Upload
Login or register

carlonord

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:7/30/2012
Stats
Content Ranking:#2574
Comment Ranking:#120
Highest Content Rank:#840
Highest Comment Rank:#119
Content Thumbs: 1977 total,  2222 ,  245
Comment Thumbs: 36517 total,  39853 ,  3336
Content Level Progress: 11% (11/100)
Level 115 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 8.59% (86/1000)
Level 331 Comments: Practically Famous → Level 332 Comments: Practically Famous
Subscribers:0
Content Views:119083
Times Content Favorited:161 times
Total Comments Made:6382
FJ Points:28483
Favorite Tags: eu (3) | Brexit (2) | germany (2) | terrorism (2)

latest user's comments

#29 - >Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you …  [+] (6 replies) 12/07/2016 on DIEversity +3
#30 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

>Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

>Ben Franklin quotes

>"Writing as, at the time, a loyal subject of the British Empire, Franklin argues that the British should increase their population and power by expanding across the Americas, taking the view that Europe is too crowded."

Little to do with what he believed post-revolution. By the time the United States was formed as an independent nation, his views were much more progressive and he was far older.

As a matter of fact, he was in his mid-80's during the Constitutional Convention and was highly respected even by the people who disagreed with his policies.

#31 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

Are you real?

>You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

When it comes to survival, yes it does.

>Little to do with what he believed post-revolution.

Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
User avatar
#32 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Are you real?
Yes. But your argument is not.
I'm talking about lands on Earth that were inhabited by indigenous people who were gradually wiped out over the past 450 years and now you're talking about another planet. You're really fishing for an argument, aren't you?

>When it comes to survival, yes it does.
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize this was Planet of the Apes here. Next time I see you I'll make sure to knock you out and take your stuff.

>Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
It's heavily implied. That's why in the first fucking section (which you clearly neglected to read) it mentions that this was when he was loyal to the British crown

If his views didn't change, then bringing that point up would have been redundant.

Secondly, any person with actual knowledge on Franklin would know that it isn't redundant at all because his later writings -- and more importantly, his later actions -- were highly indicative that his views had changed.

The Constitutional Convention was in 1787. Those quotes were written more than three decades prior.

As a matter of fact, his home state, Pennsylvania, would become a beacon of pluralism. Along with New York and New Jersey, the Middle Colonies/States became incredibly metropolitan and consisted of Dutch, German, Scots-Irish, English, Native, and other groups.
#33 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.
User avatar
#34 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

>The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

>Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.

Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

>Hitler is rolling in his grave

You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

And I do believe in evil. I think there are people who have good intentions and those who have bad intentions. Maybe you got screwed over by someone somewhere in your life. With each and every post you make, it seems like you're revealing some hidden anguish. I don't claim to be some kind of e-psychiatrist but if that's the case then I feel bad for you. I really do. And you need to go out more and experience the world for yourself. Enjoy life and make your own conclusions instead of regurgitating whatever some /pol/ boy says.
You take care of yourself now, kay?
#35 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

I'd agree with you if your arguments corresponded to mine. They seem a bit disconnected.

>I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

Who's Flynn? I use simple observation and statistical trends. I'll be honest, I'm not the smartest fellow, I merely work with what I see in front of me. At the end of the day my goal is simple, halt immigration, return my kind to vast majority, everyone else can go do whatever the hell they want in their own countries.

>Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

This does not make sense in relation to what you're responding to. I was not doubting his influence, that's why I cited him.

>You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

Hitler did not cause World War 2, it was going to happen with or without him. It would've been Russia vs Europe or some other combo, but it would've happened. I argue he merely saw an opportunity and took it. I do not agree with the holocaust, I do not agree with fascism, I do however agree with preservation of a people and the importance of a strong sense of identity and fellowship in a group.

If I've got hidden anguish, its only in that I seem to be losing my country and entire race to loonies who think that everyone is the same and the endless legions of people they allow in, and it boggles my mind how they could be so suicidal. But I doubt you care far enough in the future. You'd argue that you wouldn't care if everyone was as black as night, because that's what might happen if this shit doesn't stop. Black homeland is full of idiots who do nothing but churn out kids, they'll simply out populate everyone, and those who refuse to defend themselves will be wiped off the evolutionary table. What was the point of all those changes after we left Africa if we're just going to throw them away? It's not a matter of superiority, its a matter of I like who I am, and don't want to go extinct.
#27 - > No. We wuz kangz implies that you are taking credit for t…  [+] (9 replies) 12/07/2016 on DIEversity +3
User avatar
#28 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Genetics called, lol.
Edgy as fuck.

>Then no one is native to anywhere except Africa. If we went ahead and colonized Mars, how long until we had native Martians? According to you never.

Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you the one trying to establish ethnic divisions and the "keep in your own domain" policies? What happened?


>You're right, I wouldn't accept that, because Indians did not found Britain, Brits founded Britain. Its a bit more difficult with North America, but I'm content with just saying Europeans in general, at least until we evolve into our own ethnic group assuming we aren't wiped out from immigration. Though funnily enough America was founded specifically for white people as per Ben Franklin, he'd be rolling in his grave for sure.

1) America was founded by whites, natives, and blacks initially, and then became much more open later on with increased globalization. As early as the 1800's, you had Chinese immigrants on the West Coast building one of the most important railway tracks in the U.S. And of course, you have African slaves who actually did the manual labor.

2) Benjamin Franklin was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time. He was also one of the most outspoken abolitionists of his time as well. You literally have zero knowledge on anything. Don't think I'll just accept your argument just because you ended it with "I bet ____ is rolling in his grave now." At least know what you're talking about first. A better example of your point would have been Pierce Butler, who was an outspoken slavery advocate and white supremacist during the early days of America. And I hope he's rolling in his grave. I also hope he suffers. He was not a moral man.
#37 - anon (22 hours ago) [-]
Which of the founding fathers were black? How can you say America is not a white country when White people founded it? If you think the founders held racial egalitarian view you are sorely mistaken, see the article below.

Furthermore, being opposed to slavery does NOT mean support of Black citizenship or even Black residency. Jefferson hoped that when slavery was abolished all the Blacks would live elsewhere. Ben Franklin even said he didn't want an increase of Blacks in America.

Read this article and check the sources if you don't believe it, but don't just pull shit out of your ass.
www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race#fnref:11
#29 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you the one trying to establish ethnic divisions and the "keep in your own domain" policies? What happened?

Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

>America was founded by whites, natives, and blacks initially, and then became much more open later on with increased globalization. As early as the 1800's, you had Chinese immigrants on the West Coast building one of the most important railway tracks in the U.S. And of course, you have African slaves who actually did the manual labor.

Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

>Benjamin Franklin was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time. He was also one of the most outspoken abolitionists of his time as well. You literally have zero knowledge on anything. Don't think I'll just accept your argument just because you ended it with "I bet ____ is rolling in his grave now." At least know what you're talking about first. A better example of your point would have been Pierce Butler, who was an outspoken slavery advocate and white supremacist during the early days of America. And I hope he's rolling in his grave. I also hope he suffers. He was not a moral man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_Concerning_the_Increase_of_Mankind,_Peopling_of_Countries,_etc.

Here's some quotes:

All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

Gordon S. Wood and others note that Franklin viewed this kind of bias as universal. He ends this section with "But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind."

Franklin was alarmed by the influx of German immigrants to Pennsylvania. The German immigrants were lacking in a liberal political tradition, the English language, and English culture. Franklin wrote "why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?"

Franklin favored immigration of Anglo-Saxons, a view condemned as racist in recent literature.

I like this quote best: "But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind."

It feels natural, and was natural for thousands of years until people decided to forsake basic group preservation and genetics.
#30 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

>Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

>Ben Franklin quotes

>"Writing as, at the time, a loyal subject of the British Empire, Franklin argues that the British should increase their population and power by expanding across the Americas, taking the view that Europe is too crowded."

Little to do with what he believed post-revolution. By the time the United States was formed as an independent nation, his views were much more progressive and he was far older.

As a matter of fact, he was in his mid-80's during the Constitutional Convention and was highly respected even by the people who disagreed with his policies.

#31 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

Are you real?

>You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

When it comes to survival, yes it does.

>Little to do with what he believed post-revolution.

Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
User avatar
#32 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Are you real?
Yes. But your argument is not.
I'm talking about lands on Earth that were inhabited by indigenous people who were gradually wiped out over the past 450 years and now you're talking about another planet. You're really fishing for an argument, aren't you?

>When it comes to survival, yes it does.
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize this was Planet of the Apes here. Next time I see you I'll make sure to knock you out and take your stuff.

>Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
It's heavily implied. That's why in the first fucking section (which you clearly neglected to read) it mentions that this was when he was loyal to the British crown

If his views didn't change, then bringing that point up would have been redundant.

Secondly, any person with actual knowledge on Franklin would know that it isn't redundant at all because his later writings -- and more importantly, his later actions -- were highly indicative that his views had changed.

The Constitutional Convention was in 1787. Those quotes were written more than three decades prior.

As a matter of fact, his home state, Pennsylvania, would become a beacon of pluralism. Along with New York and New Jersey, the Middle Colonies/States became incredibly metropolitan and consisted of Dutch, German, Scots-Irish, English, Native, and other groups.
#33 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.
User avatar
#34 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

>The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

>Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.

Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

>Hitler is rolling in his grave

You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

And I do believe in evil. I think there are people who have good intentions and those who have bad intentions. Maybe you got screwed over by someone somewhere in your life. With each and every post you make, it seems like you're revealing some hidden anguish. I don't claim to be some kind of e-psychiatrist but if that's the case then I feel bad for you. I really do. And you need to go out more and experience the world for yourself. Enjoy life and make your own conclusions instead of regurgitating whatever some /pol/ boy says.
You take care of yourself now, kay?
#35 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

I'd agree with you if your arguments corresponded to mine. They seem a bit disconnected.

>I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

Who's Flynn? I use simple observation and statistical trends. I'll be honest, I'm not the smartest fellow, I merely work with what I see in front of me. At the end of the day my goal is simple, halt immigration, return my kind to vast majority, everyone else can go do whatever the hell they want in their own countries.

>Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

This does not make sense in relation to what you're responding to. I was not doubting his influence, that's why I cited him.

>You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

Hitler did not cause World War 2, it was going to happen with or without him. It would've been Russia vs Europe or some other combo, but it would've happened. I argue he merely saw an opportunity and took it. I do not agree with the holocaust, I do not agree with fascism, I do however agree with preservation of a people and the importance of a strong sense of identity and fellowship in a group.

If I've got hidden anguish, its only in that I seem to be losing my country and entire race to loonies who think that everyone is the same and the endless legions of people they allow in, and it boggles my mind how they could be so suicidal. But I doubt you care far enough in the future. You'd argue that you wouldn't care if everyone was as black as night, because that's what might happen if this shit doesn't stop. Black homeland is full of idiots who do nothing but churn out kids, they'll simply out populate everyone, and those who refuse to defend themselves will be wiped off the evolutionary table. What was the point of all those changes after we left Africa if we're just going to throw them away? It's not a matter of superiority, its a matter of I like who I am, and don't want to go extinct.
#25 - The Natives do stick to themselves, you'll hardly see them off…  [+] (11 replies) 12/07/2016 on DIEversity +3
User avatar
#26 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Ahahahahahaha

"Yeah man we dindu nuffin. whities wuz a gud boi"

>You silly tart, I live here, you think I don't know my own country?

Apparently not.

>We wuz kangs implies I was making myself out to be superior, I'm not. If that were the case I'd be wrong because Asians are far smarter on average and currently have fantastic countries, except the southern ones, but they're essentially the Balkans.

No. We wuz kangz implies that you are taking credit for the actions of your ancestors. Which is retarded.

>At what point do I stop being an immigrant and become a native occupant? I figure its right around the time the country is founded, maybe one generation passed that. I've been here for at least 4 generations

There is no point. You're not a native of the land. You're a native CANADIAN but that's because of the institution known as "Canada" (the country, not the land).

Basically

Native to Canada as a country? Sure
Native to North America? Absolutely not. Because by your logic, some 4th generation Indian living in Britain is a native British person. And I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as being true, would you?

#27 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
> No. We wuz kangz implies that you are taking credit for the actions of your ancestors. Which is retarded.

Genetics called, lol.

>There is no point. You're not a native of the land. You're a native CANADIAN but that's because of the institution known as "Canada" (the country, not the land).

Then no one is native to anywhere except Africa. If we went ahead and colonized Mars, how long until we had native Martians? According to you never.

> Native to North America? Absolutely not. Because by your logic, some 4th generation Indian living in Britain is a native British person. And I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as being true, would you?

You're right, I wouldn't accept that, because Indians did not found Britain, Brits founded Britain. Its a bit more difficult with North America, but I'm content with just saying Europeans in general, at least until we evolve into our own ethnic group assuming we aren't wiped out from immigration. Though funnily enough America was founded specifically for white people as per Ben Franklin, he'd be rolling in his grave for sure.
User avatar
#28 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Genetics called, lol.
Edgy as fuck.

>Then no one is native to anywhere except Africa. If we went ahead and colonized Mars, how long until we had native Martians? According to you never.

Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you the one trying to establish ethnic divisions and the "keep in your own domain" policies? What happened?


>You're right, I wouldn't accept that, because Indians did not found Britain, Brits founded Britain. Its a bit more difficult with North America, but I'm content with just saying Europeans in general, at least until we evolve into our own ethnic group assuming we aren't wiped out from immigration. Though funnily enough America was founded specifically for white people as per Ben Franklin, he'd be rolling in his grave for sure.

1) America was founded by whites, natives, and blacks initially, and then became much more open later on with increased globalization. As early as the 1800's, you had Chinese immigrants on the West Coast building one of the most important railway tracks in the U.S. And of course, you have African slaves who actually did the manual labor.

2) Benjamin Franklin was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time. He was also one of the most outspoken abolitionists of his time as well. You literally have zero knowledge on anything. Don't think I'll just accept your argument just because you ended it with "I bet ____ is rolling in his grave now." At least know what you're talking about first. A better example of your point would have been Pierce Butler, who was an outspoken slavery advocate and white supremacist during the early days of America. And I hope he's rolling in his grave. I also hope he suffers. He was not a moral man.
#37 - anon (22 hours ago) [-]
Which of the founding fathers were black? How can you say America is not a white country when White people founded it? If you think the founders held racial egalitarian view you are sorely mistaken, see the article below.

Furthermore, being opposed to slavery does NOT mean support of Black citizenship or even Black residency. Jefferson hoped that when slavery was abolished all the Blacks would live elsewhere. Ben Franklin even said he didn't want an increase of Blacks in America.

Read this article and check the sources if you don't believe it, but don't just pull shit out of your ass.
www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race#fnref:11
#29 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you the one trying to establish ethnic divisions and the "keep in your own domain" policies? What happened?

Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

>America was founded by whites, natives, and blacks initially, and then became much more open later on with increased globalization. As early as the 1800's, you had Chinese immigrants on the West Coast building one of the most important railway tracks in the U.S. And of course, you have African slaves who actually did the manual labor.

Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

>Benjamin Franklin was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time. He was also one of the most outspoken abolitionists of his time as well. You literally have zero knowledge on anything. Don't think I'll just accept your argument just because you ended it with "I bet ____ is rolling in his grave now." At least know what you're talking about first. A better example of your point would have been Pierce Butler, who was an outspoken slavery advocate and white supremacist during the early days of America. And I hope he's rolling in his grave. I also hope he suffers. He was not a moral man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_Concerning_the_Increase_of_Mankind,_Peopling_of_Countries,_etc.

Here's some quotes:

All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

Gordon S. Wood and others note that Franklin viewed this kind of bias as universal. He ends this section with "But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind."

Franklin was alarmed by the influx of German immigrants to Pennsylvania. The German immigrants were lacking in a liberal political tradition, the English language, and English culture. Franklin wrote "why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?"

Franklin favored immigration of Anglo-Saxons, a view condemned as racist in recent literature.

I like this quote best: "But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind."

It feels natural, and was natural for thousands of years until people decided to forsake basic group preservation and genetics.
#30 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

>Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

>Ben Franklin quotes

>"Writing as, at the time, a loyal subject of the British Empire, Franklin argues that the British should increase their population and power by expanding across the Americas, taking the view that Europe is too crowded."

Little to do with what he believed post-revolution. By the time the United States was formed as an independent nation, his views were much more progressive and he was far older.

As a matter of fact, he was in his mid-80's during the Constitutional Convention and was highly respected even by the people who disagreed with his policies.

#31 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

Are you real?

>You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

When it comes to survival, yes it does.

>Little to do with what he believed post-revolution.

Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
User avatar
#32 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Are you real?
Yes. But your argument is not.
I'm talking about lands on Earth that were inhabited by indigenous people who were gradually wiped out over the past 450 years and now you're talking about another planet. You're really fishing for an argument, aren't you?

>When it comes to survival, yes it does.
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize this was Planet of the Apes here. Next time I see you I'll make sure to knock you out and take your stuff.

>Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
It's heavily implied. That's why in the first fucking section (which you clearly neglected to read) it mentions that this was when he was loyal to the British crown

If his views didn't change, then bringing that point up would have been redundant.

Secondly, any person with actual knowledge on Franklin would know that it isn't redundant at all because his later writings -- and more importantly, his later actions -- were highly indicative that his views had changed.

The Constitutional Convention was in 1787. Those quotes were written more than three decades prior.

As a matter of fact, his home state, Pennsylvania, would become a beacon of pluralism. Along with New York and New Jersey, the Middle Colonies/States became incredibly metropolitan and consisted of Dutch, German, Scots-Irish, English, Native, and other groups.
#33 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.
User avatar
#34 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

>The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

>Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.

Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

>Hitler is rolling in his grave

You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

And I do believe in evil. I think there are people who have good intentions and those who have bad intentions. Maybe you got screwed over by someone somewhere in your life. With each and every post you make, it seems like you're revealing some hidden anguish. I don't claim to be some kind of e-psychiatrist but if that's the case then I feel bad for you. I really do. And you need to go out more and experience the world for yourself. Enjoy life and make your own conclusions instead of regurgitating whatever some /pol/ boy says.
You take care of yourself now, kay?
#35 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

I'd agree with you if your arguments corresponded to mine. They seem a bit disconnected.

>I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

Who's Flynn? I use simple observation and statistical trends. I'll be honest, I'm not the smartest fellow, I merely work with what I see in front of me. At the end of the day my goal is simple, halt immigration, return my kind to vast majority, everyone else can go do whatever the hell they want in their own countries.

>Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

This does not make sense in relation to what you're responding to. I was not doubting his influence, that's why I cited him.

>You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

Hitler did not cause World War 2, it was going to happen with or without him. It would've been Russia vs Europe or some other combo, but it would've happened. I argue he merely saw an opportunity and took it. I do not agree with the holocaust, I do not agree with fascism, I do however agree with preservation of a people and the importance of a strong sense of identity and fellowship in a group.

If I've got hidden anguish, its only in that I seem to be losing my country and entire race to loonies who think that everyone is the same and the endless legions of people they allow in, and it boggles my mind how they could be so suicidal. But I doubt you care far enough in the future. You'd argue that you wouldn't care if everyone was as black as night, because that's what might happen if this shit doesn't stop. Black homeland is full of idiots who do nothing but churn out kids, they'll simply out populate everyone, and those who refuse to defend themselves will be wiped off the evolutionary table. What was the point of all those changes after we left Africa if we're just going to throw them away? It's not a matter of superiority, its a matter of I like who I am, and don't want to go extinct.
#12 - I remember when I finally finished that mission with my …  [+] (5 replies) 12/07/2016 on Anons reccomend games +11
#30 - mewiol (12/07/2016) [-]
I remember when I got the Recon armor

I had a friend who was always salty when he saw me wearing it because he could never get that Vidmaster challenge in ODST where you had to make it to the 4th wave in round 4 in Firefight on Heroic. I was in a game with him when we were just a few baddies short of getting the achievement and then some dipshit quit because "he didn't feel like playing anymore"

I miss those carefree days
#44 - daviyo (12/07/2016) [-]
that's still a shit stain on my list of archievements......
User avatar
#38 - civilizedwasteland (12/07/2016) [-]
i remember i had to go eat dinner and when i came back we were on one of the final sets and everyone was dead so i had to clutch it.
User avatar
#32 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
I spent almost 5 hours just trying to get the ghost vidmaster challenge in halo 3, it was grueling but it was so worth it. I miss that game so much, the new halos lack the charm, I feel like the graphics are excessive and it all looks so serious.
User avatar
#39 - severepwner (12/07/2016) [-]
It's because the newer Halos lack Marty O'Donnels distinctive Halo music, and they also lack Bungie's brilliant game design. The environments from Halo 4 onward just don't feel unique, memorable. They're very linear and forgettable like most shooters. These are the things that make Halo's charm.

And possibly going to something Halo related, like a ring or the ark. But Halo Reach was still fantastic regardless, probably because Planet Reach was special.
#11 - Actually, it is the same thing, because it was founded by us m…  [+] (13 replies) 12/07/2016 on DIEversity +3
User avatar
#15 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>natives stick to themselves

I'd stick to myself too if I knew what whites did to my people. You're still wrong on everything you've said, btw. I've been to Canada. I've seen people from all backgrounds living together, working together, etc. They all identify as Canadian.

And please stop with this edgy "WE WUZ KANGS" shit. You didn't do jack, mate. You're a descendant of immigrants just as much as anyone else born in Canada is.
#25 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
The Natives do stick to themselves, you'll hardly see them off the reserves, and when you do its cause there's a reserve nearby.

> I'd stick to myself too if I knew what whites did to my people.

Ahahahahahaha

> You're still wrong on everything you've said, btw. I've been to Canada. I've seen people from all backgrounds living together, working together, etc. They all identify as Canadian.

You silly tart, I live here, you think I don't know my own country?

>And please stop with this edgy "WE WUZ KANGS" shit. You didn't do jack, mate.

We wuz kangs implies I was making myself out to be superior, I'm not. If that were the case I'd be wrong because Asians are far smarter on average and currently have fantastic countries, except the southern ones, but they're essentially the Balkans.

>You're a descendant of immigrants just as much as anyone else born in Canada is.

At what point do I stop being an immigrant and become a native occupant? I figure its right around the time the country is founded, maybe one generation passed that. I've been here for at least 4 generations.

But you've got me, I forgot you're a troll like tito, nice bait mate.
User avatar
#26 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Ahahahahahaha

"Yeah man we dindu nuffin. whities wuz a gud boi"

>You silly tart, I live here, you think I don't know my own country?

Apparently not.

>We wuz kangs implies I was making myself out to be superior, I'm not. If that were the case I'd be wrong because Asians are far smarter on average and currently have fantastic countries, except the southern ones, but they're essentially the Balkans.

No. We wuz kangz implies that you are taking credit for the actions of your ancestors. Which is retarded.

>At what point do I stop being an immigrant and become a native occupant? I figure its right around the time the country is founded, maybe one generation passed that. I've been here for at least 4 generations

There is no point. You're not a native of the land. You're a native CANADIAN but that's because of the institution known as "Canada" (the country, not the land).

Basically

Native to Canada as a country? Sure
Native to North America? Absolutely not. Because by your logic, some 4th generation Indian living in Britain is a native British person. And I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as being true, would you?

#27 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
> No. We wuz kangz implies that you are taking credit for the actions of your ancestors. Which is retarded.

Genetics called, lol.

>There is no point. You're not a native of the land. You're a native CANADIAN but that's because of the institution known as "Canada" (the country, not the land).

Then no one is native to anywhere except Africa. If we went ahead and colonized Mars, how long until we had native Martians? According to you never.

> Native to North America? Absolutely not. Because by your logic, some 4th generation Indian living in Britain is a native British person. And I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as being true, would you?

You're right, I wouldn't accept that, because Indians did not found Britain, Brits founded Britain. Its a bit more difficult with North America, but I'm content with just saying Europeans in general, at least until we evolve into our own ethnic group assuming we aren't wiped out from immigration. Though funnily enough America was founded specifically for white people as per Ben Franklin, he'd be rolling in his grave for sure.
User avatar
#28 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Genetics called, lol.
Edgy as fuck.

>Then no one is native to anywhere except Africa. If we went ahead and colonized Mars, how long until we had native Martians? According to you never.

Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you the one trying to establish ethnic divisions and the "keep in your own domain" policies? What happened?


>You're right, I wouldn't accept that, because Indians did not found Britain, Brits founded Britain. Its a bit more difficult with North America, but I'm content with just saying Europeans in general, at least until we evolve into our own ethnic group assuming we aren't wiped out from immigration. Though funnily enough America was founded specifically for white people as per Ben Franklin, he'd be rolling in his grave for sure.

1) America was founded by whites, natives, and blacks initially, and then became much more open later on with increased globalization. As early as the 1800's, you had Chinese immigrants on the West Coast building one of the most important railway tracks in the U.S. And of course, you have African slaves who actually did the manual labor.

2) Benjamin Franklin was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time. He was also one of the most outspoken abolitionists of his time as well. You literally have zero knowledge on anything. Don't think I'll just accept your argument just because you ended it with "I bet ____ is rolling in his grave now." At least know what you're talking about first. A better example of your point would have been Pierce Butler, who was an outspoken slavery advocate and white supremacist during the early days of America. And I hope he's rolling in his grave. I also hope he suffers. He was not a moral man.
#37 - anon (22 hours ago) [-]
Which of the founding fathers were black? How can you say America is not a white country when White people founded it? If you think the founders held racial egalitarian view you are sorely mistaken, see the article below.

Furthermore, being opposed to slavery does NOT mean support of Black citizenship or even Black residency. Jefferson hoped that when slavery was abolished all the Blacks would live elsewhere. Ben Franklin even said he didn't want an increase of Blacks in America.

Read this article and check the sources if you don't believe it, but don't just pull shit out of your ass.
www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race#fnref:11
#29 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you the one trying to establish ethnic divisions and the "keep in your own domain" policies? What happened?

Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

>America was founded by whites, natives, and blacks initially, and then became much more open later on with increased globalization. As early as the 1800's, you had Chinese immigrants on the West Coast building one of the most important railway tracks in the U.S. And of course, you have African slaves who actually did the manual labor.

Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

>Benjamin Franklin was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time. He was also one of the most outspoken abolitionists of his time as well. You literally have zero knowledge on anything. Don't think I'll just accept your argument just because you ended it with "I bet ____ is rolling in his grave now." At least know what you're talking about first. A better example of your point would have been Pierce Butler, who was an outspoken slavery advocate and white supremacist during the early days of America. And I hope he's rolling in his grave. I also hope he suffers. He was not a moral man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_Concerning_the_Increase_of_Mankind,_Peopling_of_Countries,_etc.

Here's some quotes:

All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

Gordon S. Wood and others note that Franklin viewed this kind of bias as universal. He ends this section with "But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind."

Franklin was alarmed by the influx of German immigrants to Pennsylvania. The German immigrants were lacking in a liberal political tradition, the English language, and English culture. Franklin wrote "why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?"

Franklin favored immigration of Anglo-Saxons, a view condemned as racist in recent literature.

I like this quote best: "But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind."

It feels natural, and was natural for thousands of years until people decided to forsake basic group preservation and genetics.
#30 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

>Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

>Ben Franklin quotes

>"Writing as, at the time, a loyal subject of the British Empire, Franklin argues that the British should increase their population and power by expanding across the Americas, taking the view that Europe is too crowded."

Little to do with what he believed post-revolution. By the time the United States was formed as an independent nation, his views were much more progressive and he was far older.

As a matter of fact, he was in his mid-80's during the Constitutional Convention and was highly respected even by the people who disagreed with his policies.

#31 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

Are you real?

>You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

When it comes to survival, yes it does.

>Little to do with what he believed post-revolution.

Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
User avatar
#32 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Are you real?
Yes. But your argument is not.
I'm talking about lands on Earth that were inhabited by indigenous people who were gradually wiped out over the past 450 years and now you're talking about another planet. You're really fishing for an argument, aren't you?

>When it comes to survival, yes it does.
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize this was Planet of the Apes here. Next time I see you I'll make sure to knock you out and take your stuff.

>Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
It's heavily implied. That's why in the first fucking section (which you clearly neglected to read) it mentions that this was when he was loyal to the British crown

If his views didn't change, then bringing that point up would have been redundant.

Secondly, any person with actual knowledge on Franklin would know that it isn't redundant at all because his later writings -- and more importantly, his later actions -- were highly indicative that his views had changed.

The Constitutional Convention was in 1787. Those quotes were written more than three decades prior.

As a matter of fact, his home state, Pennsylvania, would become a beacon of pluralism. Along with New York and New Jersey, the Middle Colonies/States became incredibly metropolitan and consisted of Dutch, German, Scots-Irish, English, Native, and other groups.
#33 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.
User avatar
#34 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

>The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

>Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.

Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

>Hitler is rolling in his grave

You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

And I do believe in evil. I think there are people who have good intentions and those who have bad intentions. Maybe you got screwed over by someone somewhere in your life. With each and every post you make, it seems like you're revealing some hidden anguish. I don't claim to be some kind of e-psychiatrist but if that's the case then I feel bad for you. I really do. And you need to go out more and experience the world for yourself. Enjoy life and make your own conclusions instead of regurgitating whatever some /pol/ boy says.
You take care of yourself now, kay?
#35 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

I'd agree with you if your arguments corresponded to mine. They seem a bit disconnected.

>I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

Who's Flynn? I use simple observation and statistical trends. I'll be honest, I'm not the smartest fellow, I merely work with what I see in front of me. At the end of the day my goal is simple, halt immigration, return my kind to vast majority, everyone else can go do whatever the hell they want in their own countries.

>Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

This does not make sense in relation to what you're responding to. I was not doubting his influence, that's why I cited him.

>You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

Hitler did not cause World War 2, it was going to happen with or without him. It would've been Russia vs Europe or some other combo, but it would've happened. I argue he merely saw an opportunity and took it. I do not agree with the holocaust, I do not agree with fascism, I do however agree with preservation of a people and the importance of a strong sense of identity and fellowship in a group.

If I've got hidden anguish, its only in that I seem to be losing my country and entire race to loonies who think that everyone is the same and the endless legions of people they allow in, and it boggles my mind how they could be so suicidal. But I doubt you care far enough in the future. You'd argue that you wouldn't care if everyone was as black as night, because that's what might happen if this shit doesn't stop. Black homeland is full of idiots who do nothing but churn out kids, they'll simply out populate everyone, and those who refuse to defend themselves will be wiped off the evolutionary table. What was the point of all those changes after we left Africa if we're just going to throw them away? It's not a matter of superiority, its a matter of I like who I am, and don't want to go extinct.
#8 - >Founded by Europeans >Filled with Europeans >…  [+] (28 replies) 12/07/2016 on DIEversity +9
User avatar
#9 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
False equivalency at its finest.

You're trying to compare ethnic British people to Canadians. Being a Canadian/American is not the same as being white. You can be equally both as whatever ethnicity because the native peoples of the land were wiped out long ago or have been reduced to a very small fraction of their original population.
User avatar
#12 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
Indeed that is an unfortunate thing that has happened in north america. I wish It didn't honestly since again a country should be for its native group. However we need to prevent the same sort of thing befalling Europe on the old world. Preserving multiculturalism means preserving those who make it a possibility.
User avatar
#13 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
It may come as a surprise to you that Canada is not in the Old World. :^)

If you wanna establish retarded ethnic restrictions, then fine. Do it in Britain, France, or any other Old World country. But don't try to pretend that Canada is your native land when it isn't. I don't have to explain the history to you.
User avatar
#40 - stabatron (15 hours ago) [-]
SHUT THE FUCK UP. autistic babbling
User avatar
#14 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
again I didn't say that... I just do not mention the native american and aboriginal thing because it is already in a too far gone to salvage state.
User avatar
#16 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
I just brought up the natives for obvious reasons.
Like I said, the Old World is different because there are actually indigenous people in their own countries for the most part.
On the other hand, the indigenous people of the Americas have largely been wiped out, and the vast majority of people living in Canada, Argentina, the U.S, Brazil, etc. are all from the Old World.
User avatar
#17 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
Yes and I think its unfortunate that has happened, I wasn't advocating for preserving canada or america's current status as it is not the native people and has become an irreversible state by now. I say old world because while i would say just the world in general it seems that here things are too far gone to fix. regardless you do not need to explain history to me as i'm already well versed in it, this is mostly just advocating for preserving what countries still have majority native peoples are still within this status.
User avatar
#18 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
I disagree. I think this whole conservatism thing is not gonna work out.

As travel becomes more accessible and less costly, people are bound to move around. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. That's just how things are gonna go.

I think countries should reserve the right to establish difficult immigration laws (such as Japan's) but I don't think it's necessary to live in a retarded cookie-cutter world. That's not how things work, especially not today.

Not everyone is defined by race.
User avatar
#19 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
Never said people were defined by race but cultures belong to specific ethnic groups. These are what I wish to preserve. Also another note, believe it or not I am not a conservative I'm just rather pro conservation of the cultures. Also small amounts of immigration is fine, that's the way it has been up until now. People are not defined by their race but cultures are to an extent, labels such as white, black, asian, middle eastern, aboriginal are just broad terms to describe relative ethnic groups. The reason the alt right says white genocide is because the efforts of population cultivating are mainly aimed against European peoples. While having absolute restrictions on immigration is also not the way to go, we should make some relatively good attempt to preserve the ethnic cultures which involves preserving the native peoples and making sure that immigrants assimilate to the nation's culture. Currently with the current crisis this is not happening and with the abysmal behavior we are seeing most of these people should probably be deported. Don't get me wrong there are genuinely good people arriving too but for the most part what is being imported threatens them via fundamentalist islamic intolerance for different interpretations or non believers.
User avatar
#20 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
It is up to the countries themselves to decide what the immigration process will be like. And obviously, they should take great precaution when importing immigrants, particularly from war-torn countries.

I don't particularly buy the whole "white genocide" thing, by the way. So far I haven't really seen anything that is preventing white people from being themselves. The way I see it, it's just an excuse for closet racists to come out and marginalize minorities and other people who don't share their viewpoints.
User avatar
#21 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
Yes I am hoping that countries will be smart about it, we do not have any guarantees though. The whole white genocide thing is indeed probably being used as an excuse for bad behavior however what I said on it was their relative reasoning as to why they think its a thing.
User avatar
#22 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
Well thanks for being the only reasonable person left on this website. Most of us are gone. All you have left are "redpilled" idiots who think shouting "cuck" and "libruhl" is a valid argument. Fucking ridiculous.
User avatar
#23 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
The extreme left has given rise to the extreme right. It is an unfortunate turn of events but we have only the unchecked rhetoric of our own extremists to blame for this.
User avatar
#24 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
Agreed. I've been thinking about it too. It's a shame that whiny idiotic college students have caused this outbreak to happen.

It's hard to tell where this will take us. The closest time something like this has happened was right after 9/11. Then you had two presidencies of an absolutely idiot president and the worst state of America since the 1930's.
I wonder where we'll be in the next four years. Will it rubber-band back into center-left again?
#11 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
Actually, it is the same thing, because it was founded by us mate. Natives are not Canadian, they know this and acknowledge this, they are native first and foremost and we respect that. We actually have a whole other term just to describe the French here, Canadien.

The Natives stick to themselves, the French stick to themselves, the Chinese shouldn't even be here in such numbers but whatever my government wants to drool on about.

You're making this so easy.
User avatar
#15 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>natives stick to themselves

I'd stick to myself too if I knew what whites did to my people. You're still wrong on everything you've said, btw. I've been to Canada. I've seen people from all backgrounds living together, working together, etc. They all identify as Canadian.

And please stop with this edgy "WE WUZ KANGS" shit. You didn't do jack, mate. You're a descendant of immigrants just as much as anyone else born in Canada is.
#25 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
The Natives do stick to themselves, you'll hardly see them off the reserves, and when you do its cause there's a reserve nearby.

> I'd stick to myself too if I knew what whites did to my people.

Ahahahahahaha

> You're still wrong on everything you've said, btw. I've been to Canada. I've seen people from all backgrounds living together, working together, etc. They all identify as Canadian.

You silly tart, I live here, you think I don't know my own country?

>And please stop with this edgy "WE WUZ KANGS" shit. You didn't do jack, mate.

We wuz kangs implies I was making myself out to be superior, I'm not. If that were the case I'd be wrong because Asians are far smarter on average and currently have fantastic countries, except the southern ones, but they're essentially the Balkans.

>You're a descendant of immigrants just as much as anyone else born in Canada is.

At what point do I stop being an immigrant and become a native occupant? I figure its right around the time the country is founded, maybe one generation passed that. I've been here for at least 4 generations.

But you've got me, I forgot you're a troll like tito, nice bait mate.
User avatar
#26 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Ahahahahahaha

"Yeah man we dindu nuffin. whities wuz a gud boi"

>You silly tart, I live here, you think I don't know my own country?

Apparently not.

>We wuz kangs implies I was making myself out to be superior, I'm not. If that were the case I'd be wrong because Asians are far smarter on average and currently have fantastic countries, except the southern ones, but they're essentially the Balkans.

No. We wuz kangz implies that you are taking credit for the actions of your ancestors. Which is retarded.

>At what point do I stop being an immigrant and become a native occupant? I figure its right around the time the country is founded, maybe one generation passed that. I've been here for at least 4 generations

There is no point. You're not a native of the land. You're a native CANADIAN but that's because of the institution known as "Canada" (the country, not the land).

Basically

Native to Canada as a country? Sure
Native to North America? Absolutely not. Because by your logic, some 4th generation Indian living in Britain is a native British person. And I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as being true, would you?

#27 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
> No. We wuz kangz implies that you are taking credit for the actions of your ancestors. Which is retarded.

Genetics called, lol.

>There is no point. You're not a native of the land. You're a native CANADIAN but that's because of the institution known as "Canada" (the country, not the land).

Then no one is native to anywhere except Africa. If we went ahead and colonized Mars, how long until we had native Martians? According to you never.

> Native to North America? Absolutely not. Because by your logic, some 4th generation Indian living in Britain is a native British person. And I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as being true, would you?

You're right, I wouldn't accept that, because Indians did not found Britain, Brits founded Britain. Its a bit more difficult with North America, but I'm content with just saying Europeans in general, at least until we evolve into our own ethnic group assuming we aren't wiped out from immigration. Though funnily enough America was founded specifically for white people as per Ben Franklin, he'd be rolling in his grave for sure.
User avatar
#28 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Genetics called, lol.
Edgy as fuck.

>Then no one is native to anywhere except Africa. If we went ahead and colonized Mars, how long until we had native Martians? According to you never.

Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you the one trying to establish ethnic divisions and the "keep in your own domain" policies? What happened?


>You're right, I wouldn't accept that, because Indians did not found Britain, Brits founded Britain. Its a bit more difficult with North America, but I'm content with just saying Europeans in general, at least until we evolve into our own ethnic group assuming we aren't wiped out from immigration. Though funnily enough America was founded specifically for white people as per Ben Franklin, he'd be rolling in his grave for sure.

1) America was founded by whites, natives, and blacks initially, and then became much more open later on with increased globalization. As early as the 1800's, you had Chinese immigrants on the West Coast building one of the most important railway tracks in the U.S. And of course, you have African slaves who actually did the manual labor.

2) Benjamin Franklin was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time. He was also one of the most outspoken abolitionists of his time as well. You literally have zero knowledge on anything. Don't think I'll just accept your argument just because you ended it with "I bet ____ is rolling in his grave now." At least know what you're talking about first. A better example of your point would have been Pierce Butler, who was an outspoken slavery advocate and white supremacist during the early days of America. And I hope he's rolling in his grave. I also hope he suffers. He was not a moral man.
#37 - anon (22 hours ago) [-]
Which of the founding fathers were black? How can you say America is not a white country when White people founded it? If you think the founders held racial egalitarian view you are sorely mistaken, see the article below.

Furthermore, being opposed to slavery does NOT mean support of Black citizenship or even Black residency. Jefferson hoped that when slavery was abolished all the Blacks would live elsewhere. Ben Franklin even said he didn't want an increase of Blacks in America.

Read this article and check the sources if you don't believe it, but don't just pull shit out of your ass.
www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race#fnref:11
#29 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you the one trying to establish ethnic divisions and the "keep in your own domain" policies? What happened?

Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

>America was founded by whites, natives, and blacks initially, and then became much more open later on with increased globalization. As early as the 1800's, you had Chinese immigrants on the West Coast building one of the most important railway tracks in the U.S. And of course, you have African slaves who actually did the manual labor.

Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

>Benjamin Franklin was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time. He was also one of the most outspoken abolitionists of his time as well. You literally have zero knowledge on anything. Don't think I'll just accept your argument just because you ended it with "I bet ____ is rolling in his grave now." At least know what you're talking about first. A better example of your point would have been Pierce Butler, who was an outspoken slavery advocate and white supremacist during the early days of America. And I hope he's rolling in his grave. I also hope he suffers. He was not a moral man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_Concerning_the_Increase_of_Mankind,_Peopling_of_Countries,_etc.

Here's some quotes:

All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

Gordon S. Wood and others note that Franklin viewed this kind of bias as universal. He ends this section with "But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind."

Franklin was alarmed by the influx of German immigrants to Pennsylvania. The German immigrants were lacking in a liberal political tradition, the English language, and English culture. Franklin wrote "why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?"

Franklin favored immigration of Anglo-Saxons, a view condemned as racist in recent literature.

I like this quote best: "But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind."

It feels natural, and was natural for thousands of years until people decided to forsake basic group preservation and genetics.
#30 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

>Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

>Ben Franklin quotes

>"Writing as, at the time, a loyal subject of the British Empire, Franklin argues that the British should increase their population and power by expanding across the Americas, taking the view that Europe is too crowded."

Little to do with what he believed post-revolution. By the time the United States was formed as an independent nation, his views were much more progressive and he was far older.

As a matter of fact, he was in his mid-80's during the Constitutional Convention and was highly respected even by the people who disagreed with his policies.

#31 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

Are you real?

>You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

When it comes to survival, yes it does.

>Little to do with what he believed post-revolution.

Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
User avatar
#32 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Are you real?
Yes. But your argument is not.
I'm talking about lands on Earth that were inhabited by indigenous people who were gradually wiped out over the past 450 years and now you're talking about another planet. You're really fishing for an argument, aren't you?

>When it comes to survival, yes it does.
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize this was Planet of the Apes here. Next time I see you I'll make sure to knock you out and take your stuff.

>Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
It's heavily implied. That's why in the first fucking section (which you clearly neglected to read) it mentions that this was when he was loyal to the British crown

If his views didn't change, then bringing that point up would have been redundant.

Secondly, any person with actual knowledge on Franklin would know that it isn't redundant at all because his later writings -- and more importantly, his later actions -- were highly indicative that his views had changed.

The Constitutional Convention was in 1787. Those quotes were written more than three decades prior.

As a matter of fact, his home state, Pennsylvania, would become a beacon of pluralism. Along with New York and New Jersey, the Middle Colonies/States became incredibly metropolitan and consisted of Dutch, German, Scots-Irish, English, Native, and other groups.
#33 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.
User avatar
#34 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

>The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

>Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.

Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

>Hitler is rolling in his grave

You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

And I do believe in evil. I think there are people who have good intentions and those who have bad intentions. Maybe you got screwed over by someone somewhere in your life. With each and every post you make, it seems like you're revealing some hidden anguish. I don't claim to be some kind of e-psychiatrist but if that's the case then I feel bad for you. I really do. And you need to go out more and experience the world for yourself. Enjoy life and make your own conclusions instead of regurgitating whatever some /pol/ boy says.
You take care of yourself now, kay?
#35 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

I'd agree with you if your arguments corresponded to mine. They seem a bit disconnected.

>I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

Who's Flynn? I use simple observation and statistical trends. I'll be honest, I'm not the smartest fellow, I merely work with what I see in front of me. At the end of the day my goal is simple, halt immigration, return my kind to vast majority, everyone else can go do whatever the hell they want in their own countries.

>Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

This does not make sense in relation to what you're responding to. I was not doubting his influence, that's why I cited him.

>You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

Hitler did not cause World War 2, it was going to happen with or without him. It would've been Russia vs Europe or some other combo, but it would've happened. I argue he merely saw an opportunity and took it. I do not agree with the holocaust, I do not agree with fascism, I do however agree with preservation of a people and the importance of a strong sense of identity and fellowship in a group.

If I've got hidden anguish, its only in that I seem to be losing my country and entire race to loonies who think that everyone is the same and the endless legions of people they allow in, and it boggles my mind how they could be so suicidal. But I doubt you care far enough in the future. You'd argue that you wouldn't care if everyone was as black as night, because that's what might happen if this shit doesn't stop. Black homeland is full of idiots who do nothing but churn out kids, they'll simply out populate everyone, and those who refuse to defend themselves will be wiped off the evolutionary table. What was the point of all those changes after we left Africa if we're just going to throw them away? It's not a matter of superiority, its a matter of I like who I am, and don't want to go extinct.
#3 - You're really cranking up the retard dial eh?  [+] (32 replies) 12/07/2016 on DIEversity +8
User avatar
#4 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
Canada isn't a white country either. I still don't see where the white genocide is occuring.
#36 - mrwrong (12/07/2016) [-]
We're 80%+ white you mouthbreather.
User avatar
#52 - iviagic (13 hours ago) [-]
Not my point. Idiot.
#8 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Founded by Europeans
>Filled with Europeans
>Based on European culture

ppppffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttt

K, Israel isn't a Jewish nation, Britain is Roman, and Russia is Mongolian.

I get to break out the smug fast this time.
User avatar
#9 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
False equivalency at its finest.

You're trying to compare ethnic British people to Canadians. Being a Canadian/American is not the same as being white. You can be equally both as whatever ethnicity because the native peoples of the land were wiped out long ago or have been reduced to a very small fraction of their original population.
User avatar
#12 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
Indeed that is an unfortunate thing that has happened in north america. I wish It didn't honestly since again a country should be for its native group. However we need to prevent the same sort of thing befalling Europe on the old world. Preserving multiculturalism means preserving those who make it a possibility.
User avatar
#13 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
It may come as a surprise to you that Canada is not in the Old World. :^)

If you wanna establish retarded ethnic restrictions, then fine. Do it in Britain, France, or any other Old World country. But don't try to pretend that Canada is your native land when it isn't. I don't have to explain the history to you.
User avatar
#40 - stabatron (15 hours ago) [-]
SHUT THE FUCK UP. autistic babbling
User avatar
#14 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
again I didn't say that... I just do not mention the native american and aboriginal thing because it is already in a too far gone to salvage state.
User avatar
#16 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
I just brought up the natives for obvious reasons.
Like I said, the Old World is different because there are actually indigenous people in their own countries for the most part.
On the other hand, the indigenous people of the Americas have largely been wiped out, and the vast majority of people living in Canada, Argentina, the U.S, Brazil, etc. are all from the Old World.
User avatar
#17 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
Yes and I think its unfortunate that has happened, I wasn't advocating for preserving canada or america's current status as it is not the native people and has become an irreversible state by now. I say old world because while i would say just the world in general it seems that here things are too far gone to fix. regardless you do not need to explain history to me as i'm already well versed in it, this is mostly just advocating for preserving what countries still have majority native peoples are still within this status.
User avatar
#18 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
I disagree. I think this whole conservatism thing is not gonna work out.

As travel becomes more accessible and less costly, people are bound to move around. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. That's just how things are gonna go.

I think countries should reserve the right to establish difficult immigration laws (such as Japan's) but I don't think it's necessary to live in a retarded cookie-cutter world. That's not how things work, especially not today.

Not everyone is defined by race.
User avatar
#19 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
Never said people were defined by race but cultures belong to specific ethnic groups. These are what I wish to preserve. Also another note, believe it or not I am not a conservative I'm just rather pro conservation of the cultures. Also small amounts of immigration is fine, that's the way it has been up until now. People are not defined by their race but cultures are to an extent, labels such as white, black, asian, middle eastern, aboriginal are just broad terms to describe relative ethnic groups. The reason the alt right says white genocide is because the efforts of population cultivating are mainly aimed against European peoples. While having absolute restrictions on immigration is also not the way to go, we should make some relatively good attempt to preserve the ethnic cultures which involves preserving the native peoples and making sure that immigrants assimilate to the nation's culture. Currently with the current crisis this is not happening and with the abysmal behavior we are seeing most of these people should probably be deported. Don't get me wrong there are genuinely good people arriving too but for the most part what is being imported threatens them via fundamentalist islamic intolerance for different interpretations or non believers.
User avatar
#20 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
It is up to the countries themselves to decide what the immigration process will be like. And obviously, they should take great precaution when importing immigrants, particularly from war-torn countries.

I don't particularly buy the whole "white genocide" thing, by the way. So far I haven't really seen anything that is preventing white people from being themselves. The way I see it, it's just an excuse for closet racists to come out and marginalize minorities and other people who don't share their viewpoints.
User avatar
#21 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
Yes I am hoping that countries will be smart about it, we do not have any guarantees though. The whole white genocide thing is indeed probably being used as an excuse for bad behavior however what I said on it was their relative reasoning as to why they think its a thing.
User avatar
#22 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
Well thanks for being the only reasonable person left on this website. Most of us are gone. All you have left are "redpilled" idiots who think shouting "cuck" and "libruhl" is a valid argument. Fucking ridiculous.
User avatar
#23 - tanuith (12/07/2016) [-]
The extreme left has given rise to the extreme right. It is an unfortunate turn of events but we have only the unchecked rhetoric of our own extremists to blame for this.
User avatar
#24 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
Agreed. I've been thinking about it too. It's a shame that whiny idiotic college students have caused this outbreak to happen.

It's hard to tell where this will take us. The closest time something like this has happened was right after 9/11. Then you had two presidencies of an absolutely idiot president and the worst state of America since the 1930's.
I wonder where we'll be in the next four years. Will it rubber-band back into center-left again?
#11 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
Actually, it is the same thing, because it was founded by us mate. Natives are not Canadian, they know this and acknowledge this, they are native first and foremost and we respect that. We actually have a whole other term just to describe the French here, Canadien.

The Natives stick to themselves, the French stick to themselves, the Chinese shouldn't even be here in such numbers but whatever my government wants to drool on about.

You're making this so easy.
User avatar
#15 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>natives stick to themselves

I'd stick to myself too if I knew what whites did to my people. You're still wrong on everything you've said, btw. I've been to Canada. I've seen people from all backgrounds living together, working together, etc. They all identify as Canadian.

And please stop with this edgy "WE WUZ KANGS" shit. You didn't do jack, mate. You're a descendant of immigrants just as much as anyone else born in Canada is.
#25 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
The Natives do stick to themselves, you'll hardly see them off the reserves, and when you do its cause there's a reserve nearby.

> I'd stick to myself too if I knew what whites did to my people.

Ahahahahahaha

> You're still wrong on everything you've said, btw. I've been to Canada. I've seen people from all backgrounds living together, working together, etc. They all identify as Canadian.

You silly tart, I live here, you think I don't know my own country?

>And please stop with this edgy "WE WUZ KANGS" shit. You didn't do jack, mate.

We wuz kangs implies I was making myself out to be superior, I'm not. If that were the case I'd be wrong because Asians are far smarter on average and currently have fantastic countries, except the southern ones, but they're essentially the Balkans.

>You're a descendant of immigrants just as much as anyone else born in Canada is.

At what point do I stop being an immigrant and become a native occupant? I figure its right around the time the country is founded, maybe one generation passed that. I've been here for at least 4 generations.

But you've got me, I forgot you're a troll like tito, nice bait mate.
User avatar
#26 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Ahahahahahaha

"Yeah man we dindu nuffin. whities wuz a gud boi"

>You silly tart, I live here, you think I don't know my own country?

Apparently not.

>We wuz kangs implies I was making myself out to be superior, I'm not. If that were the case I'd be wrong because Asians are far smarter on average and currently have fantastic countries, except the southern ones, but they're essentially the Balkans.

No. We wuz kangz implies that you are taking credit for the actions of your ancestors. Which is retarded.

>At what point do I stop being an immigrant and become a native occupant? I figure its right around the time the country is founded, maybe one generation passed that. I've been here for at least 4 generations

There is no point. You're not a native of the land. You're a native CANADIAN but that's because of the institution known as "Canada" (the country, not the land).

Basically

Native to Canada as a country? Sure
Native to North America? Absolutely not. Because by your logic, some 4th generation Indian living in Britain is a native British person. And I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as being true, would you?

#27 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
> No. We wuz kangz implies that you are taking credit for the actions of your ancestors. Which is retarded.

Genetics called, lol.

>There is no point. You're not a native of the land. You're a native CANADIAN but that's because of the institution known as "Canada" (the country, not the land).

Then no one is native to anywhere except Africa. If we went ahead and colonized Mars, how long until we had native Martians? According to you never.

> Native to North America? Absolutely not. Because by your logic, some 4th generation Indian living in Britain is a native British person. And I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as being true, would you?

You're right, I wouldn't accept that, because Indians did not found Britain, Brits founded Britain. Its a bit more difficult with North America, but I'm content with just saying Europeans in general, at least until we evolve into our own ethnic group assuming we aren't wiped out from immigration. Though funnily enough America was founded specifically for white people as per Ben Franklin, he'd be rolling in his grave for sure.
User avatar
#28 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Genetics called, lol.
Edgy as fuck.

>Then no one is native to anywhere except Africa. If we went ahead and colonized Mars, how long until we had native Martians? According to you never.

Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you the one trying to establish ethnic divisions and the "keep in your own domain" policies? What happened?


>You're right, I wouldn't accept that, because Indians did not found Britain, Brits founded Britain. Its a bit more difficult with North America, but I'm content with just saying Europeans in general, at least until we evolve into our own ethnic group assuming we aren't wiped out from immigration. Though funnily enough America was founded specifically for white people as per Ben Franklin, he'd be rolling in his grave for sure.

1) America was founded by whites, natives, and blacks initially, and then became much more open later on with increased globalization. As early as the 1800's, you had Chinese immigrants on the West Coast building one of the most important railway tracks in the U.S. And of course, you have African slaves who actually did the manual labor.

2) Benjamin Franklin was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time. He was also one of the most outspoken abolitionists of his time as well. You literally have zero knowledge on anything. Don't think I'll just accept your argument just because you ended it with "I bet ____ is rolling in his grave now." At least know what you're talking about first. A better example of your point would have been Pierce Butler, who was an outspoken slavery advocate and white supremacist during the early days of America. And I hope he's rolling in his grave. I also hope he suffers. He was not a moral man.
#37 - anon (22 hours ago) [-]
Which of the founding fathers were black? How can you say America is not a white country when White people founded it? If you think the founders held racial egalitarian view you are sorely mistaken, see the article below.

Furthermore, being opposed to slavery does NOT mean support of Black citizenship or even Black residency. Jefferson hoped that when slavery was abolished all the Blacks would live elsewhere. Ben Franklin even said he didn't want an increase of Blacks in America.

Read this article and check the sources if you don't believe it, but don't just pull shit out of your ass.
www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race#fnref:11
#29 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Yeah...... not the same thing, buddy. Besides, aren't you the one trying to establish ethnic divisions and the "keep in your own domain" policies? What happened?

Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

>America was founded by whites, natives, and blacks initially, and then became much more open later on with increased globalization. As early as the 1800's, you had Chinese immigrants on the West Coast building one of the most important railway tracks in the U.S. And of course, you have African slaves who actually did the manual labor.

Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

>Benjamin Franklin was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time. He was also one of the most outspoken abolitionists of his time as well. You literally have zero knowledge on anything. Don't think I'll just accept your argument just because you ended it with "I bet ____ is rolling in his grave now." At least know what you're talking about first. A better example of your point would have been Pierce Butler, who was an outspoken slavery advocate and white supremacist during the early days of America. And I hope he's rolling in his grave. I also hope he suffers. He was not a moral man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_Concerning_the_Increase_of_Mankind,_Peopling_of_Countries,_etc.

Here's some quotes:

All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

Gordon S. Wood and others note that Franklin viewed this kind of bias as universal. He ends this section with "But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind."

Franklin was alarmed by the influx of German immigrants to Pennsylvania. The German immigrants were lacking in a liberal political tradition, the English language, and English culture. Franklin wrote "why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?"

Franklin favored immigration of Anglo-Saxons, a view condemned as racist in recent literature.

I like this quote best: "But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind."

It feels natural, and was natural for thousands of years until people decided to forsake basic group preservation and genetics.
#30 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Not many Martians to stop me from taking over no? Very different than me moving say, idk, so many people into a country such that it makes the native population a minority? :^)

Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

>Blacks did not have citizenship, neither did Chinese IIRC, don't know about natives though.

You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

>Ben Franklin quotes

>"Writing as, at the time, a loyal subject of the British Empire, Franklin argues that the British should increase their population and power by expanding across the Americas, taking the view that Europe is too crowded."

Little to do with what he believed post-revolution. By the time the United States was formed as an independent nation, his views were much more progressive and he was far older.

As a matter of fact, he was in his mid-80's during the Constitutional Convention and was highly respected even by the people who disagreed with his policies.

#31 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Literally has nothing to do with being native to land. At all.

Are you real?

>You're right. But how does that negate the fact that many nationalities worked together to create the U.S?

When it comes to survival, yes it does.

>Little to do with what he believed post-revolution.

Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
User avatar
#32 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>Are you real?
Yes. But your argument is not.
I'm talking about lands on Earth that were inhabited by indigenous people who were gradually wiped out over the past 450 years and now you're talking about another planet. You're really fishing for an argument, aren't you?

>When it comes to survival, yes it does.
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize this was Planet of the Apes here. Next time I see you I'll make sure to knock you out and take your stuff.

>Except no where does it state he disavowed these views.
It's heavily implied. That's why in the first fucking section (which you clearly neglected to read) it mentions that this was when he was loyal to the British crown

If his views didn't change, then bringing that point up would have been redundant.

Secondly, any person with actual knowledge on Franklin would know that it isn't redundant at all because his later writings -- and more importantly, his later actions -- were highly indicative that his views had changed.

The Constitutional Convention was in 1787. Those quotes were written more than three decades prior.

As a matter of fact, his home state, Pennsylvania, would become a beacon of pluralism. Along with New York and New Jersey, the Middle Colonies/States became incredibly metropolitan and consisted of Dutch, German, Scots-Irish, English, Native, and other groups.
#33 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.
User avatar
#34 - iviagic (12/07/2016) [-]
>I'm not fishing for an argument, the only reason I'm still replying is because I refuse to let you win. I'm quickly coming to realize that neither of us are going to budge.

Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

>The races are not the same, to assume so is to ignore basic genetics and statistical evidence. So yes, when I am at risk of losing majority in my country, and countries I have come from and fit in, you bet your ass I call that a fight for survival. I would expect the same of any group.

I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

>Fair enough, but just because his home state became a diverse hellpit doesn't mean he likes it. Hitler is probably a very sad man right now if he could see his country, and before you say he's evil, evil doesn't exist, only perspective. And no that doesn't make me a nazi, I sit on Churchill's lap first, but share some views.

Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

>Hitler is rolling in his grave

You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

And I do believe in evil. I think there are people who have good intentions and those who have bad intentions. Maybe you got screwed over by someone somewhere in your life. With each and every post you make, it seems like you're revealing some hidden anguish. I don't claim to be some kind of e-psychiatrist but if that's the case then I feel bad for you. I really do. And you need to go out more and experience the world for yourself. Enjoy life and make your own conclusions instead of regurgitating whatever some /pol/ boy says.
You take care of yourself now, kay?
#35 - carlonord (12/07/2016) [-]
>Kiddo, I'm not the one that's winning. It's my arguments that do the work for me. You clearly have a stubborn perception of the world. Either you're an edgy teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, or you're some immature adult. Either way, it's just sad.

I'd agree with you if your arguments corresponded to mine. They seem a bit disconnected.

>I bet you're going to cite the works of that Flynn guy. Before you do, just know he was a heavy proponent of racial equality.

Who's Flynn? I use simple observation and statistical trends. I'll be honest, I'm not the smartest fellow, I merely work with what I see in front of me. At the end of the day my goal is simple, halt immigration, return my kind to vast majority, everyone else can go do whatever the hell they want in their own countries.

>Well, considering the fact that Franklin was one of the most influential people in American history, let alone his own state. But whatever.

This does not make sense in relation to what you're responding to. I was not doubting his influence, that's why I cited him.

>You mean the guy that destroyed his country and slaughtered millions of people and also caused the largest and deadliest war in human history? Yeah... I'll pass on that.

Hitler did not cause World War 2, it was going to happen with or without him. It would've been Russia vs Europe or some other combo, but it would've happened. I argue he merely saw an opportunity and took it. I do not agree with the holocaust, I do not agree with fascism, I do however agree with preservation of a people and the importance of a strong sense of identity and fellowship in a group.

If I've got hidden anguish, its only in that I seem to be losing my country and entire race to loonies who think that everyone is the same and the endless legions of people they allow in, and it boggles my mind how they could be so suicidal. But I doubt you care far enough in the future. You'd argue that you wouldn't care if everyone was as black as night, because that's what might happen if this shit doesn't stop. Black homeland is full of idiots who do nothing but churn out kids, they'll simply out populate everyone, and those who refuse to defend themselves will be wiped off the evolutionary table. What was the point of all those changes after we left Africa if we're just going to throw them away? It's not a matter of superiority, its a matter of I like who I am, and don't want to go extinct.
#24 - Of course its not real, I was Nigerian just five minutes ago! …  [+] (1 reply) 12/07/2016 on "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" +7
User avatar
#146 - mtu (17 hours ago) [-]
Mistaking nationality for concepts of race. Whew lad.