[quote=@Dynamo Frokane][i]1  Wealthy blacks also commit more crime than poor whites, that's a fact.

2  What is so offensive about white people saying they'd like to preserve their demographic majority?

3  It's clear that whites are not allowed to speak up against their demographic um... oblivion.

4  Do you consider the european colonisation of Africa a bad thing? (Destiny replies that it's complicated). It's only complicated because it's whites.

5  When white people are aggressed against in their own nations by people that are not white, they are told constantly, check your privilege. You colonised us, you owe us this land blah blah blah.

6 We've gotten rid of discrimination in our western countries. If you don't think we've gotten rid of discrimination, you're living in a fantasy land.

7 But if they assimilated they would enter the gene pool eventually...[/i]


Now apart from 7 none of these quotes are [b]explicitly[/b] racist but it all points in the direction of white nationalist talking points. Now if you listen to the debate it seems like he has come upon this info fairly recently and possibly hasnt thought it through.[/quote]

I'll just start by saying I have absolutely no interest in JonTron, I don't think he is funny, and the only possible sentiment I have towards him is that I am glad that he is speaking up about his views because I hate it when people force their own ideology onto a youtuber without thinking (expecting a youtuber to vote a or b for some reason). 

I just wanted to say that none of these 7 things are really racist not white supremacy related. 

I don't know if wealthy blacks commit more crimes than blacks, but if it's true, then nothing is wrong with stating it. (That said this would go against, well, most criminological theories that exist and thus would be quite.. ground breaking.)

I don't think that there really is a white genocide or anything hysterically conspiracy theory-like like that but I think it's fair that white people (especially in Europe, I don't think Americans have any reason for concern) are concerned for the demographics of their countries. I don't think that equates white supremacy. I don't even think it really involves race more so than culture.

The colonisation thing isn't even worth commenting on, both answers (yes it's bad, no it's good) are idiotic because it's history. At that point in time it was considered normal, it was simply survival of the fittest and/or a colonizers world. Fact of the matter is that it happened, that is the single most important answer, whether it is good or not is up to the beholder and you will never be able to convince others that it's good or bad purely because both sides have adequate and good arguments to support their opinion.

[hider=long rant about history]You could consider it unfair that a technologically advanced people like the Europeans conquered tribes of 'relatively primitive' Africans and I would agree that it was a one sided battle all the way through, but there is a historical reasoning for this (the same reasoning you'll find as to why eastern-Europe is the shitty part of Europe (hell there's a reason we call Slavs Slavs, and it's not because we hired them for their services), why Northern-Europeans didn't colonize shit, and why we were so good at advancing technology.

Location location location. Nothing grows in Africa, to the point where you wonder every day if your crops will survive the night. There was no time to establish a working order of farmers -> artisans -> clergy -> nobles. There was a [i]rough[/i] order but not on the same scale as in Europe. It's the same reason why Egypt thrived while the areas around them were just.. arid wastelands. Location. 

Now in Europe, the climate is specifically capable of maintaining large populations, which means that you only need x amount of farmers to sustain y population. The numbers are in favor of the Europeans here more than the Africans, so the European population grew quicker than that in Africa, meaning that more people could become workers and not farmers, meaning that more goods were produced, etc. 

This went on to the point where for Western European countries it became cheaper to buy wheat in Poland than to make it themselves (which was the turning point of economies in the west) which enabled farmers to produce goods solely for profit, not for sustenance (meaning we started growing money-crops). 

The collective sum of all these favors in light of our position meant that we were more advanced and thus more capable of taking on primitives. 

Similarly, nothing grew in Scandinavia (only Denmark, and the land there was barely workable) so they were similar to the Africans 'primitive' until they were more or less forcibly westernized by the Christians. Still, the lands were kinda bad, and there wasn't a large population, hence there was no real ability to colonize.

Whether colonization is good or bad is a question you can ask yourself, but something that is irrefutably historically true is that, in light of our capability AND the ethical views on colonization, it made sense, and will always make sense within that timeframe.[/hider]

As for 5, well, yes. But I don't really think this is supremacy either. And it's hard to argue that it's not been true in the past. The only thing I would remark is that I'm not sure if it happens in the amounts he's trying to portray it as. I don't have any problems believing one way or the other. Still, is it really racist? Or even hinting at racism? Supremacy? Not at all. 

6, well, maybe in Europe, we've done our part. As for America, lol, this is just objectively not true, but still not really something I consider racist. I wonder what his motivations are for thinking this. 

7 is just a truth. The implication might hint at some supremacy thing, but I'd have to hear the full sentence for that. Still, if they assimilated, they would enter the gene pool... is that not true? It makes sense to me.