CNN publishes race baiting, fake news disparaging whites.

[Tekeristan]

Maybe because I like the idea of a race of people that are far more similar to me in many ways, more than others. Yes there are gray areas, and it isn't always black and white, so to speak, but, I feel far more familiar and at home with other whites. What's wrong with preserving a genotype/phenotype? Why is it wrong only for whites to want that?

Because "preserving the white race" tends to go hand in hand with calls for the oppression of other races in service of that goal. That's when it becomes wrong.

It reminds me of "White Pride". It's often criticized because it's somewhat a celebration of the absence of other race.
Going through early American history, where I can see the development of the 'one drop' rule, it does sort of show some historical context,
But I always wondered why 'half whites' can't celebrate that they're 'white' when the whitest people I know celebrate being 1/64th Cherokee.

[San Lumen]

So tell me how your going to make places like Vienna, Frankfurt, London , Jersey City, New York, white majority again? How are you going to stop demographic changes? Id like your plan.

I don't care about those cities. They can be left to rot.

The plans are easy. I don't particularly care about white majority either, the only reason I care about it is my natural stance of order and lack of completely unnecessary 'progress' in the literal sense of the word. In any scenario, order always means status quo or a return to normalcy, which is universally going to be white majority in Europe.

• Forced integration programs
• Immediate bans on migration for cultures/people who are not remotely compatible with the host culture/society
• Zoning laws to prevent any area in the host country having a higher share of X than the national share of X.

There you go. Three steps in three minutes for free sanity.

So basically racism and government favoritism of certain people. So in a place like Jersey City, London or Frankfurt, you'd forcibly remove people to create white majority areas? How racist and white supremacist. Id like to see you run for office and make what you laid a signature part of your platform

[Tekeristan]

Can't we just explore other people's perspectives with a hint of curiosity just for once?
I suppose it's too much to ask.

Silly Tekeristan! There must be no mercy for people whose perspectives are completely different from mine!

On a serious note though, it's slowly getting harder to explore racial, religious and political perspectives that are different from your own. I, a Young Democrats Rep for my college, am friends with the College Republicans Rep. However, it's a rare friendship, usually people don't get along and can't get out of their own bubbles.

I am getting through it myself. I am a softy leftist, while my younger brother is turning hard conservative. I just hope he doesn't fall into the whole dog-whistling side of that.

Still love him dearly, though. Everyone has multiple sides.

[Trumptonium]

I don't care about those cities. They can be left to rot.

The plans are easy. I don't particularly care about white majority either, the only reason I care about it is my natural stance of order and lack of completely unnecessary 'progress' in the literal sense of the word. In any scenario, order always means status quo or a return to normalcy, which is universally going to be white majority in Europe.

• Forced integration programs
• Immediate bans on migration for cultures/people who are not remotely compatible with the host culture/society
• Zoning laws to prevent any area in the host country having a higher share of X than the national share of X.

There you go. Three steps in three minutes for free sanity.

So basically racism and government favoritism of certain people. So in a place like Jersey City, London or Frankfurt, you'd forcibly remove people to create white majority areas? How racist and white supremacist.

Where in that do you see racism?

Can I have your glasses?

Government favouritism of certain people

Yes, of course the government is meant to favouritise their own fucking citizens, it's the responsibility and duty of government to take care of their own citizens. That's the god damn social contract between government and the people. Consent of the governed.

What the fuck is this, hippieland?

If a government explicitly does not prioritise their own citizens (Obama/Eastern Bloc/Rhodesia/South Africa) then it will either eventually be thrown out or overthrown and that is justified AF.

So in a place like Jersey City, London or Frankfurt, you'd forcibly remove people to create white majority areas? How racist and white supremacist.

these places are lost beyond repair for a variety of reasons on a variety of indicators including non-demographic ones and i do not care what happens to them.

[San Lumen]

So basically racism and government favoritism of certain people. So in a place like Jersey City, London or Frankfurt, you'd forcibly remove people to create white majority areas? How racist and white supremacist.

Where in that do you see racism?

Can I have your glasses?

Government favouritism of certain people

Yes, of course the government is meant to favouritise their own fucking citizens, it's the responsibility and duty of government to take care of their own citizens. That's the god damn social contract between government and the people.

What the fuck is this, hippieland?

So in a place like Jersey City, London or Frankfurt, you'd forcibly remove people to create white majority areas? How racist and white supremacist.

these places are lost beyond repair for a variety of reasons on a variety of indicators including non-demographic ones and i do not care what happens to them.

so people who aren't white are less of a citizen to you?

It is racism when you say immediate bans on migration for cultures/people who are not remotely compatible with the host culture/society. How do you define that?

And your idea of zoning laws what do you do with places like what I mentioned? remove people who aren't white to meet the quota of 51% white?

[Benjabobaria]

To arrive at the 73% figure, global warming denial selectivity is used, with a specific time frame analyzed. Widening the time frame slightly either side shows different figures. The figures are from 1982 to 2012. If the dates are expanded to 2017 (and thus, made actually relevant to the present day), they tell a different story.

Global warming denial selectivity, you say. Sounds like stats you make up later in your post.
Also, 73% and 59% of mass shootings by white males still means that white males do a LOT more crimes than Muslims. 59% is only 20% less than 73%, a different story than "global warming isn't caused by humans at all, look at the stats over hundreds of millions of years" when the relevant stats are only a few hundred thousand years.

That this kind of article is published should tell you something about the current acceptability of racism towards whites in the west, and the ultimately spurious grounding for defending that racism as merely criticism of white supremacy. (If it were that, it wouldn't so frequently be misleading lies clearly designed to disparage a racial group.)

The article's criticizing racism against non-whites. How is that racist against whites?

Considering that CNN has frequently backed progressivism and no-platforming shenanigans, I don't think a defence of it being an opinion piece applies, unless a concession that they are ultimately duplicitous and hypocritical is given. By their own standards, this would make CNN a racist news site for hosting the article.

I'm lost on how this article is racist. You sound like an SJW, trying to say that everything that makes you triggered is racist.

What does it say about the current state of the west where this article and others like it can trump up slander against white people, but correctly noting actual statistics about the disproportionate level of muslim perpetrated violence, actually backed by statistics, would be regarded as racist?

Neither of those statements would be racist.

This narrative is being pushed in the wake of the recent shooting, with no care for accuracy, by left wing news sites and blogs, and on television.

The media doesn't think all white people are evil. Take a step back, take a breath, and look at things in an objective way for once.

Consider the article that claimed "you're more likely to be killed by a republican than a muslim", while:
ignoring 9/11 and the Orlando shooting, counting every attack by a white male as a republican, even when they explicitly weren't (Which adds a second layer of fuckery to this), not actually counting deaths, but the number of attacks (so 9/11 would only have added 1 to their figures, not the 3000+ who died), and ignoring how there is a lot less muslims in the USA than republicans/whites in order to present this as a "cultural" problem with the group.

The editorial does not say that whites have a problem with being too violent - it says that most of the US seems to perceive white crimes as lone incidents while crimes committed by people of color are perceived as part of a larger thing. What most of the media says, at least. Most bias is not against whites, unlike what alt-right SJW's think.

The actual stats when all these deliberate fuckups are corrected for, put you at a 1,202.4 times more likely to die from a muslim than a republican in the USA, and 42,678.3 times more likely to be killed by a muslim than a white person, assuming one of each was in front of you, and they were representative samples of their group. (Not withstanding that this is "Killed in a mass-attack" rather than "Killed." for which the stats would be different again, but the article made this mistake also.)

If Muslims REALLY kill people at 42,000 times the rate of whites in the US, a stat with no sources that seems highly unlikely, you're saying something different than the editorial. The article doesn't say that whites are more likely to commit crimes than Muslims, it says that whites commit more crimes as there are more of them. At the end of the day Muslims make up 1% of the population of the US.

And yet, the progressive narrative continues, in spite of facts, in spite of the clear hypocrisy, and in spite of the interests of the public, both to avoid untrue and inflammatory defamation of racial groups, AND to actually focus on cultural improvements where they are needed, instead of where problems are invented to justify racist caricatures. The urge these people have to defame white people, western culture, and western institutions is not based in any legitimate concerns about public welfare, it seems to be born purely out of hatred for whites. This is the only explanation that can account for all the duplicity, frequent slip ups, and the inconsistency of standards. (This analysis performed on muslims would never be done and accepted, as an example.)

Calm down
This EDITORIAL shows views that could have flaws, but its not racist or fake news.
At the end of the day whites make up a damn large percent of the US, and males do an overwhelming percentage of violent crime, of course they'll do a lot of mass shootings. It's not racist, the whole world doesn't hate white males, you're not oppressed.

[Trumptonium]

Where in that do you see racism?

Can I have your glasses?



Yes, of course the government is meant to favouritise their own fucking citizens, it's the responsibility and duty of government to take care of their own citizens. That's the god damn social contract between government and the people.

What the fuck is this, hippieland?



these places are lost beyond repair for a variety of reasons on a variety of indicators including non-demographic ones and i do not care what happens to them.

so people who aren't white are less of a citizen to you?

lol

It is racism when you say immediate bans on migration for cultures/people who are not remotely compatible with the host culture/society. How do you define that?

hard to say

i think i define that as immediate bans on migration for cultures/people who are not remotely compatible with the host culture/society

i don't think there's any other definition

let's take the racism test

• prejudice ✘
• discrimination ✘
• antagonism ✘
• belief that one's own race is superior ✘

well that's solved then

And your idea of zoning laws what do you do with places like what I mentioned?

for any other area which is beyond the 'threshold' then there's simply a ban on new people from that group.

nationally the share of indian people in the UK is 2.3%
as soon as any existing administrative area exceeds the above number or already does, no new people from that group can move in until it reaches the national rate

nationally the share of polish people in the UK is 1.1%
as soon as any existing administrative area exceeds the above number or already does, no new people from that group can move in until it reaches the national rate

[San Lumen]

so people who aren't white are less of a citizen to you?

lol

It is racism when you say immediate bans on migration for cultures/people who are not remotely compatible with the host culture/society. How do you define that?

hard to say

i think i define that as immediate bans on migration for cultures/people who are not remotely compatible with the host culture/society

i don't think there's any other definition

let's take the racism test

• prejudice ✘
• discrimination ✘
• antagonism ✘
• belief that one's own race is superior ✘

well that's solved then

And your idea of zoning laws what do you do with places like what I mentioned?

I tried twice but let me try again

i don't care about the places you mentioned

they are irreperable

completely

for reasons including but not limited to demographics

i do not care about them

they can kaput

How do you define what cultures or people are incompatible?
And I think the third point is a legitimate question as your the one who proposed such a ridiculous idea. So i think its only fair that you defend how you'd implement it.

And why are those places irreparable beyond them not being majority white? How is what your your saying not white supremacist?

[Kramania]

lol



hard to say

i think i define that as immediate bans on migration for cultures/people who are not remotely compatible with the host culture/society

i don't think there's any other definition

let's take the racism test

• prejudice ✘
• discrimination ✘
• antagonism ✘
• belief that one's own race is superior ✘

well that's solved then



I tried twice but let me try again

i don't care about the places you mentioned

they are irreperable

completely

for reasons including but not limited to demographics

i do not care about them

they can kaput

How do you define what cultures or people are incompatible?
And I think the third point is a legitimate question as your the one who proposed such a ridiculous idea. So i think its only fair that you defend how you'd implement it.

And why are those places irreparable beyond them not being majority white? How is what your your saying not white supremacist?

Does a culture think throwing gays off the roof of a building is justifiable? Yes? Then they aren't compatible with our culture.

[Trumptonium]

lol



hard to say

i think i define that as immediate bans on migration for cultures/people who are not remotely compatible with the host culture/society

i don't think there's any other definition

let's take the racism test

• prejudice ✘
• discrimination ✘
• antagonism ✘
• belief that one's own race is superior ✘

well that's solved then



I tried twice but let me try again

i don't care about the places you mentioned

they are irreperable

completely

for reasons including but not limited to demographics

i do not care about them

they can kaput

How do you define what cultures or people are incompatible?

by the existing administrative, social and economic ease of integrating the existing population from that group. these are objective.

by the existing cultural ease of integrating population from that group. that's normative, to be decided by what i suppose to be the electorate through the manifesto of whomever is to be elected.

culture includes things like beliefs and that's impossible to measure. it's safe to say however that when group X think that the laws of religion X (that is historically foreign) should dominate the landscape, it should also be dominating the rejection list.

not necessarily complete ban, but a far more rigorous application process and a lower quota.

this is justified through natural inclination of the group. sure, not everybody thinks that way, but just because not every car is faulty doesn't mean you just recall a few of them when you discover a major safety issue in your most recent model, distributed in the millions.

And I think the third point is a legitimate question as your the one who proposed such a ridiculous idea. So i think its only fair that you defend how you'd implement it.

here you go, provided for ease of use

for any other area which is beyond the 'threshold' then there's simply a ban on new people from that group.

nationally the share of indian people in the UK is 2.3%
as soon as any existing administrative area exceeds the above number or already does, no new people from that group can move in until it reaches the national rate

nationally the share of polish people in the UK is 1.1%
as soon as any existing administrative area exceeds the above number or already does, no new people from that group can move in until it reaches the national rate

I went to a primary school that was 90%+ ethnic minority. anyone who finds this acceptable or a representation of what diversity should be, needs to be removed from political decisionmaking immediately and their opinions, both past and future, swiftly disregarded.

And why are those places irreparable beyond them not being majority white? How is what your your saying not white supremacist?

sigh

[The Black Forrest]

That's the case when there are language barriers.

And even when there aren't.

Of course. There are always racists.

[San Lumen]

How do you define what cultures or people are incompatible?
And I think the third point is a legitimate question as your the one who proposed such a ridiculous idea. So i think its only fair that you defend how you'd implement it.

And why are those places irreparable beyond them not being majority white? How is what your your saying not white supremacist?

Does a culture think throwing gays off the roof of a building is justifiable? Yes? Then they aren't compatible with our culture.

And yet all muslims don't believe that. I think you and Trumptonium and myself should take this to the diversity and multiculturalism thread cuz I think pretty close to a threadjack at this point.

[The Black Forrest]

How do you define what cultures or people are incompatible?
And I think the third point is a legitimate question as your the one who proposed such a ridiculous idea. So i think its only fair that you defend how you'd implement it.

And why are those places irreparable beyond them not being majority white? How is what your your saying not white supremacist?

Does a culture think throwing gays off the roof of a building is justifiable? Yes? Then they aren't compatible with our culture.

Cultural values adapt. You chose to live in a land where that is against the law; odds are you will change or be in prison.

[Kramania]

Does a culture think throwing gays off the roof of a building is justifiable? Yes? Then they aren't compatible with our culture.

And yet all muslims don't believe that. I think you and Trumptonium and myself should take this to the diversity and multiculturalism thread cuz I think pretty close to a threadjack at this point.

You're gay. Go to Iraq or Iran and profess your love for the same sex. Your lifespan will immediately drop.

[San Lumen]

How do you define what cultures or people are incompatible?

by the existing administrative, social and economic ease of integrating the existing population from that group. these are objective.

by the existing cultural ease of integrating population from that group. that's normative, to be decided by what i suppose to be the electorate through the manifesto of whomever is to be elected.

And I think the third point is a legitimate question as your the one who proposed such a ridiculous idea. So i think its only fair that you defend how you'd implement it.

here you go, provided for ease of use

for any other area which is beyond the 'threshold' then there's simply a ban on new people from that group.

nationally the share of indian people in the UK is 2.3%
as soon as any existing administrative area exceeds the above number or already does, no new people from that group can move in until it reaches the national rate

nationally the share of polish people in the UK is 1.1%
as soon as any existing administrative area exceeds the above number or already does, no new people from that group can move in until it reaches the national rate

And why are those places irreparable beyond them not being majority white? How is what your your saying not white supremacist?

sigh

And what do you do with places like London or San Francisco which have much higher percentage than national average already. move them out so they meet it? Id to see you run for office with polices like this as a central part of your platform. How would you enforce it too? Who are you to tell people where they can reside?

[Kramania]

Does a culture think throwing gays off the roof of a building is justifiable? Yes? Then they aren't compatible with our culture.

Cultural values adapt. You chose to live in a land where that is against the law; odds are you will change or be in prison.

Or we could just make things easier on ourselves and not let them in.

[Kramania]

And even when there aren't.

Of course. There are always racists.

You have made my point for me.

[Vassenor]

Cultural values adapt. You chose to live in a land where that is against the law; odds are you will change or be in prison.

Or we could just make things easier on ourselves and not let them in.

So when was the last time someone was thrown off a rooftop for being homosexual in the US? If anything the biggest source of homophobia there has been from conservative Christians.

[Trumptonium]

by the existing administrative, social and economic ease of integrating the existing population from that group. these are objective.

by the existing cultural ease of integrating population from that group. that's normative, to be decided by what i suppose to be the electorate through the manifesto of whomever is to be elected.



here you go, provided for ease of use

for any other area which is beyond the 'threshold' then there's simply a ban on new people from that group.

nationally the share of indian people in the UK is 2.3%
as soon as any existing administrative area exceeds the above number or already does, no new people from that group can move in until it reaches the national rate

nationally the share of polish people in the UK is 1.1%
as soon as any existing administrative area exceeds the above number or already does, no new people from that group can move in until it reaches the national rate



sigh

And what do you do with places like London or San Francisco which have much higher percentage than national average already.

do you read my posts at all or are you being annoying for trolling purposes?

i have explained this no fewer than three times

Id to see you run for office with polices like this as a central part of your platform.

if you support me so much why are you arguing with me

How would you enforce it too?

presumably whichever country I take over isn't a banana republic and has an existing administrative system and a police force and a census

Who are you to tell people where they can reside?

presumably whichever country I take over, I will be the de facto and/or de jure head of government, in which case the question answers itself and was very stupid to ask.

[The Black Forrest]

And yet all muslims don't believe that. I think you and Trumptonium and myself should take this to the diversity and multiculturalism thread cuz I think pretty close to a threadjack at this point.

You're gay. Go to Iraq or Iran and profess your love for the same sex. Your lifespan will immediately drop.

The US is not free from that. Sheppard comes to mind. Fag bashing incidents in San Francisco.

Should we deport these white Christians?

[San Lumen]

And what do you do with places like London or San Francisco which have much higher percentage than national average already.

do you read my posts at all or are you being annoying for trolling purposes?

i have explained this no fewer than three times

It's still racism and white supremacy and you should run for state legislature or statewide office and make the plan you outlined a central part of your platform.

[Tekeristan]

My own talk about one drop and personal experiences, rendered invalid by the same repeated arguement that glues on.
wew *Flip

[Kramania]

Or we could just make things easier on ourselves and not let them in.

So when was the last time someone was thrown off a rooftop for being homosexual in the US? If anything the biggest source of homophobia there has been from conservative Christians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hamza-sodagar-us-muslim-preacher-who-advocated-beheading-of-gay-men-allowed-to-lecture-in-the-uk-a7348886.html

[Trumptonium]

do you read my posts at all or are you being annoying for trolling purposes?

i have explained this no fewer than three times

It's still racism and white supremacy and you should run for state legislature or statewide office and make the plan you outlined a central part of your platform.

are you playing race bingo or have you lost the argument so hard that you decided that instead of no longer replying, your best course of action is to include 'RACISM' and 'WHITE SUPREMACY' in as many posts as possible in the hope that your screams of buzzwords will change mine - or anybody else's - mind?

a friendly nudge - the overwhelming majority of right-leaning people have lost any sense of emotions when the word 'racism' or 'racist' is mentioned in the ongoing political climate for justified reasons. for me, it is a mere placeholder, same as 'lol'

[Kramania]

You're gay. Go to Iraq or Iran and profess your love for the same sex. Your lifespan will immediately drop.

The US is not free from that. Sheppard comes to mind. Fag bashing incidents in San Francisco.

Should we deport these white Christians?

Homophobia is objectively more widespread in Muslim countries than it is in the West.