New Jared Taylor video examines how diversity destroys standards of living.

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 →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I... still don't understand what your point is.

To compare the Native Indian situation to poor Whites is clearly wrong. The Whites who live that way are in the minority, but their cities are still considered safer on average.

There's no where in my country where I can name a single Reserve or Indian town that has living standards comparable to any upper class neighborhood. Why would that be the case, if not for IQ and any other genetic differences?

The Native Indians also get a shit ton of free money from the government as well. It's a myth that we never helped these people or created that situation for them. Hell, they can even go to university for free because of their Indian status. If they were smart, they could graduate and come back to these slums and actually improve them. Except, they do the complete opposite.

They vote for more government aid, which is just more welfare, and they blow it. The cycle repeats and repeats.

With the picture of the Japanese camp, it doesn't take a genius to understand why they appear well mannered to us. They keep all their personal belongings in bags and organized, their clothes doesn't show signs of damage so they take care of them, and it's highly unlikely they're going to stab you if you walked past them. The guy leaning in the chair even looks like he is enjoying life, despite probably having no money.

[–][deleted]  (14 children)

[deleted]

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    I... I'm still confused by your message.

    Once again, my original concern or statement was I'm perplexed by Native Indians scoring higher on average in school compared to Hispanics. I do not deny from a genetic point of view, that Native Indians are still gifted with large brains. But that alone doesn't explain the massive differences in nation building that no Amerindian civilization has ever caught up with European or Asian societies.

    Does this make my point more clear? And just like with the IQ arguments, I don't deny that environment can't also be ia factor. But even from the same Rushton sources, does he not admit that IQ is still 50% genes AND 50% environment?

    And even when poor Whites & Asians are thrown into these slum like conditions, we know for a fact that they still manage to create safe and clean neighborhoods. We also know they can rapidly recover from poverty. Perfect example of this? Look at Germany. They were destroyed by two world wars but today, they're still like the 3rd or 4th most powerful country.

    Meanwhile, Indian reserves are given millions in free cash and other incentives by the government, but what do the Indians do with it? Do they build cars, computers or skyscrapers with it? No. It all goes wasted every generation.

    [–][deleted]  (12 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

      Indians capable and wanting of such things can self-select and enter western society to work for AMD, Intel, Samsung, Apple, Google, etc. and they wouldn't be in those photos.

      I have to stop you there.

      If one Indian applies for a job that is overwhelmingly White or Asian, then of course they're not going to make it in the photo shoot. If they want representation, they either have to work for it, and get more of their buddies in this line of work. OR, they can literally fund their own tech start-up, and pride themselves on being a 100% Indian owned company. The latter is what I clearly support, since it empowers Indians to actually look at their national image and fix it, as opposed to leeching off another race's success and complaining "Why doesn't this 99% White or Asian business like me"?

      Yep. Throwing piles of cash at things can hurt those things when there's no motivating factor. There's teaching a man to fish vs. throwing fish at him. Sometimes men are capable of fishing but need some fish temporarily and that's ok. Charity has a place for many things, nursing people. It depends. When globalists enact "welfare"/"charity", bank on it being 100% predatory. Dumping cash and gibs on Africa then funneling those population booms into western nations is as subversive as it gets. Globalists might as well be putting a trail of honey for wild bears to enter an unopened door, straight into your kids' rooms.

      If Indians don't want welfare, they're free to reject it. In fact, if Western life is too complicated for them, they should be making the argument for complete racial seperation, instead of constantly bitching at White politicians to give them more free stuff or rename historic White institutions after their own leaders.

      So the Indians are actually motivated, but their motivation stems from hurting Whites, instead of taking responsibility and leading their people away from them.

      The same is true with Africa. They have a motivation to accept gibs and use it to buy all the fancy trinkets that gets dropped on them. But their IQ is too low to actually refocus their efforts on building a 1st world country, instead of buying more flashy products.

      [–][deleted]  (10 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

        You know, your post reminds me of the debate I just had with the Boomers two days ago.

        My country already gives too much generosity to the Native Indians, we have no obligation to feed them forever. If the Indians refuse to leave us alone, I would be fine supporting a more radical government that will either:

        1. Tell them to get a job and assimilate like the rest of us.
        2. The military/police can go round them all up and deport them to the Reserves by force. If they try to escape, then we'll build a fence around them and use lethal force if caught trespassing.

        That's it. In all of human history, it was never considered normal to let a weaker tribe live alongside the more powerful one. European settlers were generous to let the Indians live alongside them after losing wars instead of just taking all their women and breeding them out. But now we see the consequences of co-existing with them, and I don't care what any globalists think. Our governments has a duty to protect me and my nation's sovereignty.

        [–][deleted]  (8 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

          Yes. Focusing on policy ends of the spectrum, recognizing globalists control your government and not wanting them to have more power, would be helpful.

          I don't want globalists controlling my government. I want the people who recognize diversity is a failure, to control my government. Whether or not some outside organization gets upset is not my problem. That can always be dealt with later.

          There is nothing "radical" about a basic government that doesn't let its people be taken advantage of in perpetuity.

          In practice, sure. But these are desperate times where speaking out against immigration will get you banned from politics and nearly any public job as well. It was never as simple as showing up on election day and voting for a party who could promise this. The uphill battle to get an anti-immigrant leader in power is enormous.

          You say you don't care what any globalists think and then you expect "your nation" to magically be what you want.

          Every nation in history has a military or police force. I'm aware that outside organizations will always try to influence these nations, like supporting rebel groups or imposing sanctions. But without an actual threat of invasion, a nation's sovereignty remains preserved.

          Like, look at Cuba? At one point, they did order an invasion of the Island, but the bay of pigs failed. For the next 50 years, the U.S wrote mean letters to Castro, but Cuba's government wasn't actually overthrown. If they actually want Cuba's regime to change, then they would have to try invading them again, but they still haven't done that.

          And honestly, I don't even care if some foreign nation did try to attack us if our government made the radical switch to anti-immigration. I can still pick up a rifle and defend what I believe in, and if I fail, then that's the end of my life. But that's still a better scenario than having to pay millions in taxes to Indians and other non-whites who are only here for the free ride.

          [–][deleted]  (6 children)

          [deleted]