The Vivek Ramaswamy Thread

Why? Does that justify the invasion of non-Europeans into America?
No, but he clearly stated they were 100% Christian men. If you are going to claim it, then please back it up . They were his words, not mine, I simply asked him to elaborate and educate me on the matter, which he did not. If it was found and made by 100% Christian men, why does the 1st Amendment exist? It's preplexing, that 100% White Christian men would want to allow others to freely practise their religion.
Is this funny to you? The backbone? America is a Christian White European settlement. The only reason non-Europeans were allowed to come here after 1965 was due to the subversive Jewish-backed Hart-Cellar Act. Apparently you are a beneficiary of that treason committed by those in power then and now.
I did not say it was funny, rather they were the backbone. From building massive buildings, farming and so forth. Not sure why you think this is humrous to me, when it's not. Well, here's the thing, whether I am a by product of that treason or not, that, like I stated before, is your opinion and frankly your issue. I pay my taxes, respect thy neighbor and do my best to uphold truth and justice from what God has taught. If that's still a issue with you, well, then it's your axe to grind brother, not mine.
Again with the dings and the sarcasm.
The "dings" are not sarcasm, you're reading my tone in your head and your voice, again if it's offensive to you it's not meant to be. In general no sarcasm in my post, sorry you feel that.
You seem to think it's the people's fault they have traitors within at the highest levels of society forcing this upon them. Yet you blame the people and enjoy the spoils the traitors bestow upon you. The American people have been subject to the greatest psychological warfare campaign in human history over the last 100 years.
If you take no action, you deserve no outcome, that is a general statement of mine. There have been movements to push back, won't happen overnight. What spoils are you talking about? I've never received anything for free nor have I abused the welfare system etc. I play by the same rules that are given to you. If someone wants to hire me due to my skin tone or ethnicity, I simply don't work for them as I'm not a token piece nor do I want to be apart of some pathetic quota. Give me what I deserve based on my work ethic and what God has written from me.

Well, maybe they were traitors. Does that mean we deserve to be invaded by people of completely incompatible cultures?
No, if they don't assimilate, get rid of them, I support that position. For those who make a genuine effort to assimilate why the malice? It's evident that the majority of the people who are brought in do not want to assimilate and bring their terrible mentalities with them, they need to go. I am not one for mass migration and open borders, rest assured.
If I say the last few Indian PMs didn't do much for preserving the culture of the Indian people, does that justify me creating a settlement of 10 million White Americans in India?
No. What I am saying is they need to have your best interests in mind, they don't. Even if there was a settlement of 10 million whites in India I personally would not care as long as they assimilated, spoke the language and didn't try to forcefully convert others to their religion. You want to keep a all White Christian America, go for it. I live by the law of the land and if such a law is passed so be it.
That wouldn't even be possible unless the power elite of India aided and sponsored me in doing so with a continuous 60 year commitment involving multiple generations.
Being the person on top of the hill means many people will come for you. Happened in Egypt, Rome, Greece and Persia. Hell any great empire to be honest. Evil is evil it spreads with an agenda and uses the epicenter of power to export its terrible actions.
Are you willing to reflect on the tragedy that has happened to America and how you have personally benefitted from it?
I know and seen what has happened to the U.S. How have I personally benefited? My parents came to the west with less than $20 in their pockets, and their families were very thankful they were allowed in. They studied at universities, paid their fees, paid their dues, bought houses, educated us and so forth. It was sink or swim when they came and they worked hard for what they have and what they passed down. Will I reflect on the condition of the US today? Of course. Am I going to buckle to your rhetoric and say we got free handouts? No, because we didn't.
Most of us don't think we are victims, we are simply upset.
I would be upset as well. I see what is happening in the U.S it is a mess. The institutions meant to preserve and protect its citizens are doing the opposite. God willing change for the better comes soon.
 
Complaining is so much easier.


I'm taking a significant paycut to do something that sets me up for that, incidentally. And am brushing up speaking skills.

Anyways:

 
If it was found and made by 100% Christian men, why does the 1st Amendment exist? It's preplexing, that 100% White Christian men would want to allow others to freely practise their religion.
Because there were a variety of different Christian denominations, and many US citizens had ancestors who were persecuted for their faith back in Europe. In some colonies, different shades of Protestantism and Catholicism were illegal or persecuted. Freedom of religion was seen as necessary to create a functional union (in hindsight, for better or for worse). The idea that millions of brown Hindus would colonize America would sound ludicrous to the founders. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed by the very first US Congress and signed by President George Washington, even before the Bill of Rights, with the 1st Amendment, was ratified. This law limited naturalization to "Free White persons... of good character." Up until 1965, immigration was tightly regulated to maintain a 90% White population, whereupon Jews finally exercised enough power over the American people to begin diluting the ethnic composition of America, for the same reason that Amazon supports diversity - a diverse population will not unify to form labor unions and push interests with enough force to threaten the ruling class.

Even if there was a settlement of 10 million whites in India I personally would not care as long as they assimilated, spoke the language and didn't try to forcefully convert others to their religion. You want to keep a all White Christian America, go for it. I live by the law of the land and if such a law is passed so be it.
You and all members of this forum know it is impossible for a White American to truly assimilate into Indian society, and be viewed as an Indian, ESPECIALLY while retaining their Christian faith. It is equally impossible for an Indian to become a Heritage American. You can earn the paper that says you're a citizen, but you can never be a Heritage American. That's just a fact. I, as a White American, no matter how hard I try, can never be viewed as Japanese, or Chinese, or Indian, or Nigerian, by the people of those countries, yet all of those people come here and claim they can be just as American as anyone else. This is tantamount to denying that White Americans exist as a nation. We are a nation, evident by our unique ethnicity and culture - distinct from Jewish mass media portrayals and consumerism.

I think it's clear to everyone the conflict of interest we see in allowing replacement immigration. Each foreign group is going to advocate for itself before the native people of the country they are immigrating to. The extent to which each foreign group is "conservative" is secondary or tertiary to the fact that they do not identify with the native people of the land they are immigrating to. You cannot expect immigrants to change their religion and work selflessly to benefit people they do not share a race, religion, and often language, with. They will always feel more comfortable around people like themselves, and, with two job applicants being equal in all things but ethnicity, they will always hire the candidate of their own ethnicity, especially when it comes to serious managerial roles.

Edit:
1695306435451.png
This is a demographic map of the Philadelphia/New Jersey/New York region. The green areas here, circled in red, are Indian plurality and majority regions. This is as of 2020. These regions will never again be controlled by the people who settled there hundreds of years ago, barring something extreme. This right here, this area? That is India. There is nothing magical about the soil or the government. The people there are Indian. That is India, for all practical purposes, assimilation is not necessary. You can get by without knowing English. The blue areas are Hispanic. Again, we see they form colonies. They do not disperse evenly throughout the country, they take over settlements and force the native people out. We are ceding huge swathes of our country because people are too afraid to say anything.
 
Last edited:
Recently, the 38-year-old entrepreneur faced backlash for comparing Rep. Ayanna Pressley, a Black Democrat representing Massachusetts, to “modern grand wizards” of the Ku Klux Klan.
Anyone willing to say stuff like this in public can’t be all bad. :)

Unfortunately, he’ll probably be forced to backtrack, like when he said the U.S. should majorly cut back on aid to Israel.

I don’t care if he has no shot at winning, I hope he stays around for a while — if only so he can continue to infuriate and enrage bigoted, white-hating blacks and Jews with these charmingly autistic blurtings out of the truth.
 
No, if they don't assimilate, get rid of them, I support that position. For those who make a genuine effort to assimilate why the malice? It's evident that the majority of the people who are brought in do not want to assimilate and bring their terrible mentalities with them, they need to go. I am not one for mass migration and open borders, rest assured.

Due to their massive numbers, assimilation will not be possible. Moreover assimilation really occurs over the course of generations and only in limited quantities. St Thomas (echoing the prescription set by God in the Bible) stated that a foreigner can only be assimilating over the course of generations since not only he doesn't belong to the stock of a nation but his very mindset would need time to change. The farther a foreigner's culture and people are from the welcoming nation's culture and stock, the more generations it takes for a foreign group to be assimilated (e.g. a German would find it easier to assimilate to the culture of England or US than to the culture of Congo or China). If Foreigners come in sufficient numbers they can alter a nation to the point that both groups give birth to a new ethnicity (eg. Angles and Saxons plus Normans gave birth to the English or how the Spanish conquest of America gave birth to many ethnicities, different from the original peoples in those territories).

If foreigners come in sufficient numbers, replacement can occur, especially if the founding stock finds itself in a demographic death spiral just like it's happening in the western world.

Ramaswamy's bid for presidential nomination is not the problem, is a symptom, a sign of how far the American culture has fallen in its decadence. America was never meant to be a nation (That's why it was created as a federal republic) but a union of fledging nations derived from the British (and to a lesser extent) German stock, but it had a European character since its very beginning, as others have pointed out. Ramaswamy is a foreigner, he doesn't even share the religion of most of the people in America, but the same can be said for a lot of politicians these days...
 
I think it's clear to everyone the conflict of interest we see in allowing replacement immigration. Each foreign group is going to advocate for itself before the native people of the country they are immigrating to. The extent to which each foreign group is "conservative" is secondary or tertiary to the fact that they do not identify with the native people of the land they are immigrating to. You cannot expect immigrants to change their religion and work selflessly to benefit people they do not share a race, religion, and often language, with.
In theory at least, mass immigration could maybe, conceivably work out, but only if it were to happen at a much, much slower pace and a much, much longer time span. And you would also have to have a nation devoid of anti-white woke garbage propaganda. Since neither of those two necessary conditions are being met, this experiment is doomed to fail everywhere.

In the past, a “melting pot” ideal was sensibly not just encouraged, but demanded of and imposed upon immigrants to a country. If you weren’t going to at least attempt to assimilate, you couldn’t come, plain and simple. Of course, there was one particular tribe that grew to be loathed and despised everywhere, due to its frequent unwillingness to play by those sensible, stability-preserving rules.

Today, not only has the melting pot ideal been tossed out, but the exact reverse ideal to the melting pot has been imposed on white majority nations. Why would floods of immigrants even attempt to assimilate when they’re being inundated, day after day, by the same anti-white propaganda as everyone else is? If even vast swaths of the white population have come to be ashamed of white-created culture and civilization, why on earth would non-whites feel any different about it? So they will make no effort whatsoever to become less ethnocentric when white civ is incessantly depicted to them by the political class, academia, Hollywood and the mass media as a blight and a cancer.
 
In theory at least, mass immigration could maybe, conceivably work out, but only if it were to happen at a much, much slower pace and a much, much longer time span. And you would also have to have a nation devoid of anti-white woke garbage propaganda. Since neither of those two necessary conditions are being met, this experiment is doomed to fail everywhere.

In the past, a “melting pot” ideal was sensibly not just encouraged, but demanded of and imposed upon immigrants to a country. If you weren’t going to at least attempt to assimilate, you couldn’t come, plain and simple. Of course, there was one particular tribe that grew to be loathed and despised everywhere, due to its frequent unwillingness to play by those sensible, stability-preserving rules.

Today, not only has the melting pot ideal been tossed out, but the exact reverse ideal to the melting pot has been imposed on white majority nations. Why would floods of immigrants even attempt to assimilate when they’re being inundated, day after day, by the same anti-white propaganda as everyone else is? If even vast swaths of the white population have come to be ashamed of white-created culture and civilization, why on earth would non-whites feel any different about it? So they will make no effort whatsoever to become less ethnocentric when white civ is incessantly depicted to them by the political class, academia, Hollywood and the mass media as a blight and a cancer.
About that phrase, "Melting Pot"..
The term has been used and discussed a fair bit lately.
H.G. Wells, the 'father of science fiction', who was a eugenicist and globalist, authoring a book titled "New World Order", which speaks for itself, and was a member of the Freemason socialist Fabian Society.

Another member was Israel Zangwill who was in London to join in with the freemason Fabians, but said he was Ukrainian, but he was really Jewish and under the sponsorship of the Rothschilds and in close dialogue with arch zionist Theodor Herzl.
He was also an ardent socialist and wanted, what Head Freemason Albert Pike had wanted, he wanted Russia to be made a centre of socialist atheist totalitarianism (communism). We all know how that went.
He moved to New York and released his play "The Melting Pot" about - you guessed it - a jew emigrating to America in the wake of "all his people being massacred" and sires a beautiful christian white Russian woman. Melting Pot, eh?
Wiki says the play was about Cultural Assimilation.. but not the 'cultural assimilation" that you and I understand.
The lead character writes a great symphony called "The Crucible" expressing his hope for a world in which "all ethnicity has melted away".
This was as recently as 1909. "Melting Pot" wasn't a phrase that people used until his play was signal boosted and touted by the jewish press as a favourite of Teddy Roosevelt (Roosevelt received his master masonry degree from the jews in Matinecock Lodge No. 806 in Oyster Bay, Long Island in 1901 - in a perverse ritual)

Zangwill was clear in his other encounters that he wanted a world where every ethnicity was blended into one de-racinated, rootless, whole.
Kalergi Plan. "Final Solution" for the White Race.
That's what "melting pot" actually means for the man who created the phrase as we understand it.

Russia, Kalergi Plan, he wanted a ruling jewish race in both Russia and Europe and America.
He was against race mixing of any kind for jews with the fictional exception of taking beautiful white woman as admixture/plunder.

In terms of Palestine he didn't recognise the races that lived there as valid or deserving of living there.
"Palestine has but a small population of Arabs and Fellahin and wandering, lawless, blackmailing Bedouin tribes."
He wrote the lines "restore the country without a people to the people without a country. For we have something to give as well as to get. We can sweep away the blackmailer—be he Ottoman-Pasha or Bedouin—we can make the >>wilderness<< blossom"

We were tricked. Washington wanted a country of "white men of good character"? Yes and by and large, in a mongrelised way, America had something like that until the jews killed Kennedy and staged their coup.
But it was always the secret plan. The first masonic lodge in America was about 90% jewish, the second lodge was 100% jewish.
As early as 1732 Daniel Coxe, first masonic grand master in America, proposed creating a confederation between the English colonies in America in order to create a new, multiethnic society and an executive base for judaic-freemasonry's international activities. The "hidden hand". Patiently waiting 230 years, and then they put up an occult obelisk in Dealey Plaza, Dallas to confirm their deed.

We were all sold the myth of limited migration and decent people assimilating into >our< culture, which oftentimes happened, but it was always a lie.
A letter from a political committee to the British cabinet after World War Two complained that this new fangled third world immigration had only turned neighbourhoods like Peckham, London into a destroyed white community full of theft crime and animosity from the newcomers.
The reply-letter came back from the freemason cabinet minister saying that Yes, that was the cabinets conclusion and the experiment would be reversed forthwith. They didn't mean a word they were saying.
And we've been left with a psy-op of trying to make something that was never intended to work - functional.
As you say, these days its relentless replacement migration and ghettoes propagandised to see the hosts as a bad thing to be bred out. Izrael Zangwill's view in 1909, finally being realised after a patient build-up.
 
I do not hate Indian people, I just think there are too many in this country which was established by white Christians and the country built its greatness on that stock, not Indians or Guatemalans etc. I’m appalled that anyone would seriously consider voting for an Indian for US president.

The thing about India is that its present population is what the world population was in living memory. Yet with all that territory, it needs to export its surplus population to densely populated and very expensive Western cities.

Indian women however tend to have a volatile mix of resentful Communism and extreme hypergamy.

No Indian was involved in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (also, the oldest boomer was 19 when it was made law).
 
This is a demographic map of the Philadelphia/New Jersey/New York region. The green areas here, circled in red, are Indian plurality and majority regions. This is as of 2020. These regions will never again be controlled by the people who settled there hundreds of years ago, barring something extreme. This right here, this area? That is India. There is nothing magical about the soil or the government. The people there are Indian. That is India, for all practical purposes, assimilation is not necessary. You can get by without knowing English. The blue areas are Hispanic. Again, we see they form colonies. They do not disperse evenly throughout the country, they take over settlements and force the native people out. We are ceding huge swathes of our country because people are too afraid to say anything.
In one city in California, as far back as 2008, local politicians running for office would put up their signs in Chinese characters. Instead of "Liang Chao" you'd just see 梁超 and have no idea how to even conceptualize someone's name. Even if you wanted to vote for them you'd need to scribble down the characters or something.

Furthermore, I attended a community college where instructors were either awesome or terrible, not a lot of middle ground. Competition to get into the good classes was fierce, and they gave early class selection to international students. So you'd struggle to get into decent classes, where you're in a "public" institution.

Many colleges/universities have a Black Students Union, a Muslim Students Association, etc. This one had so many Asians that there was a Laotian one, a Cambodian one, Malaysian, even a Macau Club. I found the whole thing rather off-putting. At least Asians are polite, orderly, etc, not remotely like the new wave of migrants.
 
Because there were a variety of different Christian denominations, and many US citizens had ancestors who were persecuted for their faith back in Europe. In some colonies, different shades of Protestantism and Catholicism were illegal or persecuted. Freedom of religion was seen as necessary to create a functional union (in hindsight, for better or for worse). The idea that millions of brown Hindus would colonize America would sound ludicrous to the founders. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed by the very first US Congress and signed by President George Washington, even before the Bill of Rights, with the 1st Amendment, was ratified. This law limited naturalization to "Free White persons... of good character." Up until 1965, immigration was tightly regulated to maintain a 90% White population, whereupon Jews finally exercised enough power over the American people to begin diluting the ethnic composition of America, for the same reason that Amazon supports diversity - a diverse population will not unify to form labor unions and push interests with enough force to threaten the ruling class.
Interesting. Good to know.
You and all members of this forum know it is impossible for a White American to truly assimilate into Indian society, and be viewed as an Indian, ESPECIALLY while retaining their Christian faith. It is equally impossible for an Indian to become a Heritage American.
You can earn the paper that says you're a citizen, but you can never be a Heritage American. That's just a fact. I, as a White American, no matter how hard I try, can never be viewed as Japanese, or Chinese, or Indian, or Nigerian, by the people of those countries, yet all of those people come here and claim they can be just as American as anyone else. This is tantamount to denying that White Americans exist as a nation. We are a nation, evident by our unique ethnicity and culture - distinct from Jewish mass media portrayals and consumerism.
I know plenty of Christians in India who live great lives and assimilate well into the communities they live in. That's besides the point, because the reality is, their skin tone is not white, it is brown. What you are saying here it simply comes down to skin color. So even if a Nigerian were the same sect of Christianity, followed the same theology, observed the same rituals and so forth, they could never truly come to America and be American, simply because of their skin tone? Got it.
I think it's clear to everyone the conflict of interest we see in allowing replacement immigration. Each foreign group is going to advocate for itself before the native people of the country they are immigrating to.
This is what I hate the most and is a underlying issue, a big one if anything in Canada as well.
The extent to which each foreign group is "conservative" is secondary or tertiary to the fact that they do not identify with the native people of the land they are immigrating to. You cannot expect immigrants to change their religion and work selflessly to benefit people they do not share a race, religion, and often language, with. They will always feel more comfortable around people like themselves, and, with two job applicants being equal in all things but ethnicity, they will always hire the candidate of their own ethnicity, especially when it comes to serious managerial roles.
This goes anywhere to be honest, happens all over the world where immigration is a big thing. Very rarely do fellow immigrants hire someone who is qualified, rather, someone that they have more so in common with. I personally do not take that route when at work or conducting business.
Edit:
View attachment 63831
This is a demographic map of the Philadelphia/New Jersey/New York region. The green areas here, circled in red, are Indian plurality and majority regions. This is as of 2020. These regions will never again be controlled by the people who settled there hundreds of years ago, barring something extreme. This right here, this area? That is India. There is nothing magical about the soil or the government. The people there are Indian. That is India, for all practical purposes, assimilation is not necessary. You can get by without knowing English. The blue areas are Hispanic. Again, we see they form colonies. They do not disperse evenly throughout the country, they take over settlements and force the native people out. We are ceding huge swathes of our country because people are too afraid to say anything.
I mean I see you argument here, you don't want swathes of colored people concentrated in an area then proceed to take over it. Micro pockets of communities are common among immigrants and is supported by your statements above. When you say by forcing native people out you make it sound a bit extreme. Not as if Hindus or Sikhs go in there and force people by the sword to convert and adhere to their religious beliefs. However, I understand from your perspective as well that some people do not want their town "brown-ified" and feel as if they are loosing their culture heritage and familiar/comfortable environment.

Well put perspective on your end, thank you for sharing.
 
I think it's clear to everyone the conflict of interest we see in allowing replacement immigration. Each foreign group is going to advocate for itself before the native people of the country they are immigrating to. The extent to which each foreign group is "conservative" is secondary or tertiary to the fact that they do not identify with the native people of the land they are immigrating to. You cannot expect immigrants to change their religion and work selflessly to benefit people they do not share a race, religion, and often language, with. They will always feel more comfortable around people like themselves, and, with two job applicants being equal in all things but ethnicity, they will always hire the candidate of their own ethnicity, especially when it comes to serious managerial roles.

Canada is a perfect example of this.

The Sikhs and Muslims are 'conservative' and 'traditional,' but overwhelmingly vote for Leftist parties like the Liberals and NDP. Why? Because they care about their own ethnic interests first.

It's admirable in a way, but suggests that such peoples cannot fully be integrated into a secular Western country, without that country becoming more authoritarian over time.

That being said, I cannot figure out whether Vivek Ramaswamy is being genuine or deceptive.
 
Canada is a perfect example of this.

The Sikhs and Muslims are 'conservative' and 'traditional,' but overwhelmingly vote for Leftist parties like the Liberals and NDP. Why? Because they care about their own ethnic interests first.

It's admirable in a way, but suggests that such peoples cannot fully be integrated into a secular Western country, without that country becoming more authoritarian over time.

That being said, I cannot figure out whether Vivek Ramaswamy is being genuine or deceptive.
Tower of Babel. We are to live in separate nations, and by "nations" in the time of Christ, it meant people from a land as the word derives from Latin. We are supposed to spread Christianity to the Nations. Not open your borders up and destroy your nation and then later try to convert people not of your nation to Christianity or your way of living. This is inverted, it is satanic.

 
Tower of Babel. We are to live in separate nations, and by "nations" in the time of Christ, it meant people from a land as the word derives from Latin. We are supposed to spread Christianity to the Nations. Not open your borders up and destroy your nation and then later try to convert people not of your nation to Christianity or your way of living. This is inverted, it is satanic.



'Nations' originally means 'ethnos' aka your own ethnic group.

But whether yours is the correct interpretation of Scripture is one I defer to the Holy Fathers.
 
Back
Top