all 5 comments

[–]Nasser 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The issue with articles is that we have the 60s and 70s as a benchmark in US history where things were alot more unstable. We got massive race riots that make the 2020 ones look tame, with triple the death count. We had massive political instability with the Dem convention riot,watergate,Nixon's resignation, the panama papers etc. We had the loss in the Vietnam war, the recession, the oil crisis, intense resentment and opposition in the South due to desegregation and so on. Not to mention a fitter,less complacent,more organised,more hardened populace than we have now. But there was no collapse or civil war. The same article could have been written back then.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wars are fought with weapons but won by men - General George Scott Patton.

American men haven't shown balls since the 1970s.

Having guns and being angry isn't enough. Christian conservatives have been angry and buying ammo since the 60s. They've never used it once.

The white working class in France had no guns but they took to the streets in the hundreds of thousands in 2020 against the Macron regime and even forced him to make confessions. They braved jail and police beatings.

In the late 1980s, the people of the Soviet Union, Poland, Romania and Hungary had no guns and the regime had vast intelligence appratuses capable of arresting millions and sending them to slave labor camps. But despite this they took the streets and they brought down the regime. In 1956, the unarmed people of Hungary revolted against the Jewish communist government and overthrew it almost overnight, braving gunfire by Jewish intelligence agents.

That's the lesson of modern politics. Its balls, not guns that break governments. Americans just buy loads of guns and keep polish them all year. They're of no use if the owners lack the courage to do anything with them.

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

Arguably a broader uprising has failed to happen only because of intense pressure from government and media, and because whites have not acquired a sense of racial identity.

Something to keep in mind is that there are in fact plenty of Whites who are aware of their racial identity, but still vote or align themselves with Liberalism or BLM groups. It's undeniable that the current U.S President is one of them. Biden knows all about segregation and IQ scores, yet he's still convinced that third world immigration needs to happen anyway.

And these same racially aware White liberals already have gated communities to run to. So they're not really scared if the country becomes 99% blacked as long as they can keep building their own walls. Look at South Africa or Brazil where minority Whites already exists, yet they're still hardcore believers in diversity. You need another type of event to wake these people up.

I believe Jared Taylor said it best in his review of Charles Murray's new book. You need someone who is ultra rich or famous to shatter the taboo that White people exist.

https://www.unz.com/article/two-cheers-for-charles-murray/

For years, I have wondered how the taboo on talking about racial differences will collapse. Could one brave man break the logjam? Charles Murray gives it a try in his latest book, Facing Reality. I cheer the effort, and Dr. Murray has made powerful arguments, but much as I hope he succeeds, I think he will fail. First — and least important — the book could be more persuasive. Second — and much more important — Dr. Murray is already notorious, as the SPLC puts it, for “using racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue” for “the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities.” If one man could end the taboo, he would have to be famous, beloved, and untainted. Tim Cook? Anthony Fauci? Maybe there is no such person.

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

The danger is that a flashpoint will come, that for example BLM will mob the wrong house in the wrong state and the occupants will open fire, leaving a dozen dead. The entire country would explode.

No it wouldn't. A lot of this analysis seems out of touch. In this scenario, 95% of the country doesn't read pass the inevitable fake news CNN headline and emails from your HR dept that read "A country mourns for the victims of another mass shooting: 12 peaceful protestors died at the hands of a white supremacist terrorist armed with an AR-15".

They can just make up whatever they want now and people will go along with it.

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

Lost me at "Methinks"

Anything that came after that clearly was written by an idiot not worth your time.