A big flaw about white demographic change that can't be ignored.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I didn't write these rules.

These aren't rules. You're making assumptions about how things WILL be because those are the rules. But they're NOT the rules.

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

Which part is an assumption? I couldn't make it more clear why White Nationalism lost out against Diversity under the system of Capitalism. There's just a lot more money to be made selling to every race, as opposed to going back to the 1950s idea of segregation. And the decline in White birth rates only fueled this argument further. A shrinking population is literally watching your GDP contract. It's very hard to argue why anyone wants to have negative profits, while at the same time complaining you don't want to become third world or share their standards of living.

Now you made your arguments that you don't want to chase infinite GDP or you want to force people to buy American products only. I never once said you were wrong on this and it's perfectly valid to hold this belief. But just try and understand that many people who made their fortune under Capitalism, are not likely to be swayed into giving everything up to fulfill the niche idea that genetic purity is more important than ever growing profits. I can put this idea to the test right now. If Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk came out right now as hardcore White Supremacists, what do you think will happen to their businesses? Right away there will be boycotts and immediate calls for their resignation because the majority who buy their products are not interested in funding Nazism. And once shareholders notice a serious decline in profit, they will elect someone else who is clearly not White Nationalist. That's Capitalism. If there was another economic system in place that did reward skin color over pure profits, than the Alt-Right would find their answer/success. But history has also shown that the absolute alternatives to Capitalism always end in failure. That's the dilemma I just spelled out for you.

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

It's very hard to argue why anyone wants to have negative profits, while at the same time complaining you don't want to become third world or share their standards of living.

If the country was nearly all White again the chances of us having Third World standards is zero. Are you stupid or disingenuous?

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

If the country was nearly all White again the chances of us having Third World standards is zero. Are you stupid or disingenuous?

West Virginia is 92% White, and it's the poorest state in the union... You could say you're fine with those standards, but also say good bye to having state of the art healthcare services, education, infrastructure etc.

Edit: And before you bring up more prosperous White states like Vermont, keep in mind that they lean politically left and support all the same policies that enable diversity to begin with. Hell, Bernie Sanders, the guy I talked about being a Jewish Socialist plant, found his greatest success there. For the alt-right, it sounds like a complete nightmare to transform the country where Whites only want to vote Far-leftist Jews into power...

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

West Virginia is 92% White, and it's the poorest state in the union

"poorest state in the union" IS NOT Third World standards. Just stop.

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

I've seen people describe California as third world, despite the fact it has the 5th highest GDP on Earth. It all depends on what your definition is. If third world is used to represent an undesirable place to live, especially when other nations or territories continue to develop economically, then it's third world in my eyes.

Edit: I've also seen personal biases get applied when describing living conditions. For example, I faithfully brought up there are African countries that are doing better than some European ones (i.e Botswana vs Ukraine) but it gets dismissed because they're black. So honestly, the term itself is meaningless. Don't take it too seriously.