TheRPGSite

Fan Forums => The RPGPundit's Own Forum => Topic started by: oggsmash on December 11, 2020, 05:19:25 PM

Title: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: oggsmash on December 11, 2020, 05:19:25 PM
  Reading the election thread, maybe it is time to spitball this one around again.   I can say I would move if it were to happen.  I know lots of people would not care to move, and I think if they are apolitical or feel they can not allow it to affect their lives, so be it.  Could it work?  Before we came to a conclusion it could not be forced in the sense of making people of different political alignment than the new designation move.  I am ok with that, I suspect the left aligned place would use our constitution as a framework and make the adjustments they always wanted to make to the US one.  I think the right aligned would do the same.  People can go where they think it is best for them, or stay where they are and make do, just with an understanding that a framework may be in place where decide to stay that is going to make ideological changes hard to make.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Shasarak on December 11, 2020, 08:16:18 PM
If India and Pakistan can do it then I would say that it is possible.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: EOTB on December 12, 2020, 01:45:05 AM
sadly, I think the idea everyone would just leave each other alone in peace is fantastical.  History doesn’t support peaceful coexistence after the political lines are redrawn.  Globalism isn’t going to settle for half a loaf.  One side believes failure to fully implement its agenda is to deny human rights as redefined in the past couple of decades.  Americans are largely oblivious to what their country has done overseas under the pretense of such rhetoric and would be shocked to find similar force employed against them under the same cover.

The North American continent has not been attacked during the past century because the logistics are horrendous.  But that presumes fighting your way in against a military superpower.  That goes away if you’re allied to a local peer power.  It would be 1600s Europe.  War for oil wouldn’t be something happening somewhere else anymore, and the lack of a Monroe doctrine would open up the Western Hemisphere to gambits of all sorts.

If there was a split it would be dooming the next several generations to 5x the war horror as compared to a single conflict for political control over the same entity, maintaining the same strategic advantages.

Play out the ripple effects and a split doesn’t make anything better.  It’s just kicking a can down the road until it becomes a bomb.  I don’t relish the idea of a civil conflict and hope something better presents itself.  But breakup is a centuries-long nightmare your descendants would be thrust into, cursing those who opted for it. 
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 12, 2020, 05:54:10 AM
If India and Pakistan can do it then I would say that it is possible.
The 1947 partition of India led to 14 million refugees and up to 2 million deaths, with neighbors suddenly turning on neighbors with whom they've lived peacefully for centuries. And with only a few exceptions, the provinces they were splitting were far more homogeneous than any possible split of the US, where the groups are far more intermingled.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: VisionStorm on December 12, 2020, 07:45:34 AM
Not only would an "amicable divorce" not be possible, or even feasible even if we truly wanted one (how do we even begin to split up the population and WTF is even "Left" and "Right"--does it even matter to the average pleb?), but what the "Great Reset" should be is not up to us, it's up to what our elite overlords decide it will be. And a divided population fighting against each other sounds precisely like what they'd want.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: oggsmash on December 12, 2020, 09:04:52 AM
Not only would an "amicable divorce" not be possible, or even feasible even if we truly wanted one (how do we even begin to split up the population and WTF is even "Left" and "Right"--does it even matter to the average pleb?), but what the "Great Reset" should be is not up to us, it's up to what our elite overlords decide it will be. And a divided population fighting against each other sounds precisely like what they'd want.
  I agree about right and left, I honestly have no idea what they mean, but there are some clear lines of disagreement that are never going to be resolved in the country.  I am for presenting this, and if it can not happen, well I guess then we have the really horrible ugly divorce.   I do not think it is tenable down the road, and I agree descendants may not love the idea of a divorce now.  I think, if they are still able to think critically and independently they are likely to be just as pissed with accepting staying together.  An enemy without can be repelled an enemy within will ultimately be the death of any state.  There are people who are more for a global future, including adopting how "global" subjects are treated; meaning slave labor for the middle and working class and a ruling elite that do as they please and pass edicts.  So I surmise you feel the only way to reset the situation is a flat out war?  Or just capitulate and hope our overlords lead us to a brave new world?  I think it goes one way or the other. 
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Zirunel on December 12, 2020, 11:08:33 AM
If India and Pakistan can do it then I would say that it is possible.
The 1947 partition of India led to 14 million refugees and up to 2 million deaths, with neighbors suddenly turning on neighbors with whom they've lived peacefully for centuries. And with only a few exceptions, the provinces they were splitting were far more homogeneous than any possible split of the US, where the groups are far more intermingled.

Not to mention the hot and cold wars that have continued since partition down to the present day. Hardly an amicable divorce. Pretty sure Shasarak was joking,  deadpan humour is kinda his style.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: VisionStorm on December 12, 2020, 12:15:11 PM
Not only would an "amicable divorce" not be possible, or even feasible even if we truly wanted one (how do we even begin to split up the population and WTF is even "Left" and "Right"--does it even matter to the average pleb?), but what the "Great Reset" should be is not up to us, it's up to what our elite overlords decide it will be. And a divided population fighting against each other sounds precisely like what they'd want.
  I agree about right and left, I honestly have no idea what they mean, but there are some clear lines of disagreement that are never going to be resolved in the country.  I am for presenting this, and if it can not happen, well I guess then we have the really horrible ugly divorce.   I do not think it is tenable down the road, and I agree descendants may not love the idea of a divorce now.  I think, if they are still able to think critically and independently they are likely to be just as pissed with accepting staying together.  An enemy without can be repelled an enemy within will ultimately be the death of any state.  There are people who are more for a global future, including adopting how "global" subjects are treated; meaning slave labor for the middle and working class and a ruling elite that do as they please and pass edicts.  So I surmise you feel the only way to reset the situation is a flat out war?  Or just capitulate and hope our overlords lead us to a brave new world?  I think it goes one way or the other.

I honestly don't think that there's a way out of this other than war (and I don't mean civil war--although that may inevitably come--I mean against the so-called "Deep State" and the "elites"), but people will probably just capitulate and give into out overlords cuz most ordinary people are just mindless sheep. But things have escalated to the point where the President of the Unite States can't end wars or even remove troops anymore. The Presidency is just a figurehead at this point, and this was pretty clear to me since Obama--with his promises of "Hope" and "Change", and repealing the Patriot Art--then when he got into office he just continued Bush's policies and expanded the Patriot Act.

Now Trump tried to get troops out of Afghanistan and they flat out denied him. There's no real representation anymore. We're stuck with an unaccountable bureaucracy.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 12, 2020, 12:17:03 PM
That wound be nice, but it's highly unlikely.

One hundred Sarajevos. That's my prediction.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 12, 2020, 02:22:02 PM
Not to mention the hot and cold wars that have continued since partition down to the present day. Hardly an amicable divorce. Pretty sure Shasarak was joking,  deadpan humour is kinda his style.
Agreed, but it was worth expanding on because most people aren't that familiar with the partition of India.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 12, 2020, 05:38:24 PM
But things have escalated to the point where the President of the Unite States can't end wars or even remove troops anymore. The Presidency is just a figurehead at this point, and this was pretty clear to me since Obama--with his promises of "Hope" and "Change", and repealing the Patriot Art--then when he got into office he just continued Bush's policies and expanded the Patriot Act.

Now Trump tried to get troops out of Afghanistan and they flat out denied him. There's no real representation anymore. We're stuck with an unaccountable bureaucracy.

Bush and Obama both significant *expanded* the powers of the presidency -- largely with the approval of Congress. The Patriot Act is an example of Congress giving greater power to the President. My interpretation is that Congress has largely been paralyzed by increased partisanship in recent decades, and thus has been willing to turn more and more power over to the President.

Incidentally, Presidents were never supposed to be able to start or end wars. That's in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). That's been eroding ever since the Korean War, though -- we've never officially had a war since WWII.

The President has indirect control over the bureaucracy, because he appoints the heads of most departments. But that depends on him being able to appoint people who will work with him -- and Trump has had a lot of trouble with that.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: EOTB on December 12, 2020, 05:59:30 PM
By definition, unless you can fire at will any person in any department, you do not have control of a department.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: GameDaddy on December 12, 2020, 10:56:20 PM

Bush and Obama both significant *expanded* the powers of the presidency -- largely with the approval of Congress. The Patriot Act is an example of Congress giving greater power to the President. My interpretation is that Congress has largely been paralyzed by increased partisanship in recent decades, and thus has been willing to turn more and more power over to the President.

Gee, seems quite a bit like Imperial Rome in the 5th century, just about a hundred years before it went under. Everything is accelerated with Technology though.

Incidentally, Presidents were never supposed to be able to start or end wars. That's in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). That's been eroding ever since the Korean War, though -- we've never officially had a war since WWII.

This is a problem that won't go away. While Trump reduced forces in Iraq and Afganistan, he significantly increased US military forces in Syria and Africa. Not sure why we are using our great tech on third world countries. Should be saving that for the next real Dixctator like Erdogan, that might go off the rails and need to be clubbed back into the stone age.

The President has indirect control over the bureaucracy, because he appoints the heads of most departments. But that depends on him being able to appoint people who will work with him -- and Trump has had a lot of trouble with that.

Not as much as you would think. I was just talking to folks at my Post Office today, and it seems that luzer Louis DeJoy in charge who is working to cripple our postal system, so he and his rich friends can profit off of that and give us Shite, won't be automatically fired When Biden takes office in January. The Postal Workers weren't happy about that, and expect even more difficulties down the road. Expect your service to suck even more until they get rid of the grifters that call themselves the Board of Governors that are running the US Postal service. Here's a link so you know who is F*&king you... in addition to King Louie, of course.

https://about.usps.com/who/leadership/board-governors/
 
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 13, 2020, 02:10:49 AM
But things have escalated to the point where the President of the Unite States can't end wars or even remove troops anymore. The Presidency is just a figurehead at this point, and this was pretty clear to me since Obama--with his promises of "Hope" and "Change", and repealing the Patriot Art--then when he got into office he just continued Bush's policies and expanded the Patriot Act.

Now Trump tried to get troops out of Afghanistan and they flat out denied him. There's no real representation anymore. We're stuck with an unaccountable bureaucracy.

Bush and Obama both significant *expanded* the powers of the presidency -- largely with the approval of Congress. The Patriot Act is an example of Congress giving greater power to the President. My interpretation is that Congress has largely been paralyzed by increased partisanship in recent decades, and thus has been willing to turn more and more power over to the President.

Incidentally, Presidents were never supposed to be able to start or end wars. That's in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). That's been eroding ever since the Korean War, though -- we've never officially had a war since WWII.
Vice, the bio of Dick Cheney, does a decent job of explaining how power has been shifting to the presidency, with a focus on the "unitary executive" concept. It's a bit superficial, but films always are.

Same is true with treaties. Article 2, Section II: "He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". Which is why the US rarely signs true treaties anymore. Since WW2, they've largely been replaced with executive agreements, which aren't based on any explicitly enumerated power in the Constitution. It's basically the president's handshake, and can be revoked by any future president.

https://www.thoughtco.com/unitary-executive-theory-the-imperial-presidency-721716
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: consolcwby on December 14, 2020, 10:19:54 PM
So, what is everyone going to do when GOD turns out the lights?
https://dailybuzzlive.com/alert-nasa-confirms-earth-will-go-dark-6-days-december/

I keep warning everyone, no one listens... :P
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ruffangel on December 14, 2020, 10:28:27 PM
Questions of whether the radical Left will be content with leaving the "I just want to grill" elements of the Right alone after a partition aside, (They won't), were the USA to cease to exist as a unified military power, we could expect all hell to break loose throughout the world. For better or for worse, the Pax Americana has prevented more bloodshed than it has enabled. Absent the ability of the US armed forces to project power overseas, to intervene and intimidate potentially hostile actors, it is almost a guarantee that there will be significantly less peace and prosperity throughout the world. China is a rising power with global ambitions, and the US is its only significant check. It would be foolhardy to underestimate the stabilizing effects that the US Navy alone has on global trade. Remove the USA from the geopolitical picture and you wind up with a much different world, one in which there will be a race, and a struggle, to be the one to fill the power vacuum.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 10:37:33 PM
So, what is everyone going to do when GOD turns out the lights?
https://dailybuzzlive.com/alert-nasa-confirms-earth-will-go-dark-6-days-december/

I keep warning everyone, no one listens... :P

If GOD is not too busy can he also give me a Pony.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 14, 2020, 10:56:54 PM
So, what is everyone going to do when GOD turns out the lights?
https://dailybuzzlive.com/alert-nasa-confirms-earth-will-go-dark-6-days-december/

I keep warning everyone, no one listens... :P

I'm sure Alex Jones will save us with his dragon energy.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: consolcwby on December 14, 2020, 11:03:26 PM
So, what is everyone going to do when GOD turns out the lights?
https://dailybuzzlive.com/alert-nasa-confirms-earth-will-go-dark-6-days-december/

I keep warning everyone, no one listens... :P

If GOD is not too busy can he also give me a Pony.
Hm... I'm really REALLY tired right now, but let me try to pray for you...
...
...
...
GOT THE ANSWER!
God says:
"If you are good, you will find one growing in your yard, this summer 2021."
!!!!
Read up on it so you know how to care for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peony
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Trond on December 15, 2020, 10:01:17 AM
I think divisiveness is just a thing people will have to live with. Social media and other modern trends are part of it of course, and that isn’t going anywhere. If the country really did divide I wouldn’t be surprised if the next thing that happens is that the leftist part soon finds some people are not leftist enough, and the same on the right part, leading to further infighting and division.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 16, 2020, 02:31:24 AM
It should be a peaceful separation, but the powers that be wont allow it. America is doomed to go through brazilification into third world shithole status, and then possibly end up like south Africa. This was going to happen regardless as to who won the election, as the rot already set in top deep



China is going to have a comfortable middle class in 35 years in a homogenized Han nation. Russia will be similar. Meanwhile the USA will he circling the drain.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 16, 2020, 02:34:16 AM
I think divisiveness is just a thing people will have to live with. Social media and other modern trends are part of it of course, and that isn’t going anywhere. If the country really did divide I wouldn’t be surprised if the next thing that happens is that the leftist part soon finds some people are not leftist enough, and the same on the right part, leading to further infighting and division.


I dont think you understand how deep the hatred as gotten. For one side to advance the other side has to decline, and we no longer agree on a shared history, language, or religion. That isnt a well functioning republic performing as intended, it's two sides with no business calling each other countrymen struggling for power grabs so they can enact radically different world views at the expense of the other half of the country.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 16, 2020, 07:36:01 AM
I dont think you understand how deep the hatred as gotten. For one side to advance the other side has to decline, and we no longer agree on a shared history, language, or religion. That isnt a well functioning republic performing as intended, it's two sides with no business calling each other countrymen struggling for power grabs so they can enact radically different world views at the expense of the other half of the country.
Read about the US in the 19th century. The last 70 or 80 years has been one of remarkable amity, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Abraxus on December 16, 2020, 08:22:19 AM
I don't think the great reset will ever happen. One has to have enough people with the popular vote and opinion as well as the weapons both real and financial to back up the threat of splitting the country up. Most will be angry their candidate did not win shrug then get on with their lives. Too many hear think that everyone else thinks like them and wants to split the country. Many average people can't let alone want to think such a scenario.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 08:27:34 AM
I dont think you understand how deep the hatred as gotten. For one side to advance the other side has to decline, and we no longer agree on a shared history, language, or religion. That isnt a well functioning republic performing as intended, it's two sides with no business calling each other countrymen struggling for power grabs so they can enact radically different world views at the expense of the other half of the country.
Read about the US in the 19th century. The last 70 or 80 years has been one of remarkable amity, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
I have. It's worse than it was circa 1858.

If you want a good thumbnail explanation of the issue, look up Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed. Read the part about the 'constrained' versus the 'unconstrained' viewpoints.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 16, 2020, 08:34:00 AM
I dont think you understand how deep the hatred as gotten. For one side to advance the other side has to decline, and we no longer agree on a shared history, language, or religion. That isnt a well functioning republic performing as intended, it's two sides with no business calling each other countrymen struggling for power grabs so they can enact radically different world views at the expense of the other half of the country.
Read about the US in the 19th century. The last 70 or 80 years has been one of remarkable amity, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
I have. It's worse than it was circa 1858.

If you want a good thumbnail explanation of the issue, look up Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed. Read the part about the 'constrained' versus the 'unconstrained' viewpoints.
I've read Sowell's book, but it just seems like we're reverting back to the eras of yellow journalism, political pamphlets, and so on. Remember how hated people like Jackson and Lincoln were, by their contemporaries.

The main difference today isn't vehemence or polarization, but that the central government is much stronger, which is aggravating the divide. If you have two sides on an issue with irreconcilable views, forcing a uniform solution on everyone is the worst possible answer.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 08:37:52 AM
I've read Sowell's book, but it just seems like we're reverting back to the eras of yellow journalism, political pamphlets, and so on. Remember how hated people like Jackson and Lincoln were, by their contemporaries.

The main difference today isn't vehemence or polarization, but that the central government is much stronger, which is aggravating the divide. If you have two sides on an issue with irreconcilable views, forcing a uniform solution on everyone is the worst possible answer.
I would argue there was no 'reversion'. It's always been this way, it's just become more obvious now.

And yes, the increasing power and centralization of authority is a bad thing. But I don't think any kind of national divorce will be amicable or peaceful.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 16, 2020, 08:46:20 AM

And yes, the increasing power and centralization of authority is a bad thing. But I don't think any kind of national divorce will be amicable or peaceful.
I don't think any kind of divorce is possible. I just read Bishop's The Big Sort, which describes how the US has fragmented into two distinct communities who think differently, live in different communities, and only associate with people of a similar mindset. But it's not a East Coast/West Coast split, or even the coasts vs. the heartlands, or the North vs. the South. It's not state by state, or even county by county. The divide is happening at the neighborhood or community level, as people preferentially move to places where their neighbors think like they do. But drive a few blocks over, and it can completely switch. And the book's more than 10 years old; the gradient has become even steeper. There's no way to unravel that almost fractal division, without forcibly relocating almost half the country.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 08:53:12 AM

And yes, the increasing power and centralization of authority is a bad thing. But I don't think any kind of national divorce will be amicable or peaceful.
I don't think any kind of divorce is possible. I just read Bishop's The Big Sort, which describes how the US has fragmented into two distinct communities who think differently, live in different communities, and only associate with people of a similar mindset. But it's not a East Coast/West Coast split, or even the coasts vs. the heartlands, or the North vs. the South. It's not state by state, or even county by county. The divide is happening at the neighborhood or community level, as people preferentially move to places where their neighbors think like they do. But drive a few blocks over, and it can completely switch. And the book's more than 10 years old; the gradient has become even steeper. There's no way to unravel that almost fractal division, without forcibly relocating almost half the country.
I agree completely. But the alternative may be worse. Imagine the Troubles, but multiplied a hundredfold.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 16, 2020, 10:17:09 AM

And yes, the increasing power and centralization of authority is a bad thing. But I don't think any kind of national divorce will be amicable or peaceful.
I don't think any kind of divorce is possible. I just read Bishop's The Big Sort, which describes how the US has fragmented into two distinct communities who think differently, live in different communities, and only associate with people of a similar mindset. But it's not a East Coast/West Coast split, or even the coasts vs. the heartlands, or the North vs. the South. It's not state by state, or even county by county. The divide is happening at the neighborhood or community level, as people preferentially move to places where their neighbors think like they do. But drive a few blocks over, and it can completely switch. And the book's more than 10 years old; the gradient has become even steeper. There's no way to unravel that almost fractal division, without forcibly relocating almost half the country.
I agree completely. But the alternative may be worse. Imagine the Troubles, but multiplied a hundredfold.

Greetings!

Indeed, that vision may very well come to pass. A civil war illustrated by savage street battles, periodic bombings, truck attacks, nighttime raids, arson attacks, and assassinations. It is foreseeable that Federal authority and power will be truncated, as local authorities, regions, and states resist Federal dictates, and implement a de facto "divorce" on their own, and various law enforcement agencies simply lose the power to exert any kind of mass control. In addition, it seems likely that there can potentially be rival factions within law enforcement, with some casually "looking the other way" as BLM and Antifa gangs run rampant, while more conservative law enforcement agencies align themselves with local conservative militia units.

This is all the chickens coming home to roost caused by the Marxists. Their ideologues within academia and other sectors of society, such as entertainment and media, have promoted a Marxist ideology and brainwashing for over 20 years now. I have seen their ideology and rhetoric up close in the university for example, ramping up, year after year, and along the way promoting and embracing ideas and attitudes that are increasingly delusional and divorced from reality. Furthermore, such ideas and ideology has been incubated within them--often younger crops of college students--but also spread about throughout society in general--that is and has been increasingly hostile and belligerent towards anyone that thinks differently, that holds to traditional, conservative, patriotic, Christian world views. In every category, whether it is foreign policy, homosexuality, abortion, gun rights, sex education, marriage and divorce customs, family court law, religious faith, homeschooling, Charter schools, Taxes, social welfare policies, urban development--all of these things have become "We are perfect and have the TRUTH--and if you disagree or embrace traditional beliefs, then you are an evil, racist, nahtzee." Scaled down, of course, until in more recent years, but the trend has been there for a long time.

That is the bones to the whole "culture war" that has been going on at various levels of intensity since the 1960's and 1970's. The main problem is that the Conservative elements of society have for many of these years been asleep at the switch, and otherwise preoccupied with raising kids, working, and living life--while generally underestimating the seriousness of the "culture war" and often downplaying it's importance, or being content to handing off the "job" of fighting the "culture war" to grizzled military vets, the odd rambling bearded man, or a variety of Christian preachers, pastors, and activists.

Increasingly though, say in the last 12 to 15 years, alarm bells have been going off more and more within the more conservative population, and especially so within the last four years. But it has been growing--all of the topics I mentioned have in many ways experienced a growing sense of leverage, change, and dominion from the Leftist, Marxist angle, against traditional, conservative Americans, who have more and more been opening their eyes that their culture is being destroyed, and the America that so many people grew up loving and cherishing, is being chewed and eaten and polluted, and more and more, people are being restricted, disenfranchised, and oppressed.

So, now, we see more Americans saying "fuck it" and driving trucks into crowds of people, setting off bombs, and organizing into street fighting. Soon here--well, we have already seen some tendencies--and more conservative people in America are just going to be shooting the Marxists, and really going after them, and beating them to death. This tendency will vary of course, by the perceived threat level on the local level, and how responsive local law enforcement is to conservative Americans expectations, and also how trustworthy the local judicial courts are. As that confidence and security level diminishes, well, more and more ordinary, Conservative Americans are going to be actively defending themselves, and their communities.

I don't think we are anywhere near a place of "unity and healing". The cultural divide, the culture war, has become far too personal. It isn't political anymore. Politics are just a wrapper coating to it--the deeper issues of faith, community, freedom, and culture, are becoming so acute, that the two groups are largely incompatible now. There's nothing to discuss, or negotiate. Liberal, jello-filled Marxists are gathering together, and Conservative, traditional Americans would much rather live and work amongst people that embrace the same values they do. It seems like we are just a hop and skip from formal, jurisdictional separation. There will reach a point where groups of Americans will refuse to not only live amongst others that don't share their values--but they will refuse to obey laws, dictates, mandates, whatever, by anyone that they view as being in opposition. This social force is gathering momentum. Not only here in Idaho, for example, but also in Texas, and many other states. Hell, there is a growing impetus for people in Eastern Oregon to secede from the western half of their state, and join together with Idaho. That desire is increasingly spurred not only by government bureaucracy, taxes, codes and such--but by a dissonance in culture, and values. Thus, you have more people in Eastern Oregon feeling oppressed, disenfranchised, and NOT represented or listened to by their political "leaders" in Portland.

The gulf is certainly growing, my friend. It has been a long time coming, and that is why I see it as a kind of chickens coming home to roost thing. The Marxists have been pushing and promoting this cultural corruption and rot for decades, while Conservatives closed their eyes and tried to alternatingly placate or ignore the growing threat. Now, the flood is about to burst, because primarily more people are seeing, perhaps for the first time, that the looming threat cannot be negotiated with, they cannot be reasoned with, and the situation has accelerated to the tipping point where the culture is either defended and protected, or the American culture gets plough fucked in the ass by Marxism.

Tipping Point, indeed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 16, 2020, 10:45:08 AM
The simplest solution is decentralizing power. The talk about secession, from the Tea Party and Texas a decade ago, to the newer talk about California, is just an extreme example. All we need is more local governments and states simply refusing to comply with the statutes and officials of larger governmental bodies, for instance the various sheriffs refusing to comply with new gun laws in California. Even the left supports it when convenient, for instance the spread of pot legalization despite it still being illegal under federal law, or the sanctuary cities where local officials are refusing to support ICE. This is called nullification, and has a long and storied history in the country, for instance all the Northern states that ignored the Fugitive Slave Act before the Civil War.

If we can just extend the concept and stop trying impose our favorite rules across the whole country, then we magically have a solution to all the hot button issues, like abortion, gun rights, healthcare, and even, to some degree, immigration.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 05:14:07 PM
The simplest solution is decentralizing power. The talk about secession, from the Tea Party and Texas a decade ago, to the newer talk about California, is just an extreme example. All we need is more local governments and states simply refusing to comply with the statutes and officials of larger governmental bodies, for instance the various sheriffs refusing to comply with new gun laws in California. Even the left supports it when convenient, for instance the spread of pot legalization despite it still being illegal under federal law, or the sanctuary cities where local officials are refusing to support ICE. This is called nullification, and has a long and storied history in the country, for instance all the Northern states that ignored the Fugitive Slave Act before the Civil War.

If we can just extend the concept and stop trying impose our favorite rules across the whole country, then we magically have a solution to all the hot button issues, like abortion, gun rights, healthcare, and even, to some degree, immigration.
Decentralization would be nice. Tip O'Neill said it best: all politics are local.

Nullification might be the way to go, but don't expect Leviathan to go quietly.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Trinculoisdead on December 16, 2020, 08:05:53 PM
It's funny, on the extreme liberal side you have people calling for revolution; while on the extreme conservative side you have a call for civil war. These approaches both stem from dissatisfaction with the other side, but also reflect the essential instincts of their proponents: the liberal tendency to embrace the weird and overthrow traditional powers, and the conservative desire for clear boundaries and the expelling of the "progressive".
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 16, 2020, 10:47:21 PM
It's funny, on the extreme liberal side you have people calling for revolution; while on the extreme conservative side you have a call for civil war. These approaches both stem from dissatisfaction with the other side, but also reflect the essential instincts of their proponents: the liberal tendency to embrace the weird and overthrow traditional powers, and the conservative desire for clear boundaries and the expelling of the "progressive".


When we got to drag queen story hour and James Youngers abusive parent getting a green light from the state to transition, or see the tearing down of monuments dedicated to the nation's heroes and a complete disgust for our history, or we witness racial self hatred taught in schools and humiliation rituals thrust on to our children, its clear there is no living with these people in any way besides contempt and desperate power grabs every few years to secure our way of life. And even then theyll just import millions of more people to get their way.


Anyone who thinks "the pendulum will just swing back" is blind to the fact that this isnt the same country that it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. We arent the same nation in regards to demography, religiosity, and cannot even agree on basic moral principals. There won't be some karma like force resetting things back to what they once were socially. The country has been slowly declining for decades (single motherhood, inflation, suicide, mental illness) and now we see physical manifestations of the demoralization that has infected a huge portion of the population.


It isnt just exclusive to the united states either. Most of the west will be facing a similar fall from grace.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 16, 2020, 11:24:52 PM
It's funny, on the extreme liberal side you have people calling for revolution; while on the extreme conservative side you have a call for civil war. These approaches both stem from dissatisfaction with the other side, but also reflect the essential instincts of their proponents: the liberal tendency to embrace the weird and overthrow traditional powers, and the conservative desire for clear boundaries and the expelling of the "progressive".


When we got to drag queen story hour and James Youngers abusive parent getting a green light from the state to transition, or see the tearing down of monuments dedicated to the nation's heroes and a complete disgust for our history, or we witness racial self hatred taught in schools and humiliation rituals thrust on to our children, its clear there is no living with these people in any way besides contempt and desperate power grabs every few years to secure our way of life. And even then theyll just import millions of more people to get their way.


Anyone who thinks "the pendulum will just swing back" is blind to the fact that this isnt the same country that it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. We arent the same nation in regards to demography, religiosity, and cannot even agree on basic moral principals. There won't be some karma like force resetting things back to what they once were socially. The country has been slowly declining for decades (single motherhood, inflation, suicide, mental illness) and now we see physical manifestations of the demoralization that has infected a huge portion of the population.


It isnt just exclusive to the united states either. Most of the west will be facing a similar fall from grace.

Greetings!

Very well said, Deathknight4044!

By the way--welcome to the RPGsite!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 17, 2020, 12:58:46 AM
It's funny, on the extreme liberal side you have people calling for revolution; while on the extreme conservative side you have a call for civil war. These approaches both stem from dissatisfaction with the other side, but also reflect the essential instincts of their proponents: the liberal tendency to embrace the weird and overthrow traditional powers, and the conservative desire for clear boundaries and the expelling of the "progressive".


When we got to drag queen story hour and James Youngers abusive parent getting a green light from the state to transition, or see the tearing down of monuments dedicated to the nation's heroes and a complete disgust for our history, or we witness racial self hatred taught in schools and humiliation rituals thrust on to our children, its clear there is no living with these people in any way besides contempt and desperate power grabs every few years to secure our way of life. And even then theyll just import millions of more people to get their way.


Anyone who thinks "the pendulum will just swing back" is blind to the fact that this isnt the same country that it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. We arent the same nation in regards to demography, religiosity, and cannot even agree on basic moral principals. There won't be some karma like force resetting things back to what they once were socially. The country has been slowly declining for decades (single motherhood, inflation, suicide, mental illness) and now we see physical manifestations of the demoralization that has infected a huge portion of the population.


It isnt just exclusive to the united states either. Most of the west will be facing a similar fall from grace.

Greetings!

Very well said, Deathknight4044!

By the way--welcome to the RPGsite!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Thanks bro. I'm glad I found the site. I've come across biased moderation in the past on sites like giant in the playground, or sites that have banned a wide range of topics for the sake of civility over at places like dragonsfoot, so this place is a breath of fresh air.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 17, 2020, 08:04:18 PM
Anyone who thinks "the pendulum will just swing back" is blind to the fact that this isnt the same country that it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. We arent the same nation in regards to demography, religiosity, and cannot even agree on basic moral principals. There won't be some karma like force resetting things back to what they once were socially. The country has been slowly declining for decades (single motherhood, inflation, suicide, mental illness) and now we see physical manifestations of the demoralization that has infected a huge portion of the population.

The nation has never been unified in demographics, religion, or even basic moral principles. We've had many periods of sharply different values. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a sharp disagreement over racial segregation and other policies. I'd argue that the differences were sharper, and certainly the violence was much greater back then -- looking at the record of bombings, shootings, and other conflict. Of course, the differences were even greater during the Civil War - and we stayed united through that.

I certainly hope we don't go back to the levels of armed conflict we saw in the 1960s, but even if we do, it's far from the biggest divide the country has seen.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 17, 2020, 08:22:22 PM
Anyone who thinks "the pendulum will just swing back" is blind to the fact that this isnt the same country that it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. We arent the same nation in regards to demography, religiosity, and cannot even agree on basic moral principals. There won't be some karma like force resetting things back to what they once were socially. The country has been slowly declining for decades (single motherhood, inflation, suicide, mental illness) and now we see physical manifestations of the demoralization that has infected a huge portion of the population.

The nation has never been unified in demographics, religion, or even basic moral principles. We've had many periods of sharply different values. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a sharp disagreement over racial segregation and other policies. I'd argue that the differences were sharper, and certainly the violence was much greater back then -- looking at the record of bombings, shootings, and other conflict. Of course, the differences were even greater during the Civil War - and we stayed united through that.

I certainly hope we don't go back to the levels of armed conflict we saw in the 1960s, but even if we do, it's far from the biggest divide the country has seen.

Greetings!

Wait, wait there, Jhkim. "The nation has never been unified in demographics, religion, or basic moral principle."?

That is entirely wrong, Jhkim. We have always been a white European majority in demographics, and we have established ourselves as a firm member and champion of Western Civilization. Our religion has also been a vast majority CHRISTIAN. And, we have indeed held onto a body of generally accepted and unifying moral principles. Everyone from George Washington, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Alexis De Toqueville, Lafeyette, Abraham Lincoln, to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, to Ronald Reagan and more all stand in contradiction to your belief. Americans have always had a common demographic, a common religion, and unified moral principles. Such commonality and unity has allowed this great nation to prosper and overcome challenges and problems throughout the centuries of our successful and sacred Republic.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: consolcwby on December 17, 2020, 11:55:18 PM
Anyone who thinks "the pendulum will just swing back" is blind to the fact that this isnt the same country that it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. We arent the same nation in regards to demography, religiosity, and cannot even agree on basic moral principals. There won't be some karma like force resetting things back to what they once were socially. The country has been slowly declining for decades (single motherhood, inflation, suicide, mental illness) and now we see physical manifestations of the demoralization that has infected a huge portion of the population.

The nation has never been unified in demographics, religion, or even basic moral principles. We've had many periods of sharply different values. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a sharp disagreement over racial segregation and other policies. I'd argue that the differences were sharper, and certainly the violence was much greater back then -- looking at the record of bombings, shootings, and other conflict. Of course, the differences were even greater during the Civil War - and we stayed united through that.

I certainly hope we don't go back to the levels of armed conflict we saw in the 1960s, but even if we do, it's far from the biggest divide the country has seen.

Greetings!

Wait, wait there, Jhkim. "The nation has never been unified in demographics, religion, or basic moral principle."?

That is entirely wrong, Jhkim. We have always been a white European majority in demographics, and we have established ourselves as a firm member and champion of Western Civilization. Our religion has also been a vast majority CHRISTIAN. And, we have indeed held onto a body of generally accepted and unifying moral principles. Everyone from George Washington, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Alexis De Toqueville, Lafeyette, Abraham Lincoln, to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, to Ronald Reagan and more all stand in contradiction to your belief. Americans have always had a common demographic, a common religion, and unified moral principles. Such commonality and unity has allowed this great nation to prosper and overcome challenges and problems throughout the centuries of our successful and sacred Republic.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
That's RIGHT @SHARK! What's more, the DIS-INTEGRATION of the left - who started this mess - is becoming apparent. They, the PARTY OF PEACE AND PROGRESS, who PREACHED: Tolerance, understanding, and patience, is NOW engaged in an all out WAR OF ATTRITION against ANYONE who does not wish to BOW AND PRAY FOR FORGIVENESS from them! Black, white, latino, asian - IT DOESN'T MATTER!  This is the end game and they have shown themselves the MOST EVIL AND TYRRANICAL FUCKS in 21st Century HISTORY! These are those who CHEERED during 9/11 - these are those who PROTECT PEDOPHILES and want to MURDER ANY WHO DO NOT THINK, SPEAK, OR ACT like them.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kim is obviously one of them.
Let he be silenced as he silenced others.
PENANCE.
WWG1WGA!
MAGA!
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 18, 2020, 02:55:51 AM
"The nation has never been unified in demographics, religion, or basic moral principle."?

That is entirely wrong, Jhkim. We have always been a white European majority in demographics, and we have established ourselves as a firm member and champion of Western Civilization. Our religion has also been a vast majority CHRISTIAN. And, we have indeed held onto a body of generally accepted and unifying moral principles. Everyone from George Washington, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Alexis De Toqueville, Lafeyette, Abraham Lincoln, to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, to Ronald Reagan and more all stand in contradiction to your belief. Americans have always had a common demographic, a common religion, and unified moral principles. Such commonality and unity has allowed this great nation to prosper and overcome challenges and problems throughout the centuries of our successful and sacred Republic.

There has always been a *majority* -- but always with important differences. In terms of race, the country was 79% white when it was founded, and it's around 72% white today. Are you trying to claim that 79% is "unified" but 72% is "not unified"? That seems like an overly convenient dividing line. You'll pardon me as not thinking that being unified white is one of the things that makes this country great.

In terms of religion, the country has always been majority Christian -- but ranging from Puritans to Quakers to Catholics to Deists -- and different Christian sects are anything but unified. It's precisely because fighting between different Christians was so intense, that one of the founding principles of the country was Freedom of Religion, and the separation of Church and State. Religious differences are something this country has embraced since the start.

In terms of morals, you can list out who you think of as your favorite moral leaders. But again, the country has included a wider range than the few you name. We have had many diametrically opposed figures in history -- like Andrew Jackson and Geronimo; or Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis; or Susan B. Anthony and William Taft; or J. Edgar Hoover and Martin Luther King Jr.

America was founded by contentious rebels -- and one of their principles was that Americans can and should stand against the government when the government is wrong. Over and over, great Americans have stood against the government.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 18, 2020, 03:07:13 AM
Anyone who thinks "the pendulum will just swing back" is blind to the fact that this isnt the same country that it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. We arent the same nation in regards to demography, religiosity, and cannot even agree on basic moral principals. There won't be some karma like force resetting things back to what they once were socially. The country has been slowly declining for decades (single motherhood, inflation, suicide, mental illness) and now we see physical manifestations of the demoralization that has infected a huge portion of the population.

The nation has never been unified in demographics, religion, or even basic moral principles. We've had many periods of sharply different values. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a sharp disagreement over racial segregation and other policies. I'd argue that the differences were sharper, and certainly the violence was much greater back then -- looking at the record of bombings, shootings, and other conflict. Of course, the differences were even greater during the Civil War - and we stayed united through that.

I certainly hope we don't go back to the levels of armed conflict we saw in the 1960s, but even if we do, it's far from the biggest divide the country has seen.


Even as recently as 1990 around half of Americans had ancestry of the founding stock. Studies show that homogeneous societies have more public participation, less crime, civil war, and more stability*. And as less people than ever are tethered to the nations history via ancestry we also see national pride hit an all time low** When you also read the naturalization act of 1790 it's clear the country was meant to be a nation state enshrined to a certain group of people. This was more or less maintained until the 1965 Hart Celler Act which opened the floodgates, despite politicians assuring the people we would not seriously alter demographics with uncontrollable mass migration. 60 years later they will openly tell you that your grandkids will be only speaking Spanish and a "reconquista" of the country is underway.

My point is this isnt the same nation that it was in the 60s or the 70s or 80s or 90s. We are more divided than we've ever been and have increasingly less in common with one another. As this continues we will creep closer to Brazil status, and with continued mass migration it will effectivley stamp out any love or sentimentality towards the country that is left.

This isnt some anti american tirade either I love my country, but I despise what's what's being done to it.


*http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608

**https://news.gallup.com/poll/312644/national-pride-falls-record-low.aspx


Edit: The portion is non hispanic white americans is also 62%, not 72%. For comparison America was 89% White in 1950
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 18, 2020, 03:26:21 AM
"The nation has never been unified in demographics, religion, or basic moral principle."?

That is entirely wrong, Jhkim. We have always been a white European majority in demographics, and we have established ourselves as a firm member and champion of Western Civilization. Our religion has also been a vast majority CHRISTIAN. And, we have indeed held onto a body of generally accepted and unifying moral principles. Everyone from George Washington, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Alexis De Toqueville, Lafeyette, Abraham Lincoln, to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, to Ronald Reagan and more all stand in contradiction to your belief. Americans have always had a common demographic, a common religion, and unified moral principles. Such commonality and unity has allowed this great nation to prosper and overcome challenges and problems throughout the centuries of our successful and sacred Republic.

There has always been a *majority* -- but always with important differences. In terms of race, the country was 79% white when it was founded, and it's around 72% white today. Are you trying to claim that 79% is "unified" but 72% is "not unified"? That seems like an overly convenient dividing line. You'll pardon me as not thinking that being unified white is one of the things that makes this country great.

In terms of religion, the country has always been majority Christian -- but ranging from Puritans to Quakers to Catholics to Deists -- and different Christian sects are anything but unified. It's precisely because fighting between different Christians was so intense, that one of the founding principles of the country was Freedom of Religion, and the separation of Church and State. Religious differences are something this country has embraced since the start.

In terms of morals, you can list out who you think of as your favorite moral leaders. But again, the country has included a wider range than the few you name. We have had many diametrically opposed figures in history -- like Andrew Jackson and Geronimo; or Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis; or Susan B. Anthony and William Taft; or J. Edgar Hoover and Martin Luther King Jr.

America was founded by contentious rebels -- and one of their principles was that Americans can and should stand against the government when the government is wrong. Over and over, great Americans have stood against the government.

In regards to race Whites have been 80% or more throughout the 1800s and through the 1980s. In 1960 for example we were 88% White. In 2020 under 50% of children under 18 are White. This isn't the same group of people compromising the nation.

In regards to religion id agree in part, but as much as I hate the term judeo Christian values it's an accurate description here. There was some degree of cohesion through basic moral tenants. Now half the country paradoxically praises islam while mocking Christian's almost reflexively. I'm not convicned a nation that was once 90% some form of Christian was less socially cohesive than today, where that number drops down to about 70%, and its vacuum filled with other religions and atheism.

In terms of morals.... I mean in San Francisco they're removing Lincolns name from a highschool because he didnt care about black lives enough. I don't think I can be convinced that there isnt a massive moral divide in this country that is more dire than decades past. We cant even agree that a man is male.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 18, 2020, 03:44:36 AM
"The nation has never been unified in demographics, religion, or basic moral principle."?

That is entirely wrong, Jhkim. We have always been a white European majority in demographics, and we have established ourselves as a firm member and champion of Western Civilization. Our religion has also been a vast majority CHRISTIAN. And, we have indeed held onto a body of generally accepted and unifying moral principles. Everyone from George Washington, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Alexis De Toqueville, Lafeyette, Abraham Lincoln, to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, to Ronald Reagan and more all stand in contradiction to your belief. Americans have always had a common demographic, a common religion, and unified moral principles. Such commonality and unity has allowed this great nation to prosper and overcome challenges and problems throughout the centuries of our successful and sacred Republic.

There has always been a *majority* -- but always with important differences. In terms of race, the country was 79% white when it was founded, and it's around 72% white today. Are you trying to claim that 79% is "unified" but 72% is "not unified"? That seems like an overly convenient dividing line. You'll pardon me as not thinking that being unified white is one of the things that makes this country great.

In terms of religion, the country has always been majority Christian -- but ranging from Puritans to Quakers to Catholics to Deists -- and different Christian sects are anything but unified. It's precisely because fighting between different Christians was so intense, that one of the founding principles of the country was Freedom of Religion, and the separation of Church and State. Religious differences are something this country has embraced since the start.

In terms of morals, you can list out who you think of as your favorite moral leaders. But again, the country has included a wider range than the few you name. We have had many diametrically opposed figures in history -- like Andrew Jackson and Geronimo; or Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis; or Susan B. Anthony and William Taft; or J. Edgar Hoover and Martin Luther King Jr.

America was founded by contentious rebels -- and one of their principles was that Americans can and should stand against the government when the government is wrong. Over and over, great Americans have stood against the government.

Greetings!

Well, yes, Jhkim, we have been demographically unified from the beginning, being a white European nation, embracing Western Civilization. We are still, as you point out, still a majority White European nation. Also, being largely racially unified in demographics is certainly *not* the same as being politically unified. In politics, we have always had passionate factions and groups. Religiously, yeah, we were founded as a Christian nation, and remain so, even while embracing a variety of flavours of Christianity. Along the way, we have welcomed other, non-Christian religions, such as Buddhists, Hindus, and some Muslims as well. Still though, we remain a Christian nation. Like my friend Amit, a Hindu from India explained to me, yes, he is Hindu, and is grateful that America, a Christian nation, has welcomed him and his family here. He also recognizes that it is important as a non-Christian, to be courteous and to not offend the Christian majority. As far as common moral values, while there have been points of difference, there has been a majority embracement of a common set of cultural moral values. A significant implication of Martin Luther King, for example, is that King appealed to our ancient heritage and our ancient values, instilled within the Constitution and the Scriptures, which most Americans agreed upon. And yes, certainly, there have been some points of contention, as I mentioned. Geronimo was going to lose, one way or the other, because Americans were determined to conquer the whole land, and refused to acknowledge independent Native tribal nations that were viewed as savages and alien, not only in culture, economy, culture, and also religion. Americans have great tolerance, and certainly more tolerance for difference now than back then, but there are limitations to that tolerance. Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.

As for being founded by rebels, well, yes. Our founding fathers were quite suspicious of an overreaching, all-powerful, central government. Which is why Jefferson maintained that every now and then, the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots, so as to forever remind would-be tyrants and corrupt elites that here in America, an armed populace would always stand ready to put an end to their ambitions of tyranny and absolute authority.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 18, 2020, 03:51:36 AM
Anyone who thinks "the pendulum will just swing back" is blind to the fact that this isnt the same country that it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. We arent the same nation in regards to demography, religiosity, and cannot even agree on basic moral principals. There won't be some karma like force resetting things back to what they once were socially. The country has been slowly declining for decades (single motherhood, inflation, suicide, mental illness) and now we see physical manifestations of the demoralization that has infected a huge portion of the population.

The nation has never been unified in demographics, religion, or even basic moral principles. We've had many periods of sharply different values. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a sharp disagreement over racial segregation and other policies. I'd argue that the differences were sharper, and certainly the violence was much greater back then -- looking at the record of bombings, shootings, and other conflict. Of course, the differences were even greater during the Civil War - and we stayed united through that.

I certainly hope we don't go back to the levels of armed conflict we saw in the 1960s, but even if we do, it's far from the biggest divide the country has seen.


Even as recently as 1990 around half of Americans had ancestry of the founding stock. Studies show that homogeneous societies have more public participation, less crime, civil war, and more stability*. And as less people than ever are tethered to the nations history via ancestry we also see national pride hit an all time low** When you also read the naturalization act of 1790 it's clear the country was meant to be a nation state enshrined to a certain group of people. This was more or less maintained until the 1965 Hart Celler Act which opened the floodgates, despite politicians assuring the people we would not seriously alter demographics with uncontrollable mass migration. 60 years later they will openly tell you that your grandkids will be only speaking Spanish and a "reconquista" of the country is underway.

My point is this isnt the same nation that it was in the 60s or the 70s or 80s or 90s. We are more divided than we've ever been and have increasingly less in common with one another. As this continues we will creep closer to Brazil status, and with continued mass migration it will effectivley stamp out any love or sentimentality towards the country that is left.

This isnt some anti american tirade either I love my country, but I despise what's what's being done to it.


*http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608

**https://news.gallup.com/poll/312644/national-pride-falls-record-low.aspx


Edit: The portion is non hispanic white americans is also 62%, not 72%. For comparison America was 89% White in 1950

Greetings!

Very true, Deathknight! I agree entirely!

It is mind boggling and infuriating how our country is devolving. It has become *culturally* and *ideologically* divided in recent decades, much from the purposeful indoctrination and coordinated corruption and brainwashing of elements throughout society by Marxists, beginning in the entertainment industry, then spreading into the halls of academia, the universities, and into the media, and gradually also incursions of influence even into Christian churches. Now, we have whole segments of our population that look eagerly towards being slaves in a Marxist, globalist tyrant state. Tragically. So many brain-addled people, hooked on drugs, their minds shot through with a plethora of mental diseases and illnesses, then topped off with the deep-rooted frosting of being brainwashed into Marxism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: HappyDaze on December 18, 2020, 11:32:01 AM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 18, 2020, 11:51:47 AM
Anyone who thinks "the pendulum will just swing back" is blind to the fact that this isnt the same country that it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. We arent the same nation in regards to demography, religiosity, and cannot even agree on basic moral principals.
There has always been a *majority* -- but always with important differences. In terms of race, the country was 79% white when it was founded, and it's around 72% white today. Are you trying to claim that 79% is "unified" but 72% is "not unified"? That seems like an overly convenient dividing line. You'll pardon me as not thinking that being unified white is one of the things that makes this country great.
Well, yes, Jhkim, we have been demographically unified from the beginning, being a white European nation, embracing Western Civilization. We are still, as you point out, still a majority White European nation.

So what's your point about the country today? deathknight4044 claimed that we were no longer the same nation, no longer unified -- but now you're saying that we *are* still unified? It sounds like you're agreeing on the tone of deathknight4044, but not the substance of what he's saying. Is it an existential problem that we went from 79% white (originally) to 72% white (now)? Does that make us no longer the same nation, as he says?


Also, being largely racially unified in demographics is certainly *not* the same as being politically unified. In politics, we have always had passionate factions and groups.
As for being founded by rebels, well, yes. Our founding fathers were quite suspicious of an overreaching, all-powerful, central government. Which is why Jefferson maintained that every now and then, the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots, so as to forever remind would-be tyrants and corrupt elites that here in America, an armed populace would always stand ready to put an end to their ambitions of tyranny and absolute authority.

That's the America I would agree with - the America that encompasses passionate differences and disagreements. When a central authority demand all Americans unify and conform -- that's when Americans stand up and fight back. Because our values are precisely about *freedom* from forced conformity.

deathknight4044 claims that it's a problem and that Americans should all be unified -- the same demographic and the same religion. But this is a country where you don't have to follow the state religion. This is country where you don't have to look exactly like your neighbor, or act exactly like your neighbor. What unifies us isn't race or religion -- but rather the principles of freedom and democracy enshrined in our Constitution.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Mercurius on December 18, 2020, 12:33:58 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

It is rather disturbing. I bet he thinks Jesus was a white dude.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: moonsweeper on December 18, 2020, 12:36:40 PM

That's the America I would agree with - the America that encompasses passionate differences and disagreements. When a central authority demand all Americans unify and conform -- that's when Americans stand up and fight back. Because our values are precisely about *freedom* from forced conformity.


For once you actually say something truthful.

Problem is, I do not think you really understand what that truth actually means.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Mistwell on December 18, 2020, 12:54:19 PM
The nation will be minority white in about 15 years or so.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 18, 2020, 01:21:03 PM
That's the America I would agree with - the America that encompasses passionate differences and disagreements. When a central authority demand all Americans unify and conform -- that's when Americans stand up and fight back. Because our values are precisely about *freedom* from forced conformity.
Are you a time traveler? Because I'm pretty sure nobody alive remembers that America.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 18, 2020, 01:22:07 PM
That's the America I would agree with - the America that encompasses passionate differences and disagreements. When a central authority demand all Americans unify and conform -- that's when Americans stand up and fight back. Because our values are precisely about *freedom* from forced conformity.
For once you actually say something truthful.

Problem is, I do not think you really understand what that truth actually means.

It's possible we disagree when we get down to details. I'd be happy to discuss it in more detail. That's part of engaging in disagreement. To hyper-partisan people, the ideas of the other side are *poison*. Simply talking to the other side or reading their ideas is wrong and dangerous, because it might infect you. I think that talking to and understanding the other side is part of being informed.


The nation will be minority white in about 15 years or so.

I've seen that quoted, but that's based on a definition that people who are of European-Spanish descent are not white, while others like European-Italian or European-Irish descent are white. That's a broken definition that carries across both liberal and conservative sources.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 18, 2020, 01:32:44 PM
I've seen that quoted, but that's based on a definition that people who are of European-Spanish descent are not white, while others like European-Italian or European-Irish descent are white. That's a broken definition that carries across both liberal and conservative sources.
It appears on a lot of paperwork, for something that isn't supposed to exist.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 18, 2020, 02:13:42 PM
That's the America I would agree with - the America that encompasses passionate differences and disagreements. When a central authority demand all Americans unify and conform -- that's when Americans stand up and fight back. Because our values are precisely about *freedom* from forced conformity.
Are you a time traveler? Because I'm pretty sure nobody alive remembers that America.

Eh. It's an ideal, and the reality is always relative to the ideal. Americans have never been free from conformity, but it's always been a strong point of our system. I don't deny that there is lots of conformity in today's world - but there is also plenty of disagreement. I would prefer that the disagreement and protests be non-violent, but we can't always get what we want. The last period with widespread protest and non-conformism was back in the 1960s, which was before my time but still in living memory today.


I've seen that quoted, but that's based on a definition that people who are of European-Spanish descent are not white, while others like European-Italian or European-Irish descent are white. That's a broken definition that carries across both liberal and conservative sources.
It appears on a lot of paperwork, for something that isn't supposed to exist.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying that it's dumb and inconsistent. More accurate paperwork reflects that nationality and ethnicity are different than race.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 18, 2020, 02:24:16 PM
I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying that it's dumb and inconsistent. More accurate paperwork reflects that nationality and ethnicity are different than race.
So you're arguing that races exist?
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Shasarak on December 18, 2020, 03:49:54 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

It is rather disturbing. I bet he thinks Jesus was a white dude.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg/300px-Buddy_christ.jpg)

Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: HappyDaze on December 18, 2020, 04:37:25 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

It is rather disturbing. I bet he thinks Jesus was a white dude.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg/300px-Buddy_christ.jpg)
Jesus was most definitely Chinese...just like Dave Chappelle.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 18, 2020, 05:29:04 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

Greetings!

Really, HappyDaze? Are you such a disingenuous, petty fucking moron?

I certainly did not "reveal my true longing" jackass, I simply described how much of America viewed the Native, tribal populations at the time of the Westward Expansion period in America, from the 1700's through the 19th century. That is a historical fact. My describing such and relating that historical fact does not make me "disgusting" in any way, let alone "reveal" anything. It figures though that a Leftist, jello-filled moron like you would hate historical facts and truth and seek to demonize me for simply discussing historical facts.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 18, 2020, 05:36:51 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

It is rather disturbing. I bet he thinks Jesus was a white dude.

Greetings!

*Sigh* Mercurius, historically, Jesus was Semetic. I suppose that in your mind though, we should all just realize that BLACK JESUS IS THE TRUTH!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: HappyDaze on December 18, 2020, 06:50:19 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

Greetings!

Really, HappyDaze? Are you such a disingenuous, petty fucking moron?

I certainly did not "reveal my true longing" jackass, I simply described how much of America viewed the Native, tribal populations at the time of the Westward Expansion period in America, from the 1700's through the 19th century. That is a historical fact. My describing such and relating that historical fact does not make me "disgusting" in any way, let alone "reveal" anything. It figures though that a Leftist, jello-filled moron like you would hate historical facts and truth and seek to demonize me for simply discussing historical facts.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
SHARK wants to go back to when the white, Christian Americans were united in exterminating the natives, enslaving the blacks, persecuting the gays, and pretty much doing those parts of our history that we now accept as being shameful. But as long as he can claim everyone else is a Marxist, he can try to pretend to be the good guy and the fools here will support his extremism.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 18, 2020, 08:17:02 PM
It's funny, on the extreme liberal side you have people calling for revolution; while on the extreme conservative side you have a call for civil war. These approaches both stem from dissatisfaction with the other side, but also reflect the essential instincts of their proponents: the liberal tendency to embrace the weird and overthrow traditional powers, and the conservative desire for clear boundaries and the expelling of the "progressive".

Greetings!

You are very welcome, Deathknight! We have a good crew of people here, that embrace freedom of speech. Many are also Conservative, as well as being patriotic Americans. We also have some outstanding people from foreign places, whether from Britain, Australia, Canada, Spain, Mexico, and more, from all over the world. Naturally, we also have some wormy, Leftist Marxist members here as well, which makes our little discussions here often interesting for sure.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


When we got to drag queen story hour and James Youngers abusive parent getting a green light from the state to transition, or see the tearing down of monuments dedicated to the nation's heroes and a complete disgust for our history, or we witness racial self hatred taught in schools and humiliation rituals thrust on to our children, its clear there is no living with these people in any way besides contempt and desperate power grabs every few years to secure our way of life. And even then theyll just import millions of more people to get their way.


Anyone who thinks "the pendulum will just swing back" is blind to the fact that this isnt the same country that it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. We arent the same nation in regards to demography, religiosity, and cannot even agree on basic moral principals. There won't be some karma like force resetting things back to what they once were socially. The country has been slowly declining for decades (single motherhood, inflation, suicide, mental illness) and now we see physical manifestations of the demoralization that has infected a huge portion of the population.


It isnt just exclusive to the united states either. Most of the west will be facing a similar fall from grace.

Greetings!

Very well said, Deathknight4044!

By the way--welcome to the RPGsite!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Thanks bro. I'm glad I found the site. I've come across biased moderation in the past on sites like giant in the playground, or sites that have banned a wide range of topics for the sake of civility over at places like dragonsfoot, so this place is a breath of fresh air.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 18, 2020, 08:37:48 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

Greetings!

Really, HappyDaze? Are you such a disingenuous, petty fucking moron?

I certainly did not "reveal my true longing" jackass, I simply described how much of America viewed the Native, tribal populations at the time of the Westward Expansion period in America, from the 1700's through the 19th century. That is a historical fact. My describing such and relating that historical fact does not make me "disgusting" in any way, let alone "reveal" anything. It figures though that a Leftist, jello-filled moron like you would hate historical facts and truth and seek to demonize me for simply discussing historical facts.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
SHARK wants to go back to when the white, Christian Americans were united in exterminating the natives, enslaving the blacks, persecuting the gays, and pretty much doing those parts of our history that we now accept as being shameful. But as long as he can claim everyone else is a Marxist, he can try to pretend to be the good guy and the fools here will support his extremism.

Greetings!

*LAUGHING* Dance, Monkey, Dance!

More leftist tactics from a jello-filled moron. SHARK is such a monster!!!!

I'm a patriot, and stand against Marxism. All true Americans should oppose Marxism, and Marxists.

I have been a member here on these boards for years now. Everyone that knows me--that isn't a Leftist shill like you--knows that you are lying and mischaracterizing me entirely. Now you are accusing me of that dreaded "HU-WHITE SUPREMACIES!"

YOU, HappyDaze, are a fucking CARTOON. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: HappyDaze on December 18, 2020, 09:17:52 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

Greetings!

Really, HappyDaze? Are you such a disingenuous, petty fucking moron?

I certainly did not "reveal my true longing" jackass, I simply described how much of America viewed the Native, tribal populations at the time of the Westward Expansion period in America, from the 1700's through the 19th century. That is a historical fact. My describing such and relating that historical fact does not make me "disgusting" in any way, let alone "reveal" anything. It figures though that a Leftist, jello-filled moron like you would hate historical facts and truth and seek to demonize me for simply discussing historical facts.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
SHARK wants to go back to when the white, Christian Americans were united in exterminating the natives, enslaving the blacks, persecuting the gays, and pretty much doing those parts of our history that we now accept as being shameful. But as long as he can claim everyone else is a Marxist, he can try to pretend to be the good guy and the fools here will support his extremism.

Greetings!

*LAUGHING* Dance, Monkey, Dance!

More leftist tactics from a jello-filled moron. SHARK is such a monster!!!!

I'm a patriot, and stand against Marxism. All true Americans should oppose Marxism, and Marxists.

I have been a member here on these boards for years now. Everyone that knows me--that isn't a Leftist shill like you--knows that you are lying and mischaracterizing me entirely. Now you are accusing me of that dreaded "HU-WHITE SUPREMACIES!"

YOU, HappyDaze, are a fucking CARTOON. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Keep telling yourself that, fool. You're the one drinking the jello, and it's a flavor most people would find rather disgusting. I'm so happy more and more people here can see you for the monster you are. You can't even keep your "truths" straight anymore. Pathetic boy.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 18, 2020, 09:42:23 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

Greetings!

Really, HappyDaze? Are you such a disingenuous, petty fucking moron?

I certainly did not "reveal my true longing" jackass, I simply described how much of America viewed the Native, tribal populations at the time of the Westward Expansion period in America, from the 1700's through the 19th century. That is a historical fact. My describing such and relating that historical fact does not make me "disgusting" in any way, let alone "reveal" anything. It figures though that a Leftist, jello-filled moron like you would hate historical facts and truth and seek to demonize me for simply discussing historical facts.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
SHARK wants to go back to when the white, Christian Americans were united in exterminating the natives, enslaving the blacks, persecuting the gays, and pretty much doing those parts of our history that we now accept as being shameful. But as long as he can claim everyone else is a Marxist, he can try to pretend to be the good guy and the fools here will support his extremism.

Greetings!

*LAUGHING* Dance, Monkey, Dance!

More leftist tactics from a jello-filled moron. SHARK is such a monster!!!!

I'm a patriot, and stand against Marxism. All true Americans should oppose Marxism, and Marxists.

I have been a member here on these boards for years now. Everyone that knows me--that isn't a Leftist shill like you--knows that you are lying and mischaracterizing me entirely. Now you are accusing me of that dreaded "HU-WHITE SUPREMACIES!"

YOU, HappyDaze, are a fucking CARTOON. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Keep telling yourself that, fool. You're the one drinking the jello, and it's a flavor most people would find rather disgusting. I'm so happy more and more people here can see you for the monster you are. You can't even keep your "truths" straight anymore. Pathetic boy.

Greetings!

Nah, I'll let you suck down the delusional, Marxist jello, HappyDaze. I, on the other hand, choose to drink Patriot flavoured coffee. I keep all of my truths straight. And well, I have lots of friends here. There is only a few people, like you, that somehow think I'm a monster. That's ok, though. I am a Conservative, patriotic American, a veteran, and a Christian. You can think I am a monster all you want. Too fucking bad. I make no apologies. It certainly isn't the first time that weak-minded, shrill, jello-filled Marxist bitches like you have called me a monster. You will have to get in line behind the other Libtards, Marxists, feminists, anti-gun nuts, God-hating fucktards and evil, globalist tyrants and race-baiting demagogues.

REEEE!!!

Such an evil MONSTER!!!! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: moonsweeper on December 18, 2020, 09:44:48 PM

SHARK wants to go back to when the white, Christian Americans were united in exterminating the natives, enslaving the blacks, persecuting the gays, and pretty much doing those parts of our history that we now accept as being shameful. But as long as he can claim everyone else is a Marxist, he can try to pretend to be the good guy and the fools here will support his extremism.

The fact that you think there was a time when the white, Christian Americans were 'united' in pursuing those agendas shows your ignorance of actual history...
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 18, 2020, 10:26:22 PM
SHARK - I don't want to assume anything about your intent. I did ask earlier, and your answer wasn't clear to me.

deathknight4044 complained that the U.S. was no longer unified in demographics, religion, or morals -- hence there should be a "divorce" as implied in the title. You said that the U.S. has always been unified as white and Christian, and still is. But what does that mean for what you want done about non-white and/or non-Christian Americans?

I didn't bring up this stuff about demographics and religion -- that was you and deathknight4044. So how is whiteness and Christianity relevant?
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 18, 2020, 10:48:24 PM
SHARK - I don't want to assume anything about your intent. I did ask earlier, and your answer wasn't clear to me.

deathknight4044 complained that the U.S. was no longer unified in demographics, religion, or morals -- hence there should be a "divorce" as implied in the title. You said that the U.S. has always been unified as white and Christian, and still is. But what does that mean for what you want done about non-white and/or non-Christian Americans?

I didn't bring up this stuff about demographics and religion -- that was you and deathknight4044. So how is whiteness and Christianity relevant?


If you're asking why a homogeneous country is generally socially stronger and more unified than a multicultural one there is a plethora of data that shows this isn't a matter of opinion. I see this whole conversation akin to Japan going through 60 years of mass immigration from south east asia and then forbidding Japanese people from speaking out about the social dysfunction that follows, under the threat of being called xenophobic. I simply do not believe people are replaceable like that, and dont hold these things to be taboo in talking about demographic shift.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 18, 2020, 10:51:02 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.


That's quite an assumption. Maybe hes simply talking about America's general viewpoint towards the natives sometime after the Jamestown massacre.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 18, 2020, 10:53:15 PM
The nation will be minority white in about 15 years or so.


Yes and it will look like brazil because people are not replaceable. This is already true in expanding portions of the country.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 18, 2020, 10:53:37 PM
SHARK - I don't want to assume anything about your intent. I did ask earlier, and your answer wasn't clear to me.

deathknight4044 complained that the U.S. was no longer unified in demographics, religion, or morals -- hence there should be a "divorce" as implied in the title. You said that the U.S. has always been unified as white and Christian, and still is. But what does that mean for what you want done about non-white and/or non-Christian Americans?

I didn't bring up this stuff about demographics and religion -- that was you and deathknight4044. So how is whiteness and Christianity relevant?

Greetings!

Well, I simply clarified that historically, America has been founded by white Europeans, and has been unified as a Christian nation, and has also generally embraced a common cultural base of moral principles, and Western Civilization in general. America was, and remains, a majority white European nation as to demographics, and is also a Christian nation. These things are true, in the same ways that Saudi Arabia is founded by Arabians, and is a Muslim country in religion, or like India is unified with a demographic majority of Indians, who embrace Hinduism as their national religion.

I simply disagreed with your initial assertion that America has never been unified demographically, religiously, or holding onto common moral principles.

As for currently, well, non-Christian religions have increased in their influence throughout America, much more so than in the past, though the majority of Americans remain Christians still. Politically, and ideologically, in particular, have created a new and growing division throughout America. The Marxist indoctrination and influence has poisoned so many Americans that have then become poisoned and corrosive against the larger, traditional America. This schism has grown to encompass a different and hostile culture that is in opposition to traditional, loyal, patriotic America.

So, now, yeah, we are divided, and increasingly so, as the streams of politics and ideology saturate and brainwash people to hate America, and urges them to embrace Marxism and globalism. This influence is corrosive and poisonous to the rest of traditional America, and is simply incompatible with traditional America. Hence, we are increasingly seeing flashpoints of growing resistance  against Marxists and traitors throughout this country. Leftists entire world view, on so many issues, is diametrically opposite of what the rest of America wants and is committed to. Traditional, patriotic Americans want to preserve our Constitution, preserve our Republic, and preserve our freedoms and our ancient heritage. The Marxists want to destroy America, and make everyone bow down to their globalist, Marxist tyranny. So, yeah, we are definitely going to have conflict. The problems are partially political, but the deeper issue transcends politics. It is about how people experience and preserve culture, identity, and freedom. There are patriotic Americans that love America and want to preserve our freedoms and our heritage, and there are brainwashed traitors that want to burn the country down and subjugate America to globalist Marxism, and enforce changes culturally, economically, socially, and politically, to remake America into a nation of disarmed, helpless, jello-filled sheep that quietly submit to tyranny and conform to their Marxist, Leftist Utopia.

Thus, there is severe division now. It is like a previously strong house that has been invaded in the basement with nests of filthy, diseased rats that whisper and conspire together, and chew, eating away at the foundations of the Republic, and seek to bring chaos, and soul-crushing tyranny to the whole nation.

As for non-white Americans, or non-Christians? What *I* want done about them? I didn't say I wanted anything *done about them*. They are not the problem, facing America, per se. Americans of any colour are fine. I think that the nation needs to maintain a strong immigration policy to protect and preserve the culture and way of life that America enjoys, and is our heritage. Just like preserving Western Civilization, yes, Christianity is of primary importance. I don't have anything against people of non-Christian religions, as a minority, but this nation's greatness and freedom is predicated on our strong Christian religion and customs. It would certainly not be America if we became a dominant Buddhist country or Muslim country, for example. None the less, other religions and various races are not the threat to America. The poisonous ideology of Marxist Leftism and globalism is the genuine threat and problem to the continued survival of America as a free and prosperous Republic. America needs to preserve our culture, our history, and our Republic.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 18, 2020, 10:59:16 PM
Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.
And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.


That's quite an assumption. Maybe hes simply talking about America's general viewpoint towards the natives sometime after the Jamestown massacre.

Greetings!

Hey there, Deathknight! Yes, exactly. Somehow though, relating actual historical attitudes held by America in general at the time...is so terrible and disgusting by me? *laughing*

Geesus, don't ever read a history book, you know? ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 19, 2020, 01:22:20 AM
Even as recently as 1990 around half of Americans had ancestry of the founding stock. Studies show that homogeneous societies have more public participation, less crime, civil war, and more stability*.
*http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608
If you're asking why a homogeneous country is generally socially stronger and more unified than a multicultural one there is a plethora of data that shows this isn't a matter of opinion. I see this whole conversation akin to Japan going through 60 years of mass immigration from south east asia and then forbidding Japanese people from speaking out about the social dysfunction that follows, under the threat of being called xenophobic. I simply do not believe people are replaceable like that, and dont hold these things to be taboo in talking about demographic shift.

Your link is broken, but I've seen some studies like this before. The problem is that you can't just compare countries by averages like this -- because there are no controlled conditions in the world, and correlation isn't causation. The most ethnically divided countries are in Africa, with colonially-based national boundaries. But the trends within Africa don't necessarily apply in the same way to other countries. Conversely, the most ethnically homogenous countries are Korea and Japan - but again, what works there doesn't necessarily apply to other countries.

And even if you could compare countries objectively like this -- would you really advocate that we just go with whatever the more successful countries do? Would you advocate for parliamentary government, or universal healthcare, if they were shown to correlate to more successful countries, for example?

The U.S. started out with a mix of English (~80%) and West African (~20%) people. But we kept getting more and more immigrants - and more and more diverse immigrants. We started pulling from Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and other ranges of countries. In the West, we drew more immigrants from China - until that was blocked by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Immigration came to a peak and stayed at fairly steady rates from 1860 to 1920 or so - when about 14% of the U.S. was foreign-born. Immigration then dropped precipitously from 1920 to 1970 - with immigrant population going down to only 5% foreign born. It then started steadily rising again after 1970 to present. Today, we are still below the rates seen from 1860 to 1920 period, but we're coming close with around 13% foreign-born.

So what does this mean?

1) The period of 1860 to 1920 was a long and sustained period of history that saw the U.S. grow into a world superpower. It's not clear to me that the period was any less successful or less American than any other period in U.S. history.

2) Mass immigration and changing demographics has been a key part of U.S. history. I accept that you are arguing that lower immigration is better, but what I don't accept is that immigration is un-American or cheating.

3) The primary ethnic conflict within the U.S. isn't with immigrants - it's between the two founding ethnicities, namely African-Americans and whites.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 19, 2020, 02:34:45 AM
Greetings!

Immigration policy in America needs to be returned to what it was in the 1960's, where we had strict quotas for different countries from around the world, establishing the particular numbers of such immigrants that could be permitted to immigrate into America within each year's quota.

That way we ensure our demographics are preserved and protected, and allows immigrant populations that are very different in culture from America sufficient time to be adequately acculturated within the American culture.

As for ethnic conflict between Africans and Whites in America, well, I'm not convinced that a majority of African Americans are racist against White Americans, and are committed to rebellion and racial conflict and animosity. I think that there is a minority of African Americans that are racist and brainwashed by Marxism and indoctrinated by self-loathing, White Marxists that seek to promote racial strife and division, to better escalate their own accession to power, as they view themselves as the properly educated, frosting elite that is entitled to lead the unwashed masses into the new Marxist Utopia.

Oh, and America was *founded* by White Europeans. Black Africans were brought over years later. The American Colonies were already established, in which for Africans to be brought here. That is the facts. Later on, you have Black Africans, as well as Native American Indians, and out west, you actually had Hispanics that established much of the scattered societies. While not part of the actual foundational period of the American Colonies, Asians certainly also contributed to building the country beginning in the 19th century, especially contributing to the West Coast, the railroads, and society in general, west of the Mississippi River.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 19, 2020, 02:38:18 AM
Quote
Your link is broken, but I've seen some studies like this before. The problem is that you can't just compare countries by averages like this -- because there are no controlled conditions in the world, and correlation isn't causation. The most ethnically divided countries are in Africa, with colonially-based national boundaries. But the trends within Africa don't necessarily apply in the same way to other countries. Conversely, the most ethnically homogenous countries are Korea and Japan - but again, what works there doesn't necessarily apply to other countries.


For the sake of clarity here

Diversity increases social adversity. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

Etc etc.

You can say it's not apples to apples because trends can vary between nations but I believe that's wishful thinking in the face of what study after study says on the matter.

Quote
And even if you could compare countries objectively like this -- would you really advocate that we just go with whatever the more successful countries do? Would you advocate for parliamentary government, or universal healthcare, if they were shown to correlate to more successful countries, for example?

Sure. I'm a paleocon not a neocon. I will say these systems with large social safety nets are wonderful when they work but will crash and burn faster when flooded with mass amounts of people who dont pay into the system. Sweden is going to look real interesting in 25 years, and not in a good way.

Quote
The U.S. started out with a mix of English (~80%) and West African (~20%) people. But we kept getting more and more immigrants - and more and more diverse immigrants. We started pulling from Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and other ranges of countries. In the West, we drew more immigrants from China - until that was blocked by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Immigration came to a peak and stayed at fairly steady rates from 1860 to 1920 or so - when about 14% of the U.S. was foreign-born. Immigration then dropped precipitously from 1920 to 1970 - with immigrant population going down to only 5% foreign born. It then started steadily rising again after 1970 to present. Today, we are still below the rates seen from 1860 to 1920 period, but we're coming close with around 13% foreign-born.

The immigrants you're describing are under the umbrella of "free white men of good moral character" and are perfectly in line with the founding fathers vision for the nation though. This isn't some radical change, as the nation was enshrined to Europeans and not just WASPs.

Quote
1) The period of 1860 to 1920 was a long and sustained period of history that saw the U.S. grow into a world superpower. It's not clear to me that the period was any less successful or less American than any other period in U.S. history.

Yeah and then in 1924 a quota system was implemented as to not change the nations demographics. 2% of the total number of people from each nationality on the 1890 census were permitted, and this was done for a reason. This was obviously important to people.

Quote
2) Mass immigration and changing demographics has been a key part of U.S. history. I accept that you are arguing that lower immigration is better, but what I don't accept is that immigration is un-American or cheating.

If you asked your average american in 1960 "is America a white nation" we both know almost everyone would say yes. America was created a pan European project that vetted for European immigrants throughout its history, up until the 1965 hart celler act where the flood gates were opened. This is a change that is undeniable.

Quote
3) The primary ethnic conflict within the U.S. isn't with immigrants - it's between the two founding ethnicities, namely African-Americans and whites
.

Agreed. Its been 400 years and we still have seperate and in some ways polar opposite cultures with no real hope of assimilating or moving beyond the conflict. A post racial society isnt possible of even desired at this point, as tribalism is big and here to stay. Why would adding in more ethnic groups, of which some are in conflict with one another, and then expect to see a more cohesive nation?

The radical demographic shift isnt good for black americans either. Why should they have to compete with unlimited cheap labor from south america in construction fields or unlimited mass immigration from india in the tech fields in order to get ahead? I think a nation should care for it's own people first and foremost, and not sell them out for unlimited labor from foreign countries.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 19, 2020, 02:56:30 AM
Quote
Your link is broken, but I've seen some studies like this before. The problem is that you can't just compare countries by averages like this -- because there are no controlled conditions in the world, and correlation isn't causation. The most ethnically divided countries are in Africa, with colonially-based national boundaries. But the trends within Africa don't necessarily apply in the same way to other countries. Conversely, the most ethnically homogenous countries are Korea and Japan - but again, what works there doesn't necessarily apply to other countries.


For the sake of clarity here

Diversity increases social adversity. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

Etc etc.

You can say it's not apples to apples because trends can vary between nations but I believe that's wishful thinking in the face of what study after study says on the matter.

Quote
And even if you could compare countries objectively like this -- would you really advocate that we just go with whatever the more successful countries do? Would you advocate for parliamentary government, or universal healthcare, if they were shown to correlate to more successful countries, for example?

Sure. I'm a paleocon not a neocon. I will say these systems with large social safety nets are wonderful when they work but will crash and burn faster when flooded with mass amounts of people who dont pay into the system. Sweden is going to look real interesting in 25 years, and not in a good way.

Quote
The U.S. started out with a mix of English (~80%) and West African (~20%) people. But we kept getting more and more immigrants - and more and more diverse immigrants. We started pulling from Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and other ranges of countries. In the West, we drew more immigrants from China - until that was blocked by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Immigration came to a peak and stayed at fairly steady rates from 1860 to 1920 or so - when about 14% of the U.S. was foreign-born. Immigration then dropped precipitously from 1920 to 1970 - with immigrant population going down to only 5% foreign born. It then started steadily rising again after 1970 to present. Today, we are still below the rates seen from 1860 to 1920 period, but we're coming close with around 13% foreign-born.

The immigrants you're describing are under the umbrella of "free white men of good moral character" and are perfectly in line with the founding fathers vision for the nation though. This isn't some radical change, as the nation was enshrined to Europeans and not just WASPs.

Quote
1) The period of 1860 to 1920 was a long and sustained period of history that saw the U.S. grow into a world superpower. It's not clear to me that the period was any less successful or less American than any other period in U.S. history.

Yeah and then in 1924 a quota system was implemented as to not change the nations demographics. 2% of the total number of people from each nationality on the 1890 census were permitted, and this was done for a reason. This was obviously important to people.

Quote
2) Mass immigration and changing demographics has been a key part of U.S. history. I accept that you are arguing that lower immigration is better, but what I don't accept is that immigration is un-American or cheating.

If you asked your average american in 1960 "is America a white nation" we both know almost everyone would say yes. America was created a pan European project that vetted for European immigrants throughout its history, up until the 1965 hart celler act where the flood gates were opened. This is a change that is undeniable.

Quote
3) The primary ethnic conflict within the U.S. isn't with immigrants - it's between the two founding ethnicities, namely African-Americans and whites
.

Agreed. Its been 400 years and we still have seperate and in some ways polar opposite cultures with no real hope of assimilating or moving beyond the conflict. A post racial society isnt possible of even desired at this point, as tribalism is big and here to stay. Why would adding in more ethnic groups, of which some are in conflict with one another, and then expect to see a more cohesive nation?

The radical demographic shift isnt good for black americans either. Why should they have to compete with unlimited cheap labor from south america in construction fields or unlimited mass immigration from india in the tech fields in order to get ahead? I think a nation should care for it's own people first and foremost, and not sell them out for unlimited labor from foreign countries.

Greetings!

BOOM! *laughing* Bring that Paleocon TRUTH, Deathknight! ;D

Excellent commentary, Deathknight.

Racial diversity is like using salt with cooking. A little diversity is always good--too much salt though, and the food is ruined. Distinct societies around the world are no different. You can also see such priniples at work in many nations, many of which restrict and calibrate immigration into their country for the express purpose of maintaining their culture. Japanese people don't want lots of French people immigrating into Japan, because allowing such would change Japan forever, which would cease being a traditional Japan. Likewise, they are cautious on whoever immirates into Japan, whether they are from France, America, Brazil, or likewise from Indonesia, China, or the Philipines. It's a simple policy, and just opening up the gates and letting anyone and everyone flood into the country is fucking stupid and cultural suicide.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 19, 2020, 09:22:51 AM
For the sake of clarity here

Diversity increases social adversity. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

Etc etc.
That's true, but I'd say the US has been an extraordinary counter-example. The US was primarily founded by English Puritans, but managed to successfully integrate diverse European nationalities, like the Irish, Italians, and so forth. The same is true with the Chinese, and more recently groups like the Koreans, Vietnamese, and Indians. Even former slaves had a century of roaring success, from the end of the Civil War until roughly the 1960s, when gains in things like education and wealth stopped their upward curve, and plateaued.

The key here is "integrate". It's based on the idea of American exceptionalism, tangentially related to concepts like Manifest Destiny and birthright citizenship, and most perfectly expressed as the Melting Pot. The idea that once you're here, you're an American. You can still be proud of your Italian or Vietnamese ancestry, but it's secondary. First and foremost, once you pass through Ellis Island under the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, or throw off your shackles after a horrendous war, you're an American. And it's not just what you are, it's what you strive for. You learn the language, adopt the values, and are proud when your kids seamlessly fit in. You believe in equal opportunity for all, that everyone is equal in status and inalienable rights, that working hard leads to success, in giving others a hand up, in civic duty whether it comes to voting or public service, in freely speaking your mind, and in all the other things that made America the first vibrant democracy in the modern era. You have a visceral revulsion of cheating and corruption. You don't lose your old culture, but you adopt a new one wholeheartedly, and make it part of you; and you in turn become part of it. That ideal is race-blind, and doesn't care whether you're rich or poor, educated or not. It leads to generational success stories, where immigrants work hard, put their kids through school, and they go on to become doctors and lawyers. It's the American Dream.
 
Sure, it's imperfect as hell and violated as often as it's followed. There was slavery, Jim Crow laws, the Exclusion Act, Tammany Hall, organized crime, the Pinkertons, and more. But it's still a consistent strain, a cultural universal or at least a universal aspiration. An ideal to aim at, and more often than anywhere else, achieve. That is what made America America. The problem is, we're starting to lose that. Instead of celebrating everyone being American and the universals that bind us, we're starting to highlight the differences. That draws barriers between groups, instead of shattering them. Instead of integrating children, inviting them to become Americans by immersing them in the culture, we're starting to insist in teaching them in Spanish or their native tongue, linguistically ghettoizing them. The very words describing the ideas, like the Melting Pot or the American Dream, are being demonized.

Quote
The U.S. started out with a mix of English (~80%) and West African (~20%) people. But we kept getting more and more immigrants - and more and more diverse immigrants. We started pulling from Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and other ranges of countries. In the West, we drew more immigrants from China - until that was blocked by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Immigration came to a peak and stayed at fairly steady rates from 1860 to 1920 or so - when about 14% of the U.S. was foreign-born. Immigration then dropped precipitously from 1920 to 1970 - with immigrant population going down to only 5% foreign born. It then started steadily rising again after 1970 to present. Today, we are still below the rates seen from 1860 to 1920 period, but we're coming close with around 13% foreign-born.

The immigrants you're describing are under the umbrella of "free white men of good moral character" and are perfectly in line with the founding fathers vision for the nation though. This isn't some radical change, as the nation was enshrined to Europeans and not just WASPs.
I've been reading de Toqueville's Democracy in America. It's a long, rambly, repetitive, and has a lot of irrelevancies, but it's a good window into how democracy ended up flourishing for the first time since the Roman Republic, in the New World. One thing the wandering Frenchman emphasizes is that the Colonies were rooted not in being white, or even in being English, but specifically in Puritanism. Rigid moral character, civic duty, strong education, and a lack of class differences. Democracy started in the New England town halls, and that was the template for its spread.

This is reinforced in other works. Thomas Sowell, for instance, often brings up how free black Americans who were taught by New England missionaries, whether in isolated pockets in the South or in the Northern cities, were very successful and integrated successfully with the majority white populations after and even during the Civil War. Barriers, both legal and social, were collapsing, until a huge influx of blacks from the Southern states overwhelmed their culture, and racial animus rose again. Those are the "black rednecks" in the title of one his books. Their culture did not come from the English Puritans, and did not share their values, and thus wasn't as successful. A bit of an aside, but Sowell traces that culture back to poor white culture in the South, which in turn came from poor, marginal cultures in Europe. It's not racial, it's culture.

Democracy, especially the American variety, survives and thrives when those values are adopted. Certain cultures are better or more poorly suited; the Irish and Italians, for instance were a rough fit, at least initially. While the Scandinavians that settled much of the Midwest were highly compatible. The same is true for peoples from highly divergent cultural backgrounds -- immigrants from Vietnam, Korean, the Caribbean, Nigeria, and so on have all been exceptionally successful in more recent years. But as long as there was a uniform, shared culture of ideals, even the rougher groups integrate over time. The little signs excluding the Irish have all vanished, for instance. The old ethnic insults aimed at Italians have lost almost all their weight, and are almost never used anymore.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Mistwell on December 19, 2020, 06:39:05 PM
Within the next 15 years or so, a majority of America will be non-white, and a majority of America will not identify as Christian.

So, then what? What is it you guys want done to "stop" that from happening? It's not "immigration" as both of those things will happen regardless of immigration policy at this point.

As for rants about marxism and globalism, that's a contradiction. Globalism is inherently anti-marxist. Nations become less marxist as they are exposed to more globalism.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: moonsweeper on December 19, 2020, 10:01:48 PM
Within the next 15 years or so, a majority of America will be non-white, and a majority of America will not identify as Christian.

So, then what? What is it you guys want done to "stop" that from happening? It's not "immigration" as both of those things will happen regardless of immigration policy at this point.

As for rants about marxism and globalism, that's a contradiction. Globalism is inherently anti-marxist. Nations become less marxist as they are exposed to more globalism.

Why would I care what color someone is or what religion they practice?  As long as they abide by and promote the principles of freedom and self-determination espoused in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution then we are fine.

If they believe otherwise, then there will be issues.

...but that has nothing to do with race, religion, or even citizenship in the US.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Mistwell on December 19, 2020, 10:34:10 PM

Why would I care what color someone is or what religion they practice? 

I didn't raise either topic. I am responding to others raising both of those topics.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 19, 2020, 10:55:40 PM
Greetings!

Indeed, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitutional Republic--and the culture which is generated thereby--is the primary importance and priority. I believe that maintaining a primary Christian religion is important, as it feeds into and contributes to the foundation of the Constitution and the Republic. The two principles are inseparable.

I also believe that America will remain a Christian nation. Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism are fine *over there*--if such were to become dominant religions here--or say, atheism--then that represents a fundamental discordance with the traditional Constitutional Republic. So much of our foundational Constitution is rooted in Christianity--not Atheism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, and certainly not Islam.

Race or colour is generally quite secondary, inso much as our culture is primarily white European. People of all races and colours can become acculturated into the American culture just fine.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Mistwell on December 19, 2020, 11:14:53 PM
Greetings!

Indeed, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitutional Republic--and the culture which is generated thereby--is the primary importance and priority. I believe that maintaining a primary Christian religion is important, as it feeds into and contributes to the foundation of the Constitution and the Republic. The two principles are inseparable.

I also believe that America will remain a Christian nation. Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism are fine *over there*--if such were to become dominant religions here--or say, atheism--then that represents a fundamental discordance with the traditional Constitutional Republic. So much of our foundational Constitution is rooted in Christianity--not Atheism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, and certainly not Islam.

Race or colour is generally quite secondary, inso much as our culture is primarily white European. People of all races and colours can become acculturated into the American culture just fine.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The primary religion which is overtaking Christianity in the U.S. isn't another religion. It's no religion. Not express atheism, just agnostic/don't know. America will not remain Christian as a majority. "No particular religion" will become the majority. Like it has with most western nations. 

I am not promoting that. I am saying that's the reality right now. Which is why I asked how would you change that given immigration isn't the primary driving force of that trend.

Indeed, immigration is actually helping Christianity out as a majority of our immigrants are more religious Christians (mostly Catholic) than your average millennial born here, or even your average European immigrant. If you were to reduce immigration, or gear immigration more towards Europe/Australia/Canada, you'd actually accelerate the decrease of Christianity in America. Increasing immigration from Mexico, Central America, and South America would increase Christianity in America. But, you appear to want to reduce that immigration and prefer the immigration from the nations which are less religious overall.

So, what do you propose to do about that trend?
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 20, 2020, 12:42:46 AM
Greetings!

Indeed, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitutional Republic--and the culture which is generated thereby--is the primary importance and priority. I believe that maintaining a primary Christian religion is important, as it feeds into and contributes to the foundation of the Constitution and the Republic. The two principles are inseparable.

I also believe that America will remain a Christian nation. Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism are fine *over there*--if such were to become dominant religions here--or say, atheism--then that represents a fundamental discordance with the traditional Constitutional Republic. So much of our foundational Constitution is rooted in Christianity--not Atheism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, and certainly not Islam.

Race or colour is generally quite secondary, inso much as our culture is primarily white European. People of all races and colours can become acculturated into the American culture just fine.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The primary religion which is overtaking Christianity in the U.S. isn't another religion. It's no religion. Not express atheism, just agnostic/don't know. America will not remain Christian as a majority. "No particular religion" will become the majority. Like it has with most western nations. 

I am not promoting that. I am saying that's the reality right now. Which is why I asked how would you change that given immigration isn't the primary driving force of that trend.

Indeed, immigration is actually helping Christianity out as a majority of our immigrants are more religious Christians (mostly Catholic) than your average millennial born here, or even your average European immigrant. If you were to reduce immigration, or gear immigration more towards Europe/Australia/Canada, you'd actually accelerate the decrease of Christianity in America. Increasing immigration from Mexico, Central America, and South America would increase Christianity in America. But, you appear to want to reduce that immigration and prefer the immigration from the nations which are less religious overall.

So, what do you propose to do about that trend?

Greetings!

Well, I think having a strong immigration policy is critical. Strict vetting and quotas for whatever different nations. Politically, there can be various laws and policies to restrict government officials, school districts, and Big Tech for example from disenfranchising Christians and Christianity, which can be very helpful.

Beyond that, well, encouraging community activity, outreach, political involvement, and evangelization of the community in general. Initiating efforts across a broad spectrum which promotes and strengthens Christianity, the family, patriotism, and civic involvement are all good and worthwhile. Prayer is essential, and defending the faith, especially against those which are hostile to Christianity.

As for immigration, also from South America, well, aside from having firm quotas--legal immigration is good, while illegal immigration must be entirely stopped, and vigorously resisted. Hispanics, while you are correct are ostensibly Christian, and Catholic in particular--seem to be ideologically imprisoned within a collectivistic, Leftist mind-set and government-dependency, causing a majority of Hispanics to consistently vote for Democrats--which conversely work against and to undermine their otherwise Conservative, Christian values and goals. So, that dimension is definitely a "mixed bag" and something that should be proceeded with cautiously and with strict vigilance.

I used to have constant debates with my Mexican girlfriend in California about the dissonance between claiming to be Christian, claiming to hold onto such Conservative values as X, Y, and Z--but then, in election after election, voting as a majority for corrupt, godless Democrats which fuck you in the ass and promote ideologies and policies which work against everything they claim to value and cherish, while also making California into a drug-filled, crime-infested, corrupt and dysfunctional shithole that actually reduces the overall future prospect of freedom, independence, success and prosperity for you and all of your family. *shrugs* Genuinely Conservative members of her family were likewise hard pressed to make any kind of real progress with her or many other members of her family on such political matters--who often viewed such political behavior and voting based on emotional slogans and simplistic, racialized or single-issue thinking. Meanwhile, California continues to be run into the abyss of shit by majority Democrats, while people stupidly keep voting them into office, and somehow always wondering why everything remains the same, or gets even shittier.

Oh well. It is either something you see or you choke on the fucking Leftist propaganda. I don't have an easy solution for such dynamics, Mistwell. Obviously, though, while it may take a few generations, many Hispanics do eventually wake up to how bad Democrats are, and how fucked up and shitty the socialist ideology and principles are. Progress is being made--as seen in the recent election, with President Trump getting more Hispanic votes than any Republican candidate in history--but that progress is often painfully slow, though steady, it seems to take years to actually accumulate and solidify in a meaningful way.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 20, 2020, 02:32:31 AM
Quote
>Within the next 15 years or so, a majority of America will be non-white, and a majority of America will not identify as Christian.

Isnt it interesting that fewer people than ever are proud to be an American, and we see constant attacks on our statues and monuments in current year? I'd say this contributes to my point, that non western people cannot just come en mass and perpetuate western civilization. We're watching this demonstrated in real time.

Quote
So, then what? What is it you guys want done to "stop" that from happening? It's not "immigration" as both of those things will happen regardless of immigration policy at this point.

Who ever said anything about an ability to stop it from happening? Its like asking someone in 450 AD what they would do to stop the final fall of rome. What will happen is Brazil like conditions will gradually become the norm, and south Africa like conditions may follow decades after that. Christianity will not dissapear though, as the people who are the engaging in the replacement migration are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Quote
As for rants about marxism and globalism, that's a contradiction. Globalism is inherently anti-marxist. Nations become less marxist as they are exposed to more globalism.

The foot soldiers of this change are demoralized Marxists, many of which have infested public schools and universities. Those were primarily the ANTIFA types we saw rioting for about 8 months this year. The BLM blacks that were rampaging were not fueled by social or economic theories however, for large portions of them it was about playing out multi generational racial revenge fantasies. This only speaks to what a tinderbox America has become.

We'll see what happens in Europe though. Theres more definitive lines in the sand when its indigenous Europeans vs Islamists, and an innately stronger argument to their right to exist and be the majority in the nations that their ancestors built. At the very least Hungary, Poland, Russia, Korea, and Japan will still be places that exist as civilized nation states by the end of the century.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: HappyDaze on December 20, 2020, 08:12:24 AM
Politically, there can be various laws and policies to restrict government officials, school districts, and Big Tech for example from disenfranchising Christians and Christianity, which can be very helpful.
You want US laws set up that specifically endorse/protect/promote Christianity? Isn't it meaningful that such laws have never been a part of the Constitution?
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: shuddemell on December 20, 2020, 09:46:57 AM
Politically, there can be various laws and policies to restrict government officials, school districts, and Big Tech for example from disenfranchising Christians and Christianity, which can be very helpful.
You want US laws set up that specifically endorse/protect/promote Christianity? Isn't it meaningful that such laws have never been a part of the Constitution?

I would prefer they give Christianity the same "protections" that they afford other religions like Islam and Judaism. ALL should be treated equally under the law and in society, and they definitely are not. Just like being a cis, white male has, Christianity has been made the public whipping boy for atheists and other religions to attack with impugnity.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 20, 2020, 11:07:03 AM
Don't worry. Hispanics who fail to toe the party line will be stripped of their POC status by People's Commissars and relegated to 'white' status.

See: George Zimmerman, and the way leftist fucktards talk about Cubans who voted in a bloc against Sleepy Joe and the Ho.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: HappyDaze on December 20, 2020, 11:30:33 AM
Don't worry. Hispanics who fail to toe the party line will be stripped of their POC status by People's Commissars and relegated to 'white' status.

See: George Zimmerman, and the way leftist fucktards talk about Cubans who voted in a bloc against Sleepy Joe and the Ho.
Living in Florida, I can say that Cubans are frequently treated as "outside" the blanket term when Hispanic people are making generalizations about other Hispanic people. Oddly enough, Hispanic peoples of other origins, ranging from Puerto Rico to Mexico to Guatemala to Honduras (and more beyond) seem to all be clumped together in expectations. A friend of mine of Cuban origin that I lost touch with a few years ago used to always point out this fact, and she would laugh about the absurdity of the situation.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 20, 2020, 01:50:55 PM
Living in Florida, I can say that Cubans are frequently treated as "outside" the blanket term when Hispanic people are making generalizations about other Hispanic people. Oddly enough, Hispanic peoples of other origins, ranging from Puerto Rico to Mexico to Guatemala to Honduras (and more beyond) seem to all be clumped together in expectations. A friend of mine of Cuban origin that I lost touch with a few years ago used to always point out this fact, and she would laugh about the absurdity of the situation.
That grouping really pisses some hispanics off, because a lot of hispanics hate other hispanics. The classic example being Puerto Ricans and Mexicans.

The idea that hispanic is some kind of coherent group is laughable.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 20, 2020, 02:29:56 PM
The idea that hispanic is some kind of coherent group is laughable.

Can we call them Hixpanix?
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 20, 2020, 03:40:49 PM
The idea that hispanic is some kind of coherent group is laughable.

Can we call them Hixpanix?
I never thought of it before, but the left's adoption of Latinx could explain why Republicans did so well among hispanics in 2020.

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Mistwell on December 20, 2020, 03:49:40 PM
Politically, there can be various laws and policies to restrict government officials, school districts, and Big Tech for example from disenfranchising Christians and Christianity, which can be very helpful.
You want US laws set up that specifically endorse/protect/promote Christianity? Isn't it meaningful that such laws have never been a part of the Constitution?

I would prefer they give Christianity the same "protections" that they afford other religions like Islam and Judaism. ALL should be treated equally under the law and in society, and they definitely are not. Just like being a cis, white male has, Christianity has been made the public whipping boy for atheists and other religions to attack with impugnity.

I won't speak to Islam, but I feel very confident in saying that Christianity is treated equal to Judaism in the U.S.. Judaism is routinely been treated as a public whipping boy for atheists and other religions with impunity lately, along with Christianity.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Shasarak on December 20, 2020, 04:22:34 PM
Has anyone mentioned the split of Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia yet?

Seems like a good example of a peaceful dissolution.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 20, 2020, 06:04:46 PM
Greetings!

Interesting discussion and commentary on the Plebian Media program.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 20, 2020, 07:20:54 PM
For the sake of clarity here

Diversity increases social adversity. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

Etc etc.

You can say it's not apples to apples because trends can vary between nations but I believe that's wishful thinking in the face of what study after study says on the matter.

I don't think these are all saying what you claim. Here's the summary from your second link, with my highlighting in bold:
Quote
Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross‐cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.
As I understand it, you're saying that the increasing racial mix within the U.S. is causing problems. However, I think that the U.S. actually illustrates a better mixing. Mixing ethnicities has been the source of tons of conflict within Europe -- but the U.S. has far less conflict between the same ethnicities that has sharp differences within Europe. And newer ethnicities like Asian-Americans have not been a major source of ethnic strife.


(Re: earlier immigrant waves)
The immigrants you're describing are under the umbrella of "free white men of good moral character" and are perfectly in line with the founding fathers vision for the nation though. This isn't some radical change, as the nation was enshrined to Europeans and not just WASPs.
(...)
Yeah and then in 1924 a quota system was implemented as to not change the nations demographics. 2% of the total number of people from each nationality on the 1890 census were permitted, and this was done for a reason. This was obviously important to people.

This is completely false in describing the 1924 immigration act. You claim that the nation was enshrined to Europeans broadly, but the whole point of using 2% of the 1890 census was to block the growth of Irish, Italians, Poles, and other European nationalities. These are groups who had immigrated in large numbers from 1890 to 1924. Prior to the Act, there had been around 100,000 Italian immigrants per year. The Act limited Italian immigrants to 4,000 per year (4%). Conversely, prior to the Act, there had been around 17,000 German immigrants per year, while the Act set the limit as 51,000 (i.e. 300% of prior immigration). British immigrants were around 100% of prior immigration.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/immigration/pdfs/by_region/region_table.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20151216211400/http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078/

It wasn't trying to retain the racial and ethnic demographics of America - it was trying to *change* the demographics to be more exclusively Western European. And the 2% rule largely did not apply to most non-whites. The census of 1890 included 12% African-American, 0.3% Native American, and 0.1% Asian-American -- but there the rules did not apply. Asian immigrants were completely excluded, and African severely restricted.

I agree that the restriction was important to people at the time, but I don't think those were good reasons. I think that Italian-American, Irish-American, and many other nationalities have proven to be an asset to this nation, not a hindrance. I think the same goes for Korean-Americans like myself.


And as less people than ever are tethered to the nations history via ancestry we also see national pride hit an all time low** When you also read the naturalization act of 1790 it's clear the country was meant to be a nation state enshrined to a certain group of people.

**https://news.gallup.com/poll/312644/national-pride-falls-record-low.aspx
Isnt it interesting that fewer people than ever are proud to be an American, and we see constant attacks on our statues and monuments in current year? I'd say this contributes to my point, that non western people cannot just come en mass and perpetuate western civilization. We're watching this demonstrated in real time.

Again, I don't think your reference is showing what you think it shows. Here's the graph:

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ypbopnpzbueixt6w0rncug.png)

There is a slide downwards, but I don't think it can be attributed to non-white immigration. There is a bump upwards after 2001 (as Americans were galvanized after 9/11). Then note how the measures stay roughly constant from 2007 up through 2016. It's only after 2016 that both of these measures begin to slide down. This is *inversely* correlated to immigration.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Shasarak on December 20, 2020, 09:32:41 PM
Remember that great documentary movie "Gangs of New York" which details how white people all lived together in peaceful harmony until the hated Irish ruined everything.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 21, 2020, 04:37:36 AM
Quote
I don't think these are all saying what you claim. Here's the summary from your second link, with my highlighting in bold:
Quote
Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross‐cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.

The most advanced countries have never had their ethnic majority cut by a third in 70 years. It goes on to suggests diversity causes alienation for all groups of people, even amongst ones own race. It then offers a possible solution to the racial strife that follows. Judging from the expanding emphasis on appealing to group identity in the national conversation, I think its impossible to call any of this our strength.

Quote
As I understand it, you're saying that the increasing racial mix within the U.S. is causing problems. However, I think that the U.S. actually illustrates a better mixing. Mixing ethnicities has been the source of tons of conflict within Europe -- but the U.S. has far less conflict between the same ethnicities that has sharp differences within Europe. And newer ethnicities like Asian-Americans have not been a major source of ethnic strife.

I'm parroting what every study t has to say on the subject, that is that racial diversity makes host nations, states, cities, and neighborhoods suffer a predictable increase in dysfunction and racial tension. It makes the nation less cohesive, more violent, less likely to give to charity, and less likely to see public participation.

Quote
This is completely false in describing the 1924 immigration act. You claim that the nation was enshrined to Europeans broadly, but the whole point of using 2% of the 1890 census was to block the growth of Irish, Italians, Poles, and other European nationalities. These are groups who had immigrated in large numbers from 1890 to 1924. Prior to the Act, there had been around 100,000 Italian immigrants per year. The Act limited Italian immigrants to 4,000 per year (4%). Conversely, prior to the Act, there had been around 17,000 German immigrants per year, while the Act set the limit as 51,000 (i.e. 300% of prior immigration). British immigrants were around 100% of prior immigration.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/immigration/pdfs/by_region/region_table.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20151216211400/http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078/

It wasn't trying to retain the racial and ethnic demographics of America - it was trying to *change* the demographics to be more exclusively Western European. And the 2% rule largely did not apply to most non-whites. The census of 1890 included 12% African-American, 0.3% Native American, and 0.1% Asian-American -- but there the rules did not apply. Asian immigrants were completely excluded, and African severely restricted.

I agree that the restriction was important to people at the time, but I don't think those were good reasons. I think that Italian-American, Irish-American, and many other nationalities have proven to be an asset to this nation, not a hindrance. I think the same goes for Korean-Americans like myself.

This sounds like a distinction without any real difference. Restrictions being put in place after huge influxes of migration (even when European) isnt any real counter arguement, other than affirming that demographics were important to people. Just giving a glance at intermarriage laws give an idea of what the general racial hierarchy of the nation at the time.

Quote
There is a slide downwards, but I don't think it can be attributed to non-white immigration. There is a bump upwards after 2001 (as Americans were galvanized after 9/11). Then note how the measures stay roughly constant from 2007 up through 2016. It's only after 2016 that both of these measures begin to slide down. This is *inversely* correlated to immigration.

What do you believe happens when the people on this graph who believe racial identity is more important than nationality outnumber those who believe the opposite? It cant possibly be asserted that we will see a more united nation imo
 
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 21, 2020, 04:40:12 AM
Remember that great documentary movie "Gangs of New York" which details how white people all lived together in peaceful harmony until the hated Irish ruined everything.


That movie is fun. Have you ever looked at interracial crime stats of current year?
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Shasarak on December 21, 2020, 05:36:05 AM
Remember that great documentary movie "Gangs of New York" which details how white people all lived together in peaceful harmony until the hated Irish ruined everything.


That movie is fun. Have you ever looked at interracial crime stats of current year?

Wait a minute, Irish is not even listed?  o_O
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 21, 2020, 08:00:42 AM
Are you kidding, Shasarak? The word is already out that white Irish are oppressive colonizers and that the only REAL Irish are black.

(I wish I was making this shit up.)
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 21, 2020, 12:55:26 PM
Remember that great documentary movie "Gangs of New York" which details how white people all lived together in peaceful harmony until the hated Irish ruined everything.

That movie is fun. Have you ever looked at interracial crime stats of current year?

1) First of all, interracial crime is the *minority* of violent crime in the U.S. The stats you showed are dwarfed by the numbers of crime *within* a race or ethnicity. From the same source as your graph, add in the main source and it looks significantly different. The first attachment is the same chart as yours, but including crime within a race or ethnicity.

There are places in the world like Bosnia or Rwanda that are characterized by high violence between ethnicities, but that's not the U.S.

2) The crime rates for *Asian-Americans* are lower than those of any of whites, blacks, or Hispanics of any race.

3) Your complaint was about *immigration* , though, and immigrants have lower crime rates than native-born people. This remains true even as we break down those stats by race. Legal immigrants of any race have lower crime rates than native-born whites. Even illegal immigrants are at worst only fractionally different than native-born whites. And as noted earlier, native-born and immigrant Asians have markedly lower crime rates than other races.

Source: https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-2017-their-numbers-demographics
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 21, 2020, 02:14:28 PM
It should be noted that despite the overall number of blacks killing each other is lower than whites, the percentages are way higher overall (per capita).
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 21, 2020, 02:56:20 PM
Remember that great documentary movie "Gangs of New York" which details how white people all lived together in peaceful harmony until the hated Irish ruined everything.

That movie is fun. Have you ever looked at interracial crime stats of current year?

1) First of all, interracial crime is the *minority* of violent crime in the U.S. The stats you showed are dwarfed by the numbers of crime *within* a race or ethnicity. From the same source as your graph, add in the main source and it looks significantly different. The first attachment is the same chart as yours, but including crime within a race or ethnicity.

There are places in the world like Bosnia or Rwanda that are characterized by high violence between ethnicities, but that's not the U.S.

2) The crime rates for *Asian-Americans* are lower than those of any of whites, blacks, or Hispanics of any race.

3) Your complaint was about *immigration* , though, and immigrants have lower crime rates than native-born people. This remains true even as we break down those stats by race. Legal immigrants of any race have lower crime rates than native-born whites. Even illegal immigrants are at worst only fractionally different than native-born whites. And as noted earlier, native-born and immigrant Asians have markedly lower crime rates than other races.

Source: https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-2017-their-numbers-demographics

My point is when interacial crime happens whites are disproportionately the victims and not the perpetrators. Your study from Cato institute is a convenient response given that my reply is framed around race, and given that black Americans commit over 50% of violent crime, certainly skewing the average against native born. When we break this down by race its we both know Hispanics (who are the primary source of immigrants) and blacks are over represented.

Your point about Asians being under represented in criminality is a valid one however, and unsurprising given they are a high IQ low time preference people on average who succeed well in the west. That in no way means I want my culture erased and replaced by people of this stock, nor does it mean I want to have my country conquered through replacement migration. Saying that these people perform well or act as "model minorities" does not mean I want to hand over my country and erase my way of life through unyielding mass migration.

My whole argument around immigration is that the west is committing suicide by the mass importing of non western people into their societies at alarming rates, enough to cause destabilization and fractured cannibalization through tribalism. The nation is becoming a less cohesive place, one where a shrinking share of the population (and most of the "new Americans") do not look at the founding fathers or our monuments or our heroes as a shared history and as a unified people around these commonalities. Increasingly these things are actually vilified. You cannot have be a strong nation, or arguably a nation at all without a shared history, reverence for certain values, or even simply speaking the same language. We are losing any semblance of unity in these pillars of a nation.

At this point I understand your position and I believe you understand mine. I think over the coming years and decades I'll be vindicated through the slow implosion of the west through continuation of tribalism and the self induced elimination of national identity. You most likely believe we'll weather the storm and the west will go on continuing as great nations. I hope you're right.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 22, 2020, 03:39:28 PM
Your point about Asians being under represented in criminality is a valid one however, and unsurprising given they are a high IQ low time preference people on average who succeed well in the west. That in no way means I want my culture erased and replaced by people of this stock, nor does it mean I want to have my country conquered through replacement migration. Saying that these people perform well or act as "model minorities" does not mean I want to hand over my country and erase my way of life through unyielding mass migration.

This seems to me like it is the real issue. You feel that if people like me come and live in America, that you are being conquered and erased. But that isn't my experience. My father came here from Korea in , and he married my mother, who was a second-generation American of English descent. Like all the previous waves of immigration, my family are bringing in parts of our own culture, and merging in other ways. However, for most of its history, the U.S. has welcomed new immigrants -- and thus been "conquered" many times over -- especially from 1787 through 1924, with high levels of immigration.

Nowadays, we commonly eat pizza and fried rice. We have Saint Patrick's Day parades, and watch martial arts action movies. We listen to hip hop and k-pop. Even in your idealized period of 1924 to 1965 of restricted immigration, our way of life changed a lot. Food changed, music changed, books and films changed. You are welcome to hold onto your own culture and raise your children in it. I'm not trying to change you - but I bet that no matter what either of us do, our grandchildren will be different than either of us picture - because things inevitably change. Not all change is good, but it's hopeless to try for no change.

I'd invite you to look over SHARK's thread to see some of Asians here,

Vietnamese-Americans Rally for President Trump in California (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/vietnamese-americans-rally-for-president-trump-in-california/)


My whole argument around immigration is that the west is committing suicide by the mass importing of non western people into their societies at alarming rates, enough to cause destabilization and fractured cannibalization through tribalism. The nation is becoming a less cohesive place, one where a shrinking share of the population (and most of the "new Americans") do not look at the founding fathers or our monuments or our heroes as a shared history and as a unified people around these commonalities. Increasingly these things are actually vilified. You cannot have be a strong nation, or arguably a nation at all without a shared history, reverence for certain values, or even simply speaking the same language. We are losing any semblance of unity in these pillars of a nation.

At this point I understand your position and I believe you understand mine. I think over the coming years and decades I'll be vindicated through the slow implosion of the west through continuation of tribalism and the self induced elimination of national identity. You most likely believe we'll weather the storm and the west will go on continuing as great nations. I hope you're right.

I think the U.S. continues to have a strong sense of national identity - but that identity has never been particularly about being English or white. It's about our belief in our Constitution, and in the land and history that we live on.

The thing is, the movements that you feel are tearing the country apart aren't from immigrants -- they're from people who have been here since the start of the nation. Currently we're seeing a movement to shift our views Confederate Americans - like removing the statue of Robert E. Lee from the U.S. Capitol. That's coming from the descendants of slaves. Likewise, there is movement to change our view of some figures like Columbus and Jackson, coming from Native Americans. That's not from immigration - that's from our own national introspection. Changing views has always happened, with abolition, with women's suffrage, with the Civil Rights movement, and many other changing views internally within the country. These weren't driven by immigration - they happened because we evolved.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Catulle on December 22, 2020, 09:46:06 PM
...which is the problem with conceptualising the US as a white Christian nation state - it's both trying to rewrite history after a kind of racist fashion, manages to be factually wrong *and* stands against the constitutional separation of church and state. In fact, it's almost like there's a lot of history *in* the US about trying to write out that version time and again.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: consolcwby on December 22, 2020, 10:23:12 PM
...which is the problem with conceptualising the US as a white Christian nation state - it's both trying to rewrite history after a kind of racist fashion, manages to be factually wrong *and* stands against the constitutional separation of church and state. In fact, it's almost like there's a lot of history *in* the US about trying to write out that version time and again.
Wow. That statement about CONSTITUTIONAL separation of church and state is so wrong, I don't even know WHERE to begin! Let's start with the basics:
The Federal Government has absolutely NO RIGHT to support nor abolish any religion as an official STATE RELIGION (like European countries do). HOWEVER, that does not preclude individual states from NOT EXERCISING THAT RIGHT. And most of the states have in one form or another. However, if you're thinking about the FUD from the Supreme Court. don't. What the court giveth, the court and taketh away!
Read the decision: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89
The meme you believe in is just that ~ A MEME. Here is the truth:

The text of the First Amendment to the country's Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It guarantees the free exercise of religion while also preventing the government from establishing a state religion. However, the states were not bound by the provision and as late as the 1830s Massachusetts provided tax money to local Congregational churches. The Supreme Court since the 1940s has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the First Amendment to the state and local governments. President John Adams and a unanimous Senate endorsed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 that stated: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Expert researchers and authors have referred to the United States as a "Protestant nation" or "founded on Protestant principles," specifically emphasizing its Calvinist heritage. The modern official motto of the United States of America, as established in a 1956 law signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is "In God We Trust". The phrase first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864. Within the last few years, the Supreme Court has been allowing cases to be heard in which the Court has found favorably towards Christian groups. So, you see, what you posted is fud.

Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Catulle on December 22, 2020, 10:31:40 PM
...which is the problem with conceptualising the US as a white Christian nation state - it's both trying to rewrite history after a kind of racist fashion, manages to be factually wrong *and* stands against the constitutional separation of church and state. In fact, it's almost like there's a lot of history *in* the US about trying to write out that version time and again.
Wow. That statement about CONSTITUTIONAL separation of church and state is so wrong, I don't even know WHERE to begin! Let's start with the basics:
The Federal Government has absolutely NO RIGHT to support nor abolish any religion as an official STATE RELIGION (like European countries do). HOWEVER, that does not preclude individual states from NOT EXERCISING THAT RIGHT. And most of the states have in one form or another. However, if you're thinking about the FUD from the Supreme Court. don't. What the court giveth, the court and taketh away!
Read the decision: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89
The meme you believe in is just that ~ A MEME. Here is the truth:

The text of the First Amendment to the country's Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It guarantees the free exercise of religion while also preventing the government from establishing a state religion. However, the states were not bound by the provision and as late as the 1830s Massachusetts provided tax money to local Congregational churches. The Supreme Court since the 1940s has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the First Amendment to the state and local governments. President John Adams and a unanimous Senate endorsed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 that stated: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Expert researchers and authors have referred to the United States as a "Protestant nation" or "founded on Protestant principles," specifically emphasizing its Calvinist heritage. The modern official motto of the United States of America, as established in a 1956 law signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is "In God We Trust". The phrase first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864. Within the last few years, the Supreme Court has been allowing cases to be heard in which the Court has found favorably towards Christian groups. So, you see, what you posted is fud.

Oh do fuck off and read your constitutional law again. Or at all.

Also, Calvin was an awful bag of cunts that fucked up Scotland for longer than the US has been a thing.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 22, 2020, 10:34:23 PM
Strictly speaking, though, no state should move to establish an 'official religion' either. It's the same reason why state laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment are unconstitutional.

That being said, though, the mythical 'separation of church and state' meme is a monument to how crappy our schools' civics classes are.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: moonsweeper on December 22, 2020, 10:49:51 PM
Strictly speaking, though, no state should move to establish an 'official religion' either. It's the same reason why state laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment are unconstitutional.

That being said, though, the mythical 'separation of church and state' meme is a monument to how crappy our schools' civics classes are.

Yeah, its amazing how the 'supremacy' clause only seems to apply/not apply when courts want to take rights away from people.

...and considering the original source isn't 'separation of church and state' a problematic concept now?  ;)
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on December 22, 2020, 11:11:07 PM
Greetings!

Calvin was a brilliant theologian.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Catulle on December 22, 2020, 11:57:51 PM
Greetings!

Calvin was a brilliant theologian.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Now I know you're taking the piss.

Always faithful, indeed. As the kids say, LOL.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 23, 2020, 12:20:58 AM
Quote
This seems to me like it is the real issue. You feel that if people like me come and live in America, that you are being conquered and erased. But that isn't my experience. My father came here from Korea in , and he married my mother, who was a second-generation American of English descent. Like all the previous waves of immigration, my family are bringing in parts of our own culture, and merging in other ways. However, for most of its history, the U.S. has welcomed new immigrants -- and thus been "conquered" many times over -- especially from 1787 through 1924, with high levels of immigration.

Not exactly. The issue is when we import massive amounts of people through replacement migration with higher birthrates than the native population. In instances like these, rejecting the term "conquered" is a semantics game. The end result is demographic replacement and the country becoming composed of a new group, while the previous group is erased. When China does this to Tibet with the intent to replace the Tibetan people with Han Chinese, people usually dont even have a problem calling that a soft genocide. I wouldn't use that term in this context but theres a precedent for people understanding that this type of radical shift is done at the expense of the majority.

Quote
Nowadays, we commonly eat pizza and fried rice. We have Saint Patrick's Day parades, and watch martial arts action movies. We listen to hip hop and k-pop. Even in your idealized period of 1924 to 1965 of restricted immigration, our way of life changed a lot. Food changed, music changed, books and films changed. You are welcome to hold onto your own culture and raise your children in it. I'm not trying to change you - but I bet that no matter what either of us do, our grandchildren will be different than either of us picture - because things inevitably change. Not all change is good, but it's hopeless to try for no change.

That is unironically wonderful but at the same time if Korea had something like 25-30 % of their population replaced by other demographics within a 60-70 year period i dont think it should be taboo to say that their country is "less korean"

Quote
I'd invite you to look over SHARK's thread to see some of Asians here,

Vietnamese-Americans Rally for President Trump in California


Lol I appreciate the sentiment but I can assure you it isnt a lack of exposure to diversity which causes me to dislike replacement migration. Several of those in my friend group in highschool were korean exchange students. I have a couple adopted members of my family who are black. I live in one of the most liberal states in America. I dont say this as a "I have black friends" type of response, only to convey that you can respect people as individuals while still acknowledging group differences or that smashing different tribes together at a rapid pace will produce social dysfunction.

Quote
I think the U.S. continues to have a strong sense of national identity - but that identity has never been particularly about being English or white. It's about our belief in our Constitution, and in the land and history that we live on.

Well according to pew the only demographic that ranks national identity higher than race are Whites. This suggests tribalism will expand as whites decline, and I do not believe this is good for national identity.

Quote
The thing is, the movements that you feel are tearing the country apart aren't from immigrants -- they're from people who have been here since the start of the nation. Currently we're seeing a movement to shift our views Confederate Americans - like removing the statue of Robert E. Lee from the U.S. Capitol. That's coming from the descendants of slaves. Likewise, there is movement to change our view of some figures like Columbus and Jackson, coming from Native Americans. That's not from immigration - that's from our own national introspection. Changing views has always happened, with abolition, with women's suffrage, with the Civil Rights movement, and many other changing views internally within the country. These weren't driven by immigration - they happened because we evolved

Maybe in some particular insantaces but if America had the demographics that it did in 1980 then Republicans would have won the majority vote in 2012, 2016, and 2020. Many far left ideas wouldnt have the traction they currently do without mass migration giving them voting power and enabling these things to take place.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: deathknight4044 on December 23, 2020, 12:23:31 AM
...which is the problem with conceptualising the US as a white Christian nation state - it's both trying to rewrite history after a kind of racist fashion, manages to be factually wrong *and* stands against the constitutional separation of church and state. In fact, it's almost like there's a lot of history *in* the US about trying to write out that version time and again.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

Code: [Select]
The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790 ) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free white person[s] ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states.

It seemed to be conceptualized as a white/European one however.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Shasarak on December 23, 2020, 12:25:33 AM
Greetings!

Calvin was a brilliant theologian.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

And he invented Calvin Ball.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: shuddemell on December 23, 2020, 12:56:02 PM
Politically, there can be various laws and policies to restrict government officials, school districts, and Big Tech for example from disenfranchising Christians and Christianity, which can be very helpful.
You want US laws set up that specifically endorse/protect/promote Christianity? Isn't it meaningful that such laws have never been a part of the Constitution?

I would prefer they give Christianity the same "protections" that they afford other religions like Islam and Judaism. ALL should be treated equally under the law and in society, and they definitely are not. Just like being a cis, white male has, Christianity has been made the public whipping boy for atheists and other religions to attack with impugnity.

I won't speak to Islam, but I feel very confident in saying that Christianity is treated equal to Judaism in the U.S.. Judaism is routinely been treated as a public whipping boy for atheists and other religions with impunity lately, along with Christianity.

No, it isn't. On the legal level, it's almost entirely unheard of that someone is charged with a hate crime for attacking Christians, however it happens all the time with Antisemites. I also rarely see the backlash against people slandering Christians in the same way that people slandering Jews are called antisemites and ostracized. While I do believe they are closer than the obvious pass Islam seems to be getting, there is a distinct gradient in how they are treated, though not nearly as steep as that between Islam and any other religion.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jeff37923 on December 23, 2020, 03:37:29 PM
Greetings!

Calvin was a brilliant theologian.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


And he invented Calvin Ball.

Man, Hobbes never gets any credit....
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Pat on December 23, 2020, 06:08:09 PM
Greetings!

Calvin was a brilliant theologian.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


And he invented Calvin Ball.

Man, Hobbes never gets any credit....
Live is nasty, brutish, and short when you play with a tiger.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: HappyDaze on December 23, 2020, 06:12:32 PM
Greetings!

Calvin was a brilliant theologian.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


And he invented Calvin Ball.

Man, Hobbes never gets any credit....
Live is nasty, brutish, and short when you play with a tiger.
That should be printed on every box of Frosted Flakes.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 24, 2020, 04:51:43 AM
Demographics are destiny.

Always have been, always will be. It's the nature of Man.

Well according to pew the only demographic that ranks national identity higher than race are Whites. This suggests tribalism will expand as whites decline, and I do not believe this is good for national identity.

That's interesting, but not surprising. Do you have a link?

I wonder if any such poll exists for previous decades. AKA, I wonder how much of this Race > Nation is new thanks to commie bullshit in schools, or whether it's a long term historical issue. Also I wonder if its a US issue or across Western nations.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 24, 2020, 05:09:15 AM
I think over the coming years and decades I'll be vindicated through the slow implosion of the west through continuation of tribalism and the self induced elimination of national identity.

That's a rather easy bet to win.

Although I'd bet against the "slow" part of the implosion of the West.

You most likely believe we'll weather the storm and the west will go on continuing as great nations. I hope you're right.

Jhkim is a BLM leftist. He has zero interest in traditional America existing, nor the USA existing as anything other a nation broken into obedience to whatever bullshit the left demands. Stick around and you'll see his "reasonable" rhetoric is nothing but a pseudo-intellectual front.

However, I'm betting he and his son won't be able to dance fast enough to appease the SJWs when they declare Korean is just another flavor of white and apologizing for being born male won't be enough to escape their ire.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: consolcwby on December 25, 2020, 10:43:00 PM
I think over the coming years and decades I'll be vindicated through the slow implosion of the west through continuation of tribalism and the self induced elimination of national identity.

That's a rather easy bet to win.

Although I'd bet against the "slow" part of the implosion of the West.

You most likely believe we'll weather the storm and the west will go on continuing as great nations. I hope you're right.

Jhkim is a BLM leftist. He has zero interest in traditional America existing, nor the USA existing as anything other a nation broken into obedience to whatever bullshit the left demands. Stick around and you'll see his "reasonable" rhetoric is nothing but a pseudo-intellectual front.

However, I'm betting he and his son won't be able to dance fast enough to appease the SJWs when they declare Korean is just another flavor of white and apologizing for being born male won't be enough to escape their ire.
Most Koreans I have known are either authoritarians or sluts, and all but one was antisemitic! The strange thing is, they're not as smart as they are told they are... Laotians, on the other hand, are awesome people ~ a little violent at times ~ but hard working and intelligent people!
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: jhkim on December 26, 2020, 03:16:50 AM
The issue is when we import massive amounts of people through replacement migration with higher birthrates than the native population. In instances like these, rejecting the term "conquered" is a semantics game. The end result is demographic replacement and the country becoming composed of a new group, while the previous group is erased. When China does this to Tibet with the intent to replace the Tibetan people with Han Chinese, people usually dont even have a problem calling that a soft genocide. I wouldn't use that term in this context but theres a precedent for people understanding that this type of radical shift is done at the expense of the majority.

I don't see how this fits with your claims. Asian-Americans have a *lower* birthrate than white Americans. ((ref) (https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/) Meanwhile, Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans have a *higher* birthrate than English-Americans.


Quote
I think the U.S. continues to have a strong sense of national identity - but that identity has never been particularly about being English or white. It's about our belief in our Constitution, and in the land and history that we live on.

Well according to pew the only demographic that ranks national identity higher than race are Whites. This suggests tribalism will expand as whites decline, and I do not believe this is good for national identity.

In the past, the U.S. had much stronger senses of ethnic tribal identity -- like dramatized in the "Gangs of New York" movie, or in plenty of other gangster movies with Italian or Irish identity. A century ago, immigrants used to be much slower to integrate -- they took longer to learn English; they would concentrate in enclaves like Chinatown or Little Italy; and they would often have gang wars with other ethnicities. In the present-day, we have fewer Chinatowns and Little Italy neighborhoods. Immigrants are quicker to learn English, and are less likely to form isolated neighborhoods.

If you look over the history in the early 1900s, you'll see far more ethnic identity than in the present-day U.S. Overwhelmingly, today the predominant tribal identity is Republican versus Democrat. The one continuing case of ethnic conflict is around African-Americans, and those aren't immigrants -- that's an ethnic group who have been a part of the U.S. since it's founding.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on January 02, 2021, 08:05:47 PM
Greetings!

Here are some prime examples during the recent year of Liberal tyranny and censorship. Just more reasons why the Left is incompatible in our Constitutional Republic. The Leftist cucks are just like filthy, diseased rats, spreading their disease of mental illness, hatred of America, anti-white racism, and Marxism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: HappyDaze on January 02, 2021, 08:38:33 PM
Greetings!

Here are some prime examples during the recent year of Liberal tyranny and censorship. Just more reasons why the Left is incompatible in our Constitutional Republic. The Leftist cucks are just like filthy, diseased rats, spreading their disease of mental illness, hatred of America, anti-white racism, and Marxism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Oh, for fuck's sake, SHARKtopussy is posting shit from Newsmax now. We keep lowering the bar for these Right-wing extremist morons all the time.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on January 02, 2021, 09:08:51 PM
Greetings!

Here are some prime examples during the recent year of Liberal tyranny and censorship. Just more reasons why the Left is incompatible in our Constitutional Republic. The Leftist cucks are just like filthy, diseased rats, spreading their disease of mental illness, hatred of America, anti-white racism, and Marxism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Oh, for fuck's sake, SHARKtopussy is posting shit from Newsmax now. We keep lowering the bar for these Right-wing extremist morons all the time.

Greetings!

You obviously didn't watch the video, did you? As usual for a fuckstick.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: consolcwby on January 02, 2021, 10:39:56 PM
Greetings!

Here are some prime examples during the recent year of Liberal tyranny and censorship. Just more reasons why the Left is incompatible in our Constitutional Republic. The Leftist cucks are just like filthy, diseased rats, spreading their disease of mental illness, hatred of America, anti-white racism, and Marxism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Oh, for fuck's sake, SHARKtopussy is posting shit from Newsmax now. We keep lowering the bar for these Right-wing extremist morons all the time.

Greetings!

You obviously didn't watch the video, did you? As usual for a fuckstick.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Are you gonna really listen to HappyTroll? He didn't even know how elections work, how the hell is he going to know how to play a video?!
also,
https://www.sgtreport.com/2021/01/traitors-declared-war-patriots-will-respond/
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: HappyDaze on January 03, 2021, 12:15:19 AM
Greetings!

Here are some prime examples during the recent year of Liberal tyranny and censorship. Just more reasons why the Left is incompatible in our Constitutional Republic. The Leftist cucks are just like filthy, diseased rats, spreading their disease of mental illness, hatred of America, anti-white racism, and Marxism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Oh, for fuck's sake, SHARKtopussy is posting shit from Newsmax now. We keep lowering the bar for these Right-wing extremist morons all the time.

Greetings!

You obviously didn't watch the video, did you? As usual for a fuckstick.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Your videos are much like when the other poster that wanted to show the shit-smears on his walls: not worthy of my time.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 01:27:40 AM
Greetings!

Here are some prime examples during the recent year of Liberal tyranny and censorship. Just more reasons why the Left is incompatible in our Constitutional Republic. The Leftist cucks are just like filthy, diseased rats, spreading their disease of mental illness, hatred of America, anti-white racism, and Marxism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Oh, for fuck's sake, SHARKtopussy is posting shit from Newsmax now. We keep lowering the bar for these Right-wing extremist morons all the time.

Greetings!

You obviously didn't watch the video, did you? As usual for a fuckstick.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Your videos are much like when the other poster that wanted to show the shit-smears on his walls: not worthy of my time.

Greetings!

I posted the video of the brief commentary by Michelle Malkin, detailing numerous and egregious examples of Leftist tyranny, censorship, and oppression against a variety of individual citizens expressing a different point of view or perspective than what the Leftists proclaim as the sacrosanct dogma. Seeing that most people here cherish the value of freedom of speech, it seemed especially relevant in a broader discussion of division amidst our culture--who champions and honours freedom of speech--and who does not.

Of course, if you believe the videos I post are "not worth your time"--then that's fine. Don't watch them. However, commenting concerning them in light of the fact you have not watched the video merely demonstrates your insipid pettiness and highlights your childish character for everyone to see--as well as your eye-rolling stupidity.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 01:59:00 AM
Greetings!

Here are some prime examples during the recent year of Liberal tyranny and censorship. Just more reasons why the Left is incompatible in our Constitutional Republic. The Leftist cucks are just like filthy, diseased rats, spreading their disease of mental illness, hatred of America, anti-white racism, and Marxism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Oh, for fuck's sake, SHARKtopussy is posting shit from Newsmax now. We keep lowering the bar for these Right-wing extremist morons all the time.

Greetings!

You obviously didn't watch the video, did you? As usual for a fuckstick.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Are you gonna really listen to HappyTroll? He didn't even know how elections work, how the hell is he going to know how to play a video?!
also,
https://www.sgtreport.com/2021/01/traitors-declared-war-patriots-will-respond/

Greetings!

Yes, you are quite right, Consolcwby! HappyTroll is so pathetic.

Excellent video as well, Consolcwby! Professor James Fetzer was a interesting interview. SGTReport seems like a sharp patriot, too! SGT Report is definitely right on target about the whore media and so many corrupt politicians and traitors involved in all of the BS going on!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 03, 2021, 09:51:30 AM
And that was how HappyDerp wound up being blocked.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 01:05:32 PM
Greetings!

Here in this video, Heavy Duty Country discusses the current political situation in America, as well as the cultural divide, Marxism, and the plans of a Biden/Harris administration, and the need for true Patriots to remember Americans are free, and to resist tyranny.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 01:22:04 PM
And that was how HappyDerp wound up being blocked.

Greetings!

"HappyDerp!" That's awesome, my friend! *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: consolcwby on January 04, 2021, 01:04:13 AM
And that was how HappyDerp wound up being blocked.
His future DESPAIR is making our day!
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/996ec88c15a518630c931b7cdbb184cb/tumblr_mtun0bhvhT1sgb93ko1_400.gif)
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: HappyDaze on January 04, 2021, 07:08:22 AM
And that was how HappyDerp wound up being blocked.
His future DESPAIR is making our day!
Despair? Not at all; I'm not one of the many here having a meltdown because my candidate lost the presidential election. Watching those fools lose their shit (with one even smearing it on his walls) is pathetic yet morbidly amusing. But you know that, because you keep on trolling them too.
Title: Re: Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?
Post by: consolcwby on January 04, 2021, 09:21:20 PM
And that was how HappyDerp wound up being blocked.
His future DESPAIR is making our day!
Despair? Not at all; I'm not one of the many here having a meltdown because my candidate lost the presidential election. Watching those fools lose their shit (with one even smearing it on his walls) is pathetic yet morbidly amusing. But you know that, because you keep on trolling them too.
Well, according to some here ~ who are so virtuous they can make it rain even before anyone knew, like the 'psychics' they are:
I'm not a troll...
All the division in America, All the violence against me and my family, The Election, The Lockdowns, they said it: It's ALL MY FAULT!!!
CUZ: ...I'm a BAD GUY!