Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've explained several times that China and Japan are diverse. But you do not accept that explanation. And with that said even if I were going to give you that point. You would have a point if China and Japan were the only countries without diversity. But they're not. We have Pakistan, most of the middle east, most of Africa, tons of Islands that have even less diversity than Japan and China. But none of these are world class economies. So literally out of dozen of nations that lack diversity you only have two successful examples. While nearly 100% of all diverse nations have world class economies.
So based on that alone, it would seem diversity is the engine of economic progress.
Once again, neither China nor Japan are ethnically diverse; this is an undeniable fact. You have claimed(foolishly) that a homogeneous nation could not compete on a global scale. China and Japan both stand as clear examples of this being fallacious. I could even point to a pre-1965 America. What was/is their "engine of economic progress"? It certainly wasn't/isn't diversity.
Of course there are homogeneous states, be it Pakistan or another in Africa, which have not been successful in the world economy. Just as there are diverse states which have proven less than successful. So what? You keep wanting to tie prosperity to diversity, but you can't do it; the correlation doesn't exist. The US was prosperous long before it became diverse. Any idea why? Because prosperity is a magnet for diversity! That is, states become increasingly more diverse as they prosper, if allowed. The difference is that China and Japan have been smart enough to keep diversity out of their countries.
Last edited by The Mysterious Benefactor; 08-07-2016 at 04:18 PM..
Once again, neither China nor Japan are ethnically diverse; this is an undeniable fact. You have claimed(foolishly) that a homogeneous nation could not compete on a global scale. China and Japan both stand as clear examples of this being fallacious. I could even point to a pre-1965 America. What was/is their "engine of economic progress"? It certainly wasn't/isn't diversity.
Of course there are homogeneous states, be it Pakistan or another in Africa, which have not been successful in the world economy. Just as there are diverse states which have proven less than successful. So what? You keep wanting to tie prosperity to diversity, but you can't do it; the correlation doesn't exist. The US was prosperous long before it became diverse. Any idea why? Because prosperity is a magnet for diversity! That is, states become increasingly more diverse as they prosper, if allowed. The difference is that China and Japan have been smart enough to keep diversity out of their countries.
Name one diverse country that isn't at least relevant on a global scale. Most diverse countries are world class economies, that's an undeniable fact. America has always had diversity, so your "pre-1965" argument is pure nonsense. America was diverse before there ever was an America, and that's just reality. Pre-1965 didn't have a lack of diversity, what it had was racist laws that protected white workers, like redlining laws, Jim Crow, and minimum wage (if you don't know the real history of minimum wage, look into it). What you REALLY want is not a "non-diverse" American. You want an America that protects white Americans. And this goes back to my original argument. White nationalist aren't REALLY capitalist are pro-market, they're protectionist. They want free market with an asterisk next to it.
You have only supplied 2 countries that are "not diverse" that has any relevance on a global scale. Yet you overlook the countless examples of other countries that are not diverse that have 0 relevance economically.
But we can play this number game all day. I'm going to take it a step further and tell you why diversity is good. And that is one word. Competition. Without diversity you only have a protected society of people who have no need or desires to compete with one another. And when you don't compete, you really don't get any better. This is why by and large very homogenous countries mostly are economically irrelevant. You guys love to use China and Japan as your shining examples. But don't like to use the Somalia's of the world, the Ethopia's, the Yemens, the Pakistans, Sri Lanka's, etc. Yeah because 2 of what probably is over 70 countries is your "proof". China wasn't even economically relevant until maybe 30-40 years ago, oddly this happened when Chinese people were forced to compete with the rest of the world.
Me personally I don't think we'll ever go back to a bunch of homogenous nations. Like I stated before, technology is too advance, communication is too good, borders are too thin. People, the world, like diversity. They like new ideas and new perspectives. But nothing is stopping you and a bunch of other whites from buying a remote Island and forming your own nation. But you won't do that, now will you? And the reason why, is you'll know it'll fail. You need to "take America back", not build your new America. Again if America's diversity is her liability, then build your own nation and show us how you build a world class economy with a homogenous society. You may have a rough start, but if it's the best model, eventually you're going to catch up. Why? Because deep down inside, you don't want an all white nation, you don't want to even be separated from people of other ethnic backgrounds. No you want to be protected from competing with them.
Name one diverse country that isn't at least relevant on a global scale. Most diverse countries are world class economies, that's an undeniable fact. America has always had diversity, so your "pre-1965" argument is pure nonsense. America was diverse before there ever was an America, and that's just reality. Pre-1965 didn't have a lack of diversity, what it had was racist laws that protected white workers, like redlining laws, Jim Crow, and minimum wage (if you don't know the real history of minimum wage, look into it).
The Sudan, Nicaragua, DR; are these relevant economies? I could name 50 more. You're putting forth this incredibly simplistic and naive notion that if a country just has diversity, it can be successful. It's utter nonsense.
America before 1965 was 90% white. Not exactly a model of diversity. But by your reasoning we couldn't be successful until we increased our diversity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
What you REALLY want is not a "non-diverse" American. You want an America that protects white Americans. And this goes back to my original argument. White nationalist aren't REALLY capitalist are pro-market, they're protectionist. They want free market with an asterisk next to it.
I agreed long ago that White Nationalists are protectionist, but that's a lot different from being socialist. And yes, that's exactly what they want: our workers and wages protected. They don't believe American workers should have to compete with Third World workers willing to work for half(or less) of the prevailing wage. These are hardly socialist ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
You have only supplied 2 countries that are "not diverse" that has any relevance on a global scale. Yet you overlook the countless examples of other countries that are not diverse that have 0 relevance economically.
But we can play this number game all day. I'm going to take it a step further and tell you why diversity is good. And that is one word. Competition. Without diversity you only have a protected society of people who have no need or desires to compete with one another. And when you don't compete, you really don't get any better. This is why by and large very homogenous countries mostly are economically irrelevant. You guys love to use China and Japan as your shining examples. But don't like to use the Somalia's of the world, the Ethopia's, the Yemens, the Pakistans, Sri Lanka's, etc. Yeah because 2 of what probably is over 70 countries is your "proof". China wasn't even economically relevant until maybe 30-40 years ago, oddly this happened when Chinese people were forced to compete with the rest of the world.
I've not overlooked anything. I'm just not willing to tie economic relevance to diversity, because the correlation does not exist. Of course there are successful diverse nations, but you have yet to demonstrate that their success is as a result of their diversity. You can't do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Me personally I don't think we'll ever go back to a bunch of homogenous nations. Like I stated before, technology is too advance, communication is too good, borders are too thin. People, the world, like diversity. They like new ideas and new perspectives. But nothing is stopping you and a bunch of other whites from buying a remote Island and forming your own nation. But you won't do that, now will you? And the reason why, is you'll know it'll fail. You need to "take America back", not build your new America. Again if America's diversity is her liability, then build your own nation and show us how you build a world class economy with a homogenous society. You may have a rough start, but if it's the best model, eventually you're going to catch up. Why? Because deep down inside, you don't want an all white nation, you don't want to even be separated from people of other ethnic backgrounds. No you want to be protected from competing with them.
Well, we already did that. Again, America at 90% white became the most powerful, prosperous nation in history. Diversity had nothing to do with it. I have yet to mention Germany; I don't know how many more examples you need. And I would argue that other groups should go do the same(since we're all equal), and stop invading our country.
Well, we already did that. Again, America at 90% white became the most powerful, prosperous nation in history. Diversity had nothing to do with it. I have yet to mention Germany; I don't know how many more examples you need. And I would argue that other groups should go do the same(since we're all equal), and stop invading our country.
The USA was the most powerful because other nations were in far worse shape than they are now. The countries that rival the USA in power today were in horrible shape in the 1950s. Japan. South Korea. And this was about why white nationalism is considered right-wing while black nationalism is considered left-wing.
The USA was the most powerful because other nations were in far worse shape than they are now. The countries that rival the USA in power today were in horrible shape in the 1950s. Japan. South Korea. And this was about why white nationalism is considered right-wing while black nationalism is considered left-wing.
You're right, we're getting off topic. My point is, as it relates to the thread, WNs may very well be anti-globalist and/or protectionist, but that doesn't make them socialist. Modern BN, from Malcolm X to the NOI, has more often promoted leftist ideas: community-based organization and collectivism. More of a "we need to help each other" mentality. In contrast, WN is focused more exclusively on "let's just get rid of these people".
You're right, we're getting off topic. My point is, as it relates to the thread, WNs may very well be anti-globalist and/or protectionist, but that doesn't make them socialist. Modern BN, from Malcolm X to the NOI, has more often promoted leftist ideas: community-based organization and collectivism. More of a "we need to help each other" mentality. In contrast, WN is focused more exclusively on "let's just get rid of these people".
The main question is WHY?
And myself, personally, I have no use for either ideology. No matter how much racism has been hurled at me, I don't have the black nationalism values. Do I believe that Blacks can benefit alot from starting their own businesses? Yes. I'm not into the "black nationalism" ideology. And I find the "white nationalism" ideology to be quite abhorrent as well. I have no use for either. I want to like everybody.
And myself, personally, I have no use for either ideology. No matter how much racism has been hurled at me, I don't have the black nationalism values. Do I believe that Blacks can benefit alot from starting their own businesses? Yes. I'm not into the "black nationalism" ideology. And I find the "white nationalism" ideology to be quite abhorrent as well. I have no use for either. I want to like everybody.
When a white nationalist, racial 'realist' or supremacist says they are "more exclusively focused on "let's get rid of these people", there is no why, it's besides the point. The exclusive focus is "let's get rid of these people" period. I think one should believe them.
I too have no use for either ideology. However, their main focus is they have no use for "these people" & they make no bones about exactly how they define who "these people" are.
When a white nationalist, racial 'realist' or supremacist says they are "more exclusively focused on "let's get rid of these people", there is no why, it's besides the point. The exclusive focus is "let's get rid of these people" period. I think one should believe them.
I too have no use for either ideology. However, their main focus is they have no use for "these people" & they make no bones about exactly how they define who "these people" are.
I know what "white nationalists" and "racial realists" are about. We can look down the time line to see what they are about. Groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, they are violent groups intent on getting rid of "those people". Nowadays they just re-package their rhetoric, change some words around, but they are still the way they are.
I know what "white nationalists" and "racial realists" are about. We can look down the time line to see what they are about. Groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, they are violent groups intent on getting rid of "those people". Nowadays they just re-package their rhetoric, change some words around, but they are still the way they are.
Agree. Although as far as this thread goes, the white nationalist, racial 'realist' or supremacist spelled it out on page 2 or thereabouts by stating something like, 'What all have in common, regardless of political persuasion, is the desire to be free of blacks.'
For the white nationalist, racial 'realist' or supremacist, it's not about the 'free market' or capitalism or socialism or anything else. They proclaim it themselves. The OP may wish it were different, or may want to make a case by claiming it to be implausible or undesirable or even immoral.
For the white nationalist, racial 'realist' or supremacist, it's simple - 'the desire to be free of blacks' & 'how to get rid of these people' is the guiding principle or underlying focus of what they do & say.
While ludicrous & implausible, it doesn't make much sense to NOT take them at their word. What would be the point?
I know what "white nationalists" and "racial realists" are about. We can look down the time line to see what they are about. Groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, they are violent groups intent on getting rid of "those people". Nowadays they just re-package their rhetoric, change some words around, but they are still the way they are.
You're right on that point. WNs under whatever moniker haven't changed their position, though they've at times striven to become more politically palatable. They're people who understand that race matters, as it's obviously a part of who we are. But the same is true of the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, etc. Many of whom have condoned violence to affect political/social change. The difference is this: White people built the US and made it great; period. If you(or any other black) are not happy here, for whatever reason, then leave. Go back to your people and to where you came from. Again, no one is stopping you. And one day, when you're an old man in Chad, if you run upon my grandson complaining about the condition of the unpaved roads, the lack of utilities, and the violence/lawlessness there, you can tell him the same thing.
American-born Africans have no desire to sever the hand that feeds them, and that's why they stay, no matter how bad they're treated or how angry they get. Slavery was clearly wrong, as any reasonable person would agree, but America has bent over backwards(and bankrupted itself) to placate and accommodate your people. Far too late, we're finally realizing it's all been an arrant exercise in futility.
If you think Michael Brown or any of these other dead thugs were heroes or martyrs of some sort, then go somewhere without white people and see how the "rule of law" is applied.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
