A GOP Congressman Just Made An Argument For White Supremacy On Live TV

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

America is the poster child for the West, but I see you have changed your argument to America not being the West now. Keep moving the goalposts.

America is what almost everyone thinks of when someone says "the West", but I'm sure you will deny it and insert semantics into it somehow.

The point WAS that nukes have not stifled war and/or armed conflcts even a tiny bit. They're both just as prevalent today than they were before WW2, if not moreso.

Name one person who thinks that besides yourself. Nukes have stifled war. When both states have nukes, the odds of war are almost non-existent.

a reply to: JinMI

What will happen when people go to "war" with each other and realize that there is an actual human on the other side of their ironsights?

If they don't realize that already then I doubt they will before they pull the trigger. Sad but true.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh really? Because India and Pakistan have had several wars with one another while holding nukes, as did India and China.

So much for that idea. Sounds to me like you're in denial. Nukes have not stifled war/armed conflicts, you trying to argue against that is an argument from ignorance.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Fair point. Nonetheless, the odds drop.

A study published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution in 2009 quantitatively evaluated the nuclear peace hypothesis and found support for the existence of the stability-instability paradox. The study determined that while nuclear weapons promote strategic stability and prevent largescale wars, they simultaneously allow for more lower intensity conflicts. When a nuclear monopoly exists between two states, and one state has nuclear weapons and its opponent does not, there is a greater chance of war. In contrast, when there is mutual nuclear weapon ownership with both states possessing nuclear weapons, the odds of war drop precipitously.[1]

Nuclear peace.

So much for that idea. Denial.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"They simultaneously allow for more lower intensity conflicts", meaning people are still killed and weapons are still used. If it allows for more conflict it allows for more conflict no matter the scale. Low intensity conflict is still war, not largescale war but war nonetheless.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I can agree with that. But lower intensity means lower body count, less destruction, less war in general.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You're right, but it has not stifled war in general, only between 6 nations (not including Pakistan, India, and China) out of 190, and even those 6 nations have fought in wars, just not with each other.

The "stifling of war" is as bare minimum as it could possibly be.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

And of course, many other things besides nuclear proliferation has lead to the overall historical decline in violence. We can thank the west for most of them.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Didn't white men kill the native people of the West and steal their land? Didn't white men use black men as slaves to help build Western Civilization? Seems to me Western Civilization would be nowhere without the genocide of an entire culture and the enslavement of minorities who did all the hard labor.

If we are going to look at the good shouldn't we also be taking the bad into consideration as well?

I don't condone it, but they were put up for sale by their tribe leaders...

And hey, wasn't slavery a big part of the Persian and Ottoman empires, and is still found in the ME today? Hmmmmmmmm

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We can thank the west for most of them.

And what are "most" of these things? Care to back that statement up?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Liberal democracy, the abolition of slavery, secularism, human rights, The Kardashians.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Didn't white men kill the native people of the West and steal their land? Didn't white men use black men as slaves to help build Western Civilization? Seems to me Western Civilization would be nowhere without the genocide of an entire culture and the enslavement of minorities who did all the hard labor.

If we are going to look at the good shouldn't we also be taking the bad into consideration as well?

It's bewildering how people like you can paint all "white people" (who are not even from the same states) with the same broad brush, but you get offended and cry racism when the same is done to non-white groups.

Maybe we should take a page from your book and list all the negative actions of black people in different parts of the world and classify them as indicative of "black people" as a whole like YOU just did against white people. Oh, but that would be racist I bet...

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I'm white and I don't apologize for anything my ancestors did, I also think the whole BLM movement is racist and stupid. If he wants to talk about how great the West is then he should at least recognize its many failures both today and in the past, as well as with white people.

You obviously misunderstood my post. The West and white people are no better or worse than any other culture or race, this man seems to think otherwise. He's wrong.

I'm not entirly sure what western culture means.
There are non-white westerners as well as non christian faith and atheists.

If a culture adoptes modern science and technology liberalism democracy and other modern philosophes , does that makes them part of western culture ?
Are most people on earth westerners tosignificante varied extent ?

as for the christian white german , i'm reminded of an Einstein quote
'if relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German, and the Germans will call me a Jew.'

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your race is irrelevant. The key issue is you are regurgitating anti-white BS, presenting the information in a deceptive manner.

I understood your post. You were — intentionally or not, though I am not certain yet — conflating Western Civilisation (which comprises multiple races/ethnicities/belief systems) with "White people" as though their skin colour alone is justification enough to paint them all with the same brush.

Interesting how you are defensive about the concept of white guilt conditioning ("I don't apologise for anything my ancestors did") when I didn't even allude to it before.

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: ATSmediaPRO

Well to this I say, perhaps the reasons blacks did not make a big impact on progress (tho it can not be denied that they made some impacts) way back is that they were kept down by us whites, not allowed education or ability to progress until...what...50 years ago. Much progress has been made in part of the black community since then, once we whites allowed it.

This man's thoughts may or may not be well intended but I think he speaks from ignorance and a limited perspective.

Oh yes, Sharpton said the black africans were building empires before Trump knew what a skyscraper was. (u go al)

And Ahmed the clock boy got an invitation to the WH for building a digital clock in a pencil case that looked like a bomb.

The only thing the arabs can maybe claim for science is optics and that's stretching it, since they pretty much used it for religious purposes.

Newton invented calculus and Aristotle invented logic.

The chinese invented gunpowder, Franklin invented lightning.

All peoples have done amazing things in their times.

Racism was invented when Neanderthal met Homo sapien sapien, or sooner and that was REAL racism.

a reply to: ATSmediaPRO

Read what he said without the anger and incredulity the clickbait title inspires and tell me how you feel. Talk about spin and faux outrage. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who thinks Christianity is an absurd, backwards, ludicrous and even harmful belief system. I don't agree with his opinion, but think it's an opinion that warrants zero offense being taken. He can't have an opinion on which civilization contributed the most to society? I'd say it was the Greeks, or maybe even the Romans (if I had to pick). Am I a Greek supremacist? Ridiculous.

White Lives Matter = Racist

All Lives Matter = Racist

Radical Islamic Terrorism = Xenophobic

..... ..... .....


Black Lives Matter = Politically Correct = Pejorative = Oxymoron

Politically Correct = "policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. In the media, the term is generally used as a pejorative."

Perjorative = "people considered by the majority to be inferior or lower in social class, as a group label with a disparaging meaning. Also, an ethnic slur or racial slur can be pejorative and to imply people of those groups are inferior or deficient."

Oxymoron = "a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction."

..... ..... .....

Western Liberalism = Mental Disorder.

I guess any history which includes european or north american technological advancement is wacist then. Ridiculous.

Why jump to the race angle, there are many reasons for technology. Political systems, education systems, scientific systems which have gradually evolved over centuries... some countries have been more advanced/different in these areas which in turn has enabled scientific and technological discoveries to be made.

Enjoy your electricity and computer and interweb and etc etc etc... lol.


A lot of human history is brutal, violent, unequal, racist, oppressive, dark and horrible. If people are looking for the nice friendly equality PC version they probably won't find it. Unless they start to rewrite it...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

None of those things are unique to the West in any way. I was hoping for a list with some kind of substance.