← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Max_Power
Thread ID: 7791 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2003-07-02
2003-07-02 18:36 | User Profile
I have often wondered why liberals support the gradual displacement of America's white majority through advocacy of third-world immigration, since whites are the only group in the world who care about liberalism. Feminism, "gay rights," inclusiveness, colorblindness, and the belief in the inherent goodness of equality from which the aforementioned beliefs spring does not exist in Asia, Central America, the middle east or sub-Saharan Africa. Do liberals really believe Mexicans, who come from a country where c*ck-fights are commonplace and women have defined domestic roles, are, any minute now, going to magically become rootless white suburbanites? Do liberals really believe Muslims will embrace gender equality and the homosexual agenda once they set foot on American soil?
The philosophy of multiculturalism espoused by liberals explicitly discourages third-world immigrants from assimilating. For when the peoples from the third-world pour into America, they bring their customs and folkways with them, which are fostered by multiculturalism, which discourages third-worlders from discarding their customs and folkways, even if they're antithetical to liberalism. It would thus seem liberals want to import third-worlders and their politically incorrect beliefs, even if it means that liberalism will eventually be supplanted.
So I guess my question is: why are liberals willing to commit suicide? What is the end toward which their beliefs are directed?
2003-07-02 18:55 | User Profile
I don't mean to downplay the conspiratorial actions of certain elements in the left (their feeling that 1965 America was too white, etc.) but I think short-term thinking is necessary foundation of true-believer (no-subterfuge) liberalism.
They simply believe that it will all work out in the end. Just like Social Security and the Just Wage, etc.
And on another note:
"You don't cuddle with Max Power- you strap in and FEEL THE G's!!!!" :lol: :D
2003-07-02 19:03 | User Profile
Not following you. White liberals love the muds because they provide automatic votes for the Democratic Party. Someone like, say, Michael Douglas looks at some meat packing Mexican and thinks, "He'll vote DEM simply based on economics. Enough of them do that, I'll get my way on social issues"
They work in tandem.
-Jay
2003-07-02 19:41 | User Profile
Democrats support massive immigration because it increases the pool of potential voters, most which will be poor and will probably vote democratic.
Republicans support massive immigration because it increases the pool of workers, thus manipulating the "supply" side of supply and demand. Basic economics tell you increasing the supply will drive down the wages.
Our problem, in the high-tech industry, with H-1b and L-1 visas is that these 2 groups of crooks have destroyed lives and opportunities for Americans. It is extremely difficult today to land a job in our country. So many of these major corporations know that our government has no intentions on protecting American workers.
They/congress are fed lies(and spout the lies themselves) about American education being low quality. that is hogwash. If so, then why do so many foreigners come to our country to educate themselves?
Honorable CO Rep Tom Tancredo is the only Congressional member willing to tell the truth: On Jun 18, 2003 he gave an excellent 31 minute speech linking H-1b/L1 visas, illegal immigration to our poor economy.
His speech is available on my webserver, both audio and transcript:
[url=http://www.OutsourceCongress.org:81/]http://www.OutsourceCongress.org:81/[/url]
Here is a snippet of his speech:
"I will tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if that is the policy that our government is undertaking, then it is simply the policy we should tell our constituents about. We should explain it to them. When my colleagues get a letter like this, handwritten, three pages long, talking about what happened to them, how they were displaced by foreign workers, we should write back and say it is the policy of this government to displace you, to move you into a lower economic income category because we believe in cheap labor and we believe that the politics of open borders helps our party, in this case the Democrats, as I say. {b}The Republicans, it is the cheap labor side of things[/B].
That is what we tell people. That is what we should do. That is how we should respond because that is the truth of the matter; and I hope that when we have people bring bills to the floor designed to do something about jobs, which we hear over and over again, do something about jobs, I just hope that they will think about one thing they could do. There is something that we could do tomorrow to improve the quality of life for millions and millions of American citizens. There is something that we could do tomorrow that could actually add maybe 10 million jobs for American citizens, and that is to enforce our immigration laws. Stop people from coming in here illegally, deport the people who are here illegally today, and we would automatically create 10 million jobs for American citizens.
So I want that discussed every single time there is a ``jobs'' bill brought in front of this Congress, because there is an easy way to do it. There is a moral way to do it. It is immoral for us to, in fact, displace American workers with cheap labor from outside our country. It is immoral for us to tell Americans that we do not have an open borders policy because we do, and there are ramifications to it, deep, serious ramifications to open borders. " ----Tancredo
2003-07-02 19:50 | User Profile
While I appreciate both troup and jay's replies, they seem to miss the overarching point I tried to make. My point is that liberalism will eventually be supplanted by the political incorrectness of third-worlders when they reduce whites to minority status by mid-century. Liberalism depends on whites. When whites go, so will liberalism. I thought that was implicit in my initial post.
2003-07-02 20:04 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Max_Power@Jul 2 2003, 13:50 * ** While I appreciate both troup and jay's replies, they seem to miss the overarching point I tried to make. My point is that liberalism will eventually be supplanted by the political incorrectness of third-worlders when they reduce whites to minority status by mid-century. Liberalism depends on whites. When whites go, so will liberalism. I thought that was implicit in my initial post. **
Well, first, you should differentiate between the White Liberal elites, the White liberal working class, and the white liberal underclass/parasite class.
White Liberal elites know that Liberal ideas don't work, but they want to still promote it because it keeps them in power: by supporting minorities and immigrants, they get the votes. And also, they want to please the Jews whom the White elites must pander to if they want to keep their power. White Liberal elites have come from the gene pool of high IQ psychopaths, so they don't care if their policies are detrimental to the average White. They also probably have the Big 5 personality trait of "Open to Experience" as opposed to "Conventionality."
Now, the white Liberal working class: these Whites truely believe in the altruism of Liberalism, probably due to a much higher concentration of the Big-5 personality traits of Agreeableness (altruism) as well as "Open to Experience." They have a need to help the non-Whites and the poor, and they think it will work because they blindly trust the psychopathic White Liberal elites and Jews who feed them these lies.
Finally, the Liberal parasite class: these are the "Wiggers," the thieves, the rapists, the welfare recipients. They support Liberalism because it gives them free resources, a lot more than Conservatism would allow for.
Regards,
Ares
2003-07-02 20:47 | User Profile
Unfortunately, pro-immigrationism is by no means confined to self-styled liberals. The "conservative" Republicans are probably the biggest advocates of Hispanic immigration into the United States. See the thread [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8596]GOP races after Latinos.[/url]
2003-07-02 21:41 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 2 2003, 20:04 * ** Now, the white Liberal working class: these Whites truely believe in the altruism of Liberalism... **
True, and I think they're also just about gone.
The classic MARs strategy is almost completely in place: The High Class liberals and the Low Rent parasites are simply waging war against everything in the middle. This is when Warren's "middle American radical" thesis was supposed to kick in and end the party.
So far the MARs are stupified and fragmented but I have noticed much more anger in the last couple years than before. Even working class whites know they haven't far to fall and they're in an American third world. Anger piles up in drifts but something might ignite it.
One exception to Liberal Elite hypocrisy might be at the university level. Humanities professors seem to believe some of the garbage they teach. The rest, you are correct, are in it for the money.
2003-07-02 21:55 | User Profile
I also think that there is a connection or bond to those minorities that the liberal minded defend, care for, and advocate for.
It's the feel good syndrome. Most liberals I know says it makes them feel good to see what they've worked for come to reality. The people (minorities) who they work with in urban areas, clinics, peace corp projects, etc. gives them a feeling of importance. The minorities and their causes to the liberal is like their drug of choice. They get a high in representing them in every walk of life. And, if the liberal feels guilty for having more than the minority, he makes up for it by pushing that minorities cause. Then the liberal feels much better for having what he does have. Do you think the Clinton's feel bad living in Westchester? Nah, because they help those minorities who don't live there and make those minorities feel and think that the Clinton's would live right next to them if they could.
So, I think it goes beyond voting. It's the feel good syndrome for having something and being something more than the minority you are serving. And, they are serving minority in many ways other than help. They become the 'slave' to the minority and work toward getting the minority further than the minority was when the liberal began. I don't believe the liberal ever feels that one day the minority will ever be where they are at. For if they ever got there, then what purpose in life does the liberal have and how will they get rid of the guilt complex for what they have achieved. They need the minority as the minority needs them. And, it's not all for the vote.
2003-07-02 22:23 | User Profile
White Liberal elites know that Liberal ideas don't work, but they want to still promote it because it keeps them in power: by supporting minorities and immigrants, they get the votes.
You seem to be suggesting that liberal politicians aren't really liberals at all, since they don't really believe in liberalism, but crass opportunists who will espouse liberal ideas to gain power. The liberals referred to in my initial post are the "true believers."
Finally, the Liberal parasite class: these are the "Wiggers," the thieves, the rapists, the welfare recipients. They support Liberalism because it gives them free resources, a lot more than Conservatism would allow for.
I wasn't aware lower class whites on welfare supported third-world immigration. Can you support this with citations?
2003-07-02 22:29 | User Profile
Tommy, at least stick with one identity. And if you are going to have an alter-ego, don't make it a gender-bender. That's just tasteless.
2003-07-02 23:33 | User Profile
I would suggest that liberals fall into several categories.
First, there is the conspiritorial group--the people who sponsored and promoted the so-called "Immigration Reform" Act of 1965; America was "too white." The ulterior motive is easy to guess.
Then you have people like Ted Kennedy; the privileged class who are, basically, on an ego trip, wanting to be remembered as humanitarians. Most of them are not entirely sound mentally and/or emotionally.
A third group might be the older so-called "working class," who probably consider liberalism as it was understood in the 1930s; a kind of foil against the excesses of capitalism.
And then perhaps the academics, where "liberalism" has nothing to do with social or political philosophy, but is actually a kind of mental aberration. In an interview some time ago, Guillaume Faye used words like "ethnomasochism," "xenophilia," and "pathological humanitarianism." All of them fit like a glove to this class.
Jahel
2003-07-02 23:52 | User Profile
Max Power> **Do liberals really believe Muslims will embrace gender equality and the homosexual agenda once they set foot on American soil? ** It does not seem to be to well known that homosexuality was long known as Muslim love. These buggers and Lawrence have indulged over the centuries.
Almost one year ago I wrote this: edward gibbon (Posted: Jul 11 2002, 19:49)> **John Masters wrote Bugle and a Tiger (Viking, 1956) and remembered that T.S. Lawrence noted the tendency of the Arabs to homosexuality. It was the same among the Pathans. ââ¬Å[color=red]A woman for business, a boy for pleasure, a goat for choice[/color]ââ¬Â is an old Pathan proverb, One of the most famous of Pathan songs, the ââ¬ÅZakhmi Dilââ¬Â (ââ¬ÅWounded Heartââ¬Â) begins with the words, ââ¬Å [color=red]Thereââ¬â¢s a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but, alas I cannot swim.[/color]ââ¬Â. These sentiments may cause eyes to tear down at the Stonewall Inn, or the nearest homosexual joint, but I suspect they do not endear the average American to these savages. **
God Bless America!!! Maybe Muslims will start taking swimming lessons.
2003-07-03 00:02 | User Profile
In Russia homo jokes were told with a Georgian accent. One of them went something like a defendant recalling the events of that day as "a boy, his bottom as a peach", and the judge (also a Georgian) insisting "please, go on, defendant".
2003-07-03 00:13 | User Profile
**I would suggest that liberals fall into several categories.
First, there is the conspiritorial group--the people who sponsored and promoted the so-called "Immigration Reform" Act of 1965; America was "too white." The ulterior motive is easy to guess.**
**"The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act
By the early 1960s, many Americans were advocating a new immigration policy, especially eliminating of the national origins quota system."**
As I am only in my mid-40's and wasn't too aware (because of my age and haven't devled into it myself) of the reasons behind eliminating the national origins quota system, who were the "many Americans" that were advocating such an Act and what was the reason for this? I can't believe or understand why everyone is saying that it was for voting reasons alone. I myself believe that voting is probably a reason, but I feel as though the government, who was basically democratic at the time, forced that viewpoint on the media who in turn possibly convinced part of the American viewership that 'eliminating the national origins quota system' was in the best interest of the country. Perhaps there were other alterior motives behind the reform act that we still do not know to this day. Perhaps with the colonialism collapsing in Africa and Asia by the spread of nationalism, there were promises made to those who supported the American government and corporations that were inbedded in the local economies and culture that they would receive safe haven in the US. And, the only way to do that was to eliminate the national origin quota system. So, I believe that perhaps the US government may have had a possible role in convincing the 'many American people' that the quota system needed to be reformed.
Finally, I also must ask how the 'many American people' were polled? Was this a bias study? I look at today's poll studies and depending upon who you ask, you'll get different numbers--some in favor and some not in favor. In addition, another thought comes to mine. Alot of your non-white legal immigrants are also making their way into this country through church organizations and missionaries who are wanting to bring their followers to this country. Wouldn't a legal immigrant from Africa be worth more to the church than a poor person from Africa with no job?
Then you have people like Ted Kennedy; the privileged class who are, basically, on an ego trip, wanting to be remembered as humanitarians. Most of them are not entirely sound mentally and/or emotionally.
I hear you. The entire Kennedy family for that matter have been indoctrinated into thinking they are the saviours to all the unfortunate and societal misfits.
A third group might be the older so-called "working class," who probably consider liberalism as it was understood in the 1930s; a kind of foil against the excesses of capitalism.
The church goers who give to the coffers and host the immigrants the church brings over for a better life.
And then perhaps the academics, where "liberalism" has nothing to do with social or political philosophy, but is actually a kind of mental aberration. In an interview some time ago, Guillaume Faye used words like "ethnomasochism," "xenophilia," and "pathological humanitarianism." All of them fit like a glove to this class.
They need to feel important.
2003-07-03 00:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Max_Power@Jul 2 2003, 12:36 * ** I have often wondered why liberals support the gradual displacement of America's white majority through advocacy of third-world immigration, since whites are the only group in the world who care about liberalism. Feminism, "gay rights," inclusiveness, colorblindness, and the belief in the inherent goodness of equality from which the aforementioned beliefs spring does not exist in Asia, Central America, the middle east or sub-Saharan Africa. Do liberals really believe Mexicans, who come from a country where cck-fights are commonplace and women have defined domestic roles, are, any minute now, going to magically become rootless white suburbanites? Do liberals really believe Muslims will embrace gender equality and the homosexual agenda once they set foot on American soil? **
Liberals have been trained not to make distinctions like male/female, white/black, etc. And their view seems to be that if you can just "educate" these racists, sexists, etc, you can get them to stop making the above distinctions too. And, of course, all racially-related social problems we observe are the result of oppression and the like. That's why they don't see a problem with importing hordes of colored third-worlders--they're just fresh material to be transformed into dark-hued versions of whites through some magical process.
As for why they actively seek to replace white people with coloreds, instead of just adding to their numbers, there's basically a conception in liberal minds (and I use the word lightly) that existing white people have become too corrupt to save, being 'imperialistic' and 'oppressive' and all, and must be destroyed or replaced with caucasized coloreds. The terms ethnomasochism and xenophilia aptly describe this part...
What it really comes down to is that true-believer liberals are a group of emotional, manipulable people with immature and unexperienced minds, who have been whipped into a frenzy of self-hatred by their chosenite leaders, who hate them.
2003-07-03 00:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by Max_Power@Jul 2 2003, 18:36 * *It would thus seem liberals want to import third-worlders and their politically incorrect beliefs, even if it means that liberalism will eventually be supplanted.
So I guess my question is: why are liberals willing to commit suicide? What is the end toward which their beliefs are directed?**
Because multiculturalism/diversity is the central tenat of modern American liberalism and its cousins, which basically includes all of socialy acceptable/mainstream American thought.
If you want to know why, read Kevin MacDonald. For a start, see my signature thread, and those threads next to it.
2003-07-03 00:55 | User Profile
edward gibbon (Posted: Jul 11 2002, 19:49)> **John Masters wrote Bugle and a Tiger (Viking, 1956) and remembered that T.S. Lawrence noted the tendency of the Arabs to homosexuality. It was the same among the Pathans. ââ¬Å[color=red]A woman for business, a boy for pleasure, a goat for choice[/color]ââ¬Â is an old Pathan proverb, One of the most famous of Pathan songs, the ââ¬ÅZakhmi Dilââ¬Â (ââ¬ÅWounded Heartââ¬Â) begins with the words, ââ¬Å [color=red]Thereââ¬â¢s a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but, alas I cannot swim.[/color]ââ¬Â. These sentiments may cause eyes to tear down at the Stonewall Inn, or the nearest homosexual joint, but I suspect they do not endear the average American to these savages. **
That is very interesting, but if Muslims are so prone to homosexuality, then why do several Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind) make homosexuality a crime punishable by death? The answer is that aside from being a religion, Islam is unique in that it dictates a political system. Anything prohibited by the Qur'an is also prohibited in Islamic countries by law.
2003-07-03 01:38 | User Profile
Liberals are generally not consistent thinkers, so it is difficult to say why white liberals they accept the destruction of their race. The best answer is that they have been tricked into believing that racial destruction is in keeping with morality.
Why, though, is this at all convinving?
Ultimately, we have to look to religion as force that can bind more powerful peoples to weaker ones. In the West, this religous motive has gotten out of control. That this is occured is not necessarily very surprising. Extreme asceticism has been a feautre of Christianity since at least the time of Augustine, after all. Likewise, the balance between white and non-white power became so great in the 19th Century, that is not really too surprising that the human unconscious would find some radically strange way to redress the 'imbalance.' Thus we find the religion of white guilt arising.
All very speculative, of course, but I think this is about right. Our task, then, would be to highlight such 'Nietzschean' dynamics of Ubermensch v. Untermensch, noble-descended vs. herd-descended, 'blond beast' vs. 'Jew.' Only Gottfried-esque account focued on the religious origin and quasi-religious nature of contemporary leftism (i.e., anti-white leftism) are going to have the proper scope for explaining what is going on, and convincing whites that many of us--along with most of our fellow non-white citizens--are in the grips of a destructive, irrational vector of ressentiment.