# How many nationalists/neo-Nazis/fascists do we have on here?



## AF 802 (Jul 19, 2019)

Considering how many of the lolcows call us a website supporting fascism, it got me to thinking, how much of our userbase would be considered supporting fascism, wanting to reboot Nazism, or want an ethnostate? I know Null has stated he's an ethnostatist before, but I'm honestly curious how many would actually fit the bill instead of just being anarchist lolcows calling plain out conservatives that.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Jul 19, 2019)

Put up a poll, maybe?


----------



## ES 148 (Jul 19, 2019)

This is Heinrich Himmler levels of honeypot. A Himmlerpot, if you will.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jul 19, 2019)

The problem is more complex than it initially appears, the presence of shitposters who are just faking and hardline conservatives who draw the line at a certain point creates a certain level of ambiguity. I'm not even completly convinced Null is actually pro-ethnostate considering how much of a subversive little bugger he  is outside of his hate boner for the UK.

I mean how often are people really dumb enough to believe that shit, suck tyrant dick and how many of them are also going to be functional enough to look down on anyone enough to come here and play nice with others?

Personally you can be any colour you want as long as you DO AS I COMMAND!


----------



## Webby's Boyfriend (Jul 19, 2019)

I'm a post-racial world citizen.

The idea of a White ethnostate is retarded in the first place, because it treats all White people as a single ethnicity as if there was no difference between the Icelanders, Basques, French, Persians and Finns. In fact a White ethnostate would be very diverse. People who unironically want that are so retarded, they even fail at being racist.


----------



## RadicalCentrist (Jul 19, 2019)

>no IRA option

ban OP's faggotry once and for all


----------



## Belligerent Monk (Jul 19, 2019)

My last name is *very* German. It wouldn't matter what my beliefs are. If I ever get into a verbal altercation with a troon or one of "God's Chosen People" it will be very easy to smear me.


----------



## RetardedCat (Jul 19, 2019)

I just think niggers aren't humans and kikes should be sent back to fucking Israel if they like it so much. Also if Israel gets to be an ethnostate, we should be allowed at least one white ethnostate.
Oh and trannies and faggots should get free bungee-jumps but without the rope.

So I don't know which one I am. Literally Hitler probably.


----------



## Clop (Jul 19, 2019)

I'm a center-left love-hippie who believes most people are generally good and can achieve a diverse, globalist community as long as there's enough of a sensible system of rules that apply to everyone, accepting people as they are as long as no one is harmed, and using common sense and rational debate to stomp on anyone who is trying to undermine that peace.

So literal birb Hitler, obviously.


----------



## WhoBusTank69 (Jul 19, 2019)

I just see people as violent dumbasses and that government is necessary only to mitigate aforementioned violent dumbassery. Fascism is just violent dumbassery from the other direction so I'm not exactly a supporter.


----------



## {o}P II (Jul 19, 2019)

It amazes me how many channers would consider themselves fascists without realizing that an anonymous image board where people can share opinions without repercussions would never be aloud in a fascist state

also if you think your diffrent from another human becuase you have a diffrent ethnicity, your exceptional


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Jul 19, 2019)

Virgin nazi vs chad islamist


----------



## The Last Stand (Jul 19, 2019)

1488 thereabouts.


----------



## Webby's Boyfriend (Jul 19, 2019)

Belligerent Monk said:


> My last name is *very* German. It wouldn't matter what my beliefs are. If I ever get into a verbal altercation with a troon or one of "God's Chosen People" it will be very easy to smear me.


Currently I live in Germany and since SJWism has become a global phenomenon, politicians and the media here too debate about the Alt-Right, right-wing populism, remnants of the Third Reich, "racists'", "sexists" etc. or about Antifa and undocumented immigrants, unaware that for normal people, all the Germans are Nazis by default.


----------



## Some Manajerk (Jul 19, 2019)

I'm just proud of my country, is that too much in this day and age?


----------



## wylfım (Jul 19, 2019)

I thought I was on storm front huh


Webby's Boyfriend said:


> I'm a post-racial world citizen.
> 
> The idea of a White ethnostate is exceptional in the first place, because it treats all White people as a single ethnicity as if there was no difference between the Icelanders, Basques, French, Persians and Finns. In fact a White ethnostate would be very diverse. People who unironically want that are so exceptional, they even fail at being racist.


I'm a supporter of a culturostate, and since cultures tend to be heavily based on ethnic groups, it would functionally be an ethnostate with immigration limited to a level small enough to allow cultural and genetic assimilation into the general population.
Once you start getting chinatowns, little italys, jewyork, dearborn, etc, your country is fucked because there's no longer homogeneity, and that ultimately leads to social tensions or outright secession attempts.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Jul 19, 2019)

I don't believe that the economy or information (such as news) should be centrally controlled by a quiet partnership between government and national/international corporations.
I don't believe that the personal is political.
I don't believe in identity politics, that birth or parentage makes you more or less of value than anyone else.
I don't believe that the push for a "Positive Christianity", stripped of its inconvenient doctrines and principles and turned into a mouthpiece for "progressive" policies, while also pushing outdated paganism, is anything less than spiritual poison.
I believe people should be free to choose how their children should be educated, including homeschooling, even if it means those children will be taught something I don't agree with.
I think antisemitism is of the devil.
I oppose forced sterilization, eugenics, euthanasia.
I believe no person should be denied the right to self-defense, and denying him or her access to the tools for it gives the government unlimited power over them.
Each of those things that I oppose is a policy of historical fascism.  Each of those things is also being pushed in America, but not by those who are called "fascists".

Let's just be clear about that.


----------



## Bessie (Jul 19, 2019)

> "I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit.
> "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't.
> But there was going to be when I began it.
> It's just that something happened to it along the way."


----------



## YW 525 (Jul 19, 2019)

I've been told that my boot tastes like chocolate pudding after a while. You will enjoy it on your neck.


----------



## Sinner's Sandwich (Jul 19, 2019)

Over 9000


----------



## Belligerent Monk (Jul 19, 2019)

Webby's Boyfriend said:


> Currently I live in Germany and since SJWism has become a global phenomenon, politicians and the media here too debate about the Alt-Right, right-wing populism, remnants of the Third Reich, "racists'", "sexists" etc. or about Antifa and undocumented immigrants, unaware that for normal people, all the Germans are Nazis by default.



And that's just the thing, in'it?
The Germans in Germany are the traceable source of the most concentrated white guilt imaginable.
But a white German born in the United States who even remotely has any traditional beliefs may as well be Hitler 2: Electric Boogaloo.


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Jul 19, 2019)

Here's an interesting graph from here. Whites have a lower in group preference than other groups. However because non liberal whites have a non negative in group bias, they get called 'white supremacists'. However blacks. hispanics and asians are not called supremacists for having an in group preference.

I guess being a supremacist is 'having an in group preference plus privilege' or something. Well except that Asians have better educational incomes and higher incomes on average than whites. Which according to the left can only be explained by 'privilege' and not by differing mean group IQs and differing group cultures.

Of course as soon as you talk about that stuff, you're definitely going to be called a white supremacist.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 19, 2019)

{o}P II said:


> It amazes me how many channers would consider themselves fascists without realizing that an anonymous image board where people can share opinions without repercussions would never be aloud in a fascist state
> 
> also if you think your diffrent from another human becuase you have a diffrent ethnicity, your exceptional



I don't think that many channers consider themselves fascists in the first place. It's mostly shitposting/larping.

Also, we're heading towards a place in time where we live in a "liberal democracy", where people can't share anonymous opinions online without repercussions anyways though.



Vorhtbame said:


> I don't believe that the economy or information (such as news) should be centrally controlled by a quiet partnership between government and national/international corporations.
> I don't believe that the personal is political.
> I don't believe in identity politics, that birth or parentage makes you more or less of value than anyone else.
> I don't believe that the push for a "Positive Christianity", stripped of its inconvenient doctrines and principles and turned into a mouthpiece for "progressive" policies, while also pushing outdated paganism, is anything less than spiritual poison.
> ...



I agree with 5/8.

I do believe in identity politics and so should everyone. It's wholly natural and sensible to have a group identity (that can be personally embraced or rejected) and I think it's wholly natural that some will want to politically organize around the interests of such an identitarian group. I think it's alright to have mexican identitarian interest groups, black identitarian interest groups and also white identitarian interest groups. I don't consider that the world should purely be observed through a group identity lens, but it's a sensible part of the whole to not reject identity nor identity politics. Underlaying to that argument is that there are group differences and that such different interest groups serve different needs.

I think a lot of things get called antisemitism that aren't antisemitism and it's one of the principle taboos to even discuss whether that's the case or not, which should illustrate how the entire west is in practice very prosemitist.

I do not principally oppose forced sterilization, but probably would oppose almost all legislation that would propose it. It's not something that's easy to get right. I don't really have any arguments for this one, so fuck it, focus on the other ones.

Most people would probably consider me a fascist if they knew the full spectrum of my beliefs, whereas probably my only perceived "dangerous" opinion would be that white people should have the right to organize around group interests same as other groups.

It's funny because in a fascist state, I'd probably be considered a communist.


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Jul 19, 2019)

I like pie.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Jul 19, 2019)

Gustav Schuchardt said:


> Here's an interesting graph from here. Whites have a lower in group preference than other groups. However because non liberal whites have a non negative in group bias, they get called 'white supremacists'. However blacks. hispanics and asians are not called supremacists for having an in group preference.
> 
> I guess being a supremacist is 'having an in group preference plus privilege' or something. Well except that Asians have better educational incomes and higher incomes on average than whites. Which according to the left can only be explained by 'privilege' and not by differing mean group IQs and differing group cultures.
> 
> ...


So... white liberals are statistically proven to be racist then? Because that's what I'm seeing here.  Nothing more racist than not wanting to be around a certain race, after all.

I'm no kind of fascist or ethnostatist or any of that silly jive. I'm a bit of a nationalist, because I live in a nation, but as long as they follow the rules I don't care who else is in my nation.

I am the 90s version of not racist, meaning, no special treatment, for better or worse. Colorblind, basically. So by modern standards I'm a 9.4 on the hitler scale.


----------



## Harvey Danger (Jul 19, 2019)

In a _tabula rasa_ setting, starting from scratch, I don't see a moral problem with the concept of ethnostates.  Most states throughout history were some version of one, either in population or in political structure.  "Nation-state" literally means some particular people (a nation) has organized itself into a political construct (a state).  Homogeneity is a huge boon for stability, political cohesion, and societal consensus.

However, the USA is _not_ one of those states, it is explicitly an _ideological_ state.  And if anyone tries to turn the USA into an ethnostate, I'm joining the resistance and going 2nd Amendment on their ass.

Fascism sucks, since it's basically corporatism plus extra authoritarianism.  Racism is dumb; adding racism to fascism makes everything even worse.  It's a real curiosity the _Germans_ of all people thought that mix was worth a try last century... but in Current Year 2019, it's formerly liberal lefty hedonists who are now giving it a try, so I guess there's no accounting for political insanity.

Put me down as a vanilla 1990s center-right conservative, with a streak of 1910s doom-and-gloom "the center can not hold" anarcho-libertarianism.  I don't know what you'd call that.  But I'm still stuck in the 2 genders world, so I guess that makes me a neo-Nazi Hitler supremacist, or something.


----------



## ElAbominacion (Jul 19, 2019)

Vorhtbame said:


> I don't believe that the economy or information (such as news) should be centrally controlled by a quiet partnership between government and national/international corporations.
> I don't believe that the personal is political.
> I don't believe in identity politics, that birth or parentage makes you more or less of value than anyone else.
> I don't believe that the push for a "Positive Christianity", stripped of its inconvenient doctrines and principles and turned into a mouthpiece for "progressive" policies, while also pushing outdated paganism, is anything less than spiritual poison.
> ...



I don't think antisemitism is of the devil and I don't outright oppose eugenics, now that we have the tools to actually mitigate the things that gave rise to it.

Euthanasia is maybe needed in cases like tetraplegy, and only voluntarily. But I'm a big fan of natural law.

The right to self-defense, 100% agree. The being against a push for PozChris, 100% agree. Personal is not political, ID politics exists ALWAYS as a reaction to its implementation.

I believe in power remaining in the hands of citizens, at the city level. I believe central government is poison and is the source of all tyranny.

I believe the right to say what you want is to be held sacrosanct, because many people died for the freedom to do so.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Jul 19, 2019)

I'm a true patriot.
Where's "race realist"


----------



## Caesare (Jul 19, 2019)

Is this a rollcall?

Present!


----------



## Webby's Boyfriend (Jul 19, 2019)

Belligerent Monk said:


> The Germans in Germany are the traceable source of the most concentrated white guilt imaginable.


That's illogical because the majority of the victims of Nazi warcrimes was White. Even though the Nazis didn't see Jews and Slavs as White, most of them are. And the Third Reich was allied with the Japanese and was popular in the Near-East.

But whatever, SJWs and logic just don't get along, just like the Alt-Right and common sense ain't pals.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Jul 19, 2019)

Webby's Boyfriend said:


> That's illogical because the overwhelming majority of the victims of Nazi warcrimes was White, like European Jews and Slavs.


According to the nazis the jews and slavs weren't the right kind of white though, so it still works I think.


----------



## crocodilian (Jul 19, 2019)

I want (non-slavic) whites to be the majority in my country. Run every inch of it, colonize my ass, do and implement whatever they think will work based on hard, empirical evidence and intelligent theories (i.e. not communism or other left-wing nonsense.) I would 100% start tea-sipping, jive-shucking or setting up shower chambers for the (non-slavic) white man's benefit if it made my country more prosperous, more safe, more internationally-relevant and overall a better place to live. It worked for India, Singapore, Japan, South Africa, Hong Kong, early America and tons of others; every historical text I can find says so. Why argue against it? Founding fathers, National Socialist Germany, British empire, wacky Dutchmen, I don't fucking care, just bring them all here and hand them the steering wheel.

tl;dr - 






Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> According to the nazis the jews and slavs weren't the right kind of white though, so it still works I think.



Nazi text contradicts itself often (that's the nature of politics) but there's plenty of evidence to suggest they considered all of Europe white. They even tried to ally with Poland, Russia and Britain initially. The only group they 100% despised were the Jews, and considering the rise of Bolshevism, communism and Weimar politics I don't blame them.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Jul 19, 2019)

crocodilian said:


> Nazi text contradicts itself often (that's the nature of politics) but there's plenty of evidence to suggest they considered all of Europe white. They even tried to ally with Poland, Russia and Britain initially. The only group they 100% despised were the Jews, and considering the rise of Bolshevism, communism and Weimar politics I don't blame them.
> 
> View attachment 849076


But then why did Hitler seem to legitimately resent southern Europeans- an area full of allies.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Jul 19, 2019)

Y2KKK Baby said:


> But then why did Hitler seem to legitimately resent southern Europeans- an area full of allies.


Sometimes I think that Hitler fellow might have been just a bit fucked in the head.


----------



## Terrorist (Jul 19, 2019)

Not many. Whenever race stuff comes up here it mostly devolves into the posters virture signalling over how not racist they are, how they love based minority grifter #42069, and dinesh dsouza level shit about democrats being the real racists. The Aut-righters will shuck and jive and do their memes for local color but it's mostly cuck stuff like that.

Segregationist-ish Nazbol so I guess I half-count. Don't hate anybody of any race (except gypsies), but we're too different to live together. Blacks were much more self-sufficient before integration. 



crocodilian said:


> I want (non-slavic) whites to be the majority in my country. Run every inch of it, colonize my ass, do and implement whatever they think will work based on hard, empirical evidence and intelligent theories (i.e. not communism or other left-wing nonsense.) I would 100% start tea-sipping, jive-shucking or setting up shower chambers for the (non-slavic) white man's benefit if it made my country more prosperous, more safe, more internationally-relevant and overall a better place to live. It worked for India, Singapore, Japan, South Africa, Hong Kong, early America and tons of others; every historical text I can find says so. Why argue against it? Founding fathers, National Socialist Germany, British empire, wacky Dutchmen, I don't fucking care, just bring them all here and hand them the steering wheel.
> 
> tl;dr -
> View attachment 849068



So you want us huwhites to waste money civilizing your darkie asses? Yeah ok welfare queen, why don't you shine my shoes if you want a handout.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 19, 2019)

Y2KKK Baby said:


> But then why did Hitler seem to legitimately resent southern Europeans- an area full of allies.



Probably because Italy had generally really bad commanders and they were a bit like having to take your little confused little brother and have him be one of the players on your team.

Mussolini had flushed some of the better commanders out in favour of loyalists.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Jul 19, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Probably because Italy had generally really bad commanders and they were a bit like having to take your little confused little brother and have him be one of the players on your team.
> 
> Mussolini had flushed some of the better commanders out in favour of loyalists.


That's not a solid enough reason tbh.


----------



## Unog (Jul 19, 2019)

I'm a nationalist. A civic nationalist though so I don't think I'm technically part of the demo you wanted to show up OP.


----------



## Papa Adolfo's Take'n'Bake (Jul 19, 2019)

I am but a poor, immigrant pizza parlor owner, whatever gave you the 'fascist' idea?


----------



## crocodilian (Jul 19, 2019)

Terrorist said:


> Not many. Whenever race stuff comes up here it mostly devolves into the posters virture signalling over how not racist they are, how they love based minority grifter #42069, and dinesh dsouza level shit about democrats being the real racists. The Aut-righters will shuck and jive and do their memes for local color but it's mostly cuck stuff like that.
> 
> Segregationist-ish Nazbol so I guess I half-count. Don't hate anybody of any race (except gypsies), but we're too different to live together. Blacks were much more self-sufficient before integration.
> 
> ...



I'd prefer a job in the new white order, not welfare.


----------



## Black Waltz (Jul 19, 2019)

The OP gives me migraines sometimes and I hope he knows that


----------



## nekrataal (Jul 19, 2019)

I try not to think about politics, it can muddy things up between people sometimes.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Jul 19, 2019)

Dink Smallwood said:


> The OP gives me migraines sometimes and I hope he knows that





niconiconecro said:


> I try not to think about politics, it can muddy things up between people sometimes.


Sums up Deep Thoughts pretty well.


----------



## Monika H. (Jul 19, 2019)

They ain't no Nazis here


----------



## The Cunting Death (Jul 19, 2019)

We have Weev


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 19, 2019)

Unog said:


> I'm a nationalist. A civic nationalist though so I don't think I'm technically part of the demo you wanted to show up OP.


U nog


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Jul 19, 2019)

So as far as politics go, I'm somewhere between civic nationalist and ethno-majorist.

I'm a western chauvinist, even as far as being able to justify in my mind that colonialism was more a force for good in the world than a force for evil. If you look at the long 20th century, a lot of the great evils visited in parts of the world formerly under colonial rule, we're visited after the fact. And while the system was brutal and repressive in some parts of it administration, and definitely racist in others, it brought language, christian philosophy, technology, and a common rule of law to parts of the world that otherwise, or are still stuck in form of the dark ages.

That said there are many things to appreciate about foreign cultures and how they changed our own western nations through their interaction. There is such a thing as cultural enrichment, without having to take or respect every aspect of that culture as equal though, and there are many examples still of how even now lumbering under the weight of demographic changes, the failure of politics, subversion from fifth columns, and the death rattles of some of our own treasured cultural institutions, the western systems of government are still better than anywhere else in the world, that hasn't adopted it influences heavily. (Part of Asia & Japan)

That said do I think white have a cultural imperative to be the top of the world food chain?
No. They are there because of the dynamic movements and sacrifices of those cultures, including massive amounts of time, and bloodshed to have created the societies that existed in the 19th century and slowly imploded themselves in the 20th. (The Great War was the end of this period of Empire expansion, and things began to constrict from there.)

They were successful because they were unapologetic and advantageous, explorers, traders, and conquerors, and they got their first, they industrialized first. And this is the white privilege SJW's love to harp on about, the fact that they worked for it and succeeded.  

Now that said, I do believe countries that are a majority white should attempt to stay a majority white. Just as I'd advocate that a majority black country should maintain it's majority, as is the right of any other nation on earth. 

While immigration from the 3rd world in small amounts helps strengthen a countries economy, it doesn't help the global economy in the long run, because it saps the best and most brightest of those developing countries in effect retarding development in those countries. If anything it creates more global poverty.

Again I support meritocracy, if you want to move to a country where there is nothing and create something you should be allowed to and celebrated for it. This was the exact pioneer spirit that built the modern world.  

Where Western nations tend to get this wrong is that they tend to get the bottom of the churn not the cream at the top. 

Most the migrants that come to countries for economic reasons from 3rd world countries do no put more into the system than they take out. They're a net loss, and cause an already bloated welfare system to constantly require more inputs. Which leads inevitably to higher taxes, more government controls, more unnecessary spending. 
All in what I see as a sad attempt to seemingly pay reparations to the post colonial world, by transferring massive amounts of wealth from Europe/North America to the rest of the world. 

Also without adequate integration policies, the incoming groups bring with them a whole host of social problems which aren't dealt with. Old world rivalries, criminal activities, intolerance ingrained in their home cultures, like forced marriages, female genital mutilation, terrorism, accepted spousal abuse, rape cultures. All the while living in a duality where the two societies, host and non-host hardly interact.

Personally I don't believe there is such a thing as perfect cultural integration, nor would I want that to happen. 

Every culture should be allowed to have it's differences, or create new cultures, that a perfectly reasonable aspect of human social evolution. However enough of an interchange needs to take place to allow at least for a level of tolerable acceptable behaviour between all groups of people, and it's up to the dominant culture to enforce that.  

In my opinion the Swiss have the closest thing to a working true democracy in that sense that I've seen, where it empowers the cantons and the federal government has less power. People are allowed to vote directly in referendum, and Swiss civics (nationalism light) is drilled into most of them. They're also a fairly interesting melting pot of French, German-Austrian, and Italian culture. They all have those separate cultures firmly ingrained in them, but at the same time are Swiss and have that higher identity as well. 

As for white nationalist, fascist, etc. I'm sorry to say but anyone who believes in this wholeheartedly and thinks a mass conversion will happen, people mass adopting is delusional. Fascism works on a temporary basis, but ultimately fails, Franco and Portugal showed this. No one will ever seriously vote in a Nazi platform again, unless there is major economic upheavals/governmental collapses.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 19, 2019)

Could one of the oldfags on here let me know how common threads like this used to be? I only started lurking a couple of months back but even then it seemed there were far fewer of these threads where people are looking to identify with other weridos.

Though the "Does anyone else hate virtue signaling?" thread was a joy to behold.

Full disclosure though, I skirted by the trap of SStormfuckery since I spent a good 50% of my childhood with the History Channel playing in the background. By the time I became an edgy rebel teenager, I definitely didn't want to dress like the dumbasses who lost.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 19, 2019)

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost said:


> In my opinion the Swiss have the closest thing to a working true democracy in that sense that I've seen, where it empowers the cantons and the federal government has less power. People are allowed to vote directly in referendum, and Swiss civics (nationalism light) is drilled into most of them.



It's fascinating. They're not part of the European Union, yet on every test their citizens score highest at knowing the details of what the European Union is.

Saddeningly, they're starting to march to the drumbeat of European regulations. They're already going towards more and more restrictive gun laws to please the EU.



Locomotive Derangement said:


> Could one of the oldfags on here let me know how common threads like this used to be? I only started lurking a couple of months back but even then it seemed there were far fewer of these threads where people are looking to identify with other weridos.



I think there was a significant influx after Tarrant. I went back and lurked some of the oldest threads and it seemed more left-wing in general. With that said, deep thoughts is mostly a containment zone in the first place.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 19, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I think there was a significant influx after Tarrant. I went back and lurked some of the oldest threads and it seemed more left-wing in general. With that said, deep thoughts is mostly a containment zone in the first place.



That's a little bit after I started lurking, so the timeline fits. Was a pretty surreal moment seeing that thread just pop up and reading the details of it. I actually put my whiskey glass down for like an hour or two. I swear the recent /r9k/ murder probably had the same effect on a bunch of teenagers and overgrown emos since it hit closer to home for them.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 19, 2019)

Dunno about racism, but I am a hegemonic expansionist, so all I know is The states are the best fuck all the rest. MaNiFeSt dEsTiNy! Divine providence gave us a solar bounty of orbital bodies and a head start on space travel for a reason people!


----------



## crocodilian (Jul 19, 2019)

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost said:


> As for white nationalist, fascist, etc. I'm sorry to say but anyone who believes in this wholeheartedly and thinks a mass conversion will happen, people mass adopting is delusional. Fascism works on a temporary basis, but ultimately fails, Franco and Portugal showed this. No one will ever seriously vote in a Nazi platform again, unless there is major economic upheavals/governmental collapses.



If society becomes less comfortable overall and continues on its current path, I wouldn't rule out ethnically-motivated national socialism. Or something very similar.

Or we can just wait for a repeat of Haiti in 1804. That's only going to happen when whites are less than 50% of the U.S. population though.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 19, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Dunno about racism, but I am a hegemonic expansionist, so all I know is The states are the best fuck all the rest. MaNiFeSt dEsTiNy! Divine providence gave us a solar bounty of orbital bodies and a head start on space travel for a reason people!



This but unironically. I don't really care what you look like or how degenerate you are so long as you CONQUER!


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Jul 19, 2019)

What's gradually turning me into a white identitarian is the staggering double standards the media shows about crimes when whites are the victims.

Genocide of farmers in South Africa? Not happening, goy.

Sexual enslavement of 1400 white girls in Rotherham? Race isn't an issue, but do blame all men, particularly white ones. Even though the men in question clearly believed that white girls were subhuman.

Jeffrey Epstein deliberately targeted blonde girls and avoiding Jewish ones? You're a Nazi for noticing he was Jewish and his victims were not. However all white men are entitled predators.

Meanwhile when any white person says anything which can be construed as remotely racist in the most uncharitable interpretation the media is full of people talking about 'toxic white cismale NeoNazi privilege'. Black guy killed by the cops? Same thing. Even though in literally every single case it turns out black guy was a violent criminal committing a violent crime, and more often than not the cop wasn't even white.

And the thing that drives me nuts about it is that the majority of the time it's some bourgeois white girl writing this shit and she's not so much anti white as anti Dad. I.e. Dad paid for her grievance studies degree, she got a job with some shit tier company like Vice, the BBC or the Guardian and now she's on a mission to write shit to give dear old Dad a migraine.


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 19, 2019)

Imagine posting on a libertine site like KF while also believing that the state should take the role of a racist nanny.



Gustav Schuchardt said:


> What's gradually turning me into a white identitarian is the staggering double standards the media shows about crimes when whites are the victims.
> 
> Genocide of farmers in South Africa? Not happening, goy.
> 
> ...



But all of this is being pushed by white liberals.


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Jul 19, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> But all of this is being pushed by white liberals.



Hey I don't disagree.  See my final paragraph.


----------



## Ashenthorn (Jul 19, 2019)

I'm a libertarian - just like all the rest of you chucklefucks in this thread.


----------



## Immortal Technique (Jul 19, 2019)

I just don't want to be culturally enriched with AIDs riddled, click-clack tongue speaking doctors. I don't trust their credentials.


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Jul 19, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's fascinating. They're not part of the European Union, yet on every test their citizens score highest at knowing the details of what the European Union is.
> 
> Saddeningly, they're starting to march to the drumbeat of European regulations. They're already going towards more and more restrictive gun laws to please the EU.
> 
> I think there was a significant influx after Tarrant. I went back and lurked some of the oldest threads and it seemed more left-wing in general. With that said, deep thoughts is mostly a containment zone in the first place.



Yes. I don't like that either. The Swiss aren't perfect, but as far a a people go, I've found them to be the closest to what I think a well structured society should look like. The fact the EU is trying to impose restrictions, especially on gun ownership should be a big red flag to any nation, especially one that is technically outside it. 

As for influxes, there definitely has been more of a flavor to these sort of political questions in deep thoughts post New Zealand, but the Farms unfortunately attracts all sorts of people who think it's going to be something other than what it truly is, an internet place open to free speech and free criticism, where you can laugh at lolcows and not get booted for it. 




crocodilian said:


> If society becomes less comfortable overall and continues on its current path, I wouldn't rule out ethnically-motivated national socialism. Or something very similar.
> 
> Or we can just wait for a repeat of Haiti in 1804. That's only going to happen when whites are less than 50% of the U.S. population though.



I don't see this happening in the case of a collapse. I don't rule it out either, but for national socialism to become the defacto government and not say some other form of right wing philosophy, it would require there to be a strong and growing political establishment, as well as an embrace of national socialist ideals over other political philosophies. 

If you follow the rise of the original Nazi party, it's a much more interesting tale of political maneuvering and brinkmanship than most people realize. As far as real power though, the party really didn't come into it's own until Hitler consolidated his power by having Rohm killed, the SA neutered, and allow Himler to follow his vision of establishing the Schutzstaffel as the new political/party elite. 

Personally in a situation of complete collapse we will see a return to feudalism. In terms of racially motivated violence, the group that will survive will be the one that is better organised and better supplied, even if they are outnumbered. 

Rhodesia collapsed because larger world powers abandoned support for it, and forced South Africa to follow. Mugabe was largely ineffective as a combat leader, though his irregulars had Soviet and Soviet allied money and support coming in. 

Even Haiti wasn't expressly a white v black massacre, it was more or less ex-slaves motivated by their leader to get revenge on the Creoles who had supported the institution of slavery, and had fought to keep it in place.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 19, 2019)

Generally, the people who discriminate against you based on race or sex will never be as dangerous as those who do not. Your narccisist is waitng for you.


----------



## fayspaniel45 (Jul 19, 2019)

We must secure the existence of our doggo waifus and a future for white spaniels


----------



## ES 148 (Jul 19, 2019)

The best part about KF is that both sides of the political spectrum get to be in a hugbox at the same time.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 19, 2019)

Vrakks said:


> The best part about KF is that both sides of the political spectrum get to be in a hugbox at the same time.


Kinda funny how this little website manages what a company full of big brain tech geniuses can't seem to figure out: How to bring people together!


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 19, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Kinda funny how this little website manages what a company full of big brain tech geniuses can't seem to figure out: How to bring people together!



That's because we all hate each other. Its hopeless, just get drunk, shoot up and try to have fun before the end descends upon you. Cheers.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Jul 19, 2019)

Vrakks said:


> The best part about KF is that both sides of the political spectrum get to be in a hugbox at the same time.


It is kind of weird though, I'll see someone peddle one opinion in one thread, then in another thread peddle the exact opposite opinion while they both get around 30 positive responses.
Notably both people will only take potshots at each other when they get the chance, but otherwise ignore each other.

I do wonder in the long term if having two hugboxes in such close proximity is sustainable or if one day there will be a nuclear explosion of autism.


----------



## ES 148 (Jul 19, 2019)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> I do wonder in the long term if having two hugboxes in such close proximity is sustainable or if one day there will be a nuclear explosion of autism.



All I've observed it do is make most discussions less of a debate, more of a two-sided virtue-signalling war. Because both sides have a sizeable chunk of people likely to read their posts and give them positive stickers, it's hard to feel alienated even when there's like 30 people shit-talking your ideology. Probably also has to do with how shitposting makes it easy to think 'eh, they probably don't really believe that' and get on without feeling compelled to argue.


----------



## TheImportantFart (Jul 19, 2019)

I'm a pretty vanilla civic nationalist. I think open borders and unrestricted immigration is utter insanity and the fact you can be labelled as a racist or Nazi for expressing that is fucking ridiculous.

That said, if you're wanting to come in to build a better life for yourself, have something to offer and are willing to accept our values (such as they are in Britfagistan), then as Michael Jackson says, it don't matter if you're black or white. Otherwise, you can GTFO.

This applies to Britfags who emigrate too. Learn another language you lazy cunts.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 19, 2019)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> It is kind of weird though, I'll see someone peddle one opinion in one thread, then in another thread peddle the exact opposite opinion while they both get around 30 positive responses.
> Notably both people will only take potshots at each other when they get the chance, but otherwise ignore each other.
> 
> I do wonder in the long term if having two hugboxes in such close proximity is sustainable or if one day there will be a nuclear explosion of autism.



I'm in the same boat. There's so much shit i've said on here that I expected to cause a fight only to get a bunch of positive responses in return. Seems like the only time I get the switch here is when I make fun of weeb shit. This site is the edgy Reddit of the future. I dunno when I'm gonna bail out, but I know I'm gonna get there.


----------



## Immortal Technique (Jul 19, 2019)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> It is kind of weird though, I'll see someone peddle one opinion in one thread, then in another thread peddle the exact opposite opinion while they both get around 30 positive responses.
> Notably both people will only take potshots at each other when they get the chance, but otherwise ignore each other.
> 
> I do wonder in the long term if having two hugboxes in such close proximity is sustainable or if one day there will be a nuclear explosion of autism.


It's true co-existing, it's just through self segregation. Both sides want nothing to do with each other, but do nothing to stop what the other side wants to do--so it works. Nothing is preventing anyone from "crossing" the boundary into the different hugbox; most just don't want to.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Jul 19, 2019)

Immortal Technique said:


> It's true co-existing, it's just through self segregation. Both sides want nothing to do with each other, but do nothing to stop what the other side wants to do--so it works. Nothing is preventing anyone from "crossing" the boundary into the different hugbox; most just don't want to.


So what you are saying is... separate but equal works


----------



## Chichan (Jul 19, 2019)

Webby's Boyfriend said:


> That's illogical because the majority of the victims of Nazi warcrimes was White. Even though the Nazis didn't see Jews and Slavs as White, most of them are. And the Third Reich was allied with the Japanese and was popular in the Near-East.
> 
> But whatever, SJWs and logic just don't get along, just like the Alt-Right and common sense ain't pals.


Jews technically aren't white they are a distinct ethnicity with their own genetic code. The closest jews that come to being close to cuacasian are the ashkenazi, but they still aren't white. So Israel is an ethno-religious state.


{o}P II said:


> It amazes me how many channers would consider themselves fascists without realizing that an anonymous image board where people can share opinions without repercussions would never be aloud in a fascist state
> 
> also if you think your diffrent from another human becuase you have a diffrent ethnicity, your exceptional


People are different though. There is significant IQ differences between the different ethnicity's. We all have different bone structures. If you were to do an autopsy on someone you could identify a person's ethnicity,age, gender, what they did in life and medical history based on just their bones alone. Blacks have a higher aptitude for physical activities. Why do you think majority of athletes now in basketball or football are black? There bodies were built for it. They have more testosterone in their bodies. They naturally have higher blood preasure. They are likelier to get deseases like sickle cell and lung diseases. Their limbs are longer to dissipate heat faster. Their skin is darker to protect them from the sun's UV rays. Asian's have the highest IQ, but the majority are of short stature. They have epicanthic folds. They lack an enzyme that helps them metabolise alcohol. Not to mention the numerous cultural differences among the different ethnicity's. The point is you can't have it both ways. Either we are the same or we are different not both.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 19, 2019)

What does being a nationalist have to do with being a neo-nazi, and how can anyone be a fascist if they don't live in a fascist state.



ConfederateIrishman said:


> It is kind of weird though, I'll see someone peddle one opinion in one thread, then in another thread peddle the exact opposite opinion while they both get around 30 positive responses.



What is really odd as well is that people drift toward topics they hate. So the incel thread and Roosh thread are full of SJW's and internet troons. There is a guy in the race realism thread saying 15th century Africa was nearly as advanced as 15th century Europe.


----------



## ulsterscotsman (Jul 19, 2019)

Ethnic Irish Nationalist.


----------



## La Luz Extinguido (Jul 19, 2019)

I am a far left fascist so I guess a faggot.


----------



## ZeCommissar (Jul 19, 2019)

I am literally a nationalists worst (best) nightmare. I'm extremely globalist as long as everyone is treated the same with the same expectations. That means that if people come from third world nations they have to give worth to the nation they are immigrating to, but everyone on this Earth has the right to move anywhere they want as long as they aren't a general nuance.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Jul 19, 2019)

Ashenthorn said:


> I'm a libertarian - just like all the rest of you chucklefucks in this thread.


I'm a fibertarian.


----------



## crocodilian (Jul 19, 2019)

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost said:


> Even Haiti wasn't expressly a white v black massacre, it was more or less ex-slaves motivated by their leader to get revenge on the Creoles who had supported the institution of slavery, and had fought to keep it in place.



You were correct up until here. Even whites who openly expressed sympathy for blacks and demanded emancipation were slaughtered. The total absence of mercy for even white "allies" was a good part of why the U.S. south openly opposed emancipating their own slaves, figuring they'd do the same because blacks are apparently no better than hyenas.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Jul 19, 2019)

ulsterscotsman said:


> Ethnic Irish Nationalist.


You know guys, Clan based society is the most superior form of government in existence;
Every Family a Kingdom!


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 19, 2019)

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost said:


> Even Haiti wasn't expressly a white v black massacre, it was more or less ex-slaves motivated by their leader to get revenge on the Creoles who had supported the institution of slavery, and had fought to keep it in place.


It wasn't? I thought even the kind non-slave owners got slaughtered.



Autocrat said:


> how can anyone be a fascist if they don't live in a fascist state.


How do you think a state becomes communist/fascist/libertarian/nazbol? It first takes people that want to march under the banner of any of those and then somehow achieve dominant influence.

People that want to bring about a communist state are communists and people who want to bring about a fascist state are facists.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Jul 19, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> It wasn't? I thought even the kind non-slave owners got slaughtered.


If I remember right, they killed the whites first, then once they had done that they started targeting the creoles next


----------



## Freedom Fries (Jul 19, 2019)

Harvey Danger said:


> However, the USA is _not_ one of those states, it is explicitly an _ideological_ state. And if anyone tries to turn the USA into an ethnostate, I'm joining the resistance and going 2nd Amendment on their ass.


Yeah those naturalization acts passed by the founding fathers were totally ideological and all-inclusive. When people say America was racist in its founding, they weren't wrong. Frankly, naturalization in this country was set up to basically ensure a white majority until 1965. Even then, the act was passed on the promise that it would not change the demographics of the country. The whole proposition nation thing you learn in school is kinda a farce. Some founders seemed to have believed in it, like Washington, but the majority of people won out and the restrictive acts were passed. Even then it's tough to say if the people who did believe in the whole proposition nation thing ever wanted anyone but well to do white men to be citizens with the ability to vote rather than just workers. You can like how it is now better if you want, but don't pretend it was set up to be this way because that's just historical revisionism.

There's also a lot of spergery about what "...to ourselves and our posterity..." means in the preamble to the constitution, but that's a bit more murky.


----------



## ulsterscotsman (Jul 19, 2019)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> You know guys, Clan based society is the most superior form of government in existence;
> Every Family a Kingdom!


Which is why we should restore semi autonomy to the four provinces of Ireland in a federal system.


----------



## Consenticles (Jul 19, 2019)

I think we need to specify if we are a Nazi according to Tumblr, or a Nazi according to /pol/.  The meaning of this shit keeps changing, like the word faggot. One day it means bundle of sticks and the next day it means you want to have anal intercourse with your fellow man.

I'm fairly certain /pol/ would call me a commie and Tumblr would call me a nazi.

For example, if I was walking in the inner city and had me some delicious KFC in a to go cup in hand while coming upon a homeless black man begging for food or money, what should I do? Some people might say offering a black man some fried chicken and a side of watermelon is racist, while others might say that it's very kind to feed the homeless.

Why can't it be both? People can have disdain for others who are not like them, stereotype these individuals, and judge them -- as I believe is completely natural to do. But they don't have to want to put them into camps. At the same time I believe it is completely possible that these people can show genuine kindness toward people of other races. 

If our subject were to give a black man some KFC you could rationalize they don't really care about him since they are indeed racist. But perhaps care about their city? Perhaps they care about the appearance of my streets or another aspect? Maybe the man reminded them of someone? Or they wished to commit their good deed for the day? One has to remember that Germany wasn't 100% full of sadistic killers in the 1930s and 40s. I see no difference now in the way people may be swept up by more extreme ideals.

That being said, if anyone has any info about an ethnostate, feel free to dm me.


----------



## PL 001 (Jul 19, 2019)

I'm a right leaning libertarian, so a hybrid of faggot and literal Hitler.


----------



## BoingoTango (Jul 19, 2019)




----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jul 19, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> What is really odd as well is that people drift toward topics they hate. So the incel thread and Roosh thread are full of SJW's and internet troons.


Literally the point of Community Watch, and any lolcow thread really, is to laugh at the subjects of the threads. So, for example, TDS thread is for laughing at anti-Trump cringe and The_Donald, while more specifically focused on that subreddit, is for laughing at pro-Trump cringe. If you white knight for the thread subject you're doing it wrong (god knows I look like a retard when I do it) 

Now of course where things get hairy is when we can acknowledge that a topic deserves a thread but can't agree on if a certain post is an example (there's no consensus on when simple disagreement with/support for Trump crosses the line into TDS/reverse TDS). So that can lead to arguments in the thread without the thread getting plagued. 

Oh, wait, this has nothing to do with this thread topic. Er, uh, Nazis are dumb and I would not sex with them.* 

*unless she was, like, _really_ hot


----------



## ZeCommissar (Jul 20, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> *unless she was, like, _really_ hot



TFW no qt 10/10 nazi GF to call you untermensch while she's wearing Hugo Boss.


----------



## Harvey Danger (Jul 20, 2019)

Freedom Fries said:


> Yeah those naturalization acts passed by the founding fathers were totally ideological and all-inclusive. When people say America was racist in its founding, they weren't wrong. Frankly, naturalization in this country was set up to basically ensure a white majority until 1965. Even then, the act was passed on the promise that it would not change the demographics of the country. The whole proposition nation thing you learn in school is kinda a farce. Some founders seemed to have believed in it, like Washington, but the majority of people won out and the restrictive acts were passed. Even then it's tough to say if the people who did believe in the whole proposition nation thing ever wanted anyone but well to do white men to be citizens with the ability to vote rather than just workers. You can like how it is now better if you want, but don't pretend it was set up to be this way because that's just historical revisionism.
> 
> There's also a lot of spergery about what "...to ourselves and our posterity..." means in the preamble to the constitution, but that's a bit more murky.



This is something both sides of the political aisle get wrong when talking about immigration.  *TL;DR* naturalization and immigration laws tend to be more about speed than about race.



Spoiler: A starting point



Leaving aside the differences in racial attitudes between 1789 and today, there's a couple of unarguable facts:


The 13 colonies were _British_ colonies, with some French/German/Dutch colonists absorbed into them.  Gaining independence left the makeup of the people unchanged, only the political system changed.
The racial differences in 1789 were literal national differences.  Indians had their own nationality and political systems.  Blacks were "imported" as slaves/indentured servants, who are generally never citizens in any political system going back to the ancient Greeks, regardless of race.
The US Constitution, the foundation of nationhood, citizenship, and naturalization laws, _does not bar any race_ from inclusion in citizenship.  The only time race was mentioned was "Indians not taxed", which was a technical term for Indians who were already part of their own nation (and thus were exempt from US taxes/laws).
The People in 1776 were not "white"; they were British.  The Founders broke off that association because they felt more "American", by being estranged from the home country.  So the laws passed in 1790 reflected a first stab at redefining that identity, without trying to radically change the underlying society with top-down laws.  (This is an important point for later.)





Spoiler: Always growing, but never unrestricted



The naturalization acts over the centuries responded to the practical need to draw distinctions as the country grew.  But even the most restrictive _naturalization_ laws did not disenfranchise _natural born_ citizens of other races.  Restrictive and racist though they were, these laws never attempted to define down the liberal, ideological definition of the underlying People.

Long analysis short, the history of the US is _not_ one of unrestricted immigration.  It is one of _accepted immigration at the presumed rate of assimilation_.  Anti-immigration sentiment flares up whenever the populace feels some group isn't assimilating before more come:  Irish, then Asians, then Mexicans, then "brown Muslims", now South Americans, etc. 

The famous "melting pot" simmers, as it breaks down the components over time.  You don't dump a distinct chunk into it, then another before the first one melts into homogeneity.



The American approach to race, nationality, immigration, slavery, and citizenship is one integrated throughout the entirety of the American system:  incremental change that _reflects_ how society develops, not one that tries to _direct_ society. 

It's why the Constitutional system in 1789 incorporated the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, colony charters, English common law, colonial slavery laws, etc.  All of these were included from the start then slowly replaced over time, sometimes with huge effects at some turning point.

If you look at the history of US citizenship/immigration laws, they tell a similar story:  a slowly evolving society that lashes out with restrictions any time something happens too fast.  Such as the Chinese Exclusion Act after the number of Chinese immigrants _doubled_ over 10 years.  The biggest "shock" in there is the 14th Amendment, and that was only possible after 4 years of bloody civil war.

And that's the story of the nation:  an ideological basis for The People, while the _society_ that People organizes tries to evolve slowly, carefully, in a republican fashion instead of a democratic one.  Pointing out racist restrictions is fair, but those restrictions never changed the ideological basis.


----------



## Niggernerd (Jul 20, 2019)

I'm a nationalist but I don't really give a fuck about race.
If you love your country (not the government because they only use us) and will strive to make it better then I accept you.


----------



## Drunk and Pour (Jul 20, 2019)

The answer is zero.  Do you hear that mainstream media?  ZERO!  None.  Nada.  SPLC, ADL, NAACP, and all other silly abbreviation groups, please move along.  Nothing to see here.


----------



## Freedom Fries (Jul 20, 2019)

Harvey Danger said:


> This is something both sides of the political aisle get wrong when talking about immigration.  *TL;DR* naturalization and immigration laws tend to be more about speed than about race.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My dude. You are pretending the founding fathers didn't immediately vote for a nationalization act that limited citizenship to free *white* men of good character. It doesn't say British, German, or Dutch. I don't see how you're gonna get around that. I don't care how "good" the march of progress has been


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Jul 20, 2019)

crocodilian said:


> You were correct up until here. Even whites who openly expressed sympathy for blacks and demanded emancipation were slaughtered. The total absence of mercy for even white "allies" was a good part of why the U.S. south openly opposed emancipating their own slaves, figuring they'd do the same because blacks are apparently no better than hyenas.





Lemmingwise said:


> It wasn't? I thought even the kind non-slave owners got slaughtered.
> 
> 
> How do you think a state becomes communist/fascist/libertarian/nazbol? It first takes people that want to march under the banner of any of those and then somehow achieve dominant influence.
> ...





ConfederateIrishman said:


> If I remember right, they killed the whites first, then once they had done that they started targeting the creoles next



Apologies, it's been a long time since I read up on the Haitian slave revolt.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 20, 2019)

If you're white and you spend time bashing Nazi's in 2019, you are are a cuckold.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> It wasn't? I thought even the kind non-slave owners got slaughtered.



Tbf to the slaves, I don't think it makes much difference from their perspective if you own the them outright or merely profit off their being indirectly. A collaborator is a collaborator is a collaborator and when push came to shove one has to ask who's side those kind and caring non-slave owners were on when the chips were down.

Ultimately its the same problem with the totally-kind-and-caring liberal who's heart bleeds for the children of the world while they walk around in jeans from a Bangladeshi child-labor factory. Ignorance is not always a valid defense in our enlightened modern justice system. Do you think it makes for a good defense when violently-angry people are pointing weapons at you?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Tbf to the slaves, I don't think it makes much difference from their perspective if you own the them outright or merely profit off their being indirectly. A collaborator is a collaborator is a collaborator and when push came to shove one has to ask who's side those kind and caring non-slave owners were on when the chips were down.
> 
> Ultimately its the same problem with the totally-kind-and-caring liberal who's heart bleeds for the children of the world while they walk around in jeans from a Bangladeshi child-labor factory. Ignorance is not always a valid defense in our enlightened modern justice system. Do you think it makes for a good defense when violently-angry people are pointing weapons at you?



The clearest sign that a poorly founded defense of something indefensible is coming is when somebody says "to be fair". The resulting words never are something just or evenhanded.

Like what even motivates you to defend a massacre? Even the women and children?

As soon as indirect benefiting from immoral actions becomes moral recourse for punishment, there isn't a single person who wouldn't deserve death under what you just described.

Born in a western country? Guilty. Born in a village with a well that was conquered by a warlord? Guilty. Genetically descended from a warlord? Guilty. Everybody would be guilty under that moral precept. The result would be that it's morally justified to murder anyone.


----------



## Homer J. Fong (Jul 20, 2019)

Shared Culture is way more important than shared genetics. The only way you maintain shared culture is by keeping immigration small.

I don't know what that makes me since I'm not for an Ethostate but I favor laws that keep status quo.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> The clearest sign that a poorly founded defense of something indefensible is coming is when somebody says "to be fair". The resulting words never are something just or evenhanded.
> 
> Like what even motivates you to defend a massacre? Even the women and children?
> 
> ...


Slaves aren't obligated to the moral well being of a society that put them in bondage. In fact, to be a slave in revolt requires this frame of mind in the first place. Societies aren't judged molecule by molecule as you'd probably like, they're judged as a collective whole. Each person killed stood by and abided the society that enslaved and dehumanized a whole group of people living there. So why should those people in turn feel any obligation to the safety and well being of people who would not risk their own lives and property for them? Really stop and think about that.

They had to pick a side, and they chose poorly. Such is the nature of violent revolt, rebellion, and civil war. Just ask the pro-US Vietnamese!


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Slaves aren't obligated to the moral well being of a society that put them in bondage. In fact, to be a slave in revolt requires this frame of mind in the first place. Societies aren't judged molecule by molecule as you'd probably like, they're judged as a collecive whole. Facts are each person killed stood by and abided the society that enslaved and dehumanized a whole group of people living there. So why should those people in turn feel any obligation to the safety and well being of people who would not risk their own lives and property for them? Really stop and think about that.
> 
> They had to pick a side, and they chose poorly. Such is the nature of violent revolt, rebellion, and civil war. Just ask the pro-US Vietnamese!



Yes, those damn kids had it coming. They picked a side and they chose poorly.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Yes, those damn kids had it coming. They picked a side and they chose poorly.


I'm sorry. I can see the thought of people with white skin being butchered means a great deal to you. You have to be willing to look beyond the things you hold close to you though if you want to talk about morality in an objective way.

Oh and for the record, nothing is "Indefensible". You can justify anything you please.

If things were indefensible as you suggest, they probably wouldn't have happened to begin with, no?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> I'm sorry. I can see the thought of people with white skin being butchered means a great deal to you. You have to be willing to look beyond the things you hold close to you though if you want to talk about morality in an objective way.
> 
> Oh and for the record, nothing is "Indefensible". You can justify anything you please.
> 
> If things were indefensible as you suggest, they probably wouldn't have happened to begin with, no?



I'm generally against the butchering of children, yes. Yes, that includes the butchering of white children. How will I ever recover now that you have found out my terrible secret?!


When people say "indefensible" they mean "morally indefensible". It's true that it requires a moral fundament in the first place. Otherwise everything is justifiable. But then, if everything is equally justifiable, why talk about what is morally right and wrong in the first place? At that point you've abandoned all group moral effort and are just in yolo world until someone fucks your shit up and you realize nobody is there to help you protect it, because that requires moral duty and a shared moral understanding.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I'm generally against the butchering of children, yes. Yes, that includes the butchering of white children. How will I ever recover now that you have found out my terrible secret?!
> 
> 
> When people say "indefensible" they mean "morally indefensible". It's true that it requires a moral fundament in the first place. Otherwise everything is justifiable. But then, if everything is equally justifiable, why talk about what is morally right and wrong in the first place? At that point you've abandoned all group moral effort and are just in yolo world until someone fucks your shit up and you realize nobody is there to help you protect it, because that requires moral duty and a shared moral understanding.


Your attempts to spin this as being "About children" do you no credit. Further I know what you meant by "Indefensible" do you know what I mean by "Virtue signalling?" 

So allow me to ask you again: Why do slaves have a moral obligation to the people who either enslaved them or abided their enslavement, but then those very people don't also have an equal obligation to the slaves such that their transgressions against the rights of others makes their fate deserved? That you can find individual persons who might not have deserved what happened to them does nothing to undermine the question you have yet to answer.


----------



## JoshPlz (Jul 20, 2019)

Y2KKK Baby said:


> I'm a true patriot.
> Where's "race realist"



Agreed. The poll is missing a Race Realist option, so I just chose the obvious (7) instead.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

JoshPlz said:


> Agreed. The poll is missing a Race Realist option, so I just chose the obvious (7) instead.


Isn't that just a form of supremacy that presupposes its own validity by asserting that it is "Real" in the title?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Your attempts to spin this as being "About children" do you no credit. Further I know what you meant by "Indefensible" do you know what I mean by "Virtue signalling?"
> 
> So allow me to ask you again: Why do slaves have a moral obligation to the people who either enslaved them or abided their enslavement, but then those very people don't also have an equal obligation to the slaves such that their transgressions against the rights of others makes their fate deserved? That you can find individual persons who might not have deserved what happened to them does nothing to undermine the question you have yet to answer.



It is not spin. They murdered children. You find it morally justifiable. I don't. I think you should stop trying to justify the murder of children. That's not virtue signalling, it's a request for you to be more virtuous.

You have completely ignored the deeper and fundamentally necessary argument that I have made. I'm willing to answer questions, but what is the point of answering a question if you continue to hold the position that everything is morally justifiable and defensible? If everything is justifiable, I don't need to give an answer to your question. Your question has already been answered by the presupposition that everything is defensible.

Unless you discard the position that everything is justifiable, there's literally no point in discussing this.


----------



## JoshPlz (Jul 20, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Isn't that just a form of supremacy that presupposes its own validity by asserting that it is "Real" in the title?


I don't think I would agree with your assessment. As opposed to Racism, Race Realism is based on (granted: uncomfortable and unpopular) scientific facts.

Somene has yet to convince me otherwise.

Here is a simple definition.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> It is not spin. They murdered children. You find it morally justifiable. I don't. I think you should stop trying to justify the murder of children. That's not virtue signalling, it's a request for you to be more virtuous.
> 
> You have completely ignored the deeper and fundamentally necessary argument that I have made. I'm willing to answer questions, but what is the point of answering a question if you continue to hold the position that everything is morally justifiable and defensible? If everything is justifiable, I don't need to give an answer to your question. Your question has already been answered by the presupposition that everything is defensible.
> 
> Unless you discard the position that everything is justifiable, there's literally no point in discussing this.


I only assert that "everything is justifiable" because you sought to declaim me as "Defending the indefensible" (oh my bloody heart strings!) presumably because you didn't have a better argument at the time. Which is only an argument you can make if we presume that what they did is indefensible. Clearly it is not. Clearly I have defended their position quite competently on an equivalent moral basis to your own (That people have a right to kill and destroy those who would literally physically oppress them, enslave them, steal their labor, steal their children, and deny their humanity and those who would otherwise uphold or enable such activities.)

So you see, its not a disagreement of opinion. You were just wrong to say that I am "Defending the indefensible."

Again, instead of answering the question you get increasingly upset and deploy increasingly dishonest arguments. It sounds to me like you simply wish not to acknowledge my argument because it highlights an incongruity in your own beliefs. That you prioritize groups of people differently in your personal value system.

Consider that while you're asking me to think of the poor whites who dindunuffin you have yet to consider that not all the slaves might have massacred the whites and creoles. Really showcases your bias i'd say. Hell some of the slaves were women and children too, don't see you getting all misty eyed here though.


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Jul 20, 2019)

Freedom Fries said:


> The whole proposition nation thing you learn in school is kinda a farce.



What? Why would Ben Shapiro lie to me about something like that...


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

JoshPlz said:


> I don't think I would agree with your assessment. As opposed to Racism, Race Realism is based on (granted: uncomfortable and unpopular) scientific facts.
> 
> Somene has yet to convince me otherwise.
> 
> Here is a simple definition.


So if you prescribe to race realism, how does it inform how you view people who would fall into these various categories?


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 20, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> What is really odd as well is that people drift toward topics they hate. So the incel thread and Roosh thread are full of SJW's and internet troons. There is a guy in the race realism thread saying 15th century Africa was nearly as advanced as 15th century Europe.



Nothing odd about that to me. This is clearly a site for people to just show up and complain about things. We're like a gossip website except you can say nigger, kike, spic, troon and call another user a dickface choirboy if you get tired of their shit.


----------



## Sped Xing (Jul 20, 2019)

I'm a Jacksonian Democrat.  The only thing I have in common with nazis is racism.

15th Century Africa did host several civilizations on essentially the same technological and organizational level as 15th Century Europe.  That's why 1492 started the conquest of the Americas, but the scramble for Africa had to wait for the late 1800s.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 20, 2019)

I'm also personally offended that there's not a "People are shit" option on the poll. I can't do a good enough Eastwood impression to say I hate everyone equally but I'd still like a bit of representation for us misanthropes.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> I only assert that "everything is justifiable" because you sought to declaim me as "Defending the indefensible" (oh my bloody heart strings!) presumably because you didn't have a better argument at the time. Which is only an argument you can make if we presume that what they did is indefensible. Clearly it is not. Clearly I have defended their position quite competently on an equivalent moral basis to your own (That people have a right to kill and destroy those who would literally physically oppress them, enslave them, steal their labor, steal their children, and deny their humanity and those who would otherwise uphold or enable such activities.)
> 
> Again, instead of answering the question you get increasingly upset and deploy increasingly dishonest arguments. It sounds to me like you simply wish not to acknowledge my argument because it highlights an incongruity in your own beliefs. That you prioritize groups of people differently in your personal value system.
> 
> Consider that while you're asking me to think of the poor whites who dindunuffin you have yet to consider that not all the slaves might have massacred the whites and creoles. Really showcases your bias i'd say.



So far I've only defended that it is a morally bankrupt position to justify massacring children and the ultimate meaninglessness of trying to carry an argument with someone who believes essentially that everything is relative and everything can be defensible.

The assumption that I would find it morally wrong for slaves to kill their masters is created in your own mind out of whole cloth, much like your presumption of my emotional state.

Also, a bit of heads-up, if the necessary moral justification for murdering children is that they would (potentially) murder or oppress you, then you've just made the argument that the slave owners were justified in killing any of the slaves they had, children or otherwise, considering they did go on to murder them. It's a pretty shake ground to build your moral foundations on.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> So far I've only defended the morally bankrupt position of justifying massacring children and the ultimate meaninglessness of trying to carry an argument with someone who believes essentially that everything is relative and everything can be defensible.


 Please stop trying to make this about the chilluns. Because its very obviously so much bigger than "Wont someone think of the children!?" Let me level with you some, I appreciate the innocence of children and that they do not inherent the crimes of their parents. I also think that if people valued the lives of their children they should have created a better society that wouldn't inspire the lowest segment of that society to homicidal rage. Maybe by not engaging in slavery. When you accept slavery you accept the resulting outcomes of it too. Sometimes you get a bad draw and get a revolt that kills you and your entire family.



> The assumption that I would find it morally wrong for slaves to kill their masters is created in your own mind out of whole cloth, much like your presumption of my emotional state.


Slavery doesn't exist solely for the benefit of masters who directly own and trade slaves. It also exists to benefit the people those masters produce for. Why shouldn't those who consume sugar made from slave labor be considered guilty? You can either acknowledge you are inextricably apart of something bigger than yourself when you live as a member of a society or you...can't I guess. That was the point I am making. Societies are judged together because everyone is accountable to one degree or another, either as slavers or as consumers.




> Also, a bit of heads-up, if the necessary moral justification for murdering children is that they would (potentially) murder or oppress you, then you've just made the argument that the slave owners were justified in killing any of the slaves they had, children or otherwise, considering they did go on to murder them. It's a pretty shake ground to build your moral foundations on.


I just think its fascinating that you're willing to judge "The slaves" as a hegemonic group but when it comes to people of a wealthier position in society and with a paler complexion by comparison suddenly you want to stipulate on all these individual actors. Are you conscious of that discrepancy in your thinking or is this just me "Trying to psycho-analyze you" again? Hrrrrm. HRRRRRM!

Also yeah slave owners were "justified" in that they were ultimately correct weren't they? Of course the risk to themselves could more easily be mitigated by not having slaves at all but whatever.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 20, 2019)

I'm not really convinced that minor biological differences between the races actually equals the kinds of social and cognitive differences that Race Realists like to sperg about. Also it seems like everyone who buys into that crap is constantly railing against miscegenation because it raises the immediate and obvious question everyone should have: How precisely do these differences interact in mixed races? We're all already mutts made up of a bunch of extinct progenitor races and you have to travel to some really fucking isolated places to find anyone who shows signs of being racially pure on the genetic level. People who bitch and moan that everybody is going to look the same in the future seem to be ignoring the fact that we've kind of already reached that stage. Autists probably have trouble telling faces apart because we're not actually that different from one another.

I also find Race Realism laughable because its actually really easy to just sit around and think of justifications for why X race or ethnicity isn't technically white. I used to troll a couple of places and do this for the hell of it. Most Americans tend to have some kind of Jewish, Slavic or wop ancestry in their backgrounds and failing that there's always Mediterranean heritage you can use to be a dick to people. With Europe is even easier since there was a whole lot of war rape in WW2 and just about every Eurofag probably has some Glorious Soviet, Amerimutt or Colonial Conscript DNA in their genetic line.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> I just think its fascinating that you're willing to judge "The slaves" as a hegemonic group but when it comes to people of a wealthier position in society and with a paler complexion by comparison suddenly you want to stipulate on all these individual actors



Show me where I judged the ex-slave children or the ex-slaves that didn't partake in the massacres.

You're talking to a straw man.

Also I'm not saying the slave owners were justified; I'm saying they would be justified under the moral precept you were proposing.




Locomotive Derangement said:


> We're all already mutts made up of a bunch of extinct progenitor races and you have to travel to some really fucking isolated places to find anyone who shows signs of being racially pure on the genetic level.



If everybody was equally mutted, then the word would have no meaning. If people are mutted to different degrees, then the word does have meaning.

Just because it's easy to push people to purity spiralling doesn't negate the underlaying meaning of the word or that a more balanced perspective of it is possible and sensible.




> People who bitch and moan that everybody is going to look the same in the future seem to be ignoring the fact that we've kind of already reached that stage.



No, we haven't. For the majority of people it's not hard at all to judge, even at a glance, what continent the majority of their genetics is from.


_edit:_
Here I'll take a step back and show why.

You always have to use the right level of magnification to look at a problem to solve it. The point of race isn't to draw a line and sort every single person into one or the other. They're intentional broad categories and there are going to be people who are so close to that line that it's not really sensible to sort them wholesale into one or the other.

But with that said, there is still value in the classification. For example, we don't remove all names of colors, red blue green yellow, because they're all the same and they exist on a continuous spectrum anyways. There is value in being able to name the colors of the rainbow. To designers, there is value in more precise granularity, so they use words like mauve, aquamarine and other color names that make my head spin.

Now then of course is the next question, I think you've said it: "What's the point of mentioning the differences?"

Well, first of all, simply looking different would in itself be point enough. If people look different, they are going to be treated differently. If you don't believe that to be the case, go and travel to a country where nobody looks like you, particularly if you leave the capital and go more inland. Every time you go out on the street, people will stare at you.

You can't sweep that difference under the carpet. If you do, you remove the fundamental basis for being able to combat racism itself. If we together would all pretend like there aren't visible differences, then we also can't claim to be treated differently based on visible differences (and we are).

Now of course there's a lot of other consequences and they're worth discussing too.

I think that people that are curious about whether such a concept of race (should) exist or not, should watch this Norwegian documentary (you can turn on subtitles).






It really is both entertaining and informative as a Norwegian comedian interviews various people, mostly academics. Then he let's those academics respond to his interview of the others. Very entertaining and some people get properly rustled. The show is called "Hjernevask", which means "Brainwash" and it's a series about topics that are taboo in contemporary culture.


----------



## Freedom Fries (Jul 20, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> I also find Race Realism laughable because its actually really easy to just sit around and think of justifications for why X race or ethnicity isn't technically white. I used to troll a couple of places and do this for the hell of it. Most Americans tend to have some kind of Jewish, Slavic or wop ancestry in their backgrounds and failing that there's always Mediterranean heritage you can use to be a dick to people. With Europe is even easier since there was a whole lot of war rape in WW2 and just about every Eurofag probably has some Glorious Soviet, Amerimutt or Colonial Conscript DNA in their genetic line.


Does that actually work? People have known what "white" was in America since at latest the Naturalization Act passed in 1790.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Show me where I judged the ex-slave children or the ex-slaves that didn't partake in the massacres.


You judged them implicitly through your judgement of "The slaves" as a group without specifying further. Which frankly I'm perfectly fine with since ultimately they still participated in an incident of rebellion that helped make the massacre possible. You do not hold the rest of society in then Saint Domingue to that standard though. When discussing the massacre of non slaves you want to start picking out exceptions here and there that didn't deserve this or that when i'm pretty sure none of the slaves deserved what they got. But when you consider that almost all of the slaves were themselves directly from Africa because Saint Domingue would chew through slaves like they were paper towels. Really wtf were you expecting from them? Most of them couldn't even read. You expect people like that in the situation they were in (Hatian slavery is often considered the most hellish and brutal in all the new world) to adhere to our enlightenment sensibilities on proper war conduct? In what way is that a reasonable expectation? That would be like me expecting western slavers to not have slaves...Oh wait, the voluntary giving up of slavery in Europe showcases that as a reasonable expectation.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Jul 20, 2019)

Freedom Fries said:


> Does that actually work? People have known what "white" was in America since at latest the Naturalization Act passed in 1790.


You'd be surprised how easily people get baited about their ancestry


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Really wtf were you expecting from them?



What I expect from people is completely independant of what is moral.

For example, I expect you to continue to make false assumptions about what I believe and claim I said things I haven't said and then retreating behind "implicitly" and I expect you to continue to not apologize for doing so.

See? What I expect is completely seperate from what would be the moral thing to do.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 20, 2019)

Freedom Fries said:


> Does that actually work? People have known what "white" was in America since at latest the Naturalization Act passed in 1790.



Just because some law says some thing or other about how American or white you are doesn't stop race realists from trying to parse it down even further. Obviously dicking with people about their ancestry only works in certain communities but, unsurprisingly, the people who care the most about quantifying how white they are tend to be the most insecure about it. They always have a bunch of statistics and factoids they can trot out to justify how superior their heritage is, and its different depending on what race their whiteness was contaminated with. 

I think it has to do with some kind of uncertainty regarding family trees. Sure, your records might say your family stayed 100% white over the years, but you can never know if your great-great-great-great-great grandmother was fucking the Jewish serving boy or, especially in the South, if you have some Passing in your bloodline. Genetics can give you a report but the decent services are expensive and the cheap ones are unreliable. On top of that, a lot of race realists are convinced that genetic tests are intentionally rigged by (((them))) to trick you into thinking you're not pure.

A lot of race realists also maintain a One Drop philosophy where *any* racial mixing in your line automatically contaminates you which inevitably leads to them having a mental breakdown when some revelation about their ancestry comes out. There's some kind of neurosis involved in the whole thing, its not just people being Rayciss just to be assholes from what I can tell.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> What I expect from people is completely independant of what is moral.


But if you recognize your morality as unfeasible in the described scenario then that makes your morality useless and moot.




> For example, I expect you to continue to make false assumptions about what I believe and claim I said things I haven't said and then retreating behind "implicitly" and I expect you to continue to not apologize for doing so.
> 
> See? What I expect is completely seperate from what would be the moral thing to do.



Retreating behind "implicitly"?



> It is not spin. They[The slaves] murdered children. You find it morally justifiable. I don't. I think you should stop trying to justify the murder of children. That's not virtue signalling, it's a request for you to be more virtuous.


It might seem small, but when its the only direct statement you make to the slave population in our discussion. You didn't  even qualify this further until:



> The assumption that I would find it morally wrong for slaves to kill their masters is created in your own mind out of whole cloth, much like your presumption of my emotional state.


 Which for the record, wasn't even the entire breadth of what I was saying. Its not just the killing of the masters that is morally right when you are a slave, but those who uphold, enable, or encourage the master's way through the enforcement of his laws, the direct purchasing of his production, and the direct selling of goods and services related to the upkeep of slavery. So pretty much the entire non-slave population of Haiti at that time. You argue that the murder of the children was wrong and unnecessary (Fair) but outside that I can't agree. anyone  who wasn't a slave who lived on Haiti prior to the slave revolt depended on slavery in some form or another. Even those who might have thought lesser of the practice (But not enough so to actively fight it.)

But you know what? Having read through our conversation, I am wrong and you aren't saying what I thought you were saying so I will apologize. I was over-presumptive and a fair bit arrogant to you, that was uncalled for and I am sorry for my conduct in our discussion. I thought you were being dishonest with me and reacted poorly. It was rather childish of me.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Now then of course is the next question, I think you've said it: "What's the point of mentioning the differences?"
> 
> Well, first of all, simply looking different would in itself be point enough. If people look different, they are going to be treated differently. If you don't believe that to be the case, go and travel to a country where nobody looks like you, particularly if you leave the capital and go more inland. Every time you go out on the street, people will stare at you.
> 
> You can't sweep that difference under the carpet. If you do, you remove the fundamental basis for being able to combat racism itself. If we together would all pretend like there aren't visible differences, then we also can't claim to be treated differently based on visible differences (and we are).



I acknowledged that there are genetic differences between the races. I just see them as insignificant on the social level. Genetic markers for race and ethnicity are invaluable to our understanding of human history and have successfullly been used to track human ancestry back to many important points in our migratition and civilization. In addition, those markers are also important indicators to medical professions to identify vulnerability to certain disorders and things like allergies and intolerance.

And yes, people will treat you differently if you look different to them, but that is just an inherent human trait. Otherwise you may as well be arguing that a general misfit should feel that they have no race because nobody is going to treat them with any level of kinship. I also find this entire debate irrelevant in an age where, increasingly, nobody trusts anyone regardless of race or heritage. The truth is we live in a world of creatures that are not as civlized as we thought, and in every seemingly racially organized society you can always peel back the veeneer and find another system of discrimination beneath it. Your weaknesses and differences will always be used against you, and you should keep in mind that you have zero reason to be loyal to your own kind any more than you have any reason to be loyal to anyone else.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> But you know what? Having read through our conversation, I am wrong and you aren't saying what I thought you were saying so I will apologize. I was over-presumptive and a fair bit arrogant to you, that was uncalled for and I am sorry for my conduct in our discussion. I thought you were being dishonest with me and reacted poorly. It was rather childish of me.



Apology accepted.

Sometimes my expectations are thwarted. Thank you for doing so.

Were there any questions that you would still like an answer to? Because I'll answer them.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Apology accepted.
> 
> Sometimes my expectations are thwarted. Thank you for doing so.
> 
> Were there any questions that you would still like an answer to? Because I'll answer them.


Nah i'd rather be done here and just contemplate my choices for a bit. Toodles.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Nah i'd rather be done here and just contemplate my choices for a bit. Toodles.



It happens to the best of us.




Locomotive Derangement said:


> Otherwise you may as well be arguing that a general misfit should feel that they have no race because nobody is going to treat them with any level of kinship. I also find this entire debate irrelevant in an age where, increasingly, nobody trusts anyone regardless of race or heritage.



Yeah, funny that. Ever read Putnam's study? The more you mix people of different cultural backgrounds, the more people cease to trust anyone, even their in-group.

He started that study to prove that diversity is a strength and the results of the study was the exact opposite.

Of course that is culture, not genetics, but then I do regard part of culture an expression of group behaviour, which differs between groups also due to different genetics. Of course that line between what is cultural and what is genetic is almost impossibly hard to study, so we're all kinda spitballing it.

It's funny, when I put that idea to the test in my personal life and instead of looking for the most culturally diverse (which yes, also just meant "non-white") places to live work and have fun, and instead started looking for the least culturally diverse places, the level of trust I started experiencing was completely different.

In one, I couldn't leave my valuables out of sight because they would be stolen and they frequently were and people I was with would always be checking if bicycles were locked or not because they liked to steal them. In the other, people who barely knew me would sometimes give me free stuff and trust me to a particularly high degree that they would leave valuables safe open and unattended or ask me to get one thing from it, even if they barely knew me.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's funny, when I put that idea to the test in my personal life and instead of looking for the most culturally diverse (which yes, also just meant "non-white") places to live work and have fun, and instead started looking for the least culturally diverse places, the level of trust I started experiencing was completely different.
> 
> In one, I couldn't leave my valuables out of sight because they would be stolen and they frequently were and people I was with would always be checking if bicycles were locked or not because they liked to steal them. In the other, people who barely knew me would sometimes give me free stuff and trust me to a particularly high degree that they would leave valuables safe open and unattended or ask me to get one thing from it, even if they barely knew me.



That's quite alien to me. I've lived in both diverse and non-diverse locations and generally a pattern where people overall lack trust between each other has held true. People are usually polite but otherwise the thought of anyone leaving their doors unlocked or giving handouts would have been considered ridiculous pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. I don't think that says much of anything about race though. Trust is just a trick of psychology and a pretty easy one to manipulate at that. Its not really that any more surprising in my parts when Jamal robs a liquor store for meth money than it is when Cletus runs someone over with a BAC of 10%.

Trust is really a matter of uncertainty, and it seems to me that racialism is just a false sense of assurance where, if someone looks and vaguely acts like you, you feel safer around them. I don't really trust anyone. Scumfuckery is definitely not bound by the limits of your heritage.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> That's quite alien to me. I've lived in both diverse and non-diverse locations and generally a pattern where people overall lack trust between each other has held true. People are usually polite but otherwise the thought of anyone leaving their doors unlocked or giving handouts would have been considered ridiculous pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. I don't think that says much of anything about race though. Trust is just a trick of psychology and a pretty easy one to manipulate at that. Its not really that any more surprising in my parts when Jamal robs a liquor store for meth money than it is when Cletus runs someone over with a BAC of 10%.
> 
> Trust is really a matter of uncertainty, and it seems to me that racialism is just a false sense of assurance where, if someone looks and vaguely acts like you, you feel safer around them. I don't really trust anyone. Scumfuckery is definitely not bound by the limits of your heritage.



I don't think trust is just a trick of psychology. If people get scummed/stolen from multiple times, they learn from it and will begin to take precautions. There's a reason why different neighborhoods can have unattended shops (leave the money) and others have metal bars in front of the windows of homes.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 20, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I don't think trust is just a trick of psychology. If people get scummed/stolen from multiple times, they learn from it and will begin to take precautions. There's a reason why different neighborhoods can have unattended shops (leave the money) and others have metal bars in front of the windows of homes.



Or you can just do that from the start and skip the whole process of getting ripped off.


----------



## The Estatist (Jul 20, 2019)

There is legit no grounds to think wacism is wrong absent of theology. Hence non-Whites doing it (do you see the Japanese accepting Koreans as their family).


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jul 20, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> There is legit no grounds to think wacism is wrong absent of theology. Hence non-Whites doing it (do you see the Japanese accepting Koreans as their family).


How about just judging people as individuals instead of on their melanin level?


----------



## The Estatist (Jul 20, 2019)

Tell us more on everything in creation is only atomized consumers with no ties of blood, race, worship...


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 20, 2019)

Ped Xing said:


> I'm a Jacksonian Democrat.  The only thing I have in common with nazis is racism.
> 
> 15th Century Africa did host several civilizations on essentially the same technological and organizational level as 15th Century Europe.  That's why 1492 started the conquest of the Americas, but the scramble for Africa had to wait for the late 1800s.



Incas + Aztecs were dramatically more advanced than anything in Africa. And Europe was in turn dramatically more advanced than anything in the Americas.

Please tell me about the proto Wakandan civilizations you speak of.


----------



## The Estatist (Jul 20, 2019)

Reminder that Jews learn that goyim are to be cheated and killed. They're also rather successful.


----------



## Sped Xing (Jul 20, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> Incas + Aztecs were dramatically more advanced than anything in Africa. And Europe was in turn dramatically more advanced than anything in the Americas.
> 
> Please tell me about the proto Wakandan civilizations you speak of.



Uh, the Inca and Maya were literally in the Stone age and lacked wheels, ships, and most machines.  The Sahelian Empires and Ethiopia were essentially on the same technological level as Europe through the middle ages.

The ancient Egyptians building pyramids four thousand years before Cortez reached Tenochtitlan to find savages ritually murdering each other.  Stonehenge is probably as well aligned to stars as anything the Mayans built before they collapsed into barbarism.  There wasn't anything as advanced as the states of subsaharan Africa in the Americas.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jul 20, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> Tell us more on everything in creation is only atomized consumers with no ties of blood, race, worship...


If you can't form a bond with somebody who doesn't share your blood, race, or deity that's your problem


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 20, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> Reminder that Jews learn that goyim are to be cheated and killed. They're also rather successful.


Cite this.  Bonus points if you don't pull out that dusty forgery _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ or point to some mistranslated/unenforced Deuteronomy law (like the one about it being permissible to feed rotten meat to foreigners).
Every Jew I've known has been a rock-solid fellow.  I have been financially backstabbed more often by "my own people" than by God's Chosen People- even when I quite literally took out a loan from one of them.


----------



## The Estatist (Jul 21, 2019)

Considering how there aren't any indigienous multicultural societies (read: not imposed with war and maintained through bribes) and that your White man off the street has more White friends than non-White friends:






						Ethnic Diversity and Social Cohesion – The Alternative Hypothesis
					






					thealternativehypothesis.org
				






Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Cite this.  Bonus points if you don't pull out that dusty forgery _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ or point to some mistranslated/unenforced Deuteronomy law (like the one about it being permissible to feed rotten meat to foreigners).











						Are Non-Jews Human?
					

(Reading a Midrash out of Midrash Talpiyot)



					www.unz.com
				






			Deceiving the Dumb Goyim
		







						~Talmud Unmasked~
					

The Talmud Unmasked reveals the secret & diabolical Rabbinical teachings concerning Christians.



					www.talmudunmasked.com
				




I'm sure you'll be saying Detroit is the Democrat's fault.



Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Every Jew I've known has been a rock-solid fellow.



Found the Cuckservative.



Senior Lexmechanic said:


> I have been financially backstabbed more often by "my own people" than by God's Chosen People- even when I quite literally took out a loan from one of them.



Ever wonder how Jews got such a bad reputation among both Christians and Muslims?


----------



## The Estatist (Jul 21, 2019)

Ped Xing said:


> ancient Egyptians building pyramids



Are you saying they wuz niggers?


----------



## Sped Xing (Jul 21, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> Are you saying they wuz niggers?


No, of course not.  The Egyptians were swarthier than Scandinavians, but they were definitely Caucasian.

I was using them as an example of a civilization that had accomplished everything the New World had and more thousands of years earlier.

To deny that places like Mali, Ghana, Abyssinian, Songhai, and the like possessed similar levels of technology to late medieval Europe is just a failure of historical literacy. 

Now, compare even eighteenth Century Europe to any part of Africa south of the Sahara and it's really no contest.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 21, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> Considering how there aren't any indigienous multicultural societies (read: not imposed with war and maintained through bribes) and that your White man off the street has more White friends than non-White friends:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your sources are:
1. The ranting of a Jewish conspiratard who believes that every goyim is plotting to murder the Jews- your Yiddish doppelganger, then.
2. A neo-Nazi website (as in, deliberately describes itself as racial nationalist, shows a clear bent towards Aryan supremacy, and appears to have very glowing things to say about Hitler according to a quick scan of their web 1.0 directory.  Also a strong bent towards Esoteric Hitlerism and what looks like some WN version of Kemet).  
3. The rantings of a Sedevacantist who believes that Jews are quite literally Satanists that were behind Vatican II, that 9/11 was a Judeo-Masonic plot, and that the pedophiles in the Catholic Church are all secret Jews.  

Clearly, sources of the highest caliber whose word can be trusted.




> Found the Cuckservative.


I'm afraid not; but of course, I suspect animals are "cuckservatives" at this point, so heavily-abused as that word has become.




> Ever wonder how Jews got such a bad reputation among both Christians and Muslims?


I've discussed this before.  I have, in fact, traced the historical roots of antisemitism with _you_ before.  Your response was, if I recall correctly, to accuse me first of being a "cuckservative", then a "libcuck", and then to ask "are you Jewish BTW".  I won't bother retreading that dialogue with you; you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 21, 2019)

Ped Xing said:


> Uh, the Inca and Maya were literally in the Stone age and lacked wheels, ships, and most machines.  The Sahelian Empires and Ethiopia were essentially on the same technological level as Europe through the middle ages.



Citation needed. 
In what way were they essentially on the same level as Europe?


----------



## mindlessobserver (Jul 21, 2019)

It's not easy arguing politics on the internet. I should tell you one day about my struggle down at the local beer hall.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 21, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Or you can just do that from the start and skip the whole process of getting ripped off.


There is distinct value in living or working in a high trust environments.

The point is that you don't get ripped off. You can legit put up a stand in front of your house, put in your old books, put up a sign with the cost per item, and come home to people both honoring the system and not breaking the easily broken container with money.

It is just a single example, but there is also the lower amount of stress and such.



ProgKing of the North said:


> How about just judging people as individuals instead of on their melanin level?



Why do you continue to insist that the only group differences are those that are easiest observable?


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 21, 2019)

Ped Xing said:


> Uh, the Inca and Maya were literally in the Stone age and lacked wheels, ships, and most machines.  The Sahelian Empires and Ethiopia were essentially on the same technological level as Europe through the middle ages.
> 
> The ancient Egyptians building pyramids four thousand years before Cortez reached Tenochtitlan to find savages ritually murdering each other.  Stonehenge is probably as well aligned to stars as anything the Mayans built before they collapsed into barbarism.  There wasn't anything as advanced as the states of subsaharan Africa in the Americas.



The Inca lived in the mountains where wheels would be of little value. Alpaca can't carry shit.
The Aztec had no pack animals to carry stuff with. The Natives in Canada used dogs to pull their shit around.

Pretty much every native group had canoes (30+ feet long) that allowed them to travel any river and even cross the seas. Natives canoed all the way to Cuba from Central America, etc.

The Egyptians had control over the Nile River, a river that had predictable flooding. This allowed them to grow infinite food. They had no enemies for millenia and stopped building giant Pyramids when they encountered some.

The Romans, Carthaginians and Germanics practiced human sacrifice.



Autocrat said:


> Citation needed.
> In what way were they essentially on the same level as Europe?



"Exceptional" blacksmithing *Matchlock rifles and swords, central government and lots of Muslim killing.



The Estatist said:


> There is legit no grounds to think wacism is wrong absent of theology. Hence non-Whites doing it (do you see the Japanese accepting Koreans as their family).



The Japanese Emperor says his family originated from a Korean line and there is several million Koreans in Japan.



Gustav Schuchardt said:


> What? Why would Ben Shapiro lie to me about something like that...



Ben Shapiro has a reputation for being a liar.



Ped Xing said:


> I'm a Jacksonian Democrat.  The only thing I have in common with nazis is racism.
> 
> 15th Century Africa did host several civilizations on essentially the same technological and organizational level as 15th Century Europe.  That's why 1492 started the conquest of the Americas, but the scramble for Africa had to wait for the late 1800s.



European strength was disease and their ability to form alliances with the locals. They played groups off of eachother to gain a supreme advantage. The Inca king died of a strange disease and as per ritual his body toured the empire (oops) and a civil war ensued (ouch). The Aztec had tonnes of enemies..kinda why Cortez was able to roll up with 200,000 Tlaxcalan allies.


----------



## The Estatist (Jul 21, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> There is distinct value in living or working in a high trust environments.
> 
> The point is that you don't get ripped off. You can legit put up a stand in front of your house, put in your old books, put up a sign with the cost per item, and come home to people both honoring the system and not breaking the easily broken container with money.



You're talking to an edgy bugman. The bugman would treat it all as interchangeable slop rather than admit to differences and that there's no such thing as a great non-discriminatory society.

Just as how some Kunta Kinte's ooga booga here and ooga there isn't the same or as beautiful as Mozart's symphonies, Niggers by birth don't act like Nordics.



Lemmingwise said:


> Why do you continue to insist that the only group differences are those that are easiest observable?



He's a liberal.



Apoth42 said:


> The Japanese Emperor says his family originated from a Korean line and there is several million Koreans in Japan.



The required yen have been deposited to your account. Also:









						How Asians View Each Other
					

Asia is a sprawling continent with a long, contentious history. The region is dotted with territorial disputes, many deeply rooted in the past. As these frictions have waxed and waned, public sentiment has ebbed and flowed.




					www.pewresearch.org
				












						Why can’t Japan and South Korea get past their battle scars?
					

As economic ties between Seoul and Tokyo fade, bad blood dating back more than a century has started to resurface.




					www.scmp.com
				






			https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japan-south-korea-ties-worst-in-five-decades-as-us-leaves-alliance-untended/2019/02/08/f17230be-2ad8-11e9-906e-9d55b6451eb4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.087fa00c02b0
		










						Japan's resident Koreans endure a climate of hate | The Japan Times
					

Later this month, the Diet's Upper House will pass a bill submitted by the ruling coalition addressing the problem of hate speech, specifically directed at




					www.japantimes.co.jp
				






Apoth42 said:


> European strength was disease and their ability to form alliances with the locals. They played groups off of eachother to gain a supreme advantage. The Inca king died of a strange disease and as per ritual his body toured the empire (oops) and a civil war ensued (ouch). The Aztec had tonnes of enemies..kinda why Cortez was able to roll up with 200,000 Tlaxcalan allies.



Tell us more on how having gunpowder had nothing to do with it. What, all those savages just followed Cortez from the Aztecs being meanies and not him showing he has the force to back up his talk?


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 21, 2019)

That pew poll doesn't really prove your point. 



The Estatist said:


> Tell us more on how having gunpowder had nothing to do with it. What, all those savages just followed Cortez from the Aztecs being meanies and not him showing he has the force to back up his talk?



It was the cavalry that was the most decisive tool of the Spanish.









						Battle of Otumba - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Cavalry was extremely important. The Chinese marched armies across deserts to acquire better horses so that they could stand a better chance against the Huns.









						War of the Heavenly Horses - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## The Estatist (Jul 21, 2019)

>tries to jump to muh cavalry
>pretending that shows that Spanish weren't from the higher civilization

Injuns repeatedly lost wars even when they ambused and swarmed like the savages they were. They lost so hard that the leftovers worship Whitey's god and eat his gibsmedats. That doesn't happen unless your kind are effectively animals.


----------



## Classist. (Jul 21, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> The Romans [...] practiced human sacrifice.



Autistic rant time: I take issue with this specifically. Roman human sacrifice was made illegal in 97 BC and even by then it was just a formality with the practice being extremely rare and confined to wartime. In fact, human sacrifice was seen as barbaric and degenerate by the Romans and was used as justification for both the the Gallic and Punic wars. Also, the Roman state was an institution that lasted in some form or another for  approximately 2000 years, (510-1453 _or 1204_) and it's social/political/religious makeup changed dramatically over that time, and while technically correct that statement is highly misleading.


----------



## ES 148 (Jul 21, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Oh and for the record, nothing is "Indefensible". You can justify anything you please.
> 
> If things were indefensible as you suggest, they probably wouldn't have happened to begin with, no?



I'm so glad the Holocaust is not only justified, but wouldn't have happened if Hitler wasn't right. Guess I'm a Nazi now, sorry people with a functioning brain


----------



## The Estatist (Jul 21, 2019)

The Holocaust is nothing special.


----------



## Classist. (Jul 21, 2019)

Vrakks said:


> I'm so glad Gamergate is not only justified, but wouldn't have happened if Sargon wasn't right. Guess I'm a Liberalist now, sorry people with a functioning brain


Fixed.


----------



## Anti Fanta (Jul 21, 2019)

Imagine falling for a regressive and reactionary ideology designed to keep you subjugated and give those with power even more power because 'the [insert flavour of the week enemy e.g. Jews, immigrants] are gonna get you unless you bend the knee to your superiors who are superior to you because, errm, reasons!'. 

Fascists are the ultimate cucks prepared to give up a better future because their bulls (corporations, the ruling elite, monarchs and totalitarians) tell them they should. They spend all their time looking up intellectually dubious studies in order to prove that certain people should be in charge, literally doing the work for the ruling class RENT FREE under the guise of 'owning the libs'.

Oh and while I'm here: The Soviet Union ≠ communism, and The Democratic Party/American liberalism ≠ socialism. You'd know this if you read anything that wasn't some wild screed dredged from the archives of some conspiracy nut website.


----------



## ApatheticViewer (Jul 21, 2019)

The thing is its genuinely hard to tell who's actually a nazi or who's just ironically saying things to piss people off. That's sorta why lefties are so scared. And when so many on the other side are so openly endorsing people like Brenton Tarrant who's to blame them? 

I wish I could find it but theres a great daily stormer piece where they specifically say there goal is to spread the ideology thru edgy memes. If you look at something like Frens World that's easy to see.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 21, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> He's a liberal.





The Estatist said:


> You're talking to an edgy bugman.



That may be the case or not, I don't really care. I'm interested in why he says the things that he say and if he can back it up or not. If I presume people to have no fundament to what they're saying before I hear what they're saying, what's the point of even discussing at all? At that point you're like two tribes yelling taunts and insults and the occasional spear before ending the ceremonial warfare. I'm not that interested in that.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> There is distinct value in living or working in a high trust environments.
> 
> The point is that you don't get ripped off. You can legit put up a stand in front of your house, put in your old books, put up a sign with the cost per item, and come home to people both honoring the system and not breaking the easily broken container with money.
> 
> It is just a single example, but there is also the lower amount of stress and such.



That's a nice idea hamstrung by the fact that it is completely fucking impossible. Even if you somehow excised all of the drug addicts from modern society, I'd bet you anything the town drunk would stagger up to that table and swipe the jar for an extra bottle of bourbon. Either that or your neighbor's annoying autistic brat would grab it to buy comic books. If you open yourself up to being taken advantage of, sooner or later the opportunists in your society will take notice. Even in previous eras were things were less diverse and more idyllic, it was still childishly easy for a sleazy salesman in a cheap suit to roll up and grift grandma out of her pension check for the week. 

People are more cynical now because we've realized the crooks in our society can look just like us, and you need to actually pay attention to their behavior and take precautions. A high-trust society is just not feasible or sustainable. These days a lot of the grifters do use racial politics to garner sympathy and sleaze their way into power as well. You can't trust anyone who seems sure of themselves. They probably have the delusional ego to back it up.


----------



## Sped Xing (Jul 21, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> Citation needed.
> In what way were they essentially on the same level as Europe?



Giant cities, complex law codes, extensive trade expeditions, steelworking, and standing armies.

Certainly there were still many very primitive parts of Africa, but in rhe fifteenth Century the only real advantage the Europeans had was better art, and then only if you're going to give all Europe credit for the Italians.

I don't know why it hurts you feelings so much to find out all Africa wasn't significantly less technologically advanced than Europe at some point in History.  Like I said, Europe pulled far ahead in the intervening centuries, although most of the parts of Africa which had been at about parity to Europe were the last to be colonized.

Sixteenth Century Portugal had a military advantage in cannon which helped them to take over most of the cities of the Swahili coast, although they would themselves be ousted by the Omani until the British and Germans showed up in the late 19th Century.

To the other guy, the technology of the wheel is good for more than just carts, not that carts are indeed worthless in Peru.  Wheelbarrows, potter's wheels, and water / windmills are all extremely useful inventions that require the wheel.  Lacking that technology was a severe handicap.

Mind you, I'm not saying they were inferior people because they didn't have these things.  I'm saying they were technologically backwards.

I don't think human sacrifice necessarily has anything to do with technological advancement, but then again, all the other instances of human sacrifice you mentioned were thousands of years in the past by Century XV.  And mentioning thr Romans is quite disingenuous.  They killed less than ten foreigners to appease their gods when it looked like Hannibal was about to take and destroy the city.  This is hardly the same as the Aztec confederation capturing thousands of people and cutting their hearts out on top a pyramid as a matter of course.  But I digress.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

Ped Xing said:


> Giant cities, complex law codes, extensive trade expeditions, steelworking, and standing armies.
> 
> Certainly there were still many very primitive parts of Africa, but in rhe fifteenth Century the only real advantage the Europeans had was better art, and then only if you're going to give all Europe credit for the Italians.
> 
> ...



An addendum to this should be that Africa is a tremendous and extremely environmentally variable continent. The cities were mostly forced to exist at the edges in the less extreme conditions and more or less shared a lot of common history with Europe and the Middle East in the places where they were accessible. Europe in particular loved trading with Africa because it was an excellent source of fineries such as ivory and especially gold in some locations. Anywhere you get trade, you generally get the natrual spread of technology as observant types take note of what equipment to foreigners are using and work to imitate it if it seems effective. The history of Africa being entagled with Europe and the Middle East dates very far back into the histories of the Roman Empire, Carthage and Macedonia. 

I suppose a clever race realist could point out that North Africa is white enough to be passing, to the point where people are occasionally born with blond hair and blue eyes, but I don't think that stands for much on its own. 

Something interesting that race realists seem to never bring up is how disease totally obliterated the native populations of North and South America. Therein lies actual, verifiable genetic supremacy if not racial supremacy. It just comes from the fact that European society was fucking filthy and African society existed on a continent that to this day still produces the nastiest fucking diseases we've ever encountered. I guess nobody likes to think about the idea that their race rose to dominance just because they sneezed a few too many times.


----------



## Sped Xing (Jul 21, 2019)

The Native Americans were largely (excepting the Inuit) descended from a very small foinder population that crossed over from Asia in the Paleolithic.

Most diseases that affected 15th Century old world peoples hadn't even arisen when the Amerind population was isolated, and what did exist, such as malaria, didn't exactly thrive in Arctic areas.

The Western Hemisphere was largely free of disease for ten thousand years.  Nice while it lasts.


----------



## left arm (Jul 21, 2019)

I like to think the bulk of this site's users are centrists who tend to agree with one side a bit more, but don't get too intense with politics either way, which obviously equates to Nazism.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 21, 2019)

Ped Xing said:


> I don't know why it hurts you feelings so much to find out all Africa wasn't significantly less technologically advanced than Europe at some point in History.



Because they weren't! We're speaking particularly of sub saharn Africa. 
Compare their architecture, math, machines of war. Europe had guns and cannons. Massive ships. 

I don't get why that's hard for you to accept.


----------



## L'Homme de la Lune (Jul 21, 2019)

Harvey Danger said:


> However, the USA is _not_ one of those states, it is explicitly an _ideological_ state. And if anyone tries to turn the USA into an ethnostate, I'm joining the resistance and going 2nd Amendment on their ass.


Jew.


> Chap. Ⅲ.—_An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. _March 26, 1790.
> 
> Section 1. _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,_ That any alien, being a free *white* person, Alien whites may become citizens, and how. who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof [...]


Source: United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> Because they weren't! We're speaking particularly of sub saharn Africa.
> Compare their architecture, math, machines of war. Europe had guns and cannons. Massive ships.
> 
> I don't get why that's hard for you to accept.



Europe had guns and cannons and stuff later on. Otherwise you may as well argue China is the superior culture because it developed the fire-lance and rockets sooner than Europe did. Hell, China developed the Printing Press first, a device I would consider far more impactful than just about any weapon, but they didn't use it because their language (especially at the time before certain reforms) simply made it too complicated. 

Sub-Saharan Africa falls under that point I tried to made above. Africa is fucking massive and home to a large number of different climate conditions. Just because the dudes living out in the jungle are still using spears doesn't mean you can't trade with the king of some city on the coast. What the fuck kind of map are you reading where all of Africa is somehow the Congo?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 21, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> That's a nice idea hamstrung by the fact that it is completely fucking impossible. Even if you somehow excised all of the drug addicts from modern society, I'd bet you anything the town drunk would stagger up to that table and swipe the jar for an extra bottle of bourbon. Either that or your neighbor's annoying autistic brat would grab it to buy comic books. If you open yourself up to being taken advantage of, sooner or later the opportunists in your society will take notice. Even in previous eras were things were less diverse and more idyllic, it was still childishly easy for a sleazy salesman in a cheap suit to roll up and grift grandma out of her pension check for the week.



You should go and visit Japan sometime. Or some of the very high trust areas in nordic countries. There are still places in practically every north-western european countries, UK, Scandinavia. The point is that your cynical take on it is actually very rare in homogenous areas of certain societies.

As one example, if you go to Japan, they have umbrella stands in the shops. You can put your umbrella there as you enter, do your shopping, then pick up your umbrella as you leave.

When someone stupid like me would take the wrong umbrella because they all look the same, and then upon discovering it 30 minutes later, the person who's umbrella I have taken, does not take another, but instead leaves without an umbrella. Yes, high trust environments are easy to take advantage of, but when everyone recognizes the value and cherishes it they endure. The point is that certain homogenous societies have so few opportunists that it becomes a negligible risk. That's how european countries have gone in 60 years from not having to lock your bicycle overnight to having the most heavy of contraptions even if you leave a bicycle somewhere for 5 minutes. 

The fact that these were vulnerable to exploitation didn't mean it happened frequently at all (or people would start protecting themselves against it).


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> You should go and visit Japan sometime. Or some of the very high trust areas in nordic countries. There are still places in practically every north-western european countries, UK, Scandinavia. The point is that your cynical take on it is actually very rare in homogenous areas of certain societies.



I could probably stand to make a lot of money there with this information. I just might do that now that you mention it.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 21, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> An addendum to this should be that Africa is a tremendous and extremely environmentally variable continent. The cities were mostly forced to exist at the edges in the less extreme conditions and more or less shared a lot of common history with Europe and the Middle East in the places where they were accessible. Europe in particular loved trading with Africa because it was an excellent source of fineries such as ivory and especially gold in some locations. Anywhere you get trade, you generally get the natrual spread of technology as observant types take note of what equipment to foreigners are using and work to imitate it if it seems effective. The history of Africa being entagled with Europe and the Middle East dates very far back into the histories of the Roman Empire, Carthage and Macedonia.
> 
> I suppose a clever race realist could point out that North Africa is white enough to be passing, to the point where people are occasionally born with blond hair and blue eyes, but I don't think that stands for much on its own.
> 
> Something interesting that race realists seem to never bring up is how disease totally obliterated the native populations of North and South America. Therein lies actual, verifiable genetic supremacy if not racial supremacy. It just comes from the fact that European society was fucking filthy and African society existed on a continent that to this day still produces the nastiest fucking diseases we've ever encountered. I guess nobody likes to think about the idea that their race rose to dominance just because they sneezed a few too many times.




North africa has some white genetics, from both the roman conquests and from the later islamic slave raids to capture among other things, white women. But overall that percentage is smaller than native american genetics in contemporary north america. This is a bit of an estimation, if anyone has strong sources that say otherwise I'd love to hear it.

Besides it's a bit of a moot point when discussing Ethiopia, because it does not have that same admixture. I don't think it's accurate to put medieval Ethiopia quite on the same level as Europe, considering the incredible difference in buildings left behind when comparing, but it's just as much a mistake to completely discount Ethiopia. They were arguably the strongest most advanced of the african countries.

There is some ground to claim that Ethiopia is the one African country that has never been colonized; yes during the second world war Italy conquered them for 4 years, but that's about it. Italy was also very much dissappointed to discover that although some of the Ethiopian troops were armed with spear and bow (much like Japanese soldiers were armed with swords), they also had field guns, anti-tank guns, machine guns, artillery, anti-air guns.

One of their main problems, apart from having somewhat less modern weapons, was that they didn't have defenses against poison gas, which the italians used liberally.


---

As for disease, I'm not sure why you consider that a point against race realism. The diseases had similar effects on different groups. The same diseases that europeans carried had devastated europe before. Should we consider native americans especially filthy because they traded syphillis to europens for smallpox in return?

I suppose you really love Jared Diamond's Gun's Steel and Germ narrative, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think the factors mentioned in said work had no effect, but he takes such liberties to fit his world view that it's hard to take him seriously, pulitzer prize or not.



Locomotive Derangement said:


> I could probably stand to make a lot of money there with this information. I just might do that now that you mention it.



It's such a shame that you have the mentality of hearing about high trust environments and instead of seeing the value of it and trying to replicate it, you seek to exploit it.


----------



## ApatheticViewer (Jul 21, 2019)

maaliktheprisonguard said:


> Virgin nazi vs chad islamist



Don't towel heads get to beat and rape women then get 72 more after death? Sign me up for that. I'll lead the Islamic uprising


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 21, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> >tries to jump to muh cavalry
> >pretending that shows that Spanish weren't from the higher civilization
> 
> Injuns repeatedly lost wars even when they ambused and swarmed like the savages they were. They lost so hard that the leftovers worship Whitey's god and eat his gibsmedats. That doesn't happen unless your kind are effectively animals.



Cavalry was extremely important. The Romans switched away from a heavy infantry model to a cavalry model the second they encountered the Persians and Huns. The technologically supreme Chinese were dominated by the Mongols who had mastered the horse. European and Japanese medieval armies were centered around heavily armored cavalry until the rise of the matchlock rifle and pike formations. 

The Europeans had an overwhelming numbers advantage by the 18th century. Native families had the standard 2 kids model while Europeans had like 12 kids each. Disease decimating their populations did not help the situation.

By the 19th century the US had switched to a smaller more professional army due to their overwhelming technological supremacy but even then they suffered terrible losses. The Canadians went with a sheer numbers strategy and also found themselves suffering grievous defeats. 









						Battle of the Little Bighorn - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						Battle of Cut Knife - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Übertroon (Jul 21, 2019)

I would never consider going full nazi... as long as the communists don't try anything


----------



## Pocket Dragoon (Jul 21, 2019)

I've been using this a lot, lately.

The message doesn't seem to be getting through, somehow.



Spoiler: Rampant Maggotry, All Around


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's such a shame that you have the mentality of hearing about high trust environments and instead of seeing the value of it and trying to replicate it, you seek to exploit it.



I mean, I could also stand around with my thumb up my ass and do nothing until someone sleazier takes it. Either way, its gonna be exploited. Also isn't this bullshit the kind of stuff people are complaining about in regards to migrants in the first place, that they take advantage of society's goodwill and siphon off resources? This is turning into a punchline, like race realists live in this fantasy land where as long as human beings are colour-coded, we can all respect each other and stay safe. I dunno where the hell you're from but the white people I know are pretty much trash along with the rest of the races.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 21, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Europe had guns and cannons and stuff later on.



Why are you even saying that? Canons and guns were absolutely in use by Europe in the 15th century. 



Locomotive Derangement said:


> Otherwise you may as well argue China is the superior culture because it developed the fire-lance and rockets sooner than Europe did. Hell, China developed the Printing Press first, a device I would consider far more impactful than just about any weapon, but they didn't use it because their language (especially at the time before certain reforms) simply made it too complicated.



I wouldn't argue against that, because I'm not a fucking moron in denial. In many ways, China might have had a superior culture up until the industrial revolution. 



Locomotive Derangement said:


> Just because the dudes living out in the jungle are still using spears doesn't mean you can't trade with the king of some city on the coast. What the fuck kind of map are you reading where all of Africa is somehow the Congo?



Look at this absolutely retarded strawman you're trying to prop up. I'm just saying they were nowhere near as advanced as Europe.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> I wouldn't argue against that, because I'm not a fucking moron in denial. In many ways, China might have had a superior culture up until the industrial revolution.



They had an extremely stifling culture where bureaucracy had evolved to be such a hassle that most people just dealt with it by bribing their way past everything causing pretty much total corruption. I also question the superiority of a culture that suffers absolutely apocalyptic revolts on such a regular basis that they coined that Mandate of Heaven dynamic to try and explain the fact that their entire empire melted down every so often. Additionally, new inventions and innovations were often ignored out of the belief that things needs to stay the way they were, otherwise you'd get another one of those apocalytpic meltdowns because people are out of work. just because you're the first one to invent something doesn't automatically mean you were in a position to use it better.



Autocrat said:


> Look at this absolutely exceptional strawman you're trying to prop up. I'm just saying they were nowhere near as advanced as Europe.



If you want to classify Europe as exclusively "all of the important locations" like France, England and some parts of Germany (that Hundred Years War was extremely self-destructive) then sure. Whatever. But you can do that with anywhere. Otherwise I can point to shitholes like the Balkans and Eastern Europe that have always struggled to drag themselves up on the technological ladder. It also depends on the era, as, unsurprisingly, Europe would descend into being a horrific shithole whenever they'd have a massive war or invasion only to enjoy a new era of posperity when they had the resources to back it up.

Europe did successfully go up against a group of people with far less advanced technology in the 15th century that they absolutely crushed and conquered. These two continents are now known as North and South America. Once they had access to such abundant resources, the game was pretty much over. Africa had functioning civilizations that could resist invasion up until Europe gained the advantage by picking up a pair of continents along the way, and you can even see this in which great powers became dominant _in_ Africa: Britain, France and Spain, with Portgual trailing behind. Which four countries colonized America? The same four. (I know the Dutch were in both places in force at various points but Britain crushed them so hard they might as well not be worth including).


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (Jul 21, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> A lot of race realists also maintain a One Drop philosophy where *any* racial mixing in your line automatically contaminates you which inevitably leads to them having a mental breakdown when some revelation about their ancestry comes out. There's some kind of neurosis involved in the whole thing, its not just people being Rayciss just to be assholes from what I can tell.



I aslo enjoy asking the aggressively "anti-white but still somehow anti-racist" crowd to define "white people", and occasionally ask them if they'll resort to the methods previous used by white supremacists, but tailored to whatever Pee Ohh Seas they have as a pet demographic, but I'm rarely granted an answer, despite being an alleged Pee Ohh Sea, myself. Usually I just get told I'm "carrying Y.T.'s water".


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

TerribleIdeas™ said:


> I aslo enjoy asking the aggressively "anti-white but still somehow anti-racist" crowd to define "white people", and occasionally ask them if they'll resort to the methods previous used by white supremacists, but tailored to whatever Pee Ohh Seas they have as a pet demographic, but I'm rarely granted an answer, despite being an alleged Pee Ohh Sea, myself. Usually I just get told I'm "carrying Y.T.'s water".



Generally I've found race realists will never accept a person in their ranks the same way SJWs never will. There's always some kind of flaw they can find in your character or history that denigrates you in their eyes. I've never been a victim of it directly, but I don't exactly have the patience to way around long enough for them to find out my family is from some random part of Europe that isn't Anglo-Saxon-Nordic.


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (Jul 21, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Generally I've found race realists will never accept a person in their ranks the same way SJWs never will. There's always some kind of flaw they can find in your character or history that denigrates you in their eyes. I've never been a victim of it directly, but I don't exactly have the patience to way around long enough for them to find out my family is from some random part of Europe that isn't Anglo-Saxon-Nordic.



I get the pleasure of being told I'm either "white-passing", or told that I have some kind of "internalized slave morality" that makes me pant for the opportunity to please my huwite massas.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 21, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> I mean, I could also stand around with my thumb up my ass and do nothing until someone sleazier takes it. Either way, its gonna be exploited. Also isn't this bullshit the kind of stuff people are complaining about in regards to migrants in the first place, that they take advantage of society's goodwill and siphon off resources? This is turning into a punchline, like race realists live in this fantasy land where as long as human beings are colour-coded, we can all respect each other and stay safe. I dunno where the hell you're from but the white people I know are pretty much trash along with the rest of the races.



What would it matter if the argument is similar to another? You yourself find it normal to steal and take advantage of vulnerability and high trust environments, because if you don't someone else might steal it first. I know that I would not want you to immigrate to my country, to move to my neighborhood, to work at my workplace. I don't really care what race you are either. Thiefs can go fuck themselves somewhere else.

It's kind of stunning that in the same breath you defend stealing and look down on people that want to prevent that. Like on the one hand you consider people wanting to protect their high trust environments as suckers that shouldn't have high-trust environments in the first place and on the other you berate them for wanting to protect the outer borders of that high trust environment and that it is supposedly racist to do so.

I think the only place in the world where you have multiple cultures/racial groups living together in a relatively high trust environment is Singapore. But it's kinda like trying to bodybuild on a vegan diet. It's not impossible, but it's much harder. And even Singapore has its tensions, as their muslim population has the highest fertility rate (as muslims in every country do) and that demographic pressure is felt by other groups.

Anyways, I never cease to be stunned by people that try to defend the indefensible.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 21, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Europe needed the resources from the New World in order to take over Africa



lol wut.
They went for the Americas first because there were dramatically more resources in the first place. After that, all that was left was Africa. Africa was the bottom of the barrel.
How much more powerful did these countries get from colonizing Africa?
How much more powerful did they get from colonizing the new world?

That should answer your question.
——————

Anyway you're failing to demonstrate any tangible way that any part of 15th century Africa was as technologically advanced as the European powers. _What technology did they have? _
Let alone technology for war. No guns, no cannons, no ballistae. The best they had was horses and rudimentary metal working.
Imagine a catapult vs those mud 'castles'. You are fucktarded.


----------



## IAmNotAlpharius (Jul 21, 2019)

crocodilian said:


> If society becomes less comfortable overall and continues on its current path, I wouldn't rule out ethnically-motivated national socialism. Or something very similar.
> 
> Or we can just wait for a repeat of Haiti in 1804. That's only going to happen when whites are less than 50% of the U.S. population though.





crocodilian said:


> You were correct up until here. Even whites who openly expressed sympathy for blacks and demanded emancipation were slaughtered. The total absence of mercy for even white "allies" was a good part of why the U.S. south openly opposed emancipating their own slaves, figuring they'd do the same because blacks are apparently no better than hyenas.



Haiti was a clusterfuck even if you were biracial. The resulting invasion of the Dominican Republic is why many Dominicans would identify more with /pol/ and Uncle Ruckus than Haitiains or black Americans.

Imo there were a few factors that caused the Haitian Revolution to be bloodier than other slave revolts: 1. They were more disposable than Southern slaves; 2. They were worked to death; 3. There was a very significant sex imbalance; 4. They were inspired by the French Revolution which was already very violent to begin with; 5. They were the majority.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 21, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> Cavalry was extremely important. The Romans switched away from a heavy infantry model to a cavalry model the second they encountered the Persians and Huns. The technologically supreme Chinese were dominated by the Mongols who had mastered the horse. European and Japanese medieval armies were centered around heavily armored cavalry until the rise of the matchlock rifle and pike formations.
> 
> The Europeans had an overwhelming numbers advantage by the 18th century. Native families had the standard 2 kids model while Europeans had like 12 kids each. Disease decimating their populations did not help the situation.
> 
> ...


The US also switched to standing professional armies because volunteers don't measure up to trained and drilled professionals as demonstrated in the war of 1812.



Autocrat said:


> lol wut.
> They went for the Americas first because there were dramatically more resources in the first place. After that, all that was left was Africa. Africa was the bottom of the barrel.
> How much more powerful did these countries get from colonizing Africa?
> How much more powerful did they get from colonizing the new world?
> ...


Is that really the only measure of a civilization? Whether or not they have enough guns for your liking?


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> lol wut.
> They went for the Americas first because there were dramatically more resources in the first place. After that, all that was left was Africa. Africa was the bottom of the barrel.
> How much more powerful did these countries get from colonizing Africa?
> How much more powerful did they get from colonizing the new world?
> ...



Primarily, the abundant resources of two entire fucking continents gave Europe a substantial advantage that allowed their population to grow at an incredible rate and gave then access to food sources that just did not exist beforehand. There were also rare plants such a quinine that proved invaluable against disease and are still used to this day. The sheer amount of gold flowing out of South America not only did damage to Spain's economy, it fucking collapsed the Malian Empire's economy altogether and was the primary reason they decided to start selling slaves. Asiento, baby.

Guns were not the be-all, end-all of warfare, especially in an era where powder was so sensitive that a day of humidity and a bad fuse (made of string by the way) would mean your weapon would not fire. There's a reason Europeans would drill their troops into large formations to utilize early firearms, as they were unreliable and if your shot failed you had better fucking hope the guy next to you would land a shot, otherwise you were getting an arrow to the throat or a sword to the gut. You can't just boil history down to "they had shootins and they dindu shootins". Tercio units were overwhelmingly the most superior form of infantry for a very long time because they mixed guns, swords and pikes in a way that protected the gunners from cavalry charges and pressure from enemy infantry.

Also, Africa did have firearms to limited extents. Often these were supplied by Arab nations but they had them and knew how to use them. I'm also sure than plenty of African cities weren't exceptional enough to defend themselves with just adobe walls when stone is a pretty viable source of masonry and human beings across the full extent of the planet have been chiseling things out of rock for thousands of years. Hell, firearms were a big deal because they could shatter masonry in a way previous weapons of the era could not.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 21, 2019)

It’s funny how many of the centrists here actually have data and historical knowledge to back up their views while the “race realists” entirely seem to operate on “feels.”

Moving to a less diverse area engenders a high trust? 

Lol! 


I’m sure that doesn’t have anything to do with economic class and money.

Let’s try that experience in some poor drug riddled coal mining town.

Apparently, white trash meth paradises don’t exist.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 21, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Is that really the only measure of a civilization? Whether or not they have enough guns for your liking?



No, that is your strawman. The notion I'm objecting to is that Europe didn't colonize Africa first because parts of Africa were too technologically advanced at the time. The easiest measure of a civilization is its technology. 15th century Africa was technologically bereft.



Locomotive Derangement said:


> Blah blah blah



You're completely ignoring the point. You're saying these African nations were essentially as technologically advanced as the European powers. I'm asking you to point to a technology.



BlastDoors41 said:


> It’s funny how many of the centrists here actually have data and historical knowledge to back up their views while the “race realists” entirely seem to operate on “feels.”
> 
> Moving to a less diverse area engenders a high trust?
> 
> ...



Strawman after strawman


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 21, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> No, that is your strawman. *The notion I'm objecting to is that Europe didn't colonize Africa first because parts of Africa were too technologically advanced at the time.* The easiest measure of a civilization is its technology. 15th century Africa was technologically bereft.


Actually it was a question for clarity, a call for elaboration. And it was in response to this.


Autocrat said:


> *Anyway you're failing to demonstrate any tangible way that any part of 15th century Africa was as technologically advanced as the European powers. *What technology did they have?
> Let alone technology for war. No guns, no cannons, no ballistae. The best they had was horses and rudimentary metal working.
> Imagine a catapult vs those mud 'castles'. You are fucktarded.





Autocrat said:


> Look at this absolutely exceptional strawman you're trying to prop up. *I'm just saying they were nowhere near as advanced as Europe.*



So it seems you've revised your position between then and now somewhat, and the main(Well, really only) measuring stick you seem to use for measuring technological advancement is the application of war weapons. You are of course, welcome to correct me.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> No, that is your strawman. The notion I'm objecting to is that Europe didn't colonize Africa first because parts of Africa were too technologically advanced at the time. The easiest measure of a civilization is its technology. 15th century Africa was technologically bereft.
> 
> You're completely ignoring the point. You're saying these African nations were essentially as technologically advanced as the European powers. I'm asking you to point to a technology.



You have gotten turned around somewhere, I dunno what the last guy was arguing but I never said anything about Africa being "more technologically advanced than Europe." I'd bet actually money that somewhere in this thread someone told you Africa was just more advanced than you thought and you took it as some exceptional arguement about how Muh Dick is gonna obliterate the white race. I've only ever said that the influential parts of Africa were technologically comparable and resistant to invasion until such time as Europe had far better resources than they did.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 21, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> It’s funny how many of the centrists here actually have data and historical knowledge to back up their views while the “race realists” entirely seem to operate on “feels.”
> 
> Moving to a less diverse area engenders a high trust?
> 
> ...



I haven't seen anyone deny that economic class and money are also influencers, but that does not mean they're the only influencers, as you seem to demand.



I've mentioned this putnam study pages back.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x


Here's more data:


Proximity of diverse living reduces trust:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122415577989

It does not show up at the nationwide level in Europe:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0010414008325286

Trust at municipial level decreases with increased diversity in Denmark:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2012.00289.x

Increasing diversity in areas undermines cohesion for those who stay in that area:
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/32/1/54/2404332


Your turn. Give me your data that would support the idea that trust and cohesion do not decrease in neighborhoods that get more diverse.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Your turn. Give me your data that would support the idea that trust and cohesion do not decrease in neighborhoods that get more diverse.



I wish I knew where the fuck you lived so I could sell you some volcano insurance right now.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 21, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> I wish I knew where the fuck you lived so I could sell you some volcano insurance right now.



We've already established that you would gladly steal shit if given the chance, so the chance to ever find out where I live are zero.

Also, no need to get testy if you don't have any data to back up your feelings.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 21, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> So it seems you've revised your position between then and now somewhat, and the main(Well, really only) measuring stick you seem to use for measuring technological advancement is the application of war weapons. You are of course, welcome to correct me.



From me:


> _What technology did they have? _
> Let alone technology for war.



Key phrase "let alone". You're going to have to dig in to see me mention architecture, literature, and art. And see them implying that Europe had to wait 3 centuries until they were able to handily colonize Africa.

I've never revised my position. Feel free to tell me how Africa was in other ways technologically on par with the European powers.



Locomotive Derangement said:


> You have gotten turned around somewhere, I dunno what the last guy was arguing but I never said anything about Africa being *"more technologically advanced than Europe."*



Where did you get those quotations from? Literally from my post that you quoted:


> You're saying these African nations were _essentially as technologically advanced_ as the European powers



And this is what I'm arguing against:


Ped Xing said:


> The Sahelian Empires and Ethiopia were essentially on the same technological level as Europe through the middle ages.



So, for the last time, please tell me about the technology of medieval Africa


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 21, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> We've already established that you would gladly steal shit if given the chance, so the chance to ever find out where I live are zero.



You can't hide that wallet from me forever.


----------



## Pocket Dragoon (Jul 21, 2019)

IAmNotAlpharius said:


> Haiti was a clusterfuck even if you were biracial. The resulting invasion of the Dominican Republic is why many Dominicans would identify more with /pol/ and Uncle Ruckus than Haitiains or black Americans.



Dominicans also like baseball; that often overlooked-as-harmless tool of insidious American imperialism.

Seriously; Puerto Ricans, too.  I often wonder sometimes if baseball is one of the two or three things that keeps them from going full Grenada.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 21, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> Key phrase "let alone". You're going to have to dig in to see me mention architecture, literature, and art. And see them implying that Europe had to wait 3 centuries until they were able to handily colonize Africa.
> 
> I've never revised my position. Feel free to tell me how Africa was in other ways technologically on par with the European powers.


Well now wait you just did it again. Are we talking about Africa having technological parity with Europe being a deciding factor in why Europeans didn't go there in the 15th century or are we talking about Africa just having technological parity with Europe in the 15th century?

Now that I think of it, there doesn't even seem to be much sense comparing technology levels of Africa and Europe given both continents didn't even have technological parity within themselves. Especially Africa.


----------



## Billy_Sama (Jul 21, 2019)

I am appalled that how many literally Hitler votes poll had. 
I thought I was the one and only literal Hitler.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 22, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Well now wait you just did it again. Are we talking about Africa having technological parity with Europe being a deciding factor in why Europeans didn't go there in the 15th century or are we talking about Africa just having technological parity with Europe in the 15th century?
> 
> Now that I think of it, there doesn't even seem to be much sense comparing technology levels of Africa and Europe given both continents didn't even have technological parity within themselves. Especially Africa.



How about you talk about the best of Africa, and we go from there?

And I'm not 'doing it again'. I never did it to begin with outside of your strawman. If you followed along you'd see that the main point is that they weren't on par with eachother. One or both of them tried to use the fact that European powers had to wait 3 centuries to colonize Africa as a kind of proof that Africa was too technologically advanced to conquer.


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 22, 2019)

Africa was definitely backwards by comparison but they were driven by different forces. West Africa was isolated but fantastically wealthy and had kings that could make fortunes just chilling. Their situation was kinda like the Chinese one. They would reach ascendancy and then degenerate until they were conquered by barbarians (aka, Jihadis both arab and black)

Europe had low populations and few resources but had access to huge super highways (Baltic Sea and Mediterranean) and many rivers. European conquest proved to be less than profitable due to the great powers forming giant coalitions thanks to their interconnectedness.  These great powers were basically evenly matched and had to do excess things to thrive. Britain developed a textiles industry by trading with the Dutch. This lead to incredible institutions like the joint-stock company.  Portugal sailed to Mali to transport slaves for the Arabs. The Portuguese learned slavery from the Arabs and started some slave colonies on their Atlantic islands. The rest of Europe saw this and the rest is history.

The Congo? Bit too isolated and shitty to actually get anything done. They're literally in impassable jungles and too far away from everybody to learn new ideas.

Ethiopia? They did a pretty good job at surviving despite being surrounded by Islamic superpowers. They had to move their capitol dozens of times and eventually had to opt for a moving tent city as their capitol.

The things about guns is that they weren't really all that useful if you didn't have armor. The Africans had a tradition of lightly armored soldiers with long thin swords. They live on the equator so this makes sense that they wouldn't have invented the stuff. Why didn't they mass produce guns like the Japanese? Well, they could literally just sell their enemies to buy some so why make them?


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 22, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> How about you talk about the best of Africa, and we go from there?


Ajuran Sultanate looks like a good bet, they existed in the time described, depended heavily on trade and are noted for their construction projects such as castles and cisterns some of which are still in use today.

The wikipedia page actually cites the 15th century Portuguese Explorer Vasco Da Gama on his visit to Ajuran.



> Vasco Da Gama, who passed by Mogadishu in the 15th century, noted that it was a large city with houses of four or five storeys high and big palaces in its centre and many mosques with cylindrical minarets.



I'm trying to find an online copy of the book this cites, I suspect Da Gama's Memoires/Travel Journal would be useful in exploring this topic further. Not just in this case but in the entire length of Africa Da Gama had contact with.




> And I'm not 'doing it again'. I never did it to begin with outside of your strawman. If you followed along you'd see that the main point is that they weren't on par with eachother. One or both of them tried to use the fact that European powers had to wait 3 centuries to colonize Africa as a kind of proof that Africa was too technologically advanced to conquer.


Okay I misunderstood you then.


----------



## FitBitch (Jul 22, 2019)

I'm a nationalist but not in the "white" way, but with a sense of duty and pride in my citizenship and the history of my country.


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 22, 2019)

FitBitch said:


> I'm a nationalist but not in the "white" way, but with a sense of duty and pride in my citizenship and the history of my country.



I would probably be the same if my country were worthy of such adoration.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 22, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Ajuran Sultanate looks like a good bet, they existed in the time described, depended heavily on trade and are noted for their construction projects such as castles and cisterns some of which are still in use today.
> 
> The wikipedia page actually cites the 15th century Portuguese Explorer Vasco Da Gama on his visit to Ajuran.
> 
> ...



I'm actually surprised at how advanced they seem. They were a proxy for the Ottomans.
Still, from what I gather, the Ajuran Sultanate compared to Portugal in the 15th century seems akin to US vs Iraq in modern times. Are you saying they were 'essentially on par', or are you just pointing to a well developed society in medieval Africa?

Here is an interesting thing:


> The Portuguese Empire was unsuccessful of conquering Mogadishu where the powerful naval Portuguese commander called João de Sepúvelda and his army fleets was soundly defeated by the powerful Ajuran navy during the Battle of Benadir.[30]





> Portuguese who sent a punitive expedition against Mogadishu under João de Sepúlveda, which was unsuccessful.[44]



From the wikis of








						Sultanate of Mogadishu - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



+








						Ajuran Sultanate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



Respectively.

However:







> At Mogadishu, João de Sepúlveda "destroyed the city and did them great damage and injury"



Sources for Portuguese victory are 4, sources for the apparent defeat are one.

Regardless, it seems at least from a military perspective, the Portuguese were much more advanced. They sacked a bunch of their cities and ultimately won the war, despite Somalia getting help from the Ottomans. 

On other aspects besides the military, I think you'd be hard pressed to show that they were essentially technologically on par with Portugal. 
I'd say the same for less powerful European countries like Poland and Ireland.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 22, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I haven't seen anyone deny that economic class and money are also influencers, but that does not mean they're the only influencers, as you seem to demand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I don’t need to. 

A & H documents the erosion and threats of our basic constitutional rights by a select class of white people every other day... and yet you’re here patting yourself on the back that you’ve managed to basically hide among the herd and used cherry picked data to support your post hoc rationalizations.

And fuck Europe.

A bunch of white people who couldn’t live together with other white people and then proceeded to rape and kill each other in World War 1 and 2.

Even their colonialism was about screwing other white people over. Black people and Natives just happened to be in the way.

But let me guess? 

It was all the Jews’ fault.


Facebook, Google, Apple, Austin, San Francisco, the hollowing out of Colorado*, Hollywood, Ivy League schools...

How high is your trust setting now?



*fun fact before all the moneyed white transplants showed up New York could actually elect a republican to office to clean up their mess.
Not anymore. Now we have occasional Cortex and Bill de Buttfuckio. 

But these transplants look like you, have money and good taste so what does it matter if their character is completely shot to shit, right?

So long as you “feel safe.”


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> It’s funny how many of the centrists here actually have data and historical knowledge to back up their views while the “race realists” entirely seem to operate on “feels.”





Lemmingwise said:


> I've mentioned this putnam study pages back.
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
> 
> Your turn. Give me your data that would support the idea that trust and cohesion do not decrease in neighborhoods that get more diverse.





BlastDoors41 said:


> I don’t need to.



I rest my case.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 22, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I rest my case.




Just like the last time you still can’t answer a direct question.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 22, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> I'm actually surprised at how advanced they seem. They were a proxy for the Ottomans.
> Still, from what I gather, the Ajuran Sultanate compared to Portugal in the 15th century seems akin to US vs Iraq in modern times. Are you saying they were 'essentially on par', or are you just pointing to a well developed society in medieval Africa?
> 
> Here is an interesting thing:
> ...


Now I am in the mood for some EU4.



BlastDoors41 said:


> Just like the last time you still can’t answer a direct question.



It is generally poor form to continue speaking rhetorically when someone says "Wait how do you know that?"

A cursory wikipedia scan is still better than nothing, and people will understand. We're lazy too.


----------



## Black Waltz (Jul 22, 2019)

did anyone whip out their charts yet


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> It is generally poor form to continue speaking rhetorically when someone says "Wait how do you know that?"
> 
> A cursory wikipedia scan is still better than nothing, and people will understand. We're lazy too.



The funny thing is that all he had to do was check my sources, as one of my sources would support his position (and I even labelled it as such).

But somehow that's still "cherrypicked", lol.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 22, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Now I am in the mood for some EU4.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Please.

As if anyone is here to do anything other than circle jerk themselves into egotistic oblivion.

Whatever sources I provide would never be enough to satisfy any of the rabid race monkeys here.

All of it would be accused of being biased.

And that’s even assuming that I’m some kind of “diversity is always good” sped.

Which I’m not.

I don’t actually have a problem with people disliking other races on a personal level.

It’s this pseudo scientific bullshit that grates. I suppose some white people need to distinguish themselves from the dumb white people out there.

Can’t be grouped in with Uncle Cletus now can we?



However,

I’ll play your game: the Singapore model. The autocratic government refused to allow its citizens to ghetto themselves along income and racial lines.
Their housing project turned up integration to 11 and ripped the knob off by implementing quotas where housing had to be doled out according to a criteria of a diversity of incomes, and ethnic backgrounds.

Now the Singaporeans hate anyone that’s not themselves.

E Pluribus Unum.



Lemmingwise said:


> The funny thing is that all he had to do was check my sources, as one of my sources would support his position (and I even labelled it as such).
> 
> But somehow that's still "cherrypicked", lol.




You don’t even know what a dowry is and refused to find out.

Why should I give you that courtesy?


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 22, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> I’ll play your game: the Singapore model. The autocratic government refused to allow its citizens to ghetto themselves along income and racial lines.



Isn't Singapore like 70% Han Chinese?
Link something.


----------



## CaesarCzech (Jul 22, 2019)

Gustav Schuchardt said:


> What's gradually turning me into a white identitarian is the staggering double standards the media shows about crimes when whites are the victims.
> 
> Genocide of farmers in South Africa? Not happening, goy.
> 
> ...



And then they will expect  The toxic white cismales to bleed for them, Nah fuck that Either we are changing the System or im letting Muslims take you simple as that.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> I’ll play your game: the Singapore model. The autocratic government refused to allow its citizens to ghetto themselves along income and racial lines.
> Their housing project turned up integration to 11 and ripped the knob off by implementing quotas where housing had to be doled out according to a criteria of a diversity of incomes, and ethnic backgrounds.
> 
> Now the Singaporeans hate anyone that’s not themselves.



This is a claim, this is not data.

A cursory glance at what study you might be basing this on hits this:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1966.tb00556.x

But that's from 1965, so I doubt that's it. Can you direct me to the study that you're basing this assessment on?



Autocrat said:


> Isn't Singapore like 70% Han Chinese?



76% according to wikipedia. Huh, that's higher than I thought.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 22, 2019)

Gustav Schuchardt said:


> Sexual enslavement of 1400 white girls in Rotherham?



Stopped reading there. Nice dog whistle, you fucking racist. The real crime is the islamophobia that came from that insignificant scandal.


----------



## Coleslaw (Jul 22, 2019)

I am a national liberal. I believe in individual rights, but also in group rights such as the right to preserve language and culture. The nation must be strong to protect them both.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 22, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> This is a claim, this is not data.
> 
> A cursory glance at what study you might be basing this on hits this:
> 
> ...





This was national Singaporean policy for decades since its independence.

It has not nor ever was an ethnostate by design or by any metric today.

You are the ones making positive claims.

Look it up yourself, I’m not doing it for you.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> You are the ones making positive claims.





BlastDoors41 said:


> Singaporeans hate anyone that’s not themselves.



This is a positive claim too, ya know.

I see my instinct in avoiding you in the previous conversation about sex relations was a good instinct. It's a shame because each time I get the impression that you might have some experiences or knowledge worth sharing and worth reading, I get the impression that you have somewhat of a unique perspective compared to most people I talk to. But you seem to insist on only communicating in a completely combatitive way with a whole list of presumptions and mischaracterizations towards the person you're talking to. As such, your message gets lost in the shuffle.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 22, 2019)

Pocket Dragoon said:


> Dominicans also like baseball; that often overlooked-as-harmless tool of insidious American imperialism.
> 
> Seriously; Puerto Ricans, too.  I often wonder sometimes if baseball is one of the two or three things that keeps them from going full Grenada.



I've noticed this seems to be a thing in a lot of places where the American Empire once treaded. Cuba likes baseball, or at least Castro liked it. Japan also seems vaguely interested in baseball too. It also like the first stereotype a foreigner will ever mention; Americans all watch baseball. I wonder if it has to do with how often financial analysts use baseball terminology in their explanations of complicated theories and its just infected people from there.


----------



## Pocket Dragoon (Jul 22, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Japan also seems vaguely interested in baseball too.



Vaguely?

Baseball is a pretty big thing in Glorious Nippon; the biggest, to the point that scouts almost exclusively prowl either there, or Dominica/Puerto Rico...  especially in recent years.

Baseball was spread in most places OCONUS by natives & locals watching sailors and/or troops play the game; I think most decided that it was a lot better than hunting dangerous things or hurting each other for sport.

I could sperg pretty hard about the linkages that baseball has with diplomacy, and I don't even care much for the game, so I won't.

Because hockey.

Where the game is hunting dangerous things (a puck) AND hurting each other for sport, and the games only last an hour w/o overtime.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 22, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> This is a positive claim too, ya know.
> 
> I see my instinct in avoiding you in the previous conversation about sex relations was a good instinct. It's a shame because each time I get the impression that you might have some experiences or knowledge worth sharing and worth reading, I get the impression that you have somewhat of a unique perspective compared to most people I talk to. But you seem to insist on only communicating in a completely combatitive way with a whole list of presumptions and mischaracterizations towards the person you're talking to. As such, your message gets lost in the shuffle.




Is saying that you need air to breathe a positive claim or an agreed upon fact/given from which we can proceed?


I’m not going to sit here and reenact Peterson vs. Harris 2.0 for four hours and I don’t expect anyone else to either.

It’s counterproductive.

While I found your behavior in the previous thread equally odious, as you might have found mine, let’s move on for the sake of curiosity.

What exactly do you want me to clarify, in good faith this time?


----------



## Black Waltz (Jul 22, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> What exactly do you want me to clarify, in good faith this time?


that niggers are bad obviously


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 22, 2019)

I dunno what the hell is wrong with me, but I'm always surprised when I duck out of debates like this and come back to them only to find that its descended to a point where people are trying to quantify the rules of human communication. Sometimes it gets even worse and you end up with schizophrenics trying to quantify things like primordial thought. It seems like some kind of fundamental issue in the human condition where we cannot figure out what the fuck the other guy is talking about.


----------



## Black Waltz (Jul 22, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> I dunno what the hell is wrong with me, but I'm always surprised when I duck out of debates like this and come back to them only to find that its descended to a point where people are trying to quantify the rules of human communication. Sometimes it gets even worse and you end up with schizophrenics trying to quantify things like primordial thought. It seems like some kind of fundamental issue in the human condition where we cannot figure out what the fuck the other guy is talking about.


that's deep thoughts for ya


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> What exactly do you want me to clarify, in good faith this time?



We were discussing whether homogeneity in communities engenders trust or not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you find that idea utterly ridiculous and that there is no link whatsoever between either ethnic or cultural diversity and the level of trust that people experience in said community.

I also think you think that anyone that brings forwards that idea is either stupidly mistaken or has evil racist intentions. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm trying to describe your perspective as it seems to me and am completely open to you correcting any part of this.

Sidenote: let's if we can, keep our suspicion of each others intent out of the purview of the discussion. Believe that I'm literally hitler if you want.

Now assuming that I correctly identified your perspective, let's focus on the claim itself.

There is a link between the levels of diversity in a community and the level of trust that members in that community experience. As a community gets more diverse, the level of trust decreases.


I've supplied a number of studies that support that claim. You've said that Singapore is an example that supports the opposite tot the claim.

You know what sources built the foundation for my understanding that the claim is true.

I have two questions in regards to your claim about Singapore.

First, by what metric do "Singaporeans hate anyone that’s not themselves"?

Second, what is your general claim about Singapore based on?






BlastDoors41 said:


> Is saying that you need air to breathe a positive claim or an agreed upon fact/given from which we can proceed?



I think the relationship between trust and diversity in Singapore is generally considered beyond people's general knowledge, compared to needing air to breath.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 22, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> There is a link between the levels of diversity in a community and the level of trust that members in that community experience. As a community gets more diverse, the level of trust decreases.



Doesn't this point to the implication that humans seem to prefer being a hivemind where everyone is the same, acts the same and thinks the same? I fully believe less diverse communities do have higher levels of trust but I'm not convinced that operating on a constant overdose of oxytocin and serotonin is neccesarily the best way to get things done.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Doesn't this point to the implication that humans seem to prefer being a hivemind where everyone is the same, acts the same and thinks the same? I fully believe less diverse communities do have higher levels of trust but I'm not convinced that operating on a constant overdose of oxytocin and serotonin is neccesarily the best way to get things done.



Well no, it is wholly possible for people to prefer more diverse communities. You seem to say yourself that level of trust is not high on your priority list of where you'd want to live/work.

Besides, I don't think homogenous communities are either like a hivemind or that everyone is identical (except perhaps to someone in the out-group who finds it easy to stereotype the difference between that group and him/herself, like people who say asians all look or act the same).


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 22, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> Isn't Singapore like 70% Han Chinese?
> Link something.



Odd... Singapore has a utopian standard of living while being majority Han Chinese and diverse while China itself is a shithole. Seems like circumstance and historical decisions make a big difference.






Wuhan City - Hubei Province "Birthplace of the Han people". 95% Han Chinese.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 22, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Well no, it wholly possible for people to prefer more diverse communities. You seem to say yourself that level of trust is not high on your priority list of where you'd want to live/work.



Generally I would prefer not to live in a community where people are so fucking stupid that they get grifted by hucksters on a constant basis. Yet I can't get off this planet so, oh well. 



Lemmingwise said:


> Besides, I don't think homogenous communities are either like a hivemind or that everyone is identical (except perhaps to someone in the out-group who finds it easy to stereotype the difference between that group and him/herself, like people who say asians all look or act the same).



This is, no rhetoric involved, a total contradiction to me. It seems to me a community where trust between people is high is usually very friendly to those wthin the community and rather unfriendly to anyone who happens to show deviation from the norm. High-trust communities have a nasty tendency to turn on even their own when some local has the misfortune of being born weird. That sounds identical to real-life hiveminds, where eusocial creatures are driven to operate collectively by chemical and visual cues, and generally work to destroy deviation. 

I enjoy watching highly collective creatures and societies operating and I occasionally do fantasize about the possiblilty of living and working alongside people where cooperation comes natrually, but at the end of the day I wouldn't want to live in one. Its too easy for the masses to turn on you. Life is already a hellish place where a social fuckup is the end of your career, and I've found that no matter which side I lean on, SJW or race-realist, that someone can always invent a reason to cut you out of the picture when they want to get rid of you.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> This is, no rhetoric involved, a total contradiction to me. It seems to me a community where trust between people is high is usually very friendly to those wthin the community and rather unfriendly to anyone who happens to show deviation from the norm. High-trust communities have a nasty tendency to turn on even their own when some local has the misfortune of being born weird. That sounds identical to real-life hiveminds, where eusocial creatures are driven to operate collectively by chemical and visual cues, and generally work to destroy deviation.



I honestly have no idea where you get the idea from that homogenous high trust communities would be secretly or covertly very nasty and hatefilled towards every type of deviation.

Well I have some idea, because I too watch hollywood movies and shows sometimes. But outside of the way it's depicted in media, I have no idea why anyone would think that. It goes back to Putnam's study; social trust decreased in more diverse communities. But it also decreased between members of in-groups. And more homogenous communities also had higher social trust, including higher trust of out-group members IIRC.

Time to reread that study sometime this week to see if I remembered that correctly.

Also, if you want to decrease the chance of masses turning on you, it could help to discard your worldview where it's okay to steal stuff just because you can. Just sayin'. Maybe your experience is colored by your own behaviour, which may not be wholly innocent?


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 22, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I honestly have no idea where you get the idea from that homogenous high trust communities would be secretly or covertly very nasty and hatefilled towards every type of deviation.
> 
> Also, if you want to decrease the chance of masses turning on you, it could help to discard your worldview where it's okay to steal stuff just because you can. Just sayin'. Maybe your experience is colored by your own behaviour, which may not be wholly innocent?



Truth be told I'm one of those people who stayed honest their entire life and is now deeply regretting every minute of it since I have nothing to show for it. I don't really see the point in being law-abiding anymore, but I'm held in check by the presumption that I'm too incompetent to do anything without getting caught. I've been fucked with by every color of the rainbow and I have to wonder where the hell people get the idea that you can somehow trust one group of people over the other. At this point I'd rather just hack my cut off and enjoy life as a crook.


----------



## Broseph Stalin (Jul 22, 2019)

I guess I'm a right-libertarian nationalist. Just don't wanna live in Africa 2: Electric Bugaloo or import a bunch of rape apes from the Middle East and south of the border.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> Odd... Singapore has a utopian standard of living while being majority Han Chinese and diverse while China itself is a shithole. Seems like circumstance and historical decisions make a big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not going to say this website is anything conclusive, I was just curious and did a couple of random searches.

But the worries about crime seem to be lower in Wuhan and people seem to feel somewhat safer.






According to this website, quality in life is higher in Singapore, mainly due to higher purchasing power and not the disastrous pollution.


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 22, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I'm not going to say this website is anything conclusive, I was just curious and did a couple of random searches.
> 
> But the worries about crime seem to be lower in Wuhan and people seem to feel somewhat safer.
> 
> ...



Be careful with Chinese statistics. They're seldom reliable.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> Be careful with Chinese statistics. They're seldom reliable.



The thought had crossed my mind.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 22, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> Odd... Singapore has a utopian standard of living while being majority Han Chinese and diverse while China itself is a shithole. Seems like circumstance and historical decisions make a big difference.
> 
> View attachment 853552
> 
> Wuhan City - Hubei Province "Birthplace of the Han people". 95% Han Chinese.



I've seen talks lauding Lee Kuan Yew' for leading Singapore into its current age. They talked about how he did this by opening up trade, making English a commonly spoken language, and being welcoming to businesses. I looked at his wiki to get some backstory, and lol...

The reason why Singapore is an independent country, and not a part of Malaysia, is largely because of racial tension.
There have only been 2 riots in post independent Singapore. _Both are related to race._









						1969 race riots of Singapore - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



This was a spillover from a race riot in Malaysia








						2013 Little India riot - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I don't doubt Singapore would be fine with a 100% Han population. I don't think the 15% Malay population is necessarily doing them any favors.

Also, I like how you're using China as an example of a bad ethnostate. I hate China as much as anyone, but they are fast becoming a world superpower on the level of the US.



Lemmingwise said:


> The thought had crossed my mind.



ADVChina mentions their lying statistics often.
Still they are about to be the largest economy, as an authoritarian ethnostate.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 22, 2019)

I also must ask: How is it that you can have a superior race that has not reduced the others to being hunted for sport on reseverations? Human beings have created a world where we have killed every dangerous animal we know of down to it being a novelty. Why I can't I fly to Siberia and shoot a Yakut or go to Africa and shoot a pygmy? Inferior races are failures by defninition. Clearly somebody has fucked up if we're operating  in a world where the other race seethes in great numbers and isn't exterminated right away. 

We seem to exist in a world where our lessers constantly outsmart us. If we're supposed to be the superior race by superior sympathy, it seems we're demonstrating too much trust and letting them swarm us. This dynamic is exceptional. Obviously if another race wants to obliterate you, you should obliterate them. Right? Or are people getting cold feet in this one? Why the fuck hasn't X race conquered the world yet? Give me a side I can actually be on here.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 22, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> I also must ask: How is it that you can have a superior race that has not reduced the others to being hunted for sport on reseverations? Human beings have created a world where we have killed every dangerous animal we know of down to it being a novelty. Why I can't I fly to Siberia and shoot a Yakut or go to Africa and shoot a pygmy? Inferior races are failures by defninition. Clearly somebody has fucked up if we're operating in a world where the other race seethes in great numbers and isn't exterminated right away.
> 
> We seem to exist in a world where our lessers constantly outsmart us. If we're supposed to be the superior race by superior sympathy, it seems we're demonstrating too much trust and letting them swarm us. This dynamic is exceptional. Obviously if another race wants to obliterate you, you should obliterate them. Right? Or are people getting cold feet in this one? Why the fuck hasn't X race conquered the world yet? Give me a side I can actually be on here.



Hey if you want a race war that is your bag, it certainly isn't mine. It is a modern myth that recognition of group genetic differences can only lead to race wars.

Which race wants to obliterate which race exactly?

As for pygmy's, they are often slaves of bantu. If you brought enough money and/or food you would probably be allowed to do so.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 22, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> I also must ask: How is it that you can have a superior race that has not reduced the others to being hunted for sport on reseverations? Human beings have created a world where we have killed every dangerous animal we know of down to it being a novelty. Why I can't I fly to Siberia and shoot a Yakut or go to Africa and shoot a pygmy? Inferior races are failures by defninition. Clearly somebody has fucked up if we're operating  in a world where the other race seethes in great numbers and isn't exterminated right away.
> 
> We seem to exist in a world where our lessers constantly outsmart us. If we're supposed to be the superior race by superior sympathy, it seems we're demonstrating too much trust and letting them swarm us. This dynamic is exceptional. Obviously if another race wants to obliterate you, you should obliterate them. Right? Or are people getting cold feet in this one? Why the fuck hasn't X race conquered the world yet? Give me a side I can actually be on here.



Firstly, I'm not a racist as much of a 'culture-realist', or something. I'm just a realist. If the science ends up proving it, I will be a race realist. The data certainly points there. 

Are you saying that, if you wanted to kill a bunch of Pygmies, you would be stopped or outsmarted by other Pygmies? Are you saying that the fact that you aren't allowed to kill Pygmies is a sign that they aren't an inferior people?

The western world certainly has the ability to genocide / enslave the developing world. Do you think we should?


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 22, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> Firstly, I'm not a racist as much of a 'culture-realist', or something. I'm just a realist. If the science ends up proving it, I will be a race realist. The data certainly points there.
> 
> Are you saying that, if you wanted to kill a bunch of Pygmies, you would be stopped or outsmarted by other Pygmies? Are you saying that the fact that you aren't allowed to kill Pygmies is a sign that they aren't an inferior people?
> 
> The western world certainly has the ability to genocide / enslave the developing world. Do you think we should?





Lemmingwise said:


> Hey if you want a race war that is your bag, it certainly isn't mine. It is a modern myth that recognition of group genetic differences can only lead to race wars.
> 
> Which race wants to obliterate which race exactly?
> 
> As for pygmy's, they are often slaves of bantu. If you brought enough money and/or food you would probably be allowed to do so.





Autocrat said:


> Do you think we should?



Good lord. The exact point I was making here is that if the inferior races were that inferior, they would already be corraled and controlled and mostly extinct. Its been pretty well demonstrated that the extreme losers of colonialism have a future of being treated like circus animals to look forward to. Guess we stopped short out of the goodness of our hearts. I want a race war because I'm interested in seeing the score settled and every corpse on the ground is an extra like from me anyway. I've got no horse in this game, I want to watch assholes kill each other in HD.


----------



## SilkGnut (Jul 22, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Good lord. The exact point I was making here is that if the inferior races were that inferior, they would already be corraled and controlled and mostly extinct. Its been pretty well demonstrated that the extreme losers of colonialism have a future of being treated like circus animals to look forward to. Guess we stopped short out of the goodness of our hearts. I want a race war because I'm interested in seeing the score settled and every corpse on the ground is an extra like from me anyway. I've got no horse in this game, I want to watch assholes kill each other in HD.


Have you ever researched Tartaria? It is kinda crazy how much WW1 propaganda involved taking out The Huns and the Russians sure have lost BUNCHES of people over the years. 

Just cuz you ain't payin attention does not mean the process has stopped.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 22, 2019)

SilkGnut said:


> Have you ever researched Tartaria? It is kinda crazy how much WW1 propaganda involved taking out The Huns and the Russians sure have lost BUNCHES of people over the years.
> 
> Just cuz you ain't payin attention does not mean the process has stopped.



Doesn't seem like they put up that much of a fight compared to the others.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 23, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> I want to watch assholes kill each other in HD.



Your destructive, consumerist apathy is badass.

Let's say I can beat someone in a fight. Let's say I'm also smarter than that person, higher socioeconomic status, and better looking. This person is homeless, without any family, and very few friends. 



> If you're so much better than that person, why aren't they your slave?



It is not out of the realm of possibility. It is absolutely possible to kidnap that person, and violently brainwash them. 
There are even other, less violent and more consensual ways to go about it. It can start with me befriending them and having them do chores for me in exchange for a roof over their head. Then this would slowly progress.

What I'm saying is, the difference between a person with sufficiently more power either enslaving or not enslaving a person with less power, is their will to do so. 
As a culture, the west does not have that will. In a lot of ways, they've replaced it with guilt. 

Blacks didn't emancipate themselves in the US. White people did. White people went to war with eachother to end the slavery of black people. 
Do you think the US should've kept slavery?


----------



## AmericanCapitalism (Jul 23, 2019)

I genuinely want to watch the world burn, but if you were to put me in the spectrum, I would be socially and economically liberal. I just want to mind my own business. Fuck off government; I want to grow shrooms in peace!



Vorhtbame said:


> I don't believe that the push for a "Positive Christianity", stripped of its inconvenient doctrines and principles and turned into a mouthpiece for "progressive" policies, while also pushing outdated paganism, is anything less than spiritual poison.


That's literally the only cool thing about Christianity: brutality! Strip it off it's extreme beliefs and you get a bunch of fucking hippies speaking in tongues at the sky.


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Jul 23, 2019)

As long as we abolish the U.N. and put a stop to globalizing laws, forms of government, etc. than we're fine.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 23, 2019)

AmericanCapitalism said:


> Fuck off government; I want to grow shrooms in peace!



I really doubt the government will mess with your shroom cultivation


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Jul 23, 2019)

I was going to write out a much longer, and better thought out response to this, that is, until I read the thread. Holy shit.

Anyway, I don't fit well into any of these categories. I don't necessarily hate blacks and browns, but I don't necessarily like them on the whole, or their presence in my country, either. I absolutely do hate jews and muslims, though. I'm not a socialist, so I couldn't be dropped into the Nazi category. I like the idea of a white ethnostate, but understand that realistically, it couldn't be America, without a really solid genocide. I am a proponent of eugenics/social darwinism, and firmly believe that we'd have an infinitely better and more sustainable world without people below 90IQ. At the same time, though, that's only an ideal and I fully understand that it wouldn't work out. A man can still dream.

I don't just believe, but know, that we are the sum of our genes and literally nothing more. They control everything down to our favorite colors and food preferences. I also know that the genetic differences between the races have a gigantic, collosal, impact on how we behave, and how intelligent and/or creative we are. There is a reason why Africans still live in straw huts, and it isn't 'muh slavery'. It's not even 'muh poverty'. They're just incredibly dumb. It's pointless to hate stupid, and if anything, a little mean, which is why I don't hate blacks, but at the same time, I don't pity them. Their situation in America (that is to say, ghettoized black inner-city neighborhoods) was self-created, and they have the means, but not the will, to make things better for themselves. Their fetishization of thug culture, fatherlessness, voting for their captors, and hard drug abuse put them in that situation, and maybe in a generation or two they might learn that their current way of life is self-destructive.

Aside from that, I'm a moderately libertarian nationalist who wouldn't change anything about the original bill of rights, but I also understand that America as it is today is extremely unconstitutional, and run by oligarchs who are far worse people than I could ever be. I love my country, but hate my government, and I'd gladly take up arms with anybody except the yids to bring the country back to the way it should be.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 23, 2019)

ArnoldPalmer said:


> I was going to write out a much longer, and better thought out response to this, that is, until I read the thread. Holy shit.


What else were you going to write about?


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 23, 2019)

ArnoldPalmer said:


> I don't just believe, but know, that _we are the sum of our genes and literally nothing more_. They control everything down to our favorite colors and food preferences.



Well that 'knowledge' goes against the science.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Jul 23, 2019)

AmericanCapitalism said:


> That's literally the only cool thing about Christianity: brutality! Strip it off it's extreme beliefs and you get a bunch of fucking hippies speaking in tongues at the sky.



@Give Her The D , I found one for you.  They always get mad when you suggest that religion _shouldn't_ be the puppet of the government.



ArnoldPalmer said:


> firmly believe that we'd have an infinitely better and more sustainable world without people below 90IQ.



I firmly believe you don't understand how IQ works, Mr. Master Race.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 23, 2019)

@Lemmingwise 


You’ve by now read up on Singapore’s history somewhat.

Lee Kuan Yew’s housing project reform was in direct response to the race riots that happened post independence.
Because on the face of it people have to be made to get along.

Throwing a bunch of disparate cultures together doesn’t a country or nation make.


The Singapore housing project was a government run program that set up quotas based on income and race and religion. 

 By preventing people from shuffling off into self made ghettos Singapore was able to create nation of people who identify as Singaporeans first and are upwardly economically mobile.

And yes that _includes the Malays so people can go piss off with that “not doing Singapore any favors” line._

Turns out that socializing with your “betters” allows people to find other aspirational models of behavior.

Everyone in Singapore enjoys high trust, Japan levels of safety and very high living standards. 

I don’t have the time to find the links right now but any article from the Singapore times or the strait (?) on immigration will discuss the antipathy they have for immigrants.

Except, immigrants in Singaporean parlance means foreigners who come to the island and drive up the cost of property.

This was only possible with strong governance and a political system that wasn’t interested in playing identity politics and “superior master race” games.

Lee Kuan Yew posited that a strong autocratic policy was needed because you couldn’t trust the populace to do the right thing on their own. 



If the US has lower integration and trust I would point out that we have a loooong history of race hustling as a side gig for politicians.

Our housing projects are where we dumped poor blacks and our rich, virtue signaling leftists are all NIMBYs in disguise who chimp out at being in close proximity to a homeless shelter.

With the exception of bussing we have no real concentrated effort of integration across both class and racial lines. I would say that such efforts are often subverted by various parties for their own gain.
This is, in my opinion, because we falsely believe that integration and assimilation are not necessary for our survival.

Entrenchment along racial and ethnic lines might work out for you in the short term but it is a highly destructive path for the US that will lead to further Balkanization.

I am not saying that different people are going to magically get along. It requires serious effort and political leaders who care more about the health of our nation. 

Furthermore,

I don’t know how it is you are on Kiwifarms and you have not experienced some level of alienation from your in group.

I have seen white people treat other whites people from the same middle class neighborhoods like shit for all kinds of petty ass things real or imagined. Not having as much money as the next kid, or even having frugal parents was often enough.

And the catholic - Protestant divide is an old wound that some mega churches love to leverage still.

I don’t really know how you can posit homogeneous groups as being free of drawbacks when we’ve seen such groups turn on each other spectacularly when the out group has been eliminated.
The Khmer Rouge killed other Cambodians.
The Han Chinese murdered 60 million of their own during the Cultural Revolution.
And I found out today that along with the million other horrible things that Stalinist Russia did.. they sent their own recovered POWs to the gulags for “failing.”
Italians were lynched by the KKK.
The Irish here were treated like black Americans originally.
The Irish over _there _blow each other and the English up...

I mean what is “high trust” when the white people you’re living with are soy latte drinking, hipsters who keep voting for policies that have turned San Francisco and Austin into a dump?

Those lefty white people entrench themselves in high income, homogeneous, neighborhoods, too.

And if you actually get a chance to interact with the elite... well they have more in common with each other than they do with you or I even if they shared our cultural backgrounds on a superficial level.

Because they went to the same Swiss boarding schools, appreciate caviar and own yachts... 

And you and I don’t/didn’t.



I’m not asking anyone to sacrifice their personal well being and go live in the crime ridden ghetto as some kind of white savior but... if we get to the point where people are retreating into ethnic enclaves because none of us have anything higher to hold us together or refuse to give each other the benefit of the doubt

Then the American experiment is in serious trouble.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 23, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> Do you think the US should've kept slavery?



Essentially if I saw demonstrable proof that black people (or whatever race) was actually inferior then I probably wouldn't mind the institution. Though that said even in a world where we have a verified inferior race I would still support the existence of a human ASPCA of sorts to prevent masters from abusing the shit out of their slaves and serfs on the grounds such a thing is just not conductive to society since it creates psychopaths and lunatics. 

This whole theory is hypothetical anyway since I think slavery, serfdom and to an extent peasantry is a psychological state generated by the fact that having someone else above your head make all the descisions is a universal fantasy that I'm pretty sure most people indulge in a little bit in their lives. Think about it for a minute. As a slave, your needs are provided for. To some extent. Life is kind of simple in a way I'm pretty sure a lot of slaves enjoyed. The flipside is of course the power your master has over you and the fact that masters were able to abuse their slaves or otherwise neglect them in horrific ways. 

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can become a slave by just submitting and accepting a life where everything is planned out and the descisions are out of your hands. Seems to me most humans fucking suck at deciding their futures anyway, which is why laws had to be implemented to prevent people from signing themselves over into involuntary servitude. 



Autocrat said:


> Your destructive, consumerist apathy is badass.



I wish. Much like being honest in my life, being an asshole has also left me with nothing to show for it. At this point I've just decided that I like what I like, and I like to see objects and people get broken.


----------



## Autocrat (Jul 23, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Having someone else above your head make all the decisions is a universal fantasy



It certainly isn't mine. I think the world would be dramatically better if everyone did as I told them.

You talk about wanting destruction and yet you're throwing morality into everything. Why isn't colonialism and slavery right, simply by virtue of Manifest Destiny? Why can't people completely dehumanize and abuse their slaves if that's what they want?


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 23, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> @Lemmingwise
> 
> 
> You’ve by now read up on Singapore’s history somewhat.
> ...


The length of this wouldn't be so bad if it were better formatted and didn't look like a crazy person's online five minute 2am manifesto for changing the world.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 23, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> The length of this wouldn't be so bad if it were better formatted and didn't look like a crazy person's online five minute 2am manifesto for changing the world.



I’m on Mobile and seem to be having formatting issues.
I’ll get around to fixing it at some point.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 23, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> It certainly isn't mine. I think the world would be dramatically better if everyone did as I told them.



Profile name checks out. I more or less agree on this point, though I do have the ability to admit that in my darkest financial moments I would have seriously considered signing myself over to a master in exchange for a more stable future. Obviously an arrangement like that probably would have sucked in the long run but I can understand the mindset of the people who ended up in a state of indentured servitude and the like. Obviously a bunch of slaves didn't have that choice but the system was stable enough that I presume plenty of them were content with their situation so long as their masters were calm or reasonable people. People can be really unambitious.



Autocrat said:


> You talk about wanting destruction and yet you're throwing morality into everything. Why isn't colonialism and slavery right, simply by virtue of Manifest Destiny? Why can't people completely dehumanize and abuse their slaves if that's what they want?



I mentioned this in my original post on the topic. Abusing people and treating them like shit rarely results in someone docile, and even if it does they're usually just a broken mess at best. At worst, you get psychopaths and lunatics who have no control over themselves and are bound to freak out and break someone's neck. Not good for general stability. Same reason you shouldn't whip farm animals or beat the shit out of your dog when it pisses on the carpet. That's just common sense, to be honest.

Manifest Destiny is a neat idea. Superior ability breeds superior ambition of course. I just don't think conquest should be limited by infantile doctrines like race realism. Jonnie Black Dude can still fly a plane and fire a gun even if some set of statistics says he's .0006% less intelligent than my definitely stupid white underlings are supposed to be. Racial hierachies and caste systems just lead to inefficient societies down the road.

Regarding morality I just filter everything though my own perspective these days and try to be more comfortable with developing a narcissistic personality. As I said, I like what I like. I reccomend this if you want to live up to your profile name, by the way. If you need a set of statistics or a societal code to justify your superiority, you are exceptional.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Jul 24, 2019)

I subdivide each and every individual down to their own unique race.  Then I come up with stereotypes to make fun of.

Sometimes you want to respect individuality but still want to generalize, you know?

Arnold Palmer's race's characteristics include a love of boring non-alcoholic mixed drinks, an unearned sense of superiority, and have you ever noticed you really can't tell one Arnold Palmer from another?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 25, 2019)

Vorhtbame said:


> I firmly believe you don't understand how IQ works, Mr. Master Race.



It's a funny comment, but you know what he meant. If someone said "we only should let the tallest 20% of people breed", besides saying holy shit eugenics batman, it would be a kafka trap to say "Yeah, but then the next generation that marker shifts". Well, yeah, that would be the point.

-----




BlastDoors41 said:


> You’ve by now read up on Singapore’s history somewhat



Alright I've given the topic a little time to breath. So many of the things you say I want to engage with. You write interesting stuff. But you didn't answer the questions that I asked.

I asked you two things; by what metric Singaporeans hate anyone that's not themselves.

And what your general claim in regards to Singapore is based on.

You do not seem to have answered either question.

The reason I ask your source because I'm trying to figure out how you construct your worldview. Just explaining your worldview itself further doesn't really help om that regard.

You seemed to be proud of being on the side of data, but you have yet failed to provide any.

Furthermore you make the claim that Singaporeans completely did away with identity politics and that they regard themselves Singaporean whether they're malay, han chinese or indian and that they hate foreign immigrants equally.

Might I remind you that "Singaporean" is an identity as well. Succesful civic nationalism may be an argument against things like ethnonationalism, but it is still a form of identity politics.

Furthermore, you claim equal levels of trust and safety to Japan, but a cursory glance (by no means authorative or exhaustive) shows that when compared, Japan has higher trust and lower crime.






						Crime Comparison Between Japan And Singapore. Safety Comparison.
					






					www.numbeo.com
				






Spoiler: some more replies






BlastDoors41 said:


> I don’t really know how you can posit homogeneous groups as being free of drawbacks



Where do I posit that? Quote me. I don't think I've ever said it was free of drawbacks. I'm not saying homogenous communities are a cure to evrything.



BlastDoors41 said:


> I don’t know how it is you are on Kiwifarms and you have not experienced some level of alienation from your in group.



Why would wasting a couple of my hours on a new zealand dairy newsgroup cause alienation? I'm really at a loss here what your thinking is. What type of alienation from whom would you expect?



BlastDoors41 said:


> Those lefty white people entrench themselves in high income, homogeneous, neighborhoods, too.



This is really evidence of how much people enjoy homogenous neighborhoods though, isn't it? That even the people that believe wholeheartedly in... let's say the great mixing pot experiment instead prefer to act out the salad bowl results instead.






BlastDoors41 said:


> Then the American experiment is in serious trouble.



It is.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jul 25, 2019)

To any "woke" lolcow, literally everyone on Kiwi Farms is "alt-right." To any "alt-right" lolcow, we're all "woke" instead.

It's almost like a quantum physics thing.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 25, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's a funny comment, but you know what he meant. If someone said "we only should let the tallest 20% of people breed", besides saying holy shit eugenics batman, it would be a kafka trap to say "Yeah, but then the next generation that marker shifts". Well, yeah, that would be the point.
> 
> -----
> 
> ...




Dude... I like to sprinkle humor and dry asides in what I write.
I’m not going to do a /sneed every time I employ it.
I really don’t want this whole thing to grind to a halt discussing the meaning of “is.”

Also, I did point to where you could find Singapore specific news on immigration. I’ll throw you a bone here. However, I’m not getting paid to do this so please don’t expect me to dump a million links into my posts. I’m not being rude, I’m just lazy.

Also what general claim are you talking about?
I made two. One was that Singapore is a melting pot/ salad bowl success story. The metrics speak on that alone. 


And So what if being Singaporean is an identity?Where do you get that I’m against having a group identity? 
I’m not a commie Marxist!! 
I’d be a hypocrite if I were since I’m American above all other things.
My point was that Singapore was largely successful in subsuming many identities under one umbrella.

Singapore’s crime vis a vis Japan is largely splitting hairs for one. Both countries routinely jostle each other for being “safest and cleanest” in Asia. There is very little material difference between that two nations in that aspect.

However... the increase in _foreigners_ who don’t share Singaporean beliefs and values _is_ a factor in fluctuating crime stats.
But that’s always been the case anywhere in the world.


----------



## Traveler (Jul 25, 2019)

Emperor Julian said:


> The problem is more complex than it initially appears, the presence of shitposters who are just faking and hardline conservatives who draw the line at a certain point creates a certain level of ambiguity. I'm not even completly convinced Null is actually pro-ethnostate considering how much of a subversive little bugger he  is outside of his hate boner for the UK.
> 
> I mean how often are people really dumb enough to believe that shit, suck tyrant dick and how many of them are also going to be functional enough to look down on anyone enough to come here and play nice with others?
> 
> Personally you can be any colour you want as long as you DO AS I COMMAND!



My liege, may I propose a solution (No not that one) that will rid us of our radically dangerous citizens, an accelerationist ethnostate, ban marriage between those of the same race, in about 3-4 generations all objects of hate will be exterminated, you hate the whites breed em', you hate b;lacks breed em' you hate, mexicans breed em' etc...   even though I stole this from jregs latest video


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 25, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> And So what if being Singaporean is an identity?Where do you get that I’m against having a group identity?



You said the success was because they discarded identity politics, when it's explicitly identity politics that's part of their success *by your own claims*:



BlastDoors41 said:


> This was only possible with strong governance and a political system that wasn’t interested in playing identity politics and “superior master race” games.





BlastDoors41 said:


> Now the Singaporeans hate anyone that’s not themselves.



Look, you don't have to share data. I just thought that as someone who was so chuffed about their side's reliance on data and truth compared to "the feels" of those that disagree that you would have had something better than "Singapore is safe", considering that says very little about the relationship between homogeneity and safety.

I don't disagree that Singapore is a success story (if you back earlier in this thread, you'll see I pointed Singapore out as such before you posted in the thread).


*There is a link between the levels of diversity in a community and the level of trust that members in that community experience.*


I honestly thought you would have had something better and would have given me some reason to rethink my position, because I'm always curious to learn when I'm wrong about something. It really isn't rherotic, I'm genuinely dissapointed, because I thought my ideas would be challenged by something more substantive than "Singapore is safe".


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 25, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> You said the success was because they discarded identity politics, when it's explicitly identity politics that's part of their success *by your own claims*:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




For fuck’s sake, this is going to be a retread of the other thread,  I can see that now.

You obviously are operating on a completely different definition of identity politics than everyone on KiwiFarms.
There’s a reason that it’s used as a pejorative. It is not a neutral term.

Identity politics = race hustling dressed up in fancy words.

It is not the same thing as being a _nationalist.  _Largely because identity politics are intrinsically defined by power dynamics in a hierarchy.
Are you equating nationalism to patriotism to identity politics?
Do we need to take a moment to figure out what our personal definitions are? I’m being serious.

furthermore, I made a comment to _another_ poster specifically about some of the racist ass, historically inaccurate cherry picked shit this kind of honey pot post brings out in people. Did you want to back and argue about that or did you want to have an actual discussion?


And what exactly do you think I believe and what should I be convincing you of?

I listed a number of factors outside of “diversity” that leads to civil strife and utilized a highly successful example, Singapore, to illustrate how to prevent entrenchment along racial lines and maintain high trust etc.. 

I gave you an example that runs counter to your thesis and introduced and elaborated on factors that would influence the data you are pulling your conclusions from.

All of a sudden Singapore’s safety and crime stats are shallow now? But you’re the one who brought that up as a metric and compared them to Japan. What _else_ are you looking for? Maybe you should just go live there???


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jul 25, 2019)

Traveler said:


> My liege, may I propose a solution (No not that one) that will rid us of our radically dangerous citizens, an accelerationist ethnostate, ban marriage between those of the same race, in about 3-4 generations all objects of hate will be exterminated, you hate the whites breed em', you hate b;lacks breed em' you hate, mexicans breed em' etc...   even though I stole this from jregs latest video




My idea is that we just make everyone Roman via academies worked so well last everyone is still kind of roman.


----------



## Traveler (Jul 25, 2019)

hey anything is better than anti centrism


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 25, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> I think I'm unironically a Facist. I support national identity and miltary might + crushing dissenting opinion and strong national religion propagated by the state
> 
> I just value order and structure in society over democracy and chaos of choice. I think Facism is the best way to achieve that.
> 
> Of course this system greatly disadvantages me and everyone but I'm just ideologically drawn to it. I can't just turn around and say peace for all if I don't believe it


I literally can't fathom this mindset.  You recognize and outright state that Fascism makes everyone's life worse and isn't desirable, and you continue to support it.  Legitimately how do you not collapse from the cognitive dissonance of "This system is horrible and will make everyone miserable and lower quality of life across the board and we need to implement it now."?


----------



## Pocket Dragoon (Jul 25, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> I think I'm unironically a Facist. I support national identity and miltary might + crushing dissenting opinion and strong national religion propagated by the state
> 
> I just value order and structure in society over democracy and chaos of choice. I think Facism is the best way to achieve that.
> 
> ...



Fascist?  Ha.

Your new name is Nork.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 25, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> Idk. The fact I'll probably be dead before its implemented. But like I said I don't value Happiness I value Structure and Order as the be all and end of a society


So your ideal world is one in which all life is extinct and a swarm of self-replicating automata endlessly create copies of geometrically-perfect, symmetrical monoliths positioned evenly across the entire available surface area of the Earth?
Edit: Humans are inherently disorderly and unstructured, because they pursue things like "food" and "shelter" and "comfort" over constantly and endlessly maximizing structure.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Jul 25, 2019)

I'd just rather not have the western world become the 3rd world.


----------



## Pocket Dragoon (Jul 25, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> View attachment 859408
> 
> I'd just rather not have the western world become the 3rd world.



I dunno, man.  I've seen homeless camps near as bad as that, all over the US, and a fucking lot of 'em are white and able-bodied.

Hedge monkeys, I've heard 'em called.
Apt.



Senior Lexmechanic said:


> So your ideal world is one in which all life is extinct and a swarm of self-replicating automata endlessly create copies of geometrically-perfect, symmetrical monoliths positioned evenly across the entire available surface area of the Earth?



The first thing that came to mind when I read Nork's post, was that he's talking about a Juche ideology and society.

Which is just hyperpowered & atrophied Bolshevik communism.

The boy can't even extremist right.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Jul 25, 2019)

Pocket Dragoon said:


> I dunno, man.  I've seen homeless camps near as bad as that, all over the US, and a fucking lot of 'em are white and able-bodied.
> 
> Hedge monkeys, I've heard 'em called.
> Apt.


Most of them being in states like California, and Washington I'm guessing?  That's not an entire continent.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 25, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> I follow the 4 noble truths of Buddhism (Well the first 3)
> 
> 1. Suffering, pain, and misery exist in life
> 
> ...


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Buddhist philosophy if you think that totalitarianism is the logical endpoint.  Like, you are missing _two_ of the Three Fatal Venoms: Fear, Anger, and Pleasure give rise to Desire, which cause suffering.  Totalitarianism reduces the third while vastly exacerbating the first and second.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 25, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> I think I'm unironically a Facist. I support national identity and miltary might + crushing dissenting opinion and strong national religion propagated by the state
> 
> I just value order and structure in society over democracy and chaos of choice. I think Facism is the best way to achieve that.
> 
> ...



I know how you feel. That said, Fascism has too many stupid rules to really stick with it. Their focus on racial purity eventually destroys any chance of alliances. That devotion to purity and circumstance is just a waste of time and they inevitably turn on each other.


----------



## Pocket Dragoon (Jul 25, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Most of them being in states like California, and Washington I'm guessing?  That's not an entire continent.



And those aren't even states I've been to yet!

So far, I've seen large camps in NM, AZ, CO, TX, LA, MS, TN, AL, MD, NC, PA, MI, IL, WI, the DoC, and of course, Florida.

Some of them are only located in/near major metro areas, like Albuquerque, Austin, DFW, New Orleans, Memphis, Madison, Lansing (or Kalamazoo, or Pontiac, or...), Pittsburgh, Myrtle Beach, etc.

Others can be found across the entire state/district; see Florida, Colorado, DC, and Michigan.

So yeah, that's a pretty large chunk of the US; or are we talking Canada too?
Because there are lots of places in Windsor & Toronto that ain't so clean anymore.

These camps aren't hard to find; just follow the stench of patchoulli & trails of discarded spice packets, party fliers, empty vape cartridges, bottles of skol & thunderbird, dog shit, or wherever the Rusted Root is coming from.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 26, 2019)

Pocket Dragoon said:


> These camps aren't hard to find; just follow the stench of patchoulli & trails of discarded spice packets, party fliers, empty vape cartridges, bottles of skol & thunderbird, dog shit, or wherever the Rusted Root is coming from.



I live in a pretty small area and you should seriously see the number of people who line up outside of soup kitchens. Its like half the population has just fucking given up on life.


----------



## JoshPlz (Jul 26, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> I’m on Mobile and seem to be having formatting issues.
> I’ll get around to fixing it at some point.


You must be a connoisseur of punishment to type up something like that on mobile.



Pocket Dragoon said:


> I dunno, man.  I've seen homeless camps near as bad as that, all over the US, and a fucking lot of 'em are white and able-bodied.
> 
> Hedge monkeys, I've heard 'em called.
> Apt.


You are right, but those homeless camps still only make out a small percentage of the population - not the majority of the country.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 26, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> 3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases


I don't think you appreciate the full meaning of "Desire" here. The desire to eat, drink, and to sustain your biological functions such that you are able maintain your current state-of-being all fall into that category. From a certain perspective you could say the desire to live is the fundamental attachment-source of all suffering, for it is where all other desires are spawned from.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 26, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> I don't think you appreciate the full meaning of "Desire" here. The desire to eat, drink, and to sustain your biological functions such that you are able maintain your current state-of-being all fall into that category. From a certain perspective you could say the desire to live is the fundamental attachment-source of all suffering, for it is where all other desires are spawned from.




Buddhism is horribly misrepresented in the west.

It isn’t about living a life of denial and a cursory examination of the life of the Buddha would show that.  It’s a philosophy that rejects both hedonism and extreme asceticism. Buddhism is also not a pacifist religion either.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 26, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> Buddhism is horribly misrepresented in the west.
> 
> It isn’t about living a life of denial and a cursory examination of the life of the Buddha would show that.  It’s a philosophy that rejects both hedonism and extreme asceticism. Buddhism is also not a pacifist religion either.


My observation is that it isn't really about "Denial" so much as ceasing to want in the first place. But then Buddhism much like Christianity comes in many flavors.


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (Jul 26, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Most of them being in states like California, and Washington I'm guessing?  That's not an entire continent.



Austin, Vancouver, Toronto, and numerous other large cities in North America have large homeless camps.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Jul 26, 2019)

Anyone who actually supports Fascism or Nazism post-1945 is an idiot and an edgy faggot, no different that all those SJW's and Antifa punks who support Communism post-1991. 

The guys at /pol/ and The Daily Stormer need to realize that World War II is over, and their side lost.

Same goes for Chapo Trap House, VICE, and all those Antifa groups who need to realize that the Cold War is over and their side lost.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 26, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> Eh. Whatever gives people the very least amount of control and freedom I'm good with.


Alright, so you want a world in which absolutely everyone is a wireheaded drone running off of a preprogrammed script that makes them pick up rocks and carry them from one place to another, forever?
Quick question: is "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" _Utopian_ fiction to you?


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 26, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Alright, so you want a world in which absolutely everyone is a wireheaded drone running off of a preprogrammed script that makes them pick up rocks and carry them from one place to another, forever?
> Quick question: is "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" _Utopian_ fiction to you?



It absolutely is if I get to be the Allied Mastercomputer. That story is flawed though since I think I could reason with it enough to strike a deal with it. It despises humanity on a scale I cannot comprehend, and I despise humanity on a scale it cannot comprehend. We'd complete each other.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jul 26, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> So is my ideal horrifying? Yes probably. Will it create the perfect structured socitey? I think so. Its the difference between what feels the best vs what will work the best.



I don't think it will Pretty much every heavily centralized state like you suggest has been chaos at the top, the Reich for example was a total shit show once you get past the Propaghanda.


----------



## Pocket Dragoon (Jul 26, 2019)

JoshPlz said:


> You are right, but those homeless camps still only make out a small percentage of the population - not the majority of the country.



I never said anything about "most" or "majority"; only "a lot".

15 states and two Canadian provinces counts as a pretty large chunk of N. America.  And I'm not talking just passing through; I've crisscrossed them all & lived in many, more often than I care to think much about.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jul 26, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> Well yeah. Pretty much.
> 
> I remember reading Plato's Republic where he described a system where only miltary might and athleticism was encouraged. The only songs are ones which bring glory to the state.
> 
> ...


Well it's all working the best, but towards what end? Nobody's happy and everybody's just a mindless drone, why even bother if there's no personal satisfaction for anybody?


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jul 26, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> Eh idk. Just feels right to me.




Yeah I'm not buying this, you're just shitposting.


----------



## SpeedIsMyNeed (Jul 27, 2019)

Arent nationals just patriots?


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 27, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> Eh idk. Just feels right to me.


You're either a troll or are literally as Autistic as Kant.  Literally no historical authoritarian thinks like you.  Authoritarians and fascists generally believe that their systems create the correct state for the human spirit to thrive; they don't view building an increasingly larger pile of rocks as an end-in-itself.


----------



## KingFrampt (Jul 27, 2019)

Heres hoping this site doesn't eventually turn into chapofaghouse levels of faggotry.

I'm none of the above, I don't have any hate towards any particular race really. My political decisions (i.e. who to vote for) are mostly just picked by what I think would be the funniest if it won. 

All that being said, does it really matter if someone on this site hates the niggers? we all mostly have one common goal


----------



## TaimuRadiu (Jul 28, 2019)

I'll cop to being an American nationalist and someone who believes in the right to free speech above all other things. This of course makes me super mecha Hitler.


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 28, 2019)

Nationalist spergs tend to put freedom well below their bizarre obsession with the Treaty of Westphalia. It's abit difficult to not get frustrated with this level of exceptionalism. 



ApatheticViewer said:


> I think I'm unironically a Facist. I support national identity and miltary might + crushing dissenting opinion and strong national religion propagated by the state



And instead you'll get a multicultural identity that crushes dissent through bureaucracy and a national religion based around protecting peoples feelings. State power means inefficiency and constant power struggles - just need to look at the last 2000 years of history. China in particular does a good job at highlighting this. 



BlastDoors41 said:


> Buddhism is horribly misrepresented in the west.
> 
> It isn’t about living a life of denial and a cursory examination of the life of the Buddha would show that.  It’s a philosophy that rejects both hedonism and extreme asceticism. Buddhism is also not a pacifist religion either.



Depends on the Buddhism. The Tibetan monks had child-sex orgies and lived in gold palaces. The Japanese monks starved themselves to death to satiate the gods to save their villages in times of need.


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (Jul 28, 2019)

Pocket Dragoon said:


> I never said anything about "most" or "majority"; only "a lot".
> 
> 15 states and two Canadian provinces counts as a pretty large chunk of N. America.  And I'm not talking just passing through; I've crisscrossed them all & lived in many, more often than I care to think much about.



And based on the brewing shitshow in Baltimore, it's obvious that there's some cities that have areas that qualify as homeless camps, so far as sanitation and the like are concerned. Interestingly, all those sorts of places have been Democrat-run for significant periods.


----------



## MrTickles (Jul 29, 2019)

Ethnically homogeneous or harmonious societies always prosper and exhibit exceptional characteristics. When they become genetically diluted they tend toward stagnation and eventual mediocrity. Even biologically we are most attracted to and perform best when among those most similar to ourselves. Promotion of diversity is the promotion of cancerous disease at the societal level. Mongrel nations inevitably end up stuck in the middle income trap. This is an indicator that the overall mongrel demographic cannot be sustainably competitive vs more homogeneous societies. Central and South America are the model example of how mongroloids cannot sustain any competitive advantages once complexity of their economy reaches critical mass and is subject to globalist forces. Chile is the only example I can think of that has managed to slowly dig its way out of that trap, and only because it is the least 'diverse and has the highest number of white Europeans (65%) outside of the US and Canada.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jul 29, 2019)

MrTickles said:


> Ethnically homogeneous or harmonious societies always prosper and exhibit exceptional characteristics. When they become genetically diluted they tend toward stagnation and eventual mediocrity. Even biologically we are most attracted to and perform best when among those most similar to ourselves. Promotion of diversity is the promotion of cancerous disease at the societal level.



Example?


----------



## MrTickles (Jul 29, 2019)

I elaborated. See OG comment.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jul 29, 2019)

Yes but you didnt provide any examples of homogenous prosperous societies, the only one I can think of is Japan and that's a stretch.


----------



## MrTickles (Jul 29, 2019)

Emperor Julian said:


> Yes but you didnt provide any examples of homogenous prosperous societies, the only one I can think of is Japan and that's a stretch.



Most European states be they majority latins, greek, celtic, germanic or slavic have shown exceptionalism once concentrated enough. Ditto for Japan, Korea, and of course the Han Chinese.  In the past states of the middle east that were comprised of just 1 or 2 major ethno-linguistic groups launched major civilizations with rich histories; the Assyrians, Hittites, and whatever the fuck the OG Sumeriansand egyptians were. Peninslar Arabs included (before large scale mixing and utter stagnation post-expansionism). The Seljuk Turks also built a long lasting civilizational center of power in Anatolia, once again fell prey to the pitfalls of expansionism and diversity.

The Aztecs and Inca with all their much vaunted decentralization and diversity never made it past the bronze age and had very late starts.

Note that India outside of what is today Pakistan and the indus valley has failed to produce many indigenous large scale civilizations. Great Civilization typically came from elsewhere and conquered the diverse subcontinent. Contrast this with the much more homogenous Europe and East Asia which fomed many dynasties, empires and strong states. India's caste system pays homage to this fact, most of the lower classes are indeed from the much more diverse south of the sub-continent.

As for the most 'diverse' continent of all...with the most ethno-linguistic groups...well you know the story. Africa dun goofed.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jul 29, 2019)

It's an interesting perspective I'll conceed but Europe is a very odd choice for such statements as the only real unformity was faith and post-roman culture. Even within most national borders you've got a lot of differant ethnic/cultural groups milling about. Not to mention you're constantly forced to interact with other ethnic groups on the pan national stage both in terms of culture and breeding.
I also think you're putting the cart before the horse in terms of Empires, Huge centralized States tend to very hard to run due to fairly complex econimic and social issues, in contrast to a couple of tribes run by a chieftain and his warlords. The fall of the Ottoman Empire being due to diversity is far too simplistic, not in the least because they became increasingly intolerant as their power declined wereas their early ascendancy carried a more cosmepolitan attitude.


----------



## NN 401 (Jul 29, 2019)

Emperor Julian said:


> It's an interesting perspective I'll conceed but Europe is a very odd choice for such statements as the only real unformity was faith and post-roman culture. Even within most national borders you've got a lot of differant ethnic/cultural groups milling about. Not to mention you're constantly forced to interact with other ethnic groups on the pan national stage both in terms of culture and breeding.
> I also think you're putting the cart before the horse in terms of Empires, Huge centralized States tend to very hard to run due to fairly complex econimic and social issues, in contrast to a couple of tribes run by a chieftain and his warlords. The fall of the Ottoman Empire being due to diversity is far too simplistic, not in the least because they became increasingly intolerant as their power declined wereas their early ascendancy carried a more cosmepolitan attitude.



Throwing my two cents here:
I would not consider Italy to be homogenous by the way. The entirety of the Italian peninsula is pock marked by highly localized cultures that have a high in group out group bias.

Romans are Romans. Florentines are Florentines. Neopolitans are Neapolitan etc.
The concept of a unified Italy is a fairly new one and the Roman Empire was relatively  diverse for a very long time before it fell. Nonetheless, Italy is the epicenter of the Renaissance despite warring with each other for most of it.

Furthermore, most historians chalk up Rome’s decline to a ruling class that was increasingly corrupt, out of touch, and shafted actual citizens in favor of importing slave labor and often seized their lands when they went off to war.

I would also point out that Post Roman Europeans fought like cat and dog for most of the dark ages both internally and externally. Most of the modern day UK was forged in a series of extremely bloody civil conflicts. And somehow in all of this there was still time to fight things like the 100 years war on the mainland.

I would say the pressure cooker of constant warfare is a great motivator for innovation. Most people don’t like to think about that.


----------



## Slap47 (Aug 11, 2019)

MrTickles said:


> Most European states be they majority latins, greek, celtic, germanic or slavic have shown exceptionalism once concentrated enough. Ditto for Japan, Korea, and of course the Han Chinese.  In the past states of the middle east that were comprised of just 1 or 2 major ethno-linguistic groups launched major civilizations with rich histories; the Assyrians, Hittites, and whatever the fuck the OG Sumeriansand egyptians were. Peninslar Arabs included (before large scale mixing and utter stagnation post-expansionism). The Seljuk Turks also built a long lasting civilizational center of power in Anatolia, once again fell prey to the pitfalls of expansionism and diversity.
> 
> The Aztecs and Inca with all their much vaunted decentralization and diversity never made it past the bronze age and had very late starts.
> 
> ...



Places like Europe, Persia, China and the United States are actually extreme diverse though.


----------



## MrTickles (Aug 11, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> Places like Europe, Persia, China and the United States are actually extreme diverse though.



Culturally? Not at all bro. Of the many Latvian, Serbian and French castles I've visited, those stone niggas very similar. Very european. And the cuisine is basically Mediterranean>>>>>>>>Balkan>>>>>>the rest i.e three cuisines worth mentioning. The rest are utter crap.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Aug 11, 2019)

MrTickles said:


> Culturally? Not at all bro. Of the many Latvian, Serbian and French castles I've visited, those stone niggas very similar. Very european. And the cuisine is basically Mediterranean>>>>>>>>Balkan>>>>>>the rest i.e three cuisines worth mentioning. The rest are utter crap.


Please explain to me how Mozart, Dvorak, Wagner, Debussy, and Holst are all the same.


----------



## NN 401 (Aug 12, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Please explain to me how Mozart, Dvorak, Wagner, Debussy, and Holst are all the same.



Because they look huwhite.

You’d think that the high level of conflict between  all these “white” cultures would stop and make some of these people think twice about their pet theories.


----------



## MrTickles (Aug 12, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Please explain to me how Mozart, Dvorak, Wagner, Debussy, and Holst are all the same.



They're all European for one following European classical music conventions of their era.


----------



## nonvir_1984 (Aug 12, 2019)

Emperor Julian said:


> Personally you can be any colour you want as long as you DO AS I COMMAND!


Let them hate, so long as they fear, eh?
But failing that:
Would that the Roman people had but one neck! 
Caligula

Clearly, by the replies, not enough. You are going to ruin the narrative of the SJW press by all the sensible answers being given. Definately a plot to save KF.
But is there any way to tell? Even if a Kiwi outs themselves, they might just as well be shitposting. It's like the sex of people posting. How many males? How many females? How many pretending this or that? How many mad wankers?
As for me, I'm from the radical center. I don't like Nazis; and don't like communists and socialists. I really could not care what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they don't hurt others. And that they act with a degree of courtesy in real life. And that I am left alone to bumble around and generally left to my own devices. Here on KF, I get to vent my sense of the absurd and ironic....driven by the feeling that ultimately life is utterly pointless and one big Aristophanic comedy, infused with tragedy from the three ancients and generally fucked up by people who want, nay, crave, power. 
Leave me alone with my music, my art, and the voices in my head.


----------



## soy_king (Aug 12, 2019)

Just saw this thread so I'll definitely call myself a nationalist in two senses: an American Nationalist and a Zionist. Ultimately America is my home and I believe that its system is the best humanity has to offer, and for the most part it has until recently been a success at integrating waves of immigrants who ultimately contribute to its ideals of individual liberty and economic freedom. I am also a Secular Zionist because I believe in my people's historic right to self-determination, and while our decision to take back our historical homeland was probably not the best idea, what's done is done and we need to protect our land from those who would like to conquer us and destroy everything that we have built. My Zionism, however, ends at support for the Jewish state; ultimately I am an American and value the land of my birth above all else, and despite what a lot of you may believe most right-leaning American Jews share this belief with me.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Aug 12, 2019)

MrTickles said:


> They're all European for one following European classical music conventions of their era.


That's a lazy, uninformed answer, especially given that Holst and Debussy were known specifically for _flouting_ the compositional conventions of their time.  You might as well call Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ "following convention".


----------



## Stoneheart (Aug 12, 2019)

Im not a bloody socialist, National or not...


----------



## Slap47 (Aug 12, 2019)

MrTickles said:


> Balkan



I don't recommend trying to group these people together.


----------



## ES 195 (Aug 12, 2019)

Based on internet quizzes I'm some kind of autocrat and after some thought about it I think that's mostly correct. I've always been a fan of what Caesar, Napoleon, and Big A did for their countries. I definitely had some nationalism put into me from my mother as a child and it sprouted and grew as I learned history.  Not sure if I'd fit the the internet cliche though since most of it is stupid spergs doing the exact same things the far-left does.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 12, 2019)

MrTickles said:


> Culturally? Not at all bro. Of the many Latvian, Serbian and French castles I've visited, those stone niggas very similar. Very european. And the cuisine is basically Mediterranean>>>>>>>>Balkan>>>>>>the rest i.e three cuisines worth mentioning. The rest are utter crap.



How can you group these completely different cuisines under the term "mediterranean"?

How can you even mention the word "cuisine" and neglect mentioning french cuisine?


----------



## Basil II (Aug 12, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> What does being a nationalist have to do with being a neo-nazi, and how can anyone be a fascist if they don't live in a fascist state.
> 
> 
> 
> What is really odd as well is that people drift toward topics they hate. So the incel thread and Roosh thread are full of SJW's and internet troons. There is a guy in the race realism thread saying 15th century Africa was nearly as advanced as 15th century Europe.


He could be a pedantic dick and talking about North Africa.


----------



## MrTickles (Aug 12, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> french cuisine?



You mean Mediterranean cuisine? The south of France is the only part of France that's worth a damn  when it comes to food and drink.


----------



## Jarolleon (Aug 12, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> You should go and visit Japan sometime. Or some of the very high trust areas in nordic countries. There are still places in practically every north-western european countries, UK, Scandinavia. The point is that your cynical take on it is actually very rare in homogenous areas of certain societies.
> 
> As one example, if you go to Japan, they have umbrella stands in the shops. You can put your umbrella there as you enter, do your shopping, then pick up your umbrella as you leave.
> 
> ...


So "The Music Man" was a true story about travelling grifters taking advantage of the high-trust little towns that sprung up all across Flyover country, thereby turning them into the Alex Jones-listeners we know today?


----------



## Somnius (Aug 12, 2019)

I'm a nationalist, but not based on race or ethnicity.


----------



## CitizenJane (Aug 12, 2019)

Somnius said:


> I'm a nationalist, but not based on race or ethnicity.


The word "nation" stems from "natal" (birth). A nation _IS_ a people and only people of that nation should have any birthright to citizenship. This is how nations have been understood for almost all of human history. The main exceptions are post-colonial states, which were made up mainly of Europeans until the 1960s. This gives the incorrect perception that because a group of genetically similar ethnicities (Europeans) could melt together in the "melting pot" equally applies to unassimilable and genetically dissimilar races such as Africans. Note that African-Americans are constantly telling us and showing us that they are not part of, and indeed do not want any part of, white America.

For example, a white guy who moves to Japan and becomes nationalized will never be considered Japanese. Because he's white. He is whatever his ancestors were (British, Irish, Scottish, etc). The idea that a Somali who moves to Australia suddenly becomes as Australian as the whites who built that country is what's known as the "magical soil theory". In other words, America possesses magical soil because whosoever steps foot on American soil automatically becomes as American as the Founding Fathers. (The Founding Fathers specifically stated that America was for "white people of good character").


----------



## $MY_COCK (Aug 13, 2019)

Fascism is gay.


----------



## NN 401 (Aug 13, 2019)

The entire premise of this argument ignores the interference of the very same whites in the lives of African Americans.
Before Jim Crow there was a “golden period” per Lena Heady’s biography of how the community was coalescing into strong, stable townships before segregation knee capped them and their relationships with white people. Then came the 1970s and the welfare state that rewards both white and black single mothers when they make bad decisions. If you haven’t noticed the single motherhood rate is rising in that demographic, too and so will the inevitable crime rate. 

All of this autistic race realism is as cherry picked as the studies leftists utilize in order to make _their_ pedantic points. It’s been discussed here ad nauseum that genetic similarity and linguistic groups don’t count for shit when you look at how “homogenous whites” have murder raped each other into the 20th century.

But by all means shriek about a group of people who make up only 13 percent of the population and mostly harm each other. 

Never you mind the white elites who actually run this country and want to see you and your children dead and raped because it amuses them.


----------



## Autocrat (Aug 13, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> White people bad



I've had a gun pulled on me twice. Guess the color of the skin.
Just saying.



> look at how “homogenous whites” have murder raped each other into the 20th century.



Look at the world you live in, and then look at the shitholes in Africa. You're a byproduct of liberal contrarianism gone mainstream.
Every race has been murder raping for a majority of history. Few have done much more than that. As of now, white people have done the most. 

This shouldn't be a very contentious belief.


----------



## NN 401 (Aug 13, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> I've had a gun pulled on me twice. Guess the color of the skin.
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> ...




Bitch please. And guess the skin color of the people who threatened to off me?  It’s not what you’d think but statistically speaking more likely than what happened to you.

Have you not been in the Epstein thread and seeing what’s been going?

And as for your master race rhetoric. It’s entirely due to an ever expanding definition of what pol aficionados consider “white.”
Jewish scientists gave us the nuclear age we live in. The joke is that this whole era is some Hungarian high school experiment run amok. Do you consider them white?  When neither others nor themselves do?

Let’s talk about gun powder and numerals. Neither of which were white inventions but without which the colonial era would never have existed. 

I don’t know what you derive from constantly calling Africa a shit hole. Especially, when you consider that the ruling class of Africans aren’t stupid by any means. They like our white elites just don’t care about their people. 

They’re in the billionaires club, not you. 

If you think there is some intrinsic value in being white that will prevent your nation from turning into those self same shit holes... well this is hopelessly naive in my opinion.  Or are you arguing that LA and San Fran are utopias with all its rich white people?


----------



## Autocrat (Aug 14, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> Bitch please. And guess the skin color of the people who threatened to off me?  It’s not what you’d think but statistically speaking more likely than what happened to you.
> 
> Have you not been in the Epstein thread and seeing what’s been going?
> 
> ...



Is it just one strawman after another with you?

Read what I posted again, and reply to that.


----------



## Slap47 (Aug 14, 2019)

CitizenJane said:


> The word "nation" stems from "natal" (birth). A nation _IS_ a people and only people of that nation should have any birthright to citizenship.



The word "gay" derives from happy but most fags seem to be pretty depressed.

Nations are about the people but what that people is is largely created over time.

The "Dixie" of the southern USA have their own culture but they only acted to form their own nation due to particular political circumstances and that identity has since eroded greatly.

France literally banned non-Parisian dialects of French and has worked insanely hard for centuries to create an identity based around the Republic and Citizen.

Austria was ecstatic to join Germany and has since changed their mind... golly.

Muslim Tatars, Buddhist Mongols, Atheistic Slavs and Paganistic Siberians will proudly call themselves Russian.


----------



## NN 401 (Aug 14, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> Is it just one strawman after another with you?
> 
> Read what I posted again, and reply to that.



You’re accusing me of straw manning when you summarized one of my posts with “white people bad?”


----------



## Stoneheart (Aug 14, 2019)

MrTickles said:


> The south of France is the only part of France that's worth a damn when it comes to food and drink.


The south of France is by far the wort part...


----------



## UQ 770 (Aug 14, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> France literally banned non-Parisian dialects of French and has worked insanely hard for centuries to create an identity based around the Republic and Citizen.



This is one of those things that makes Nationalism into an interesting little ant farm to stare at. The idea of regulating your own national zeitgiest right down to the way people talk, the precise way to pronounce words and other various aspect of culture is authoritarian as fuck. It actually borders on 1984-levels of thought control and I normally hate whenever some moron makes a comparison to that book. 
Conversely, I've been playing with the idea that maybe they should do this for America, since I've absolutely lost all patience for marketers, social justice and sleazy politicians trying to weaselfuck the English language into their own form of thought control.


----------



## NyQuilninja (Aug 14, 2019)

I thought all white men who want sensible immigration laws,
And smaller governmental influence in there daily life.
Were alt-right neo nazi racist homophobic sexist transgender hating scum?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Aug 16, 2019)

Quite a number. Partially because @Null prostitutes the site to trolls, partially because he genuinely sympathises with alt-right politics; but also because Null's living in Russia and has developed an interest in Bitcoin, which seems to exacerbate extreme politics regardless of who does such things for reasons I can only speculate. (Hi, Edward Snowden!)

**USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST**


----------



## Slap47 (Aug 16, 2019)

Truthspeaker said:


> Quite a number. Partially because @Null prostitutes the site to trolls, partially because he genuinely sympathises with alt-right politics; but also because Null's living in Russia and has developed an interest in Bitcoin, which seems to exacerbate extreme politics regardless of who does such things for reasons I can only speculate. (Hi, Edward Snowden!)
> 
> **USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST**



It's hard to tell when you /pol/ users and nationalist spergs are fucking around.

Like half of you seem to support Communist China's actions in Hong Kong because of the Treaty of Westphalia.


----------



## InvertedDickEnthusiast (Aug 17, 2019)

OP is a faggot, this thread is gay, I'm an american Nationalist and my dirt isn't magic, we need to stop *all* immigration, even from EVROPA, for at least 50 years, and kick any immigrants of the first or second generations on public assistance out, as well as the ones who cannot or will not assimilate.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Aug 17, 2019)

InvertedDickEnthusiast said:


> OP is a faggot, this thread is gay, I'm an american Nationalist and my dirt isn't magic, we need to stop *all* immigration, even from EVROPA, for at least 50 years, and kick any immigrants of the first or second generations on public assistance out, as well as the ones who cannot or will not assimilate.


Even the ones that are citizens?


----------



## icecait (Aug 19, 2019)

I'd probably be closest to White nationalist.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Aug 19, 2019)

icecait said:


> I'd probably be closest to White nationalist.


Given your massive faggot mass shooter stan avi, no shit.


----------



## icecait (Aug 19, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Given your massive faggot mass shooter stan avi, no shit.



What's that?  I don't speak border hopper.


----------



## Vecr (Aug 19, 2019)

icecait said:


> What's that?  I don't speak border hopper.



Your avatar/profile picture is an anime version of the picture of a mass shooter.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Aug 19, 2019)

icecait said:


> What's that?  I don't speak border hopper.


I'm Dutch, you mongoloidal fame-chasing nihilistic nigger.  Your wild, apish haymakers only work on people who care about what you might think of them.  You have the verbal skills of a middle-school bully and the critical thinking skills of a bludgeoned haddock.  Replicate @FuckYou's illustrious career.


----------



## Voltaire (Aug 19, 2019)

Truthspeaker said:


> Quite a number. Partially because @Null prostitutes the site to trolls, partially because he genuinely sympathises with alt-right politics; but also because Null's living in Russia and has developed an interest in Bitcoin, which seems to exacerbate extreme politics regardless of who does such things for reasons I can only speculate. (Hi, Edward Snowden!)
> 
> **USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST**


>Genuinely sympathises with alt-right politics
Debatable for a sauce for that bud?


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Aug 19, 2019)

Truthspeaker said:


> Quite a number. Partially because @Null prostitutes the site to trolls, partially because he genuinely sympathises with alt-right politics; but also because Null's living in Russia and has developed an interest in Bitcoin, which seems to exacerbate extreme politics regardless of who does such things for reasons I can only speculate. (Hi, Edward Snowden!)
> 
> **USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST**



Schizophrenia's one hell of a drug, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## FA 855 (Aug 19, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Given your massive faggot mass shooter stan avi, no shit.





icecait said:


> What's that?  I don't speak border hopper.


lol D E E P T H O U G H T S.


Spoiler: Anyhow here is my worthless set of opinions



Fascism is outdated for the 21st century, you'd need to overhaul several aspects of it I suspect for it to even border on practicality. That said I'm probably a civic nationalist by some people's metrics, I don't really care what your skin colour is. I think I am full of contradictions depending on who I talk to because I cannot create a coherent system because coherent systems weigh you down like a suit of armor, before becoming outdated and unsuited on the ever growing path of "progress" whatever the fuck that means.
I think the anglosphere merging into one country might be a good way to reverse American decline and counter the Russian's and Chinese, make of that what you will. America would of course be the one calling the shots in this scenario after the admission by the other countries as either territories or protectorates. So I'm not nationalist, as I'm not American, but I am a pro American imperialist.
I do not immediately associate dictatorships as bad, there have been plenty of well ordered, well run and somewhat free societies in the past, democracy is not necessarily an endgame. 


Spoiler: On diversity



It is worth noting on the subject of 'diversity' that it is both a strength and a weakness, the Ottoman state provided many incentives to religious and cultural minorities not to rebel in the form of toleration, their was of course the Jizya tax on these people but the system allowed for the Ottoman's to expand without having constant rebellions due to the Sunni's brutally cracking down on Christians. The Catholics in Europe did largely the opposite, they purged their ranks of any proto protestants they could find, such as the Albigensian crusade, genocide can work when done zealously. Both of these systems have certain strengths, as it were, the Catholics shared a common cause against the Ottomans on account of faith, this unity made them stronger, the Ottomans on the other hand, made use of Janniserries, which is a whole other can of worms, diversity and homogeneity both have advantages.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Aug 19, 2019)

Voltaire said:


> >Genuinely sympathises with alt-right politics
> Debatable for a sauce for that bud?


Namely Null's own words and Donald-cuckery. I admit that's an unreliable source, but he gets as convincingly defensive about it as he gets about anything.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Aug 19, 2019)

Lmao who gives a shit what null thinks about politics, I’m here to shitpost on his website, not elect him supreme dictator

Although that said, null for supreme dictator


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Aug 19, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> The word "gay" derives from happy but most fags seem to be pretty depressed.
> 
> Nations are about the people but what that people is is largely created over time.
> 
> ...



This is almost completely unrelated, but American culture is going through an awkward phase that I call "Southernization." Southern culture (the most obvious measure being accent thickness) has been in retreat in the South, but the physical boundaries of the South have grown larger and large swathes of the non-South US have taken on Southern characteristics. 

What we're arguably seeing is a shift from Midwestern/Mid-Atlantic (let's call them Low Yankees) being the primary culture of the country to Southern being the primary culture, egged on by the relative growth of the Southern population, the growth of the South's political and economic power, Southern diaspora settling across the rest of the region, and Southern culture aligning itself with a more general rural, Blue-State culture. It hasn't gotten to the point yet where Southern dialects are considered "acceptable" as formal English or where we stop describing the South as a cultural region, but it's a process underway.

One thing that's definitely fair to say about national identities is that they are not exclusive and mostly exist on the basis of some tribal impulse. As long as you think of yourself as part of a coherent group, you are. Low Yankees, for example, form a clear culture group inhabiting a geographical region, and yet they're not regarded as a nationality separate from American, even though Scottish people are regarded as a nationality separate from British. Having independence isn't even the most important determinant; Kurds haven't had any self-determination in centuries. But, there has to be something which makes the people consider themselves to be the basic unit of identity.

In that regard, you could say that "Cosmopolitans" (globally-oriented, urban professionals) and fags are also nations in terms of behavior.


----------



## Rice Is Ready (Aug 19, 2019)

You gosh dang Nazis will never win!


----------



## hauser (Aug 20, 2019)

all forms of socialism are inherently evil


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Aug 20, 2019)

Rice Is Ready said:


> View attachment 898711
> 
> You gosh dang Nazis will never win!



> “Steal my land”
> Is a literal European colony


----------



## NZ 144 (Aug 20, 2019)

Hello mein aryan bruderschaft


----------



## tuscangarder (Apr 19, 2020)

Most of this forum is some form of right wing extremist unless they stick to one or two lolcow threads.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Apr 19, 2020)

tuscangarder said:


> unless they stick to one or two lolcow threads.


Then they're just literally autistic or 14.


----------



## soy_king (Apr 19, 2020)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> > “Steal my land”
> > Is a literal European colony


Not really though. Ashkenazis aren't a majority in the country, and it was established with the intention that all Jews, regardless of national origin and skin color, deserved a homeland. The country has experienced some societal racism, but that is to be expected when several distinct racial and ethnic groups begin to coexist with each other. If it really was a European colony, why would they open the country up to a million Arab Jews within the first ten years of its existence?


----------



## d4re to .d0xx (Mar 18, 2021)

trying to impose something like an ethnostate is completely retarded.


----------



## Fentanyl Floyd (Mar 18, 2021)

I'd consider myself a Black Supremacist, I mean we did invent the pyramids, music, and everything important.. Also fuck yakubites, we need to gas all them honkies


----------



## DeadFish (Mar 18, 2021)

I believe in destroying any identity which was artificially created by hostile or exploitive group. The black American community. The identity of "black" was created by capitalists to change human beings into trade goods or is a side effect of slavery.

Neither are good. By keeping black identity alive is to keep the destructive legacy of why that identity was formed in the first place.

Like wise the concept of left and right, and white were concepts created by socialists. When you create an identity of a group you despise you determine their fate.

With that in mind white identity needs to be abolished until something organic forms or an identity designed to ensure self determination for that group of people is created


----------



## IAmNotAlpharius (Mar 18, 2021)

DeadFish said:


> I believe in destroying any identity which was artificially created by hostile or exploitive group. The black American community. The identity of "black" was created by capitalists to change human beings into trade goods or is a side effect of slavery.
> 
> Neither are good. By keeping black identity alive is to keep the destructive legacy of why that identity was formed in the first place.
> 
> ...


I feel a similar way about the concept of race. I am of the opinion that it not only a very inaccurate way of viewing the world, essentially it boils down people into a few phenotypes, specifically skin color, but its very existence is detrimental to American interests.


----------



## Slap47 (Mar 18, 2021)

IAmNotAlpharius said:


> I feel a similar way about the concept of race. I am of the opinion that it not only a very inaccurate way of viewing the world, essentially it boils down people into a few phenotypes, specifically skin color, but its very existence is detrimental to American interests.



White nationalists believe that white people are superior, but yet hate the majority of white people and have no interest in white women. 

Strange folk.


----------



## Kyria the Great (Mar 18, 2021)

I have a feeling that scant few on this site are actual Fascists. Fascists are Syndicalists that trying to bring the Worker's Union on a nationalist level and believe that true freedom of the people come from complete service to the state (ie the public) which is a just a centrist bent to Socialist ideals. Anyone would claim to be Nazis or Neo-Nazis are completely retarded as National Socialism (aka Nazism) was a racial Socialism built with conquest for "The People" which were the Ayran People. I'd say that we have on the farms, by classification are simply racist reactionaries would believe treating other races as equals will take away power from their group.


----------



## DeadFish (Mar 18, 2021)

IAmNotAlpharius said:


> I feel a similar way about the concept of race. I am of the opinion that it not only a very inaccurate way of viewing the world, essentially it boils down people into a few phenotypes, specifically skin color, but its very existence is detrimental to American interests.


Has nothing to do with accuracy.

It's about counter strategy.

Both capitalists and socialists create identities for sale of enslavement, eradication, to oppress and exploitation.

So finding ways to reshape those identities is key to shutting down both capitalists and socialist agendas.

I actually have entire hamster brained plan to achieve this if you want actually hear it. It's word vomit but hey  better then what current reactionaries have


----------



## FEETLOAF (Mar 18, 2021)

We could solve most problems in the sphere of geopolitics and sociology by taking all of the people who have opinions about problems in the spheres of geopolitics and sociology and throwing them off a very tall rock.


----------



## Samson Pumpkin Jr. (Mar 18, 2021)

I'M not a nationalist because nationalism is liberalism and if you don't know why you're a moron


----------



## Caesar Augustus (Mar 18, 2021)

While I am on the authoritarian Right, I wouldn't consider myself a fascist. Definitely not a Nazi. I only want a truly autocratic government if I am the head of it.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Mar 18, 2021)

DeadFish said:


> Has nothing to do with accuracy.
> 
> It's about counter strategy.
> 
> ...


I'd like you to follow through with your promise about Biden being re-elected.


----------



## Poppavalyim Andropoff (Mar 19, 2021)




----------



## Cope or Rope (Mar 19, 2021)

I dont' get the stigma against white nationalists. This country was founded on it and if you want to stick to the constitution then white nationalism would be the way to go.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Mar 19, 2021)

Cope or Rope said:


> I dont' get the stigma against white nationalists. This country was founded on it and if you want to stick to the constitution then white nationalism would be the way to go.


Because even somewhat suggesting that the group of people who built the west, should have the final say in the west will get you slammed by the media, and the media ultimately decides the direction of politics.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Mar 19, 2021)

Cope or Rope said:


> I dont' get the stigma against white nationalists. This country was founded on it and if you want to stick to the constitution then white nationalism would be the way to go.


If you went on the Founding Father's definition of "White", less than 1% of the White American population would be White, even if you ignore the "2% African" part.  Also, by FF standards, the overwhelming majority of modern-day White Nationalists shouldn't vote because they're poor, and therefore inherently inferior, and the cultured Elites (see: the people who push for "globohomo" right now) should have exclusive voting rights.


----------



## FEETLOAF (Mar 19, 2021)

KimCoppolaAficionado said:


> If you went on the Founding Father's definition of "White", less than 1% of the White American population would be White, even if you ignore the "2% African" part.  Also, by FF standards, the overwhelming majority of modern-day White Nationalists shouldn't vote because they're poor, and therefore inherently inferior, and the cultured Elites (see: the people who push for "globohomo" right now) should have exclusive voting rights.


If George Washington was transported to today the very first thing he would do is kill those elites. The founders valued agrarians, not cosmpoplitans. When John Adams went as emissary to the French he basically called them all faggots.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Mar 19, 2021)

FEETLOAF said:


> If George Washington


If George Washington was transported to today he'd probably have a stroke due to all the flashing lights.  Predicting how men of the past would respond to the present is a lot harder than analyzing how the laws of the past would apply in the present.  White Nationalist ideology is overwhelmingly the domain of the lower class in contemporary America, and the Founding Fathers viewed the lower classes with contempt, seeing them as only above niggers by default (and even then, groups like the Irish and Scots-Irish were often seen as, quite literally, white niggers).


----------



## FEETLOAF (Mar 19, 2021)

KimCoppolaAficionado said:


> the Founding Fathers viewed the lower classes with contempt


No lmao. Many of them were of common birth. You are taking the requirement for landownership to vote and going full retard with it.


----------



## CheezzyMach (Mar 19, 2021)

KimCoppolaAficionado said:


> If George Washington was transported to today he'd probably have a stroke due to all the flashing lights.  Predicting how men of the past would respond to the present is a lot harder than analyzing how the laws of the past would apply in the present.  White Nationalist ideology is overwhelmingly the domain of the lower class in contemporary America, and the Founding Fathers viewed the lower classes with contempt, seeing them as only above niggers by default (and even then, groups like the Irish and Scots-Irish were often seen as, quite literally, white niggers).


Didn't a good number of them want to recreate the British monarchy here too?

Also good job on showing why White Nationalism in America is and always will be a complete joke.

Irish and Italians were treated the same as Mexican immigrants are now for most of the 19th and 20th century. Give it another generation or two and Hispanics will be considered White too.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Mar 19, 2021)

FEETLOAF said:


> No lmao. Many of them were of common birth. You are taking the requirement for landownership to vote and going full retard with it.


"Of common birth"
Most of them were gentry.  Monticello isn't exactly the house of a humble farmer.  Neither is Mount Vernon.


----------



## FEETLOAF (Mar 19, 2021)

KimCoppolaAficionado said:


> "Of common birth"
> Most of them were gentry.  Monticello isn't exactly the house of a humble farmer.  Neither is Mount Vernon.


Being rich doesn't make you gentry you stinky merchant.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Mar 19, 2021)

FEETLOAF said:


> U JOO


I accept your admission of defeat.


----------



## FEETLOAF (Mar 19, 2021)

KimCoppolaAficionado said:


> I accept your admission of defeat.


You are worse than a jew. You are, dare I say it...
middle class


----------



## Shovel Mech Pilot (Mar 19, 2021)

"if you don't cuck your country for the benefit of foreigners you are a neo nazi" - the op, probably


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Mar 19, 2021)

KimCoppolaAficionado said:


> If George Washington was transported to today he'd probably have a stroke due to all the flashing lights.  Predicting how men of the past would respond to the present is a lot harder than analyzing how the laws of the past would apply in the present.  White Nationalist ideology is overwhelmingly the domain of the lower class in contemporary America, and the Founding Fathers viewed the lower classes with contempt, seeing them as only above niggers by default (and even then, groups like the Irish and Scots-Irish were often seen as, quite literally, white niggers).


----------



## SITHRAK! (Mar 19, 2021)

{o}P II said:


> It amazes me how many channers would consider themselves fascists without realizing that an anonymous image board where people can share opinions without repercussions would never be aloud in a fascist state
> 
> also if you think your diffrent from another human becuase you have a diffrent ethnicity, your exceptional


You're are an retard and ya'll can't write but badly.



KimCoppolaAficionado said:


> White Nationalist ideology is overwhelmingly the domain of the lower class in contemporary America


Funny, that's not what Critical Race Theory, ANTIFA, BLM, Open Society Foundations, almost all media and academia, the Democratic party and the technocratic elites from Gates to Musk have been telling me.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Mar 20, 2021)

mr.moon1488 said:


> View attachment 2012064


I applaud the effort, saved.



SITHRAK! said:


> Funny, that's not what Critical Race Theory, ANTIFA, BLM, Open Society Foundations, almost all media and academia, the Democratic party and the technocratic elites from Gates to Musk have been telling me.


1. What are they telling you, allegedly.  This isn't meaningful engagement, it's just the venting of your spleen.
2. You're automatically a nigger for doubleposting.


----------



## FEETLOAF (Mar 20, 2021)

I disavow all doubleposters!


----------



## Haint (Mar 20, 2021)

Belligerent Monk said:


> My last name is *very* German. It wouldn't matter what my beliefs are. If I ever get into a verbal altercation with a troon or one of "God's Chosen People" it will be very easy to smear me.


In the same boat. As soon as people hear my last name or accent, I am either a Nazi or at a racist redneck


----------



## SITHRAK! (Mar 20, 2021)

KimCoppolaAficionado said:


> 1. What are they telling you, allegedly.  This isn't meaningful engagement, it's just the venting of your spleen.
> 2. You're automatically a nigger for doubleposting.


Fair enough, the doublepost was me going full retard, and you've got me on the spleen thing too, apologies.
The point I was making is that what you're saying is true- people openly espousing WN beliefs tend to skew low, achievement-wise.
But if the current zeitgeist is to be believed, every white person in the US is actively or passively part of a gigantic machine of racial oppression.
And at the same time we also have black people buying huge plots of land in Georgia to make black-only communities.
If whites were to do the same thing I would imagine there would be outrage.
It's all bullshit; forcing together people who don't want to integrate has never worked and will never work.
I don't care if black seperatists or white nationalists or the creepy Rajnishi O'Leary want to create their own communities. I say let them. 
I'd like to see an end to divisive racial bullshit being policy, and for people being allowed to live their lives their way.


----------



## Poppavalyim Andropoff (Mar 24, 2021)

Cope or Rope said:


> I dont' get the stigma against white nationalists. This country was founded on it and if you want to stick to the constitution then white nationalism would be the way to go.


“White nationalist” has been co opted by knuckle dragging dumbshits with their single digit IQ who want to blame their own retardation & life failure on the niggers & ghews. Hence it’s nigh impossible in 2021 to be a WN without being lumped in with these shitbirds. The irony is if a real 4th Reich popped off these types would be the first to go.


----------



## NyQuilninja (Mar 24, 2021)

I'm not a White nationalist 
I just don't want to be guilted and shamed for not wanting to live around niggers Beaners and other racist foreigners.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Mar 24, 2021)

FEETLOAF said:


> Being rich doesn't make you gentry you stinky merchant.


In the case of Jefferson and Washington (Monticello and Mount Vernon), they were planters, which basically meant part of a social class of idle landlords descended from hereditary aristocrats (in the Old Country) who rule over a population of forced laborers while dividing their time between military service, conspicuous leisure, and intellectual activity.

So in other words, nobility.


----------



## FEETLOAF (Mar 24, 2021)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> In the case of Jefferson and Washington (Monticello and Mount Vernon), they were planters, which basically meant part of a social class of idle landlords descended from hereditary aristocrats (in the Old Country) who rule over a population of forced laborers while dividing their time between military service, conspicuous leisure, and intellectual activity.
> 
> So in other words, nobility.


The key part of your post which is incorrect is "descended from hereditary aristocrats," which as far as I am aware wasn't true for either.
Modern people don't generally get this, but you could have a few thousand acres, a castle, and more money than God, and you'd still be a commoner.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Mar 24, 2021)

FEETLOAF said:


> The key part of your post which is incorrect is "descended from hereditary aristocrats," which as far as I am aware wasn't true for either.
> Modern people don't generally get this, but you could have a few thousand acres, a castle, and more money than God, and you'd still be a commoner.


I’m not sure about either of them as individuals, but planters as a social class tended to be descended from second sons of Barbadian and English gentry.

unlike actual nobility being a planter was not a legal classification nor was it hereditary, instead being an informal status you got by owning slaves and property (particularly on a large scale). But it was a rigid enough social system that had a pressure to assimilate to its culture. Being a planter in the South entailed more, socially, than just being a rich man in America does nowadays.

So I don’t know about their individual ancestries, but even so they were drawn from a class that had a collective sense of quasi-noble status, as set apart from the “yeomanry” and the slaves.


----------



## FEETLOAF (Mar 24, 2021)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I’m not sure about either of them as individuals, but planters as a social class tended to be descended from second sons of Barbadian and English gentry.
> 
> unlike actual nobility being a planter was not a legal classification nor was it hereditary, instead being an informal status you got by owning slaves and property (particularly on a large scale). But it was a rigid enough social system that had a pressure to assimilate to its culture. Being a planter in the South entailed more, socially, than just being a rich man in America does nowadays.
> 
> So I don’t know about their individual ancestries, but even so they were drawn from a class that had a collective sense of quasi-noble status, as set apart from the “yeomanry” and the slaves.


Yes! And that's what the American founders wanted. Their ideal was a land of independent farmers, independent craftsmen, independent tradesmen, etc. While some (very stinky and homosexual) founding fathers were gentry and wanted to create an American gentry, the majority of them and the hegemonic position was that noblemen are fags and we hate em.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Mar 24, 2021)

FEETLOAF said:


> Yes! And that's what the American founders wanted. Their ideal was a land of independent farmers, independent craftsmen, independent tradesmen, etc. While some (very stinky and homosexual) founding fathers were gentry and wanted to create an American gentry, the majority of them and the hegemonic position was that noblemen are fags and we hate em.


Also, the common people are fags and we hate them.  Most of the FF saw the average American as unworthy to govern themselves, hence their original voting laws concentrating power within the planter and mercantile ("stinky merchant") classes.
I don't know where the hell you got this idea that the FF were fans of the dirt-poor, but they weren't.  They were fans of the wealthy, landed, and literate classes they came from.  The fact they substituted a self-justified belief that "anyone can be successful if they just try hard enough (so if you're poor, it means you lack moral character)" for the previous Great Chain of Being does not divorce them from their elitist sentiment.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Mar 25, 2021)

FEETLOAF said:


> You are worse than a jew. You are, dare I say it...
> middle class


"Middle Class"? How is that an insult?

As for fascism?

It's a dead end at this point and there's no use trying to revive it. If you believe in it for personal reasons, more power to you but I don't see it ever becoming a thing in the West in our lifetime.

Nazism died in 1945, fascism died in 1975, and communism died in 1991.

Communism only came back as a zombie thanks to an unholy mix of corrupted academia (via KGB gay ops that outlasted the KGB itself), the Religious Right massively shitting the bed in the 90's and creating a generation of angry godless leftists, and the corporations that really run this country finding IdPol-obsessed AnComs to be the perfect useful idiots.

Unfortunately, we are trapped in the global order of corporatism and plutocracy and nothing seems to be actually effective against the whims of the neoliberal corporate order.


----------

