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

[L'Homme de la Lune]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

>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]

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

 

[Pocket Dragoon]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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™]

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]

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™]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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

 

[UQ 770]

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.

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.