# A Question to Wignats



## Baseton Repillé (Jun 26, 2020)

My understanding of the white nationalist movement is that its core goal is the establishment of a sovereign nation populated only by white people. I've heard arguments _ad nauseam _about whether or not this is a good idea so let's set aside the usual ethical debates and assume I agree that white people should create their own country. 
My question is; how does this all come about? In practical terms, how do you acquire the land, develop infrastructure, form a system of government, and convince regular people to join you?


----------



## knobslobbin (Jun 26, 2020)

You conquer a land, genocide the natives, and then don't import the 3rd world.  Man our ancestors really screwed the pooch on that one, just 3 simple steps!

I wish whites were really as racist as they are made out to be, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Sorry I had a stroke there for a minute, I meant to say: diversity is our strenf


----------



## Celebrate Nite (Jun 26, 2020)

knobslobbin said:


> I wish whites were really as racist as they are made out to be, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.



I blame the 60's.  America's balls got sliced off once the hippies invaded and infested everything, it's been a slow slide down ever since


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 26, 2020)

SSF2T Old User said:


> I blame the 60's.  America's balls got sliced off once the hippies *invaded *and infested everything, it's been a slow slide down ever since


Yes, those residents of Hippistania should have never immigrated here!


----------



## NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE (Jun 26, 2020)

white statism is a more practical goal for now. all my fellow white racist Americans should move to one state, maybe Alaska or Montana, and remove all the niggers and beaners from that state. then we need to take women's rights away (including the right to leave the state) because that's the only way to raise the birth rate significantly. women were made to be cum toilets/baby factories and nothing more. if you care about women's rights, you are part of the white genocide problem. then after our numbers are high enough we can start taking over more states and eventually the whole nation, and then the world.


----------



## A Cardboard Box (Jun 26, 2020)

Shoot nonwhites. Duh.



NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE said:


> white statism is a more practical goal for now. all my fellow white racist Americans should move to one state, maybe Alaska or Montana, and remove all the niggers and beaners from that state. then we need to take women's rights away (including the right to leave the state) because that's the only way to raise the birth rate significantly. women were made to be cum toilets/baby factories and nothing more. if you care about women's rights, you are part of the white genocide problem. then after our numbers are high enough we can start taking over more states and eventually the whole nation, and then the world.


Your shit about women is retarded. If you're not a piece of shit you can find women to have kids with you. 

Also taking away rights from anyone is retarded. I hate you. Thanks.

P.S: How many white kids do you have?


----------



## TFT-A9 (Jun 26, 2020)

I actually don't understand the idea of white nationalism, at least not when predicated on the notion that a solidly-white nation would be incredibly cohesive, strong, productive, etc. simply because everyone in it happened to be white.


----------



## nohull (Jun 26, 2020)

> wignats


Sorry, I don't speak Retardese


----------



## Celebrate Nite (Jun 26, 2020)

A Cardboard Box said:


> Your shit about women is retarded.



>Falling for obvious bait
Also...



A Cardboard Box said:


> If you're not a piece of shit you can find women to have kids with you.



Fix'd.  It's common knowledge that women always go for the scumbags and then bitch about them later to garner sympathy points.


----------



## Samson Pumpkin Jr. (Jun 26, 2020)

This is easy solution. you give the military _lunatics_ guns and tell them to evict the land of those who are dark skinned. In the process many greeks are killed but their ancestors did gay sex so whatever. This will spark a debate as to who should be considered white in this state and the lunatics with guns are told to stop their rampage. but they don't stop.
Instead of killing non-whites they start hunting down greeks because they're the ones who started this mess of them stopping their operations. The secret police, still loyal to the government, hunt down the para military forces and they start an internal civil war between themselves. in this time the provisional government does what they were planning on doing anyways and continues to evict non whites by force, excluding greeks because that;s what caused that mess in the first place.

the provisional government finishes the job and to end the civil war between the secret police and the paramilitary they merge them into one entity. Then the government starts to purge their own ranks because revolutions are prone to backstabbers. Many die in the ensuing purges, fake suicides and public humiliation are all par for the course when purging opposition. And maybe they aren't faked as suicides, the government might just be open about it and say that person was a traitor and they needed to be killed. 

Then there's an economic miracle as the government implements Keynesian policies to encourage growth, and for a while it's good until this new white state decides that they need more room to expand and invade neighbouring countries. 

anyways this is all just bullshit and i've had a bit too much to think. or drink, depending on how you put it



nohull said:


> Sorry, I don't speak Retardese


people like you are leading your movement to disaster. optics are not limited to helping the visually impaired, in some cases they help the mentally impaired too


----------



## NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE (Jun 27, 2020)

A Cardboard Box said:


> Your shit about women is retarded. If you're not a piece of shit you can find women to have kids with you.
> 
> Also taking away rights from anyone is retarded. I hate you. Thanks.
> 
> P.S: How many white kids do you have?


like SSF2T Oldfag said, the reason I can't find a mate is because I'm a very strong and intelligent respectable man and women only date scumbag assholes. even if you do manage to find a 35 year old roastie that wants to settle down she's not going to want to have more than one or two kids. two kids is not enough to increase the white population. women need to be enslaved and forced to have as many kids as the man is capable of providing for if we're ever going to outbreed the blacks, muslims and orthodox jews. the amish, muslims and orthodox jews have an average of 7 kids per family because their women don't have rights.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Jun 27, 2020)

It doesn't. Not without some very high level apocalyptic event and then a shitload of good luck.

But it's nice to dream.


----------



## A Cardboard Box (Jun 27, 2020)

SSF2T Old User said:


> >Falling for obvious bait
> Also...
> 
> 
> ...





NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE said:


> like SSF2T Oldfag said, the reason I can't find a mate is because I'm a very strong and intelligent respectable man and women only date scumbag assholes. even if you do manage to find a 35 year old roastie that wants to settle down she's not going to want to have more than one or two kids. two kids is not enough to increase the white population. women need to be enslaved and forced to have as many kids as the man is capable of providing for if we're ever going to outbreed the blacks, muslims and orthodox jews. the amish, muslims and orthodox jews have an average of 7 kids per family because their women don't have rights.


Fuckin lmao. Literally 9th grade "why do women only date jocks and assholes."

Just don't be a piece of shit. It's comical how many ultra violent wignats are literal children.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Jun 27, 2020)

Guide to creating your own country:
Step 1: Buy a ton of land, it's better if you buy it in some remote location belonging to a weak country. Make sure to evict the previous occupants.
Step 2: Develop military, agriculture and other necessities and from there start creating groundworks for heavy industry and tech.
Step 3: Once you have enough power then petition for independence. If the original country has problem then you need to fuck up its military or bribe it to accept.

The main hurdles are having a core of settlers with reason to stay, tons of money and a lot of time. Of course this being a "white nation" it's going to get BTFO by glow in the darks, commie infiltrators, media hit pieces and credit companies refusing to allow money to flow in/out. There is the question of who counts as "white enough" but it's not as hard to have a concensus on as people portray it.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 27, 2020)

> how does this all come about? In practical terms, how do you acquire the land, develop infrastructure, form a system of government, and convince regular people to join you?



If I was hired as a political consultant, I'd say that there is next to no chance to develop a new country. If it is succesful it becomes a threat that is easily defeated. If it is unsuccesful, well, what's the point?

Therefor it works better to work with existing infrastructure, land and government.

So step one would be to identify the country where you want to do it. Considering nativist movements have little interest in being led from abroad, it's going to either have to be the country you're in already, or if you're extraordinarily wealthy or powerful, but then you could hire better advisors than me and the point becomes moot again.

So the only two steps left in answering your questions is how to convince the people and how to reform government.

The government doesn't really need large reforms. You could have the same system with different goals and it would reshape laws over time in accordance.

How to convince the people? Ever played the game werewolf or mafia (it's the same game). About 1/4th of players are designated werewolf/mafia. The game plays in two phases, night and day. During the night everyone closes their eyes. Then the secretly chosen werewolfs open their eyes so that they know each other and  choose one person to eat. Then during the day people get to talk and get to vote on who to lynch. After the lynching it is revealed what the role of that person was. This continues until there are only werewolfs or regular villagers left.

Now, once werewolfs are a majority, the game is done, because they control both night and day killing at that point and they don't lack information.

Demographics and democracy also kinda work like that.

In my experience playing, there are always some villagers that are complete idiots. They don't really understand the rules and their implications and they easily end up acting either randomly or in the interest of werewolfs. You need about 60% of people to act with sense. But 25% are actively working to undermine and werewolfs rarely make bad decisions (they have perfect info), you need to get the werewolfs under control before you lose 15%. Because they will hunt the best leaders/deducers at night.

I say this to show how hard the strategy is to persue. Once you organise a nativist movement, you hard-eliminate everyone outside it from supporting you politically. And you might not even get 50% of those inside it, particularly after 6 decades of oikophobic culture. Even Frozen II now has a theme of "my father betrayed and raped the noble savages, I have to repent in his name" and nativist heroes statues are being toppled across the west so it doesn't look like that is going away anytime soon.

The US is closing in on 50% fast so as a country it won't be able to support such a movement without widespread violence: but that again destroys infrastructure and gov rather than using existing structures.

European countries have more of a chance, but the people are politically and culturally less advanced. By that I mean that we have less capacity to think free and in our own interest compared to americans. There's also the pressure from the EU and neighbouring countries. The former in particular has no problem hurting both its own countries and yours in persuit of their destiny. They'll happily tank mutually beneficial trade to hurt you for not playing along. And since they have a huge hateboner for any country that isn't demographicly transforming, it's going to be hard.


That's why my advice wouldn't be to do it openly. You would have to become your own group of werewolves. Certain in your allegiance and ruthless to those outside it.

And you'd try to convince people simply by pointing at the direction things are going (oblivion) and what they could do to prevent it (follow you). You need to roughly get to 25% support to get a chance of success and hope the villagers don't notice in time to lynch you by day.

Once enough political power and will is attained starts the easier part. Immigration restriction. Remigration. Incentives. Segregated culture (same thing you see now with white people not being allowed to play poc, but vice versa being fine). It's just a slow march of getting people used to it at that point. Of course it's in the interest of the original host nations of the immigrants not to play ball and simultaneously destabilize you and keep their loyal subjects in your country (sending money to their families). However, that also gives you truthful propaganda that you can use to create more political will among those who should support you.


----------



## Celebrate Nite (Jun 27, 2020)

A Cardboard Box said:


> Fuckin lmao. Literally 9th grade "why do women only date jocks and assholes."
> 
> Just don't be a piece of shit. It's comical how many ultra violent wignats are literal children.



Stay mad roastie


----------



## Fek (Jun 27, 2020)

Homoerotic Cougar-kun said:


> I actually don't understand the idea of white nationalism, at least not when predicated on the notion that a solidly-white nation would be incredibly cohesive, strong, productive, etc. simply because everyone in it happened to be white.



_Cultural_ homogeneity is also very much a requirement for any successful nation to remain so. You may have noticed that we seem to be having a problem with that across Western countries at the moment. You throw out one of the pillars that (staying on-topic here) bound whitey together (Christianity) only to replace it with an empty void, and most people will not be able to handle that without desperately latching onto the first dogma-ridden movement they come across (academia pushes Cultural Marxism pretty hard, for example). Dismantling cultural cohesion kinda assfucks chances of national greatness.

The "it has to be strictly whitey" part of what you describe more just covers humanity's hardwired in-group preference. Like it or not, that's also a pretty damn important piece of the puzzle (albeit only a _piece_). Granted, I'm giving some benefit of the doubt to your experience.



Spoiler: On the idea of ___ nationalism across the board



Personally, I'd like to think there's room enough for any given (inconsequential) minority to exist within a (super)majority ethnostate of _any _kind. There are always people that can be readily compatible and/or assimilate into a host culture whether it's this fictitious Whiteytopia, grorious Nippon, fucking Mozambique, whatever. The key to their existence and continued prosperity of the host culture they so enjoy, though, is ensuring it remains the culture of the (decisive majority) host. Enforcing that it remain so is not inherently wrong or evil, either.

I'd really, really.._really _like to think that, at least. I hate feeling like it's a pipe dream when you compare such idealism to the reality of the present.


----------



## Flynt's Missing Pecker (Jun 27, 2020)

So the US was 95% white up until the 60’s but is now close to dipping below 50%. That decline has been achieved without a genocide or mass violence. So I don’t see why people can’t accept the fact it can be reversed just as peacefully. There is no genocidal plan for non-whites.

First step is to stop the decline of the white population - you restrict non-white immigration and incentivise white birth rates.

Second step is to disincentivise non-whites from staying in the country. You can live here but you will be paying far higher tax rates and receiving no government benefits at all.

Then your just left with the blacks to deal with. But again, incentivising not having kids by withdrawing welfare would see their numbers decline over time.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 27, 2020)

Flynt's Missing Pecker said:


> So the US was 95% white up until the 60’s but is now close to dipping below 50%. That decline has been achieved without a genocide or mass violence. So I don’t see why people can’t accept the fact it can be reversed just as peacefully. There is no genocidal plan for non-whites.
> 
> First step is to stop the decline of the white population - you restrict non-white immigration and incentivise white birth rates.
> 
> ...


Your assumption that adopting racially discriminatory tax/welfare policies wouldn't lead to violent conflict is utterly fanciful.


----------



## TFT-A9 (Jun 27, 2020)

Fek said:


> _Cultural_ homogeneity is also very much a requirement for any successful nation to remain so. You may have noticed that we seem to be having a problem with that across Western countries at the moment. You throw out one of the pillars that (staying on-topic here) bound whitey together (Christianity) only to replace it with an empty void, and most people will not be able to handle that without desperately latching onto the first dogma-ridden movement they come across (academia pushes Cultural Marxism pretty hard, for example). Dismantling cultural cohesion kinda assfucks chances of national greatness.
> 
> The "it has to be strictly whitey" part of what you describe more just covers humanity's hardwired in-group preference. Like it or not, that's also a pretty damn important piece of the puzzle (albeit only a _piece_). Granted, I'm giving some benefit of the doubt to your experience.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head - any kind of "nation" needs to maintain either a monoculture or a very dominant "superculture" into which other subcultures must fit and assimilate to as needed.  There's probably a decent amount of wiggle room in the second example for certain things, but I'd say the superculture needs to be extremely dominant and probably centered heavily around things like written laws (e.g. the Constitution/Bill of Rights, or perhaps the Ten Commandments or *insert document of choice here*) to which it commands near-absolute if not absolute adherence.  In short, we can all potentially get along as long as we're all more or less on the same page.

The note about the dissolute "culture" of the West is especially relevant here, as right now there are probably a fair number of people who either have no fucking idea what's in the lawbooks, Constitution/BoR, and so on or simply openly mock/flaunt them or call for their outright destruction/replacement.  I mean, laws and such themselves are not culture, but they certainly inform it and are intertwined with it.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Your assumption that adopting racially discriminatory tax/welfare policies wouldn't lead to violent conflict is utterly fanciful.



Reminds me of the various proposals for things like reparations (effectively a "whitey tax" in nearly every proposal I've so much as skimmed) or to perhaps veer off on a tangent here, "man taxes".  I mean, fuck sake, we fought two fucking wars on our own soil where taxation and representation were both intimately involved, and they were both doozies.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 27, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Your assumption that adopting racially discriminatory tax/welfare policies wouldn't lead to violent conflict is utterly fanciful.


How violent were dhimmi's in islamic territory?

How violent are uyghurs in China?

Seems like the US is already experiencing higher level of violence.


----------



## Flynt's Missing Pecker (Jun 27, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Your assumption that adopting racially discriminatory tax/welfare policies wouldn't lead to violent conflict is utterly fanciful.



Who would get violent, blacks?


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 27, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> How violent were dhimmi's in islamic territory?
> 
> How violent are uyghurs in China?
> 
> Seems like the US is already experiencing higher level of violence.


The Uyghurs make up less than 1% of a population living under an authoritarian state and a heavily conformist culture which supports it. To pretend that the political and ethnic situation in China is in any way comparable to Western countries is delusional.

The Dhimmi system was created in medieval times to allow different religious groups to live side-by-side in an otherwise Islamic state, and was mostly supported by said religious groups as an alternative to forced conversion. To pretend that this is in any way comparable to what white nationalists are proposing (much less applicable to the modern world) is similarly delusional.


Flynt's Missing Pecker said:


> Who would get violent, blacks?


Anybody who is either effected by, or opposes, unfair treatment based upon race, which in contemporary society, means just about everyone. This is, of course, assuming that you could win over the majority necessary to implement these discriminatory laws in the first place, which any sensible person can see is never going to happen.

In short, white nationalism is stupid, and to answer OP's original question: it could never be implemented successfully in a civilized democracy.


----------



## TFT-A9 (Jun 27, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> The Dhimmi system was created in medieval times to allow different religious groups to live side-by-side in an otherwise Islamic state, and was mostly supported by said religious groups as an alternative to forced conversion. To pretend that this is in any way comparable to what white nationalists are proposing (much less applicable to the modern world) is similarly delusional.



If you're seriously arguing that someone coming into your home, putting a knife to your throat and saying "your money, your allegiance or your life" is some kind of consensual agreement between two parties I have some really bad news for you


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 27, 2020)

Homoerotic Cougar-kun said:


> If you're seriously arguing that someone coming into your home, putting a knife to your throat and saying "your money, your allegiance or your life" is some kind of consensual agreement between two parties I have some really bad news for you


I never argued it was consensual, but to pretend that it was especially oppressive by the standards of the time is ahistorical, because in medieval times, the norm following religious conquest was forced conversion.

The Dhimmi system was essentially a trade off which allowed religious minorities in medieval Islamic societies to keep their distinct religious identities, thus making the peaceful administration of those societies easier. I bring this up not to defend it, but to put it in context, and explain why it isn't in any way comparable to what white nationalists are proposing.


----------



## Flynt's Missing Pecker (Jun 27, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Anybody who is either effected by, or opposes, unfair treatment based upon race,


Is there violence over affirmative action?


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 27, 2020)

Flynt's Missing Pecker said:


> Is there violence over affirmative action?



No, because the purpose of affirmative action is to provide people with opportunities, not systemically take them away.


----------



## Flynt's Missing Pecker (Jun 27, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> No, because the purpose of affirmative action is to provide people with opportunities, not systemically take them away.


So the whites who have their opportunities taken away?


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 27, 2020)

Flynt's Missing Pecker said:


> So the whites who have their opportunities taken away?


Are so small as to be statistically insignificant. Look up any statistics related to employment, income, or education, and you'll find out why your argument here is a non-starter.


----------



## Flynt's Missing Pecker (Jun 27, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Are so small as to be statistically insignificant. Look up any statistics related to employment, income, or education, and you'll find out why your argument here is a non-starter.




So you concede that affirmative action is about taking opportunities away from whites


----------



## The Reaper (Jun 27, 2020)

NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE said:


> two kids is not enough to increase the white population.


2 whites have 2 kids.  Those kids have two kids each with others.  You now have eight whites not including the two whites who are introduced to make the second set of kids.  

What I'm learning about white decline is that whites forgot how to do math.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 27, 2020)

Flynt's Missing Pecker said:


> So you concede that affirmative action is about taking opportunities away from whites


No, because that's clearly not it's purpose, nor it's general outcome. On aggregate, white people haven't lost out due to affirmative action; in fact, white women have been it's primary beneficiaries.


----------



## Fek (Jun 27, 2020)

If you'll humor me:



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Anybody who is either effected by, or opposes, unfair treatment based upon race, which in contemporary society, means just about everyone.


Off the top of your head: Who would you leave off that list, if anyone?



> In short, white nationalism is stupid


I'm curious if you have similar takes regarding other sorts of racial (possibly ethnic) nationalism, too? Like is it specifically white nationalism that is uniquely stupid, to you? Or would you say it's more race-based nationalism as a whole? Ethnic nationalism, maybe? Purely curious.

And to that end:


> and to answer OP's original question: it could never be implemented successfully in a civilized democracy.


Is Japan a different scenario, would you say? I realize they're not white, but I'm seeking some sort of avenue in understanding how you see things (and hopefully some logical consistency). Help me out.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 27, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> To pretend that this is in any way comparable to what white nationalists are proposing (much less applicable to the modern world) is similarly delusional.


That's not what you said though. You said that racially discriminatory policies would lead to violence, full stop. 

Why didn't the discriminatory policies against dhimmies lead to similar violence? There are hundreds of other examples of discrimination in history without resulting violence. I can understand and respect a moral argument against each of these, but fear for violence seems the least sensible one.

Besides, why not apply the same standard to X nationalists? If fear of violence motivates you, then why not the fear of not giving each type of nationalist what they want, whether it's chaz, or spanish provinces, or segregationist or separist movements? The only way to stop these is violence.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> The Dhimmi system was essentially a trade off which allowed religious minorities in medieval Islamic societies to keep their distinct religious identities,



Dumbest thing I read today. That's how it is being sanitized today, but you need only read acouple of historic passages from yemen to spain and know that it wasn't that noble and clean little tradeoff.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 27, 2020)

Fek said:


> I'm curious if you have similar takes regarding other sorts of racial (possibly ethnic) nationalism, too? Like is it specifically white nationalism that is uniquely stupid, to you? Or would you say it's more race-based nationalism as a whole? Ethnic nationalism, maybe? Purely curious.


I think any form of racial nationalism is stupid. I think it's stupid to choose something as superficial as the colour of a person's skin or the texture of their hair as a decider of their worth as a citizen, and on a practical, ethical, and legal level, I find it to be wholly indefensible and unsustainable.


Fek said:


> Is Japan a different scenario, would you say? I realize they're not white, but I'm seeking some sort of avenue in understanding how you see things (and hopefully some logical consistency). Help me out.


Japan is an ethnically homogeneous country that has chosen of it's own volition to adopt restrictive immigration policies. That's a world away from forcefully removing existing ethnic groups who have just as much of a legal and historical claim to reside in your country as you do.


Lemmingwise said:


> That's not what you said though. You said that racially discriminatory policies would lead to violence, full stop.
> 
> Why didn't the discriminatory policies against dhimmies lead to similar violence?


Probably for the same reason that slavery largely didn't lead to violence. One group had all the power, and the other wasn't really in a position to do anything about it. That's hardly an endorsement of slavery.

I also think it's pretty clear that my original statement was concerned primarily with the contemporary United States, as the post I was responding to was speaking within a contemporary US context. To that end, my point still stands: you're not going to push for racial segregation in the US without a massive conflict.


Lemmingwise said:


> There are hundreds of other examples of discrimination in history without resulting violence. I can understand and respect a moral argument against each of these, but fear for violence seems the least sensible one.


Insofar as the discriminated group is unable to resist their oppression, perhaps, but that's hardly applicable to a First World democracy. If you have to invoke medieval theocracies and totalitarian states as examples of where systemic discrimination can be met with minimal resistance from the people it victimizes, then you've already lost the argument in the eyes of civilized people.


Lemmingwise said:


> Besides, why not apply the same standard to X nationalists? If fear of violence motivates you, then why not the fear of not giving each type of nationalist what they want, whether it's chaz, or spanish provinces, or segregationist or separist movements? The only way to stop these is violence.


Giving violent groups exactly what they want isn't an antidote to violence, but an endorsement of it. The opposite of violence is peaceful coexistence, and peaceful coexistence is something racial separatism is completely at odds with, whether it's supporters are honest about it or not. I reject the equivocation you're making here.


Lemmingwise said:


> Dumbest thing I read today. That's how it is being sanitized today, but you need only read acouple of historic passages from yemen to spain and know that it wasn't that noble and clean little tradeoff.


So you're admitting that your original mention of Dhimmi was completely disingenuous, and in fact not an example of peaceful discrimination against a minority group? Good. I agree.


----------



## Stilgar of Troon (Jun 27, 2020)

NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE said:


> white statism is a more practical goal for now. all my fellow white racist Americans should move to one state, maybe Alaska or Montana, and remove all the niggers and beaners from that state. then we need to take women's rights away (including the right to leave the state) because that's the only way to raise the birth rate significantly. women were made to be cum toilets/baby factories and nothing more. if you care about women's rights, you are part of the white genocide problem. then after our numbers are high enough we can start taking over more states and eventually the whole nation, and then the world.


A near-perfect @BoxerShorts47 improv piece.  Bravo!  Do you take constructive criticism?  Good,  Needs more paedophilia disguised as concern for marriage rates and for me, there wasn't nearly enough reeeing about "STRAWMAN".  Otherwise, a very solid job.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 27, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> No, because that's clearly not it's purpose, nor it's general outcome. On aggregate, white people haven't lost out due to affirmative action; in fact, white women have been it's primary beneficiaries.



If white women have been the primary beneficiaries, who have been the primary victims of affirmative action? Who's oppertunities were taken and given to white women?



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Probably for the same reason that slavery largely didn't lead to violence. One group had all the power, and the other wasn't really in a position to do anything about it. That's hardly an endorsement of slavery.



I'm glad you're taking my invitation to make the moral argument rather than the inevitability of violence.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> So you're admitting that your original mention of Dhimmi was completely disingenuous, and in fact not an example of peaceful discrimination against a minority group? Good. I agree.



My question was "how violent were dhimmies?"

I don't think you think I was suggesting that the Chinese are going very easy on the uyghurs either.  Your comment that it's possible that it doesn't necessarily lead to violence (but results instead in a situation where one group dominates another completely with all of the moral problems that creates), is what I wanted to highlight. I'm glad you've given that ground.

Two questions remain that I'd like to ask you. First why do you consider seperatist movements inherently violent? If people wish to govern themselves, isn't it inherently violent to prevent that rather than allow them? And if that isn't violence  isn't, then how is that different from either dhimmies or uyghurs or chaz or slavery, where a group is completely dominated as to not be given that level of self-determination?

If minimization of violence is a goal, have you taken into account the larger number of violence that happens in multicultural societies compared to monocultural ones? Can we weigh that off against the violence produced by the segregating act?


----------



## Flynt's Missing Pecker (Jun 27, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> also think it's pretty clear that my original statement was concerned primarily with the contemporary United States, as the post I was responding to was speaking within a contemporary US context. To that end, my point still stands: you're not going to push for racial segregation in the US without a massive conflict.


 Why would people who moved to the US for economic reasons get violent when alternatively they could  be financially  incentivised to just move again?

They’re not fighting for a homeland, why would they risk bloodshed. I don’t think your hypothesis stands up to the smell test.


----------



## NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE (Jun 27, 2020)

Troon Draugur said:


> A near-perfect @BoxerShorts47 improv piece.  Bravo!  Do you take constructive criticism?  Good,  Needs more paedophilia disguised as concern for marriage rates and for me, there wasn't nearly enough reeeing about "STRAWMAN".  Otherwise, a very solid job.


13 year olds have pubic hair so by definition it's not pedophilia. if by "constructive" "criticism" you mean *constructing* a *strawman* out of all the pubic hair you've shaved off of thousands of 13 year old girls to make them look like children then no I don't want it


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Jun 28, 2020)

I don't think the intent is a globalist superstate at all. I just don't want foreigners in my fucking country; and I don't want my society enslaved to a debt based economic system, or my industries dictated by rootles billionaires that demand an influx of constant cheap labour to feed the furnace of low value consoomerist industry. 

I don't want a white superstate, I just want my country to be a country again, composed of people; not a soulless spreadsheet that exists solely to alter the numbers of non real currency and reduce every human down to a throwaway biological machine.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 28, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> If white women have been the primary beneficiaries, who have been the primary victims of affirmative action? Who's oppertunities were taken and given to white women?


That's an ill-considered question, because opportunities aren't a zero-sum game. The rationale behind affirmation action (whether you think it's a good thing or not) is that it provides opportunities to people who are otherwise generally denied them, with the ultimate goal of normalizing the provision of those opportunities to the groups it's set up to help.

Put simply: the intent behind it is to help to erode stigmas around certain groups which reduce their participation in society, and there is absolutely no evidence that this has made any group worse off on aggregate. Women entering the workforce (and the subsequent erosion of the stigma surrounding women having careers), didn't make men (least not white men) poorer as a demographic.


Lemmingwise said:


> My question was "how violent were dhimmies?"
> 
> I don't think you think I was suggesting that the Chinese are going very easy on the uyghurs either. Your comment that it's possible that it doesn't necessarily lead to violence (but results instead in a situation where one group dominates another completely with all of the moral problems that creates), is what I wanted to highlight. I'm glad you've given that ground.


Then why bring it up like it's a point worth making? If the creation of a totalitarian state with the power to dispose of any group it doesn't like is necessary for racial segregation to be achieved with minimal resistance, then all you're really doing is moving the problem, because the implementation of such a state in a formally democratic society would almost certainly necessitate violence in one form or another.


Lemmingwise said:


> Two questions remain that I'd like to ask you. First why do you consider seperatist movements inherently violent? If people wish to govern themselves, isn't it inherently violent to prevent that rather than allow them? And if that isn't violence isn't, then how is that different from either dhimmies or uyghurs or chaz or slavery, where a group is completely dominated as to not be given that level of self-determination?


You're asking me to explain why a willingness to peacefully coexist is the antithesis of violence? I've already explained why I reject the equivocation these questions are based upon.


Lemmingwise said:


> If minimization of violence is a goal, have you taken into account the larger number of violence that happens in multicultural societies compared to monocultural ones? Can we weigh that off against the violence produced by the segregating act?


How about we consider the stronger possibility that this violence is the result of a lack of cultural integration rather than too much of it? Because all of the evidence we have suggests that the more culturally integrated two groups are with one another, the less violence exists between them.

Given the historical record alone, I absolutely would argue that forcefully segregating people is more violent than working to bring them together.


Flynt's Missing Pecker said:


> Why would people who moved to the US for economic reasons get violent when alternatively they could be financially incentivised to just move again?
> 
> They’re not fighting for a homeland, why would they risk bloodshed. I don’t think your hypothesis stands up to the smell test.


The majority of racial minorities in the United States aren't immigrants, and even if you could successfully incentivize the ones who are to leave, you'd still risk alienating their naturalized relatives. Who says these people wouldn't be fighting for a homeland, anyway? If they were born and raised in the United States, the United States is their home, and you're arguing for a belligerent attempt to remove them from it. A violent reaction, under those circumstances, is entirely understandable.


----------



## Sicklick (Jun 28, 2020)

Imagine not being an unironic Neo-Nazi in 2020. Jesus you people are so pathetic. Name me one thing these black power retards protesting have ever done or contributed to society. Just fucking one. Exactly, nothing. If it wasn't for whites they would still be living in dunghuts right now. Scientific racism and eugenics FTW.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 29, 2020)

Sicklick said:


> Imagine not being an unironic Neo-Nazi in 2020. Jesus you people are so pathetic. Name me one thing these black power retards protesting have ever done or contributed to society. Just fucking one. Exactly, nothing. If it wasn't for whites they would still be living in dunghuts right now. Scientific racism and eugenics FTW.


yeah but Hitler had history's gayest mustache


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 29, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> That's an ill-considered question, because opportunities aren't a zero-sum game.


Of course they are. One may posit equality of oppertunity as a moral virtue, even if it like every ideal is impossible to 100% achieve.

If the US laxed its rules on where presidential candidates must be born to expand to any birthcountry, then the opportunity giving to foreign born comes at the expense of homeborn canditates. The first time a foreignborn president would emerge, then the person who would have otherwise won is the person it comes at the expense of.

You could make a good argument why this would be moral, sensible or pick your own positive sounding value judgement, but it doesn't change the fact that expanding opportunities to one group comes at the expense of another.

Though this is a very generous interpretation on my part, since in practice there are numerous examples where it is not at all about equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome across the west, with quota's and other things. I know such quota's are illegal in the US in education, though I did see some court cases alledging that it was secretly happening. I don't know if it did or not, I never looked at it closely.

----

Finally your claim that women entering the work force not making men poorer is laughable. The fact that you say it may have made non-white men poorer but not white men is particularly indicative of your prejudices.




Hellbound Hellhound said:


> You're asking me to explain why a willingness to peacefully coexist is the antithesis of violence? I've already explained why I reject the equivocation these questions are based upon.


I asked why you consider a segregationist movement inherently violent. Why don't any group of people have the right to self-segregate? They're being prevented by force, by violence of doing so. That too would be a method of peaceful coexistence.




Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Because all of the evidence we have suggests that the more culturally integrated two groups are with one another, the less violence exists between them.



Violence increases, lonelyness increases, trust decreases the more groups are mixed and all the evidence points in that direction. I'm not sure what evidence you're speaking of.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Given the historical record alone, I absolutely would argue that forcefully segregating people is more violent than working to bring them together.



How about not forcefully prohibiting self-segregation? Again, if minimization of violence is your goal, shouldn't we prevent this violence too?


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 29, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> Of course they are. One may posit equality of oppertunity as a moral virtue, even if it like every ideal is impossible to 100% achieve.
> 
> If the US laxed its rules on where presidential candidates must be born to expand to any birthcountry, then the opportunity giving to foreign born comes at the expense of homeborn canditates. The first time a foreignborn president would emerge, then the person who would have otherwise won is the person it comes at the expense of.
> 
> You could make a good argument why this would be moral, sensible or pick your own positive sounding value judgement, but it doesn't change the fact that expanding opportunities to one group comes at the expense of another.


Presidential candidates is a silly example, because by law, there can only ever be one president at a time. This logic doesn't hold true for opportunities more generally, and it would be a weak argument to make regardless. If, hypothetically, a foreign-born candidate was more qualified to run the country than all of the native-born ones, why shouldn't they get the job?

My argument still holds that opportunities aren't a zero-sum game, and you will find no evidence that white men have been made poorer by the expansion of opportunities to other groups. An individual white man might lose out on an individual job opportunity thanks to affirmative action, but he benefits by being a part of a more dynamic economy which doesn't squander the talent of it's non-white and female members. There is such a thing as a mutually beneficial relationship in economics, and it's what the data supports.


Lemmingwise said:


> Finally your claim that women entering the work force not making men poorer is laughable. The fact that you say it may have made non-white men poorer but not white men is particularly indicative of your prejudices.


I don't believe that women entering the workforce has made non-white men poorer, and it's not what the evidence suggests, although I will concede that I could have worded that sentence more clearly. Perhaps I should have said "least of all" instead of "least not"?


Lemmingwise said:


> I asked why you consider a segregationist movement inherently violent. Why don't any group of people have the right to self-segregate? They're being prevented by force, by violence of doing so. That too would be a method of peaceful coexistence.


You're still making the same equivocation. The fundamental difference between segregation and coexistence is that the former requires the threat of violence to be directed against certain groups in order to be maintained, whereas the latter is open to everyone. The only time violence results from peaceful coexistence is when belligerent actors don't want to play fair like everyone else, and it's these belligerent actors you're asking me to sympathize with.

Why should I sympathize with them? Why should I grant them any concession when they are clearly the problem?


Lemmingwise said:


> Violence increases, lonelyness increases, trust decreases the more groups are mixed and all the evidence points in that direction. I'm not sure what evidence you're speaking of.


You're confusing cultural integration with geographic integration. If you put two groups who are culturally distinct and don't get along in close proximity to one another, then you will see all of the effects you're talking about, but as they become more culturally integrated, these effects disappear. The data on this is pretty clear: the more positive contact you have with a particular demographic, the less animosity you will feel towards that demographic on average.


Lemmingwise said:


> How about not forcefully prohibiting self-segregation? Again, if minimization of violence is your goal, shouldn't we prevent this violence too?


You can self-segregate in the privacy of your own home. The rest of us are under no obligation to facilitate segregation on a societal level, and it is ridiculous to suggest that doing so is non-violent for the reasons I've given. Groups and ideologies which reject the foundations of civil society are owed no conciliation.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 29, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> An individual white man might lose out on an individual job opportunity thanks to affirmative action, but he benefits by being a part of a more dynamic economy which doesn't squander the talent of it's non-white and female members.


Your post is riddled with disingenous answers, but this one takes the crown. What benefit!


----------



## The giant penis of doom (Jun 30, 2020)

Sicklick said:


> Imagine not being an unironic Neo-Nazi in 2020. Jesus you people are so pathetic. Name me one thing these black power retards protesting have ever done or contributed to society. Just fucking one. Exactly, nothing. If it wasn't for whites they would still be living in dunghuts right now. Scientific racism and eugenics FTW.



Nazis had the wrong idea about race. Race realism is most definitely not in line with their ideology.
Eugenics is good, but for ethical reasons we shouldn't force the short term solutions (as in, no killing of subhumans), we have to find more subtle solutions to phase them out.

It's also bad for optics.


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Jun 30, 2020)

The giant penis of doom said:


> Nazis had the wrong idea about race. Race realism is most definitely not in line with their ideology.
> Eugenics is good, but for ethical reasons we shouldn't force the short term solutions (as in, no killing of subhumans), we have to find more subtle solutions to phase them out.
> 
> It's also bad for optics.


Galton unironically already laid out the foundation work for eugenics. It just seems that the people who read his work and followed on from him didn't bother reading the part where he wrote it plain: People want what is best for their children. You don't need to shoot subhumans, you just need to convince people that marrying and having kids with them is a bad fucking idea. Parents want their kids in clubs, and youth groups and things that will 'enrich them'  as people. Simply bring that back on a state level, and use them as a mechanism for matchmaking by extending them into secondary and higher education. Shame people who marry outside of their race, and shame people who marry and reproduce with spiteful mutants, genetic abnormalities and other such undesirables. 

The issue we have is not creating a eugenic system, people do that already by selecting for others like them, with traits that they find appealing. The issue is repairing the family and society from the continuous Roblox death sound it's been doing since the 1940's. In that regard the Nazi's had the right idea; they didn't just want worker units. They tried to instill a sense of culture and refinement even in the lower classes; they encouraged fitness, outdoor play for children even in the cities, meeting other towns and places in Germany to get a fullness of the heritage of their nation. You can take that from the Nazi's. 

The issue that arises is that Eugenics is a project of a successful healthy state, and a natural one. You cannot truly engage in a eugenics policy without first having the base of peoples who would go along with such a thing.


----------

