.

I met a South African from Durban who said his city was a paradise to grow up in during his childhood (which was under apartheid), he said things are really bad for whites now due to the anti-white racist govt. policies in effect now. Things are worse now.

Of course, the best policy would be one that doesn't have any focus on color of skin and of course restricts immigration from surrounding poor nations (they also have enough poor people and don't need more).

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Yea you mean South African Apartheid which not only caused the country to be worse off but also was cut off of all international trade and collapsed in the 1980s under the leadership of Nelson Mandela? THAT SA?!

Because honestly, if you're saying Apartheid South Africa was a paradise you might want to review history a little bit.

I met a South African from Durban who said his city was a paradise to grow up in during his childhood (which was under apartheid), he said things are really bad for whites now due to the anti-white racist govt. policies in effect now. Things are worse now.

The ANC is a crap party, you're right. But, South Africa has improved since apartheid, and will improve more once the ANC gets out of power.


http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/27/busin ... apartheid/

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Yea you mean South African Apartheid which not only caused the country to be worse off but also was cut off of all international trade and collapsed in the 1980s under the leadership of Nelson Mandela? THAT SA?!

Because honestly, if you're saying Apartheid South Africa was a paradise you might want to review history a little bit.

I met a South African from Durban who said his city was a paradise to grow up in during his childhood (which was under apartheid), he said things are really bad for whites now due to the anti-white racist govt. policies in effect now. Things are worse now.

what are you expecting, after the white minority oppressed everyone else for so long? The only reason the US isn't like that now is because whites have always been a majority here.

Whites still are wealthier than everyone else in SA, so I don't see how things could have gotten much worse.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Yea you mean South African Apartheid which not only caused the country to be worse off but also was cut off of all international trade and collapsed in the 1980s under the leadership of Nelson Mandela? THAT SA?!

Because honestly, if you're saying Apartheid South Africa was a paradise you might want to review history a little bit.

I met a South African from Durban who said his city was a paradise to grow up in during his childhood (which was under apartheid), he said things are really bad for whites now due to the anti-white racist govt. policies in effect now. Things are worse now.

So it's bad because South Africans are not putting up with their shit now? Or is it because there's actual counter-racism?

Othelos wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
I met a South African from Durban who said his city was a paradise to grow up in during his childhood (which was under apartheid), he said things are really bad for whites now due to the anti-white racist govt. policies in effect now. Things are worse now.

what are you expecting, after the white minority oppressed everyone else for so long? The only reason the US isn't like that now is because whites have always been a majority here.

Whites still are wealthier than everyone else in SA, so I don't see how things could have gotten much worse.

The U.S. will never be like that though because civil rights protect everyone equally under the law.

The U.S. and S.A. are like watching day and night. South Africa is what would have happened if the CSA would have won the Civil War, or in other words a racist wonderland.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Bill Gates is a fool to think that Africa will be that successful in the next 100 years. Perhaps a few nations will be but not the majority. Namibia and Botswana and Rwanda have made improvements (although AIDS rates are a problem). Look at the crappy leaders they keep in power for years on end like Mugabe. Look at the AIDS rates (sub-Sahara). Look at the fact that governments can't control terrorism in their own nations (Somalia, Nigeria) or like to rape women and children and have child soldiers (Dem. Rep. of Congo).

Why eastern DR Congo is 'rape capital of the world'

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/24/world ... index.html

Bill Gates should be working on fixing Latin America instead of Africa. At least Latin America has hope for change and a more civilized culture. Most of Africa is hopeless. Plus, Latin America is closer to the USA, let Europe worry about Africa.

I think that Bill Gates being a businessman and a philantropist has more credibility than people who think indentured servitude and institutionalized racism is the way to go for the U.S. quite frankly.

Bill Gates has white guilt. Look at his racist scholarship program that helps any deserving poor student EXCEPT poor white students. His scholarship is clearly racist but he is not branded racist because being anti-white=tolerance in the eyes of the liberal media.

https://scholarships.gmsp.org/Program/D ... 11d7d89cb7

Who’s Eligible?

Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they meet all of the following criteria:

- Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native*, Asian & Pacific Islander American** or Hispanic American

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Arkinesia wrote:
Snip....

Bill Gates should be working on fixing Latin America instead of Africa. At least Latin America has hope for change and a more civilized culture. Most of Africa is hopeless. Plus, Latin America is closer to the USA, let Europe worry about Africa.

South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the EU. are already doing that.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I think that Bill Gates being a businessman and a philantropist has more credibility than people who think indentured servitude and institutionalized racism is the way to go for the U.S. quite frankly.

Bill Gates has white guilt. Look at his racist scholarship program that helps any deserving poor student EXCEPT poor white students. His scholarship is clearly racist but he is not branded racist because being anti-white=tolerance in the eyes of the liberal media.

https://scholarships.gmsp.org/Program/D ... 11d7d89cb7

Who’s Eligible?

Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they meet all of the following criteria:

- Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native*, Asian & Pacific Islander American** or Hispanic American

So, in your mind, a program that is made to help underprivileged ethnic minorities is racist and anti white? Don't be silly.

The Scientific States wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Bill Gates has white guilt. Look at his racist scholarship program that helps any deserving poor student EXCEPT poor white students. His scholarship is clearly racist but he is not branded racist because being anti-white=tolerance in the eyes of the liberal media.

https://scholarships.gmsp.org/Program/D ... 11d7d89cb7

Who’s Eligible?

Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they meet all of the following criteria:

- Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native*, Asian & Pacific Islander American** or Hispanic American

So, in your mind, a program that is made to help underprivileged ethnic minorities is racist and anti white? Don't be silly.

Yes, it is exclusive to people because they are white. Any program that favors one race over another is racist. He has the right to be racist but we should call him like we see him.