all 48 comments

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Aureus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I am against blackpillers, but not against blackpill discussion. What I mean by this is, that I do not have any problem with someone posting some blackpilling news, but your reaction should be "we need to work harder to fix this". Unfortunately, blackpillers react with "it is all over now".

    Exactly. I think what OP calls a "blackpill" and the common definition of "blackpill" are different. I typically use "blackpill" to mean depressing but ultimately irrelevant news, or to mean defeatism more generally. Neither of those things are useful in any way. OP is referring to what I'd call "sobering truths", not "blackpills" necessarily.

    Overall I agree though - some kind of organized commenting campaign would be an excellent idea. I've made some preliminary suggestions towards this on my sub /s/Activism.

    [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    The biggest blackpill we must accept is that whites are abject cucks, and their cuckedness is the primary cause of our erasure.

    Correction, it is only secondary cause. The primary cause are jews pushing anti-white narratives in our societies whether that being Boas and Gould lying about existence of race, Frankfurt School pushing the notion that white ethnocentrism is psychopathology. All these being amplified by the media. The high white individualism, or cuckedness as you called it, only explains why whites are more susceptible to these narratives. But not why they exist in the first place.

    Many people excuse whites and give them extraordinary leeway. You blame jews, yet jews didn't prevent you from waking up.

    This is just idiotic. Waking up from what? Perhaps from all those jewish narratives? They first indoctrinate your country but since they don' prevent you to resist the indoctrination they dindu nuffin? Seems like they deserve the blame to me. And they are in fact preventing whites from "waking up" by banning and censoring all pro white voices on the internet.

    Someone might think that in the 1960's the white masses didn't accept diversity and yet they still failed, therefore waking the masses won't work. But many northerners did accept diversity (in 1956 49% of Americans — 61% of Northerners and 15% of Southerners — believed that Whites and Blacks should attend the same schools.

    Not in 1960s but earlier it was indeed true. In 1942, only 30% of whites approved of school integration and in 1950 it was 41% [1]. But this doesn't really matter. They say they approve of integration but in real world, they still seek out white schools for their kids.

    In a study to be published in Ethnic and Racial Studies, Emerson and Sikkink cite earlier work on school choice in Philadelphia, where race was found to be a factor in Whites’ decisions about the quality of a school. Unlike Blacks, who judged schools on factors like graduation rates and students’ test scores, Whites initially eliminated any schools with a majority of Black students before considering factors such as graduation rates.

    https://diverseeducation.com/article/6098/

    Same pattern is found in Sweden.

    Research shows that the tipping point for that flight to occur is very low: after 4% of non-European immigrants the native Swedes start to move out. This is arguably an even worse segregation problem than in the US. At the same time, there is a fascinating study that shows that if you ask the average Swede if it is important to live in a multicultural neighborhood most of them say yes. Actually, the ones who moved away from those neighborhoods are even more likely to respond positively.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sweden-brink-interview-dr-tino-sanandaji-erico-matias-tavares

    Whites only like the idea of diversity and integration as concepts but they certainly don't act like it.

    Many people here think historical examples of revolutions apply to current times but they don't. Small percentages of people successfully taking control of governments are the rare exceptions, not the rule. Those historical examples didn't have 24-hour anti-white television and social media to contend with. They didn't have a morality like anti-racism that turned leaders and countrymen against their own race. They also didn't have the rampant racial diversity of modern white countries.

    I agree. Hoping to retake the government is naive. The only option we have at this point is partition of US into ethnostates.

    [–]marc_gee[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The primary cause are jews pushing anti-white narratives in our societies whether that being Boas and Gould lying about existence of race, Frankfurt School

    I understand jews had a had in starting it, but all of society has kept it spreading. Out of everyone, whites alone determine whether they are going to partition and save themselves. In that sense, they bear a lot of the blame. Traitors are worse than all other enemies and most whites are traitors.

    Boas and Gould and Frankfurt School are all ancient history. Modern institutions in America are much worse, like CNN, NBC, Fox, SPLC, Anti-Defamation League, etc. They all have many non-jewish supporters.

    This is just idiotic. Waking up from what? Perhaps from all those jewish narratives? They first indoctrinate your country but since they don' prevent you to resist the indoctrination they dindu nuffin? Seems like they deserve the blame to me. And they are in fact preventing whites from "waking up" by banning and censoring all pro white voices on the internet.

    Yes, they did something, but so did mostly everyone else for being "anti-racist"/anti-white and for supporting diversity.

    Not in 1960s but earlier it was indeed true. In 1942, only 30% of whites approved of school integration and in 1950 it was 41% [1]. But this doesn't really matter. They say they approve of integration but in real world, they still seek out white schools for their kids.

    It does matter because their words brainwash others into submitting to diversity and supporting anti-racism. Everyone here understands the JQ, but the tool jews used to brainwash the West can broadly be called anti-racism/anti-whiteism. Mostly everyone is anti-racist at some point in their lives.

    Whites only like the idea of diversity and integration as concepts but they certainly don't act like it.

    Whites and everyone vocally ostracize any dissent from anti-whiteism and diversity, that is powerful enough to keep elites flooding white countries with immigrants and integrating the races. No objection to anti-racism or diversity is considered morally acceptable in society because we don't have a large percentage of the masses on our side.

    I agree. Hoping to retake the government is naive. The only option we have at this point is partition of US into ethnostates.

    It can only happen with enough outreach to people who disagree with us.

    [–]kokolokoNightcrawler 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

    Feels like two pages of text. Next time maybe do a TLDR. In any case

    You blame jews, yet jews didn't prevent you from waking up.

    Every single issue listed in the text bellow this line and EVERY SINGLE proposed solution depends on the mercy of the Jews who control the financial system and the narrative. You think that "whites cucked themselves". Bullshit, it took a hundred years worth of movies, shows, newspaper articles, music and financial penalties for wrong-think for us to succumb to thoughts that we are evil for wanting to preserve our white, European, Christian culture.

    Imagine believing whites did this to themselves...

    [–]Pink 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    Every single issue listed in the text bellow this line and EVERY SINGLE proposed solution depends on the mercy of the Jews

    True, but if you had read OP (I don't blame you for not bothering, but "this is too long durrr" makes you look like the stupid one) you would have seen that he's retarded as his answer to the JQ is:

    Some people think everything depends only on what the elites do, not the masses. However, the elites usually follow the masses. Their ideologies are influenced by whatever the masses believe.

    Normally people who hold this belief are incapable of actually stating it because they can follow a the chain of implications well enough to see that this is literally impossible. So they have to >imply it constantly by appealing to "we" and "society" and making arguments like "but Jews are only 2%" which rely on the above as an implicit premise.

    [–]kokolokoNightcrawler 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I skimmed through it. I take short pauses while working. Hardly enough seconds to read a 2 page essay, process and reply.
    In his OP, as far as i can recall he writes "...jews can't make us colorblind"...well OF COURSE they can and they HAVE through the media and higher education which is jam packed with jew marxists. People are susceptible to brainwashing, especially the systemic kind....

    Normally people who hold this belief are incapable of actually stating it because they can follow a the chain of implications well enough to see that this is literally impossible.

    This sentence is fucked, you need to translate that to me.

    [–]Pink 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    This sentence is fucked, you need to translate that to me.

    Is English not your 1st language or something? lmao

    [–]kokolokoNightcrawler 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Correct

    [–]marc_gee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I gave you lots of examples of the elite following the masses. Yes they can act independently, but they will usually adhere to society's norms of what is considered moral, and that is anti-racism. If white nationalism were normalized in the masses, many of the elites would be supportive of white nationalism. But you can't normalize it because you're not reaching enough of the masses as I said.

    [–]Pink 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    y, but they will usually adhere to society's norms of what is considered moral

    They make the norms.

    If white nationalism were normalized in the masses, many of the elites would be supportive of white nationalism.

    No, the only way to do this at the moment is to start a counter elite and I almost guarentee this would cause a civil war in America. Our best bet is probably Europe and maybe Canada. The US will never be white again. Partitioning is maybe viable but that wouldn't be allowed to be done peacefully unless it's obvious that the antiwhites will sustain massive losses. And as of right now there will be no conflict, just the slow destruction of white people because our elites are weak or subverted.

    I gave you lots of examples of the elite following the masses

    No you didn't. You literally asserted that BLM & sheeeit is spontaneous. Lol

    [–]marc_gee[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    The point is that since the web came into existence every white should have sought out racial reality facts on their own after experiencing diversity. That doesn't depend on jews, it depends on common sense, and it depends on a basic and natural appreciation for your own race. Search engines have always existed and Stormfront was around and famous since as early as 1995.

    I didn't say whites cucked themselves, mostly everyone shares the blame. Whites have been a huge part of it though, just look at all the whites on modern television cucking people. It goes all the way back to at least the 1960's when reporters like Dan Rather were covering "civil rights" and espousing anti-racism. Just look at all the government officials and celebrities who could have spoken out over the decades. Instead they almost all supported anti-racism.

    [–]kokolokoNightcrawler 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Lol, they removed Stormfront, didn't they..."Oy vey, the goyim know, shut it down" is a maxim at this point for a bloody reason. You're going to the 1960's and I say it took them a hundred years at least. The formation of the Federal Reserve about time-ish was a starting pistol for the total control of the NARRATIVE + THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM control....

    If the ENTIRE Narrative is not exactly on the point for the Satan's tribe liking, they use the FINANCIAL SYSTEM to auto correct it and other way around. . When the financial system collapsed in 2008, they used the NARRATIVE via media to cover the culprits.

    We Europeans are HARDLY equipped to dispel that kinda sorcery and tricks. We operate in high trust societies where as they are the desert tricksters and crooks.

    [–]marc_gee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    If the ENTIRE Narrative is not exactly on the point for the Satan's tribe liking, they use the FINANCIAL SYSTEM to auto correct it and other way around. . When the financial system collapsed in 2008, they used the NARRATIVE via media to cover the culprits.

    So you're saying jewish wealth allowed jews to control the media and government narratives for the past 100 years. I agree there's probably a lot of truth to that, but we had a free and open internet for a long time for whites to redpill themselves with and they did not. Facebook still allows racial comments in most cases.

    [–]marc_gee[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    EVERY SINGLE proposed solution depends on the mercy of the Jews

    I stated a solution that doesn't depend on jews, that of massive distribution of propaganda.

    [–]kokolokoNightcrawler 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    They even have laws on books now. You WILL GO TO JAIL for your racial propaganda brother.

    You think black of brown people are doing this to us lol?

    [–]Pink 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

    Some people think everything depends only on what the elites do, not the masses. However, the elites usually follow the masses. Their ideologies are influenced by whatever the masses believe. For example, elite white democrats kneeled to support BLM and will do anything blacks say, republican politicians won't speak against BLM or diversity, hundreds of white CEO's donated hundreds of millions of dollars to BLM and anti-racism (Bank of America alone donated 1 billion), and over a thousand companies are boycotting faceberg over its hate speech policies. These were examples of the elite following the masses and the media as the masses became outraged over police brutality.

    This is totally wrong and anyone who agrees with you is an idiot or a defeatist. I know this sounds harsh but it needs to be said.

    Now to elaborate on how we know you're wrong -- think about for 2 seconds why the masses are doing this BLM shit. Is it because of magical dust in the air suddenly making white people antiwhite? Is it because being told that all white people should die on Twitter makes white people suddenly give a shit what antiwhite minorities want in white countries? Is it because in like 3 generations white people evolved to be cucked and hate themselves? No, no, and no. It's because of Jewish propaganda. Therefore the masses follow the elites. QED.

    On a deeper level, this is just self evident. Are you so out of touch with yourself that you don't notice the amazing power of propaganda on a personal level? Are you so blind that you don't realize most people are parrots? Do you not just NoticeTM how stupid and docile most people are? How much of the intolerable they constantly tolerate without notice? So what, was their line just crossed when a cop restrained a violent felon who later died because he was overdosed on drugs? No, because the masses have no lines. Intolerable lines are crossed every day. The education system exists. 2A is a dead letter. 4A is a dead letter. Purposefully low speed limits and the harvesting of money with the threat of deadly force is only not done through taxation because the 100 IQ soldier LARPers needed something to do. Every tax dollar that is spent on a middle school English "teacher" and every bullshit traffic ticket that is given crosses the line but the masses don't care. Why? Because they're told what to care about and they obey. Studies show I'm right, but they're totally redundant because what I'm saying is necessarily true based on common, everyday observation and you know this if you're emotionally capable of considering it. I hope you're like 16 because if you're over about 20 it probably shows that you aren't emotionally capable of considering this point. If you're a teenager it's possible you're just doing a Moldbug and theorizing with no data and are therefore parroting a view that you've been taught to believe because you haven't had the time to question it yet.

    I get tired of proving the sky is blue with mass spectrometer studies that engage in multivariate analysis vs. every other known color but if you want to see the data that shows the obvious see Sean Last's "Empirical Examination of the JQ" and Alt Hype's video "They don't care about you." (Titles may be off a bit).

    [–]marc_gee[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Why so many insults? I can't engage in a discussion with you like that. I understand the media and elites also influence the masses. It is a symbiotic relationship. The media replays Floyd's death over and over which outrages the masses, which leads to riots, which leads to the government acting. If 50% of whites were white nationalist, we would see some media and government supporting our positions. 65%, all dragging their feet, could potentially cause partition to occur somewhere somehow.

    [–]Pink 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    I can't engage in a discussion with you like that

    Copout, there's like 2 insults. You evidently can't respond to what I said.

    If 50% of whites were white nationalist, we would see some media and government supporting our positions.

    No we wouldn't because all whites were white nationalists and got subverted out of it by the media, lol

    Post age? I'll engage with you if you're a teenager. If you're an adult this isn't worth my time.

    [–]marc_gee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    "he's retarded

    people who hold this belief are incapable of actually stating it because they can follow a the chain of implications well enough

    anyone who agrees with you is an idiot

    Are you so out of touch with yourself

    you aren't emotionally capable of considering this point

    If you're an adult this isn't worth my time. "

    You've insulted me way more than twice. You shouldn't be trying to demoralize pro-whites if you are pro-white. I have responded to mostly everything you said.

    Whites got subverted out of white nationalism for many reasons such as the holocaust and the resulting anti-racist sympathy people felt. The only way out is to reach them and deprogram them.

    When white nationalists were a majority the government did have pro-white laws for example on immigration.

    [–]Pink 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Whites got subverted out of white nationalism for many reasons such as the holocaust and the resulting anti-racist sympathy people felt.

    This is a fucking retarded NRx line that makes no sense -- nobody even gave a shit about the Holocaust until the 70s when it was shilled by the Jewish media. See Unz on this.

    Again, are you a teenager or an adult? I feel like I'm wasting my time with you.

    [–]marc_gee[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    nobody even gave a shit about the Holocaust until the 70s when it was shilled by the Jewish media. See Unz on this.

    Post a source then. "See Unz" is meaningless. Besides, many whites, probably not the majority, were still racially aware by the 70's. The full brainwashing took a bit longer.

    If 50% of whites were white nationalist, we would see some media and government supporting our positions.

    No we wouldn't because all whites were white nationalists

    As I said, we had pro-white laws when whites were white nationalist, which disproves you. It also proves the elite do follow the mainstream ideology, the masses, to a large extent.

    [–]Pink 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    As I said, we had pro-white laws when whites were white nationalist, which disproves you.

    Yeah and then the whites were subverted out of it by elites, which disproves you. Smh

    It also proves the elite do follow the mainstream ideology, the masses, to a large extent.

    No it's the reverse to a large extent because the elites own the media.

    [–]marc_gee[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah and then the whites were subverted out of it by elites, which disproves you. Smh

    Change can happen, and both the elite and the masses can affect change. I think they can change each other too. The change that happened during "civil rights" was because of an anti-white morality no one could defend against, that of "anti-racism." Jews had a hand in starting its spread. We can now defend against this morality but we still need outreach and access to the masses.

    No it's the reverse to a large extent because the elites own the media.

    If you redpill enough of the masses by making sound and emotional arguments for white wellbeing, it can potentially redpill people in lives of media employees and the employees themselves. When you want to "redpill" the elite its best to try to redpill their acquaintances, who have access to the elites and can affect their thoughts. Their acquaintances are influenced by other acquaintances, who are influenced by other acquaintances, who altogether are influenced by the masses - the ideology that is mainstream.

    Of course you might think all media is owned by jews and that no jew can ever be considerate of white wellbeing, but there are examples of white positive jews speaking at amren conferences. Jews can be "redpilled" too, and many media employees are non-jewish anyway.

    Don't you think the elites were affected by the masses rioting over Floyd? They had the same common human reaction that the masses had to Floyd's death. They are susceptible to groupthink and group-influenced thinking. To deny this is a real sort of "conspiracy theory."

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Pink 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Nobody denies the influence of (((white))) journalist and teachers

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]Pink 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        They still told me, that I am a guilty person due to some historical crimes, that some of our people had committed in the past.

        Because that's what the Jewish media told them

        [–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        You do know that qouting YT videos don'y count as sources, right? Can you empirically prove that white people hate themselves?

        [–]Pink 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        It's all data you fucking negrobrain

        [–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (19 children)

        A few questions here from me and critiques.

        Why shouldn't there be outrage over police brutality? If this is a country of freedom how can anyone allow police brutality?

        24 Hr anti-white TV? Can you prove this?

        Diversity is of benefit though, especially economically. I do have sources on this fact, what proof do you have to back your claim.

        What good justification is there for oppossing diversity. Many Republicans have called out against ANTIFA and BLM, and diversity such as Trump and Carlson to name a few.

        And lastly, who are "the elites", and what are they doing?

        [–]marc_gee[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

        Diversity is of benefit though, especially economically. I do have sources on this fact, what proof do you have to back your claim.

        What good justification is there for oppossing diversity.

        More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. Source: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

        Diversity increases psychotic experiences. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

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

        A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

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

        Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

        Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. Source: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

        Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks. Source: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

        Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. Source: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

        Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

        Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. Source: http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf#page=2

        Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. Source: https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

        Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. Source: https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

        In America, more diverse cities have more segregation. Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

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

        States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. Source: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

        There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar. Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n%202005-1.pdf

        Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence. Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

        Diversity reduces charity and volunteering. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

        People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

        Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

        Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

        Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

        Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover. Source: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/23/3/239.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

        Ethnic diversity reduces social trust. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5677

        Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

        Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

        Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8627

        Diversity correlates with low GDP. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

        Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

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

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

        [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Epic list.

        [–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Not really. Have read any of these?

        [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Go troll somewhere else.

        [–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        ases psychotic experiences

        !WHEW! There is a lot of misinformation going on in your comment, so much in fact I wonder if you 've even read any of the stuff you've cited.

        Let's go ;)

        1. From Bloomberg is a study that these were based off simulations and not reality, the article itself says so "this is the result of computer simulations of reality, not reality itself. Our identities, social relationships and actual neighborhoods are far more complex than simulations can get at." Society is far more complex than just a simulation. Moreover, in the end the article advocates for diversity claiming we should bridge different communities, it even cites Robert Putnam who has advocated for diversity calling "bridging" social capital.

        Not only is this article based off of a simulation it only accounts for small neighborhoods, even the article advocates for diversity at a city level. And even the article views segregation as a bad thing.

        1. These study you linked about diversity increases psychotic experience doesnt suggest what you seem to think it suggests. The English woman who made the study herself said, when asked about her study said "When people live in ares that are more ethnically diverse the outcomes can be a bit better" She says the reason this could be is because of better social support and better social networks. In other words SOCIAL COHESION. But don't take my word for it, here is the English women who ACTUALLY made the study explaining what it means: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxv9MeSfjNM

        No where does it say that there's a causal link between diversity and mental illness.

        In this study, they looked at black african people and South East Asian people and concluded that there's actually "a reduced mortality risk in psychosis relative to white British people" and goes on to say that the health outcomes in ethnically diverse comunities BECAUSE OF SOCIAL COHESION. But don't take my word for it, here is the English women who ACTUALLY made the study explaining what it means in layman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxv9MeSfjNM

        1. You posted the same source twice in a row.

        2. You posted the same source again (now 3x in a row)

        3. I dont know how to tell you this but this source you cited doesn't make the claim you think it makes. Let's go through it together ;)

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

        Though diversity does have certain drawbacks, these drawback only exist in the SHORT TERM. The benefits of diversity are plentiful in the long term and I think that as a society we should make plans that benefit us LONG TERM.

        I will qoute the abstract YOU cited:

        "In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits...In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross‐cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration."

        1. You cited the same study (again)

        2. This website references a book written by Robert Putnam which many right wingers have either knowingly or unknowingly misintepreted what Putnam actually claims. I'll explain to you why Putnam isn't saying what you think he's saying:

        I'll link you a video of Putnam himself talking about the PROS and CONS of immigration. Robert Putnam claims asserts that immigration does have benefits for countries. A disproportanate number of America's Nobel Prize winners are either immigrants or children of immigrants; Same goes for many of our best Artists, musicians, etc. Putnam does claim that the costs are only in the SHORT TERM and that we should diminish those negative costs and extract the MASSIVE benefits of immigration which are LONG TERM.

        Here is an interview where Robert Putnam himself elaborates on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grAAOjdvcrI

        In conclusion: The source that the article is citing doesnt make the claim you THINK it claims. Robert Putnam makes the assertation that the positives outweigh the costs when it comes to immigration and diversity, see above link.

        1. Again the source doesnt claim what you think it claims:

        First of all the first sentence clearly states that, "Research suggests that greater ethnic density correlates with worse health among African Americans but better health among Hispanic Americans" - so not for both groups, BETTER HEALTH FOR HISPANICS. So youve misqouted your own source.

        In the study (THE FIRST FUCKING PARAGRAPH) the study claims that the reason for this was because the Black population was older than the Hispanic population. Once they controled for that they concluded that, "These conflicting patterns may arise from Hispanic American samples being older than African American samples. We found that among 2367 Mexican American and 2790 African American participants older than 65 years, ethnic density predicted lower rates of cardiovascular disease and cancer, adjusting for covariates, showing that the health benefits of ethnic density apply to both minority communities."

        So you either dishonestly represented your data or you didn't even read it to begin with, either way I am sorely disappointed.

        1. "Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. Source: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57"

        When I opened the link it gave me a 404 error so...could you link another source please?

        1. "Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6"

        Good to see a right winger who cares about the environment. The obvious solution to this seems to be education, not just "slow down immigration".

        There is definitely a lot of misinformation going on in your comment. I've already debunked your 1st 10 sources, I doubt the rest will be any better. I suggest you actually read and proof check the data and sources you cite before you post them especially before you make false claims about them so confidently. But I am open to any specific sources you may have that you are CERTAIN support the things you say. I'd be more than happy ;)

        [–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Now here are my sources, enjoy:

        Here is an enormous meta-analysis of 90 cross-sectional studies analyzing relationship between diversity & social cohesion. Vast majority of studies on the subject fail to prove the relationship between two variables. In fact, study finds positive relationship between inter-ethnic contact & trust in ethnically heterogeneous communities. Only contrary data shows small-scale (intra-neighborhood) trust suffers with ethnic heterogeneity in some circumstances, and even then only in America. Plurality of data does not support - and largely contradicts - assertion that diversity hurts social cohesion.

        https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://sci-hub.tw/https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309%2523article-denial%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849270000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0wrWqGprzyjySQMpSr3wiJ&sa=D&ust=1595926849392000&usg=AFQjCNHsz5W7Ukdy1HgQAJGLCUhG3QmiPA

        Here is a study which tested around 200 students in a trust based experiment and compared results from diverse groups and homogenous groups .Finds no statistically significant negative relationship between diversity and social cohesion. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://scholar.harvard.edu/files/laibson/files/measuring_trust.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849272000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1c0X9NWCvoQUs354zHEHEy&sa=D&ust=1595926849392000&usg=AFQjCNFGAnUf85EvW_yhvdv-scmTk8NF2g

        Longitudinal study comparing the change in social cohesion over time in an area which experienced a large increase in diversity with a comparative control which didn’t. The two areas did not differ significantly in how their levels of social cohesion changed over time, suggesting the increased level of diversity had no statistically significant impact on social cohesion.

        https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://www.fisherwilliamson.com/downloads/MPSA040508.FINAL2.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849273000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0LPq6BMfwKCtHdAaBqNlxF&sa=D&ust=1595926849393000&usg=AFQjCNE_WdFFh1xCoyNA03a8um1yyvltFw

        Another longitudinal study analyzing changes in trust in 22 European countries between the years 2002 and 2010. Study suggests immigration often leads to decrease in social trust, but results were heavily affected by ethnic polarization & economic stability. With low polarization and a good economy, immigration was shown to actually increase social trust. Results suggest it isn’t the diversity of immigrants which lessens trust, but rather the economic and political context in which they arrive. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://sci-hub.tw/https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/3/1211/2332107?redirectedFrom%253Dfulltext%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849274000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2vUlhKJEOTj2vmqdQAhHC5&sa=D&ust=1595926849393000&usg=AFQjCNHIFDPXMHFL3Eh2vOIMbC6DSVTyVA

        Extensive summary on the effects immigration has on the US economy, with sources “While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages”. “The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic productivity”. “Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets”. “Economists generally agree that the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy are broadly positive”. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849268000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1AcgI0wFNZMlR4VELcmaJv&sa=D&ust=1595926849391000&usg=AFQjCNFVRJvL44FvaUke4WKWHOjqEZzPNg

        National Bureau of Economic Research paper on the effects immigration has on wages in the United States Study contends previous analyses on the relationship between immigration and wages falsely assumed perfect labor substitutability between immigrants and native workers of similar education levels, distorting results Research shows average American wage RISES due to immigration, both short-term and long-term Only native demographic whose wages drop are High School dropouts who suffer a decrease in wages of approximately ~2% short-term, alleviating to ~1.1% over time. Study finds new immigration does severely impact wages of prior immigrants, suggesting lack of substitutability with *natives. Overall, vast majority of American workers’ wages increase from immigration, High School dropouts (<10% of population) experience a slight decrease which alleviates with time (and there is evidence that immigration may increase native High School graduation rates, too).

        https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.nber.org/papers/w12497.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;ust%3D1595926849265000%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0XFwg6LvZEpPGVoQkGjrwa&sa=D&ust=1595926849390000&usg=AFQjCNFg_8zutE0cetWXdwIfckSOK_nnHA

        [–]EuropeanAwakening 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Yes, we know if you flood your society with low wage workers, the GDP will go up. No, 200 college students is not evidence that diversity works. Your studies show nothing that we didn't already know.

        [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        No, 200 college students is not evidence that diversity works.

        The most hilarious part about this is that the study showed the exact opposite. It was even cited by AltHype about how diversity destroys social cohesion.

        Along with the correlational and longitudinal data already presented, the negative relationship between pro social behavior and ethnic diversity has been demonstrated experimentally. For instance, Glaeser et al (2000) had participants play an economic “game” in which one person sent another person a sum of money of their choosing. That money was then doubled money they were sent and the receiver had a chance to send some money back to the person who gave them the initial sum of money. This is a very basic measure of altruism, fairness, and trustworthiness. The researchers found that the receivers sent back far less money when they were paired with someone of another race. In fact, over 90% of the cases in which no money was sent back took place with racial diverse pairs of people.

        https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/ethnic-diversity-and-social-cohesion/

        He copy-pasted it directly from Vaush' google doc along with all others. I doubt he even opened any of them because even in the abstract they say: "When individuals are closer socially, both trust and trustworthiness rise. Trustworthiness declines when partners are of different races or nationalities."

        You can't make this shit up.

        [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        He's either Vaush himself or a very devout fan of Vaush. He uses the exact same talking points as Vaush, uses the exact same disingenuous way arguing (full of pilpul, semantics games and sealioning), and even has the same "sassy black girl" overtone to some of his comments.

        [–]marc_gee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Thanks for your critique. I should have said that I didn't read the links, I got them from a reddit archive of DAE. I don't want to get in the weeds with you on this. I see I broke rule #4 and I will be more mindful of this rule from now on.

        Here are more studies you can research if you care to, which I also haven't read: https://archive.fo/LRe05

        [–]marc_gee[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Why shouldn't there be outrage over police brutality? If this is a country of freedom how can anyone allow police brutality?

        Outrage over it is one thing, but it shouldn't have the anti-white lie connected to it of "systemic racism."

        24 Hr anti-white TV? Can you prove this?

        All the media supports a non-white future for whites. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox all denounce white wellbeing as racist while promoting non-white interests.

        Many Republicans have called out against ANTIFA and BLM, and diversity such as Trump and Carlson to name a few.

        They don't specifically oppose diversity itself.

        And lastly, who are "the elites", and what are they doing?

        Generally they are people of significant power, influence, and/or wealth.

        [–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        They don't specifically oppose diversity itself.

        Trump and Tucker Carlson dont call out diversity? But they do. Thats why he got elected.

        Outrage over it is one thing, but it shouldn't have the anti-white lie connected to it of "systemic racism."

        There is a wealth of evidence provic systemic racism though. How is it anti-white to point out the facts?

        Generally they are people of significant power, influence, and/or wealth.

        Who and how do they operate/ Can you prove any of this empirically or is it just a conspiracy theory?

        All the media supports a non-white future for whites. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox all denounce white wellbeing as racist while promoting non-white interests.

        Citation needed. Prove it.

        [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        What good justification is there for oppossing diversity.

        Not going extinct.

        [–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Could you elaborate please?

        [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Do I need to elaborate on that? Hybridization is one of the factors that can cause extinction.

        [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Diversity is of benefit though, especially economically. I do have sources on this fact, what proof do you have to back your claim.

        Tatu Vanhanen in his book Ethnic Conflicts: Their Biological Roots in Ethnic Nepotism analyzed 176 countries in period from 2003-2011. He found that Ethnic diversity has 0.812 correlation with ethnic conflict. Meaning that more diverse countries tend to have more violent conflicts in them.

        He summarized his findings:

        As explained in Chapter 1, the original cause of conflicts is in the fact that we are bound to the endless struggle for permanently scarce resources. The theory of ethnic nepotism does not explain the evolutionary origin of conflicts, but it explains why many kinds of interest conflicts tend to become canalized along ethnic lines in ethnically divided societies. The evolutionary roots of nepotism are assumed to be in our genome because it has been genetically rational to support relatives. Ethnic nepotism is an extended form of family nepotism. On average, the members of an ethnic group are genetically more closely related to each other than to outsiders. Because the rules of ethnic nepotism are engraved in our genes by evolution, it is hardly possible to eradicate this behavior pattern from human nature.

        Ethnic diversity has -0.40 correlation with life satisfaction, -0.55 correlation with national wealth and -0.66 with life expectancy. [1]

        Finally, there are studies, often experiments, which look at how well small groups perform. Hulsheger and Anderson (2009) meta-analyzed 8 studies and found background diversity correlated at -.133 (95% CI: -.318:+.052) with innovation.

        Williams and O’Reilly (1998) came to this conclusion in their review of the literature:

        “There is substantial evidence from both laboratory and field studies conducted over the past four decades that variations in group composition can have important effects on group functioning. These studies show that increased diversity, especially in terms of age, tenure, and ethnicity, typically have negative effects on social integration, communication, and conflict.”

        [–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Tatu Vanhanen in his book Ethnic Conflicts: Their Biological Roots in Ethnic Nepotism analyzed 176 countries in period from 2003-2011. He found that Ethnic diversity has 0.812 correlation with ethnic conflict. Meaning that more diverse countries tend to have more violent conflicts in them.

        The issue I have with Tatu Vanhanen and even his colleague, Richard Lynn, is that the methodology they use to come to their conclusion is deeply FLAWED. When comparing IQ between Whites and blacks Lynn himself admitted he used mentally retarded, disease ridden, and starving Africans as a control instead of controlling for Africans with comprable health and environment to Europeans.

        There have been many criticisms of Lynn and his work over the years. The main critiques come from Jelte Wicherts and his team of Dutch researchers. The argument is mostly that Lynn uses samples from diseased, starving, illiterate, not smart enough, or otherwise disqualifiable African populations, and that this understates the true IQ of Sub-Saharan Africa. Jelte Wicherts criticized Lynn’s selection of studies. He argued that Lynn included studies with developmentally disabled, with people who didn’t understand the test, with people who have HIV, malaria and parasites. Lynn’s response was basically that those things represent black Africa, and to exclude those studies is to, in essence, exclude the problems of Africa. And Lynn and Wicherts went back and forth on that.

        Again, the probable with the methodology of people like Lynn and Vanhanen is that much of their racial theories depend on the Race and IQ issue but their controls for these citations are deeply flawed.

        Finally, there are studies, often experiments, which look at how well small groups perform. Hulsheger and Anderson (2009) meta-analyzed 8 studies and found background diversity correlated at -.133 (95% CI: -.318:+.052) with innovation.

        I clicked this link and it just gave me an error. So i Googled it. \it says nothing about diversity, perhaps you could spare another link. When i googled it it said nothing about diversity unless i googled the wrong study.

        Williams and O’Reilly (1998) came to this conclusion in their review of the literature:

        I wish you would have cited something more recent than 1998, but ok.

        Having read this source you've cited it seems to gibve a very nuanced answer to the question of diversity.

        In the conclusion of the study it is argued that heterogeneous groups ALSO struggle with much emotional conflict that impedes group functionality. The study you cited iutself claims that diversity is a "important social value in our society".

        This study acknowlegeds the drawbacks of diversity but advocates for organisations to minimise the negatives and exploit the positives. It doesnt make the claim that there are no positives.

        Also this study accounts for several types of diversity that being diversity in age, backroud and sex. Unless I'm missing it there doesnt seem to be anything here about Racial or cultural diversity, if it is here. Can you point what pages or sections I may have missed?

        Also it seems the study (under the heading "defining Diversity") indicates that prejudice and biases about a particular group. So my solution to the issue is to mitigate the amount of biases the group majority may have towards the group minority.

        Moreover in this study that you've cited under the heading "Information and decision making" on page 86-87 it clearly states:

        Information and decision-making theories proposes that variants in group compositions can have a direct positive and increase in skills, abilities, information, and the knowledge that diversity brings, independent of what happens in the group process.

        This study doesnt seem to say in totality what i think you're advocating for in fact just the opposite.

        [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        The issue I have with Tatu Vanhanen and even his colleague, Richard Lynn, is that the methodology they use to come to their conclusion is deeply FLAWED. When comparing IQ between Whites and blacks Lynn himself admitted he used mentally retarded, disease ridden, and starving Africans as a control instead of controlling for Africans with comprable health and environment to Europeans.

        Lynn made numerous responses to Wicherts where ho pointed some low-quality studies he used to estimate African IQ. Like the one for Sierra Leone.[1][2][3]. It is also worth noting that Lynn's national IQ estimates have 0.876 correlation with PISA scores so they are pretty valid. The text you quoted explains why Lynn was justified in using those unhealthy samples of Africans. I won't dwell on this any further since it is irrelevant. Vanhanen didn't use Lynn's national IQ data to estimate the relationship between diversity and ethnic conflict. Your argument boils down to guilt by association: "Vanhanen is Lynn's co-author and Lynn has flawed research therefore Vanahnen's must be flawed too." This is no argument.

        I clicked this link and it just gave me an error. So i Googled it. \it says nothing about diversity, perhaps you could spare another link. When i googled it it said nothing about diversity unless i googled the wrong study.

        Sorry, here it is. They didn't mention diversity in the abstract but in Table 1 they have it as "background diversity".

        In the conclusion of the study it is argued that heterogeneous groups ALSO struggle with much emotional conflict that impedes group functionality. The study you cited iutself claims that diversity is a "important social value in our society".

        Not sure what you mean by "also". Heterogeneity is another word for diversity. And yes, even I agree that it is important social value too, anyone who spend some time in America knows that diversity is great social value but that doesn't tell you whether it has positive impact.

        Also this study accounts for several types of diversity that being diversity in age, backroud and sex. Unless I'm missing it there doesnt seem to be anything here about Racial or cultural diversity, if it is here. Can you point what pages or sections I may have missed?

        on page 82: "...age, sex, race/ethnicity..."

        Moreover in this study that you've cited under the heading "Information and decision making" on page 86-87 it clearly states:

        Information and decision-making theories proposes that variants in group compositions can have a direct positive and increase in skills, abilities, information, and the knowledge that diversity brings, independent of what happens in the group process.

        Yes and on page 83 they state: "Researchers have used a number of theories to explain the effects of diversity on organizational process and performance. Different theories often lead researchers to offer plausible but contradictory predictions of the effects of diversity on groups and individuals. This section begins with a brief discussion of the three most common, on theoretical bases for investigating diversity:..."

        On pages 85-86 they describe negative effects diversity can have. They were just presenting views of other researchers in the field, like many studies do. They weren't reporting results of their study.

        This study doesnt seem to say in totality what i think you're advocating for in fact just the opposite.

        They are very clear in their conclusion:"Overall, this research offers convincing support for the argument that variations in group demography can have both direct and indirect effects on group process and performance. Under ideal conditions increased diversity may have the positive effects predicted by information and decision theories. However, consistent with social categorization and similarity/attraction theories, the preponderance of empirical evidence suggests that diversity is most likely to impede group functioning. Unless steps are taken to actively counteract these effects, the evidence suggests that, by itself, diversity is more likely to have negative than positive effects on group performance. Simply having more diversity in a group is no guarantee that the group will make better decisions or function effectively. In our view, these conclusions suggest that diversity is a mixed blessing and requires careful and sustained attention to be a positive force in enhancing performance. "

        They apparently want diversity to work so they at the end say it could beneficial if done right similarly like you said that we need to "mitigate biases". But I'm skeptical of this. US spends billions of dollars on diversity trainings and multicultural education and whatever else with no results. I can't imagine what should be done to make diversity work that hasn't been tried already.

        [–]EuropeanAwakening 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Now that your shitty arguments have been trashed, can you tell us why you think White people should become hated minorities in our own countries? That is the result of what you are advocating, so I just want to know why you think this way.

        [–]Minedwe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Blackpills are not "realistic views of problems". Blackpills aren't the question, they are an answer: an event might be described "blackpilling" (or "redpilling" for that matter) based on the reactions it is likely to receive, but in this case, the "question" (an event, fact, issue, etc) is not what we are talking about, rather the responses (answer) to that question. That is where Blackpill and redpill descriptions come in. A blackpilled person may say "Who cares, we can't do anything about it anyway" whereas a redpilled person would actually take some kind of action, even if small. Just as you finish off your post with, we must constantly push redpilling and actual response to issues.