This post is also available in: English
ben tillman has a great comment about the delusions of GoodWhites who think they can sever themselves fully from BadWhites in America and not suffer any consequences for it:
This is a point that I’ve tried to make several times. For your typical NYT reading leftist – Jew and gentile – the destruction of bad whites will make the country look like California. They’re fine with that.
High-income liberals can buy their way out of the masses and live just fine.
For a generation or two. But each generation, the tax burden will go up, and the income will go down with the result that the situation of their white lineage will regress quickly. Not to mention the quickly expanding likelihood of intermarriage by their descendants. No, the destruction of “bad whites” is ineluctably connected to the destruction of “good whites”. “Good whites” absolutely cannot survive without “bad whites”. No way in hell.
This is exactly right. GoodWhites who think they can escape to coastal shitlibopolises and live a charmed life in perpetuity free from the “irredeemably foul“* BadWhites are fooling themselves. The bill for replacing White America with Third World America will come due, and it will be enormous. Payment will be made in one form or another, whether in higher taxes, safety, mental health, freedom of mobility, cost of living, lineage continuity, cultural familiarity, social trust, shared values, basic livability, or aesthetic pleasures.
That’s why it is always a laugh to me that there are SWPL shitlibs who enjoy stupidly snarking that BadWhites are paranoid for believing minorities are “coming for them”. Yes, they are. Maybe not with guns a-blazing (although they do that, too, disproportionately), but they come for us in myriad ways that make life less enjoyable. They come for our welfare, paid with our taxes. They come for our hospital services, paid with our insurance premiums. They come for our peace of mind, paid for with exorbitant housing costs, home security, and expensive school districts. They come for our vote, by diluting our political voice and forcing us to live under a government that only marginally, if at all, addresses our concerns, and is more often actively hostile to them. They come for our culture, corrupting it to suit their lowbrow preferences.
NonWhite Diversity costs Whites A LOT, and in my book that means they are, indeed, coming for us. They are coming for our way of life and twisting it, unconsciously, into a facsimile of the shitholes they left behind. And yet evil, hateful bitches like Michelle Goldberg express glee at the prospect! Love wins!
Likewise, the above empty-headed shitlib sarcasm is why I have no patience for that other trope shitlibs weakly trot out when the debate has taken a turn away from their control: “You’re just being played by rich White people who use divide and conquer to keep you focused on irrelevant issues like mass immigration and away from their greed”. Funny, they are always circumspect about exactly WHO comprises a healthy share of those “rich White people”. That aside, rich White people don’t have to play divide and conquer; the Diversity™ brings the divide and conquer on its own. All the rich White people have to do is make sure the Diversity™ can storm our borders. As for rich White person greed, it’s not a mutually exclusive concern; we can oppose both a greedy elite and open borders.
ben tillman again, on what WN really means, and how it’s been demagogued into a Fake White Supremacy:
I wonder how many times Goldberg had to go back and change “replace whites” to “replace white nationalists” while drafting this piece.
Good point. After all it was never about replacing white nationalists since that term has not been long in common usage. The immivasion and push to diversify were begun well before that term became popular, and were directed at White America, period, full stop.
The primary features of a white nationalist are that he (1) notices his people are being exploited while being replaced and (2) objects to it. Replacing “whites” and replacing “white nationalists” are precisely the same thing.
A “White nationalist” (as the term is deliberately mis-used by the media) is just a White person who has misgivings about the mass immigration of nonWhites into his homeland. A “White supremacist” (as the term is mis-used by the media) is a White person who dares to object to mass nonWhite immigration. This is how the media Anti-White Hate Machine works: it takes White people with reasonable and justified objections to open borders, and demonizes them as Nazis.
*Michelle Goldberg is irredeemably ugly.
PS Here’s Forbes on why birthright citizenship is a scam and what it should be replaced with (a truly beneficial replacement):
Children take on the citizenship of their parents, irrespective of where they’re born…it’s quite the same as children born to US citizens abroad. They take the citizenship of their parents, not that of the country of their birth. It’s the way citizenship works in most of the world.
Birth tourism, anchor babies, and illegal immigrants giving birth in the US for the purpose of citizenship is obviously a torturing of the 14th amendment, if not a fraud. The children of diplomats (temporary residents) born in the US do not become US citizens–why should other transients (not permanent resident visa holders) giving birth be granted citizenship to the new born?
Anchor babies and birth tourism are such a self-evident scam that only a full blown anti-American cuck like Paul Ryan could support it. Which he has, once again stabbing Trump and Heritage America in the back.
PPS Hey Michelle Goldberg, is this hate speech?