White Doom forecast at American Thinker. I don't like it. And I don't mind saying so.
Why is it that to Liberals a White President of South Africa was so evil, but a Black President of America is not only OK, but "devoutly to be wished"?
What conclusion is it possible to reach except that they hate Whites? How sick is it that Liberal Whites are so consumed by such self-loathing.
The builders of the modern world, from which they all benefit, are to be scorned and excoriated...and removed from power, because......?
What, exactly, do they expect to take place when Whites are gone, or at least overwhelmed by numbers, without a Nation of their own, and impotent in national and world affairs?
Where is the model they admire? Where is the successful program they intend to follow? What culture do they intend to mimic? Where is the superior nation they seek to emulate?
Sudan? Somalia? Zimbabwe? Syria? Russia? China? Cuba? Mexico?
I DON'T GET IT!
"Let's dump American culture, and institute Mexican culture instead, look how much better it is to live in Mexico, how much happier, healthier, more prosperous everyone is in Mexico than in the United States."In what cosmic dimension is this true? In what inner plane reality is this possible? In what degree of mental illness could this be contemplated?
And I'm not picking on Mexico. Substitute any other nation in the above sentence, and it is equally absurd. It makes no sense, it flies in the face of logic, reason, experience.
These people are truly and surely and absolutely insane.
"How did it come to this?"
I was clearly born too late, into an "interesting" time where over half the world has gone berserk, and seems to be incapable of self-control, self-direction, self-discipline or self-respect.
I'm starting to get the Road Warrior post-apocalyptic nightmare vibe. But I'm surrounded by lunatics who can't see it. Who believe that destroying everything and everyone that created and advanced civilization will somehow improve it.
AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH.
The Gunslinger
I'm not convinced they really want to improve anything. Everything I ever see from liberals indicates a desire for destruction of the good and advanced and civilised of the world, not in order to put up anything better, but simply for its own sake. Maybe they just hate civilisation 'just because'.
ReplyDeleteBtw, on the note of 'self-loathing', I recommend you have a look at this comment and this comment out there in the blogosphere. Something tells me these sentiments aren't numerical aberrations, but becoming more and more the norm. Maybe someday, as predicted by Camp of the Saints such sentiments will be mandatory.
"America is a great country, but there's plenty we could do to improve ourselves. There are things we can learn from other cultures."
ReplyDeleteYeah, the erstwhile state of Rhodesia is simply overflowing with examples!
Jag,
ReplyDeleteThe "history" of South Africa that you blithely rattle off, is not, actually what happened at all.
South Africa was a nearly empty wasteland when the White Man showed up.Very few natives lived there.
Like most of Africa, there wasn't much "there" there.
It was only after the White Man built civilization, a working country, a prosperous economy...that the Blacks from other parts of Africa flooded in to get the benefits of it.
When enough of them came, they stole it from the Whites who built it. Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) followed suit.
From rich, prosperous countries that actually worked, were modern and successful, South Africa and Zimbabwe have degnerated into hell holes of crime and corruption, and the inability to even feed themselves (at least Zimbabwe, the former "bread basket" of Africa, now requires world charity to feed it's own citizens.)
There is Black Government sponsored systematic racial genocide and property theft in Rhodesia, in which White farmers who have owned their land for generations, and fed the country and the continent, were murdered, and their lands given to government cronies...who did not know how, or care to farm them. The land sits wasted...and the people starve.
You need to know HISTORY before you can use HISTORY as an argument.
Before I have my beer: (it's a slow day at work but not that slow :)
ReplyDeleteRhodesia and Zimbabwe would have done better to avoid apartheid, which creates the sort of situation where people are going to take over your country. Oppressed peoples usually revolt if there are enough to fight. Obviously that doesn't mean they are going to use their power for good.
I'm not holding up these countries as virtuous, just saying it's a lot different than the current situation in the US.
I do know a bit about history, and again, if you could point me in the right direction to the works that inform you, I would be very grateful. I don't want to only read one "side" of the story when there are others I may not even know about (and I don't have time to research everything exhaustively).
GS, I think mrsmith is onto the main motivation, which is just to tear down. There is no need to think about what might be a workable substitute for the hated "is." Objective numero uno is cut down to size the present "system." Why? Because the system refuses to recognize liberals for the objective loveliness of their sentiments, feelings, and goals. They so want good things -- and Peace -- and Amerika will just not reward them for being so nice. Therefore, Amerika is corrupt. To get rid of a bad thing is virtuous. Replacement system to be decided upon later, preferably one that sounds really good and mentions harmony, hope, and tolerance.
ReplyDeleteJagwio, I think GS is correct about the empty spaces of southern Africa. Anyone who wasn't there in those spaces can't complain about someone else taking them over and developing them.
Related topic, Jagwio: The Zulus were an aggressive, warlike tribe and were responsible for pushing a other blacks out of those portions of southern Africa that they wanted to settle (but not develop). The Ovambos of Namibia were pushed into their present area by this process and I think there were other tribes who had to retreat from Zulu "imperialism" or their search for Lebensraum. I categorically reject that whites are unique in the world where it comes to fighting and taking land. That's just human history for thousands of years. Might makes right and if the "Native" Americans (who were more than happy to dispossess other tribes) want to take back the U.S. they're entitled to do so. Ditto, the Arabs taking back Israel, Greek Cypriots taking back Turkish occupied Cyprus, the Hashemite Kindgom of Jordan taking back Arabia, any body kicking the Muslims out of North Africa, the ME, Persia, and India, Mexicans taking back the Southwest, Tibetans taking back China, Finland taking back Karelia, etc., etc. The Zulus didn't "own" southern Africa and didn't have a "right" to it that wasn't coextensive with their military power. If Muslims want to take over the U.S. and we won't fight for it then I say the Muslims are entitled to get what they want from a weak and pussilanimous people. International law only ratifies what is won on the battlefield. Too bad, so sad. But it's reality squared.
Your mature and generous response is noted.
What...you don't mean to say OTHER people actually use violence against one another.
ReplyDeleteHeresy, heresy!!!!
Only White people do that!