The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[SenEDDtor Missile]

19 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

A military convoy carrying Trump flags rolled through the streets of Louisville, Kentucky on Sunday, and no one knows where the fuck it came from. A pertinent bit from the article:

I suggest we all find a Nazi to punch.

Why do I feel like Trump is convinced that as President, he can mold America into his own personal empire to wage his petty battles for money and his fragile ego, and once shit gets tough he'll up and abandon America with the money and the consequences of his incompetence? For the record, I don't know if he'll actually get that far, but it does seem to be his general attitude.

EDIT: Also somewhat related, but I feel like the only truly karmic thing one can do to Trump is to utterly unperson him. As in treat him as if he never existed to his face. Leave him in some prison in the middle of nowhere to rot, and while the consequences of his actions will be remembered, the person that was Trump is forgotten completely. While this does run the risk of people forgetting the damage he did and repeating the mistake again, it's also the only thing I can think of that would truly be damaging to a man with such a deep narcissism and fragile ego such as him.

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/

Good read. Highlights what an autocracy under Trump would look like. It's unlikely it would be a totalitarian state, but closer to somewhere like Russia, where the government censors and bullies opponents, widespread voter suppression, etc.

5 hours ago, nintega137 said:

But.............................But................................But.........................................tehm sjw's, them blacks, them gays, those women, them muslims, and obamacare, and the economy!

The sad part is a lot of his voters didn't understand Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act are the same thing.

This is why "alternative facts" are so fucking dangerous. There's a huge number of people who don't take a few minutes to do research and sift through the vomit politicians puke up.

[Indigo Rush]

This.

[Kuzu]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the weather has been shit lately. Even mother nature we're screwed/

[Kevin]

Trump has picked Niel Gorusch as the next Supreme Court nominee to replace Scalia.

Of the 3 contenders that were on the shortlist, this is probably the least-worst pick. I'm personally still bitter about how Merrick Garland was treated though.

[PSI Wind]

I am too but this is the first time I've actually said "oh thank GOD its not that bad". He's basically Scalia-lite and well suited for the job. I'll take this small inch. We got LGBT Rights and pro-choice even with Scalia and once the SC has 9 seats, Trump can be stopped by then if he overreaches. 

[-Robin-]

Just a reminder that judges typically become more progressive the longer they stay on the bench. Since they can't be removed, there's no pressure from them to adhere to political shenanigans. On that note, Gorsuch is the best case scenario.

 

On the other hand, he has a record on ruling against disabled workers, for corporations, and against abortion freedoms. So it'll be a rocky start. 

 

What's more eye-rolling is how Hardiman was brought in for the proceedings, since S.C. announcements are not made on the spot. Bringing in Hardiman just to have him declared the "loser" of the S.C. nomination? 

[Patticus]

21 minutes ago, -Robin- said:

What's more eye-rolling is how Hardiman was brought in for the proceedings, since S.C. announcements are not made on the spot. Bringing in Hardiman just to have him declared the "loser" of the S.C. nomination? 

Centrist justice Anthony Kennedy, and liberal justices Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, may all leave the bench in Trump's term(s) - Kennedy may retire as early as this year. Hardiman being brought in could have been to assure him of the next open seat.

[Nepenthe]

First confirmed death as a direct result of the Muslim ban. A legal US resident who needed medical treatment was deported after trying to return home from Iraq. She died the next day.

It's only been ten days.

[KHCast]

regarding Trump saying he won't mess with "LGBT rights" couple things.

1. How often has Trump went back and forth on his statements? And why can't that be considered here?

2. Okay he won't touch CURRENT LGBT rights, but that doesn't exactly mean he'll fight for or consider better treatment and rights for us. There's still a lot that our community gets worse off of in comparison to others, and discrimination is still high.

3. And speaking of discrimination, the man still supports FADA and has Mike fucking pence as his side man, making it hard to take seriously whenever he tries to say he's on our side. 

So yeah, this doesn't really give me a sigh of relief or make me want to suddenly give him a chance. It seems like it's just a publicity stunt given how he's already in steaming hot shit.

[Tani Coyote]

9 hours ago, -Robin- said:

What's more eye-rolling is how Hardiman was brought in for the proceedings, since S.C. announcements are not made on the spot. Bringing in Hardiman just to have him declared the "loser" of the S.C. nomination? 

Because he's trying to make politics into a TV show. The way he advertised this pick, the way it was set up late at night as opposed to the more standard decent hour...

His "you're fired" personality has contaminated the Presidency.

Centrist justice Anthony Kennedy, and liberal justices Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, may all leave the bench in Trump's term(s) - Kennedy may retire as early as this year. Hardiman being brought in could have been to assure him of the next open seat.

God, please let the Democrats take back the Senate in the midterms. I know it's a longshot, but Jesus, we need to prevent the Court from becoming a right-wing cesspit for a generation.

[Patticus]

11 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

God, please let the Democrats take back the Senate in the midterms. I know it's a longshot, but Jesus, we need to prevent the Court from becoming a right-wing cesspit for a generation.

If Trump's approvals stay low or get worse, would it be fair to say that the two competitive senate seats they could take next year may become 4, or 6 or more?

[KHCast]

Good to know the "white male privilege doesn't exist" group is still loud and proud. In response to a post noting hypocrisy from trump supporters.(notable points highlighted)

Quote

See, this is the part where votes are lost and Democrats lose seats:
1. "karma / should be humbling for Trump supporters" - In most media I see this response. Whereas the best strategy would be for Dems to actively fight on the behalf of these individuals than to be happy for it.
2. "White supremacy" - Do I think Trump's party focuses heavily on white people? Yes. Do I think it is white supremacist? No. I do think the reason we have a Trump is because the Democrats in "moral superiority" lost the white working class vote. It decided the election. I do find a disparity, that when candidates focus on specific races it's "outreach" but focusing on white middle class is "racist". I mean tbh, Democrats lost my vote when I was told that I have white privilege and male privilege and therefore I'm not allowed to talk on certain issues, that I can't "empathize with certain matters", and discrimination I find hypocritical (that most Dems again would take a "serves him right" attitude or "now you know how minorities feel"....and that's where votes went away).

So I wouldn't say these are little issues. These are the issues that won the Trump election, these nuances that accumulated and pushed a lot of independents toward Trump and especially the white vote.

I say this all as a very socially liberal person that would consider himself independent/libertarian who retroactively would've voted Democrat if possible since Clinton. But the political correctness, virtue signalling, and reverse racism covered in morality made me cut ties with this party because it will not represent my needs or hopes? Do the Reps? Not on social issues, but slightly more on economic and slightly more on foreign policy than recent Dem years.

[

Teague, you support Black Lives Matter, yes? Do you support those that riot? That loot shops, break windows, set fires, attack others? I'm sure not. 

You may have some protectionism, and that is a concern. However, I also do know a lot of our industries are quite inelastic and therefore less likely to have switching/replication. But I am also a fan of more deregulation and less restriction on business (yes there's a counter argument to be had). I am also against tax loopholes, and unfortunately I don't see this president doing anything about this, but I am looking forward to a potential tax repatriation break. 

Regarding foreign policy, I am more preferential to warmer relations with Russia as a global power. I don't think that's a bad thing. (As Russia is more aggressive actually when backed into a corner. And I don't see "appeasement" happening). And Hillary's rhetoric during the campaign was pressing tensions to cold war tensions. She was more of a hawk, more interventionist, and more apt to regime change. And geopolitically I saw the world safer in a Trump presidency. I do largely see this shift a way to focus on US being able to be stronger on China as a whole. I will be curious on Trump's potential counter to China's "One China" policy, requiring economic concessions to keep it reinforced. It is a gamble geopolitically, I do agree, but one I think that can have strong effects for the US economically and Asia as a whole.

And I do think many liberal ideas are needed for society. But I've also seen liberals more likely to censor/silence others that disagree, and throw things in the faces of others. 

"I really don't see anything honorable / not racist in protecting whites relative economic and social advantage."
-See, that's pushed heavily but I don't see it.
As a white male in the US, at equal or above equal merits, I'm less likely to receive scholarship, less likely to receive a job. I have less free speech. More antagonistic relationships. More likely to be a victim of certain crimes.

I firmly believe in "equality of opportunity" but not of outcome. I've heard "institutional racism" but I'd love to see the actual institutions/laws that are racist. (Except for many affirmative action laws. Those are actually racist but viewed as "helpful". I'm fine with them, but that's actual institutional racism =) ).

Also, "racism" in the US is viewed as Hispanic/Black. But I haven't heard of Asians having problems of racism. I do think a lot is community and culture based. And in general, the need for greater community outreach. In almost all statistics Asians over-perform whites and I've never heard "Asian privilege" but I digress..[/quote]

My response:

 

Quote

Quote

Whites aren't subjugated nearly as much to stop and frisk, statistically get shorter and less harsh prison sentences, and aren't usually what drops the prices of neighborhoods causing people to move, creating environments labeled dangerous by society. Education wise, blacks are still pretty low in college and general education when ranking races.(oh and I should also add job wise, statistically minorities and women still get it worse in competitive fields, be it getting the job, or pay.)

Men, DO have advantages in many situations(economically, socially, etc) and get away with tons of shit in comparison to others. The standards and expectations for men aren't as high. There's an actual hierarchy at play in society. 

Oh and don't get me started on straight men.

These small little things /are/ privileges. You might not see them, but they are there. You may still have things rough, I'm not saying you don't,, but your demographic by and large tends to get the better treatment in one way or another, don't act like that isn't obvious. 
Should also be noted Asians historically were helped multiple times in ways blacks and Hispanics simply weren't by whites. America basically revitalized Japan after WWII helping it become the booming success it is now, and continues to do massive trade with them. This kind of assistance was never actually given to blacks or Hispanics or Muslims even. So that may play a part in why Asians don't cry racism as much

 

And his reply

Quote

Quote

Quote

 

Now what I will say:
1. What part of that (specifically education, crime levels) do you associate to discrimination? And at what level are these also based on the cultures predominant in races? Again, I don't see the same happening for Asian races. And why is that? When you actually look at the %'s of crime statistics, these numbers are negligible and in some cases actually less harsh on black %'s of population relative to % of crime compared to races as an overall whole. 

And why is it that Asian are so high enrollment in college? Is it that they are incentivzed to go? No, the opposite. Asians are discriminated against. Many scores of Asians are discounted to be more fair to others.

At what level are people responsible for themselves? That society doesn't make excuses, and people are help responsible to pick themselves up and/or make changes in their communities.

 

Well that's new. "Well Asians aren't complaining" Really not sure how that mitigates the issues within other groups just because Asians don't complain. And also, this guy really I feel is exaggerating on the hardships white people have even so much to try telling me blacks get is easier when it comes to the judicial system.

 

Also amazing how self interest can make them not see anything else,. Also just how fragile white men are to the idea that not everyone is as equal as them. The fact that facing that truth can turn men off supporting, and instead just leads to ear plugging and ridiculous attempts to explain away how it's /not/ institutional racism or discrimination towards blacks, gays, women, etc., I just cannot believe it

[nintega137]

38 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Good to know the "white male privilege doesn't exist" group is still loud and proud. In response to a post noting hypocrisy from trump supporters.(notable points highlighted)

My response:

 

And his reply

Well that's new. "Well Asians aren't complaining" Really not sure how that mitigates the issues within other groups just because Asians don't complain. And also, this guy really I feel is exaggerating on the hardships white people have even so much to try telling me blacks get is easier when it comes to the judicial system.

 

Also amazing how self interest can make them not see anything else,. Also just how fragile white men are to the idea that not everyone is as equal as them. The fact that facing that truth can turn men off supporting, and instead just leads to ear plugging and ridiculous attempts to explain away how it's /not/ institutional racism or discrimination towards blacks, gays, women, etc., I just cannot believe it

 

That's actually not new. I've heard it a lot. I've even heard (interestingly enough only from white people and not actually from any asians) that asians actually suffer from affirmative action because on average they are the better more employable minority and they get passed over for "unqualified" people from other minorities. 

[Tani Coyote]

3 hours ago, Patticus said:

If Trump's approvals stay low or get worse, would it be fair to say that the two competitive senate seats they could take next year may become 4, or 6 or more?

It really comes down to the Dems adopting a fifty state strategy or not. There's this idea that the red states can't be won in a lot of liberals' minds, but this ignores the fact that a lot of the 2014 Senate seats that were lost to the GOP (and which will be up for election in 2020) were in red states. While all eyes are on Nevada and Arizona as seats that could be flipped and evenly split the Senate, it sounds like Democrats have their eyes on Texas (where Joaquin Castro is the presumptive nominee). In addition, back in 2012, one of the seats the GOP flipped from the Democrats was in Nebraska, which means there is always the possibility a conservative Democrat could take it back.

A look over historical Presidential elections shows that the Democrats weren't always confined to western and northeastern urban centers, and with the right strategy and approach, it's possible a lot of states could be turned competitive again.

My guess is a lot of people in "flyover country" feel the Democratic Party has abandoned them simply because there's less of them, and this has allowed the GOP to consolidate rule there. I imagine some socially conservative, fiscally liberal Democrats would be in a great position to unseat the GOP, though.

It really shows the struggle within the Democratic Party. While fiscal liberalism is able to achieve broad support, it's once the Party goes into social issues that the cracks start to form.

Of course, in all statistical likelihood, the Democrats are likely to lose some seats unless they campaign really hard in the red states. They need Trump to screw up, and screw up badly, to mitigate the effect of a more conservative midterm population.

It's probable the GOP will lose several Governorships, though, and that will leave Trump limping into the second half of his term. A solid Democrat strategy needs to tie these Governor and Senator races together in voters' minds.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Do the Democrats even have a solid strategy? 'Cause it looks like they're gonna play the same game that arguably costed them the presidency.

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Do the Democrats even have a solid strategy? 'Cause it looks like they're gonna play the same game that arguably costed them the presidency.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/316966-house-dems-campaign-arm-signals-early-2018-targets

They do. Besides keeping their current House holdings, they're targeting the districts Clinton won, plus the ones Trump only narrowly carried.

The GOP is mocking the idea of course, citing how they failed in 2016... but this ignores they had Presidential coattails to carry them to victory. Midterms lean conservative, but as a whole they tend to favor the minority party. Republicans are increasingly appearing just as arrogant as the Clinton campaign, to be quite honest.

Just as Trump mobilized a bunch of new voters, I predict opposition to him will mobilize plenty as well. GOP Governors have to ramp up voter suppression and fast, or they risk a tidal wave of disapproval next November.

When in doubt though, I think a grassroots approach by Democrats is the best way to augment whatever the DNC puts forward. Any Democrat voter should mark their calendars for the upcoming midterm elections (and the off-year elections), and remind likeminded friends as the day approaches. In the runup to the day, this same pool should make sure their IDs are current. I'd even suggest that Democrats encourage friends who don't have IDs out of inconvenience to get one, to increase their ability to make a difference.

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/now-can-save-democratic-party-low-low-price-4-68-month/

There's also this, courtesy of longtime Democratic fundraiser Jonathan Zucker. Zucker has a passive donation setup in mind: voters subscribe, pay $4.68 a month, and the money is equally distributed among Democrats in all House districts and all Senate seats. If every person who donated to Clinton's campaign participated starting today, this would leave every single Democratic candidate with $2.5 million dollars come the 2018 elections. For comparison: the average Congressman raises $200,000.

Now, the main drawback of this approach is it supports races that are clear losers. On the other hand, it gives candidates everywhere serious money to burn, all without making them indebted to the super wealthy. Who knows; this grassroots approach might just upset ideas of "safe districts" even further. It's a genius idea: microtransactions meets democracy.

It's also genius for the long-term implications: potentially hundreds of new, young Democratic politicians running (now that they have a source of money) who might just one day create a ripe field of people to fill the highest public offices.

[KHCast]

5 hours ago, nintega137 said:

That's actually not new. I've heard it a lot. I've even heard (interestingly enough only from white people and not actually from any asians) that asians actually suffer from affirmative action because on average they are the better more employable minority and they get passed over for "unqualified" people from other minorities. 

It's always interesting how they cite that group, when that's the group whites have actually positively helped and done business with the most. (Europeans in the early centuries did much trade with China, after WWII America basically revitalized Japan into the industry powerhouse it is today, there's never been mass skave ownership of Asians like there was for blacks and even Hispanics. )Not to mention there's much to gain both financially and physically(as in goods that Americans use, i.e. Tech and automotive) Of course there's much to gain from not harshly discriminating these people, and upsetting Japan. Even if they are overlooked in college, they still usually have ways to get into college,  and even if they don't, can find well paying jobs easier than any other minority group. Not to mention Americans essentially did a concentration camp-light with them, and Americans probably feel guilty still about that. The comparison just can't be made. As blacks, Hispanic and Muslim Americans and people have never recieved positive treatment that good in a long time. This is to say nothing of Asian groups that actually DO protest about discrimination and demand equal treatment. 

Anyway, I'm still baffled that these people claim there's no such thing as institutionalized racism, and have the balls to ask for evidence and examples and also say the only racist policy is affirmative action. 

 

Im also curious where that guy got his statistics about "white men having it worse when it comes to having opinions and job searching and judicial punishment (lololololololol)

[Tani Coyote]

Oh, I keep forgetting to mention. The mechanism is already in place for Trump to begin widespread federal voting suppression before or after the midterms.

Introducing the REAL ID Act. Passed during the Bush years, it's finally nearing completion in 2020. Come October 2020 (right before the election), it will be required to board commercial aircraft (this actually starts next year) or enter federal buildings.

This seems innocuous enough except for one factor: the Secretary of Homeland Security can designate any federal purpose as requiring it. They could require it to use the Post Office, qualify for social services, or even vote.

So, if Trump was feeling malicious enough, he could stealthily order Homeland Security to require it for federal votes right ahead of either of the big federal elections in the next 4 years.

I highly recommend nobody here procrastinate on getting this (I highly doubt it's going to be repealed any time soon, either).

[Patticus]

Given the vitriol likely to be thrown at Trump over the next 4 years, during the midterms and in the next election, it's more then likely that he'll be in a state of permanent vexation, and wouldn't hesitate to use that act to suppress the vote.

And even if he weren't so unstable or angry a man, Bannon's position more or less guarantees the act's implementation nationwide for voting and other purposes.

Edit: Overt propaganda in today's WH press briefing:

"Nobody would mind if we just logged every forest and strip mined the rest..."

[8ther]

How do we fight voter suppression?

[Patticus]

1 hour ago, CD Sanic said:

How do we fight voter suppression?

Either we hope that regional or state courts strike it down, or we hope a relevant court case gets to the Supreme Court, and hope that they then strike it down. Otherwise, our only recourse is to vote in such overwhelming numbers for candidates against voter suppression that even massive suppression tools like the Real ID Act (the voting equivalent of the Death Star) prove ineffective.

Obama won the election in 2012 even with Voter ID laws sweeping the nation - and several of these laws have since been struck down by various courts. It's not an impossible situation, but it will require an enormous push from the Democrats (including a vast expansion of their infrastructure deep into rural America, where their old connections were allowed to wither on the vine) to overcome quickly.
 

If REAL ID is implemented right before the mid-term or general elections, after what will undoubtedly be another impassioned, vitriolic, post-factual election campaign, it would probably cause rioting on a scale that we seldom see. That would allow Trump and Bannon to use that as an excuse to do all sorts of previously unthinkable, absolutely dictatorial things.

[nintega137]

7 hours ago, KHCast said:

It's always interesting how they cite that group, when that's the group whites have actually positively helped and done business with the most. (Europeans in the early centuries did much trade with China, after WWII America basically revitalized Japan into the industry powerhouse it is today, there's never been mass skave ownership of Asians like there was for blacks and even Hispanics. )Not to mention there's much to gain both financially and physically(as in goods that Americans use, i.e. Tech and automotive) Of course there's much to gain from not harshly discriminating these people, and upsetting Japan. Even if they are overlooked in college, they still usually have ways to get into college,  and even if they don't, can find well paying jobs easier than any other minority group. Not to mention Americans essentially did a concentration camp-light with them, and Americans probably feel guilty still about that. The comparison just can't be made. As blacks, Hispanic and Muslim Americans and people have never recieved positive treatment that good in a long time. This is to say nothing of Asian groups that actually DO protest about discrimination and demand equal treatment. 

Anyway, I'm still baffled that these people claim there's no such thing as institutionalized racism, and have the balls to ask for evidence and examples and also say the only racist policy is affirmative action. 

 

Im also curious where that guy got his statistics about "white men having it worse when it comes to having opinions and job searching and judicial punishment (lololololololol)

7

 

Exactly what I said earlier, but remember as far as they're concerned the reason they worked with asians is because they've actually contributed something to the world, which don't forget many people are certain that black people never have in all of human history. (fun fact, guess who google is celebrating right now? Edmonia Lewis. If you don't know who she is, she was  American sculptor who worked for most of her career in Rome, Italy. She was the first woman of African-American and Native American heritage to achieve international fame and recognition as a sculptor in the fine arts world. Her work is known for incorporating themes relating to black people and indigenous peoples of the Americas into Neoclassical-style sculpture. She began to gain prominence during the American Civil War; at the end of the 19th century, and remained the only black woman who had participated in and been recognized to any degree by the American artistic mainstream. In 2002, the scholar Molefi Kete Asante listed Edmonia Lewis on his list of 100 Greatest African Americans.) 

But that's just it, many are certain that all we've done in history is only for each other and nothing that's done any good for the world at large.

 

I found an article (well not really found, more like someone posted on my feed on facebook) on alt right called "Is Black Genocide Right" 

https://web.archive.org/web/20120218040216/http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right/

You may or may not be able to get the link to work (some other people can't for some reason) so just in case I'll post this dumb article here.

 

"

It strikes me that one of the main things about having a good debate is how it is framed. Get that right and the chances are something good will be the outcome. However, for too long now, when we consider questions of race, especially questions concerning the Black race, we have been framing things in completely the wrong way. Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn.

This might seem shocking to the usual gang of idiots, but right now very similar questions are being booted about and nobody seems to be batting an eye, all because the questions refer to White South Africans: "Does South Africa actually need the White race?" "Is White genocide right?" and "How many of the White devils do we have to rape, kill, mutilate, and bugger before the rest of them fuck off?"

These questions are being asked and answered everyday in South Africa as any visitor to the blog Boer Genocide will attest. The blog collects and collates news stories on an unending flood of racially-motivated atrocities – a Herculean task that has to be done because no one else, least of all the Western media, is moving a muscle to do so. And it must be deeply unpleasant work too as the crimes reported are truly horrendous and disgusting. A recent and quite typical story concerned a disabled White man, Thys Henzen, 43, who was arrested on a trumped up charge, beaten by Black police, and then savagely sodomized by Black prisoners in the police cells, something that is not uncommon and which has been likened to a "war crimes pattern."

His ordeal started on 29 January 2012: he was roughly arrested that evening inside his own home, brutally assaulted, thrown into the police vehicle despite his physical frailty - and a few hours later the totally helpless Afrikaner man was dragged from his wheelchair inside the SAPS-cells—and raped with considerable violence by a black detainee: one man had held a blanket over his mouth while another sodomised him. He has been examined and given a first round of antiretroviral medicine to prevent AIDS-transfer. However—he cannot afford the entire course of medicines he would need to make sure he won’t end up with AIDS after his ordeal.  

Boer Genocide’s title works like a question, positing the end of an unfinished story: Boer Genocide…question mark! With an increasing number of Whites excluded from the job market and reduced to poverty by the government's blatantly racist employment policies, and with thousands of rural Whites murdered on their isolated homesteads, the answer to this question looks increasingly obvious.

But why should Whites even be in a position where we are forced to consider such a possibility? The White race is history's victor. We conquered Africa and the Africans on the sheer merit of the superiority of our race, culture, and society, and in a land that was largely going to waste we built an affluent and modern society capable not only of supporting a large number of our own people but also a vastly larger number of Blacks than would otherwise have been able to survive there. Of course, Black labour helped, but if that hadn’t been there, we would have imported White, Indian, or Chinese labour and have done the job anyway.

Rather than asking about White genocide, it surely makes more sense by any objective standards of utility, morality, or progress, to ask whether there should be such a thing as Black genocide.

This is not just a tit-for-tat idea either. In the changing nature of the New South Africa, which is still essentially a collection of White-created-and-maintained institutions being gradually but inexorably Africanized – i.e. corrupted, ground down, and barbarized—we see the true nature of the society that will emanate from the continuing exaltation of the Black man; a world of savagery, disease, and death, replenished by a wild, thoughtless fertility; a world that will set no store on the higher values that have characterized the civilizations created by other races.

Although there are doubtless many South African Blacks who behave in ways that we could call decent, we have to wonder how much of this is real and not affected, when savagery of the worst possible kind seems to constantly lurk under the surface in even the most banal of situations.

No doubt Lloyd Doksande and Fanie Msiza could have been passed off by liberal apologists as examples of the decent, modern Black South African, content to rise up in the new South Africa by his merits and labour, but that was before the two workers at a Wimpy restaurant in Kempton Park decided to murder their young White manager, Lambert Theron, 21, after he refused to let them 'borrow' money from the till. This murder seeps with a savagery and genocidal hatred as so many crimes against Whites do. Once the attack commenced, the purely financial motive clearly took a back seat to sheer race hatred as the two men stabbed Theron at least 30 times, kicked in his teeth, cut off his lips, and crushed his head with a meat hammer.

The basic habits, ideas, and practices that help civilization to survive and prosper in other parts of the world seem largely absent among large elements of South Africa's Black population, and it seems that it is only a matter of time before the country sinks to the level of poverty and savagery endemic in most of the rest of Africa and places like Haiti and Detroit. If this is the case, then, rather than the question of White Genocide, shouldn't the debate really be focused on whether Black Genocide is something worth considering?

Rather than getting bogged down in specific, emotionally-wrought cases like the brutal sodomization of a disabled man or the savage killing and mutilation of an honest, young manager, we really should consider the bigger picture. As we know, the world is becoming increasingly over-populated, while at the same time vital resources are being rapidly depleted. The world will be unable to support much of its future projected population growth. In fact we are probably heading for a great 'die off' in which hundreds of millions of our kind will cease to be.

With Europeans and some Asians having much less children, most of the population growth leading to this future crisis is projected to come from Africans. This is the race that history and the present example of South Africa proves is least able to take care of itself; a race that has contributed almost nothing to the pool of civilization and which even shows little inclination to stay within the bounds of that civilization; a race that also seems to harbor a potent inferiority complex and savage hatred towards the creators of that civilization; and a race that votes to keep the ANC in power, the very party that helps power their increasingly genocidal attitude towards Whites.

Maybe it’s unfair to tar every Black in South Africa with the genocidal tar brush, but the support the majority have given to the ANC at least allows a reasonable case to be made for the kind of collective racial guilt that also serves as the basis of the ANC’s efforts to pull Whites down to the level where they can be raped, sodomized, murdered and mutilated."

 

And yet constantly, whenever "extremist" like this pop up, I'm told to "just ignore it" because "they don't represent the people anymore, the vast majority of America isn't racist anymore, there's no more problems with racism". Either I get a "everything is equal now" or "Blacks now have it better than whites, racism has ben reversed" or even "we need to address that blacks are statistically more evil". 

But I'm told to just ignore it? Spare me. 

 

[Tani Coyote]

https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49

The gaslighting of our world continues.

Trump apparently threatened to invade Mexico in a phone call with the Mexican President, based on a leaked transcript obtained on the basis of anonymity. Trump's motive was Mexico failing to control "bad hombres," though it wasn't specified who this referred to.

Both governments deny this happened, but the transcript has been published on both sides of the border by different media outlets.

It's a scary world where we increasingly have to decide whether we trust the media or the government more every single day. It's even scarier that we can't just handwave stuff like this by default, since Trump has given us no reason to think he's too knowledgeable in politics to threaten war so callously.

Update: Even Fox News is reporting on it. This is the real test of America's will: even the right-wing outlet is reporting on something potentially damaging to Trump. Are they going to be declared "fake news" as well?

[nintega137]

2 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49

The gaslighting of our world continues.

Trump apparently threatened to invade Mexico in a phone call with the Mexican President, based on a leaked transcript obtained on the basis of anonymity. Trump's motive was Mexico failing to control "bad hombres," though it wasn't specified who this referred to.

Both governments deny this happened, but the transcript has been published on both sides of the border by different media outlets.

It's a scary world where we increasingly have to decide whether we trust the media or the government more every single day. It's even scarier that we can't just handwave stuff like this by default, since Trump has given us no reason to think he's too knowledgeable in politics to threaten war so callously.

Update: Even Fox News is reporting on it. This is the real test of America's will: even the right-wing outlet is reporting on something potentially damaging to Trump. Are they going to be declared "fake news" as well?

2

I'd honestly be surprised if they were declared as "fake news" (even if it's true) because last time I checked, Fox News is one of the highest rated and most watched news channel in the country if not the most, and is also among the most trusted news sources in the country by Americans.