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 -  (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.