Off-Topic Whiteknight Containment Thread

[cringy cunt]

Too late, Shlomo. You already gave away the game.

.... the fuckin lunacy! wooow. okay.

oy gevalt!

 

[Gaston LaNoir]

.... the fuckin lunacy! wooow. okay.

oy gevalt!

You may have killed Jesus but you will never kill my spirit!

 

[byuu]

You may have killed Jesus but you will never kill my spirit!

Killing Jesus was pretty based though since he was a Jew.

 

[Ishtar]

“What is White?” Rhetorical flourishes are never used in good faith.

The same people that will be so quick to tell you Whiteness and Whites are socially constructed categories will be the same to argue for ancestor based reparations and affirmative action that excludes Whites.

“but what about Italians?”-literally arguing from the work of notorious Jew Ignatiev.

“But what about Armenians and White looking Arabs”-semites aren’t all olive skinned. They are very different culturally, historically, and psychologically from Whites.

“Whiteness is an expanding category, the Irish!”-Americans opposed Irish immigration because they were Popish paupers. Not even the most stalwart no nothing would have claimed he was closer to blacks than Irishmen-even if he wanted them all gone. Again Ignatiev-a pernicious jew constructed these sophistic arguments.

Everyone knows who Whites are-when they want to blame them for non White woes or demand gimmes from them. These “le White race isn’t real” arguments are only used when collective White interests are being advocated as a deflection and muddying the well tactic .

 

[Gaston LaNoir]

Killing Jesus was pretty based though since he was a Jew.

Jesus was only half Jewish. His father (God) was French.

 

[byuu]

Jesus was only half Jewish. His father (God) was French.

That's even worse.

 

[cringy cunt]

“What is White?” Rhetorical flourishes are never used in good faith.

The same people that will be so quick to tell you Whiteness and Whites are socially constructed categories will be the same to argue for ancestor based reparations and affirmative action that excludes Whites.

“but what about Italians?”-literally arguing from the work of notorious Jew Ignatiev.

“But what about Armenians and White looking Arabs”-semites aren’t all olive skinned. They are very different culturally, historically, and psychologically from Whites.

“Whiteness is an expanding category, the Irish!”-Americans opposed Irish immigration because they were Popish paupers. Not even the most stalwart no nothing would have claimed he was closer to blacks than Irishmen-even if he wanted them all gone. Again Ignatiev-a pernicious jew constructed these sophistic arguments.

Everyone knows who Whites are-when they want to blame them for non White woes or demand gimmes from them. These “le White race isn’t real” arguments are only used when collective White interests are being advocated as a deflection and muddying the well tactic .

... so .... whoever is white is just .... whoever you say is white? "europeans of european descent?"

 

[Ishtar]

... so .... whoever is white is just .... whoever you say is white? "europeans of european descent?"

Don't give me that sophistry.

Whites are all people of European descent in the settler colonies. Whites in Northwestern Europe (The British Isles, Scandinavia and France and the low countries).

People from the Iberian Peninsula-not of Moorish descent, those from the Italian peninsula, Balkans and the north to Eastern Europe as far east as the Urals.

Obviously, this isn't a homogenous mass-and there is non White ancestry/cultural descent-the Balkans-Albanians are White, but they are Muslim, many in the Balkans have Turkish ancestry, at least in part-same maybe in Southern Italy and Iberia where Islamic emirates ruled in the early medieval ages-swarthy skin, look similar to Lebanese, but they are European, they just lived under Islamic/African rule a thousand years ago.

Ambiguous Cases: Anatolia-much greek ancestry, same for the Caucasus, obviously in Russia itself-Asiatic ancestry.

There are a clear European people group-that grows blurry in these aforementioned border zones, but it does exist and that is what we mean.

Anyone within the sweep I have outlined is White.

 

[cringy cunt]

Don't give me that sophistry.

Whites are all people of European descent in the settler colonies. Whites in Northwestern Europe (The British Isles, Scandinavia and France and the low countries).

People from the Iberian Peninsula-not of Moorish descent, those from the Italian peninsula, Balkans and the north to Eastern Europe as far east as the Urals.

Obviously, this isn't a homogenous mass-and there is none White ancestry/cultural descent-the Balkans-Albanians are White, but they are Muslim, many in the Balkans have Turkish ancestry, at least in part-same maybe in Southern Italy and Iberia where Islamic emirates ruled in the early medieval ages-swarthy skin, look similar to Lebanese, but they are European, they just lived under Islamic/African rule a thousand years ago.

Ambiguous Cases: Anatolia-much greek ancestry, same for the Caucasus, obviously in Russia itself-Asiatic ancestry.

There are a clear European people group-that grows blurry in these aforementioned border zones, but it does exist and that is what we mean.

Anyone within the sweep I have outlined is White.

this explanation kinda supports the geopolitical-social construction of being white....

Sicilians and Maltese people have pretty much identical phenotype... Sicily speaks Italian tho and Maltese is semitic language. However, Malta is considered Europe.

My point isn't that "there are no such thing as white people." Just that white identity isn't cut and dry and asking "what is white" should really be at the forefont of your neo nazi to do list... Obviously it was on hitlers, it was on US racialists and colonial spain's.

If white purity has a biological source, then you should be concerned about asiatic russians, Sicilians, the Maltese, and white latin americans whose blood has been tainted by non-white ancestry... This should make you shine a light on idiots like fuentes....... Scrutiny has always been dangerous, though. Like most political loons, when you scratch the surface of your movements, the degenerate maggots come crawling out. Jews and niggers gnawing on the bones of the last White Woman - turns out she had a native grandparent and her bones are just as rotten as anyone else's.

 

[Ishtar]

this explanation kinda supports the geopolitical-social construction of being white....

Sicilians and Maltese people have pretty much identical phenotype... Sicily speaks Italian tho and Maltese is semitic language. However, Malta is considered Europe.

My point isn't that "there are no such thing as white people." Just that white identity isn't cut and dry and asking "what is white" should really be at the forefont of your neo nazi to do list... Obviously it was on hitlers, it was on US racialists and colonial spain's.

If white purity has a biological source, then you should be concerned about asiatic russians, Sicilians, the Maltese, and white latin americans whose blood has been tainted by non-white ancestry... This should make you shine a light on idiots like fuentes....... Scrutiny has always been dangerous, though. Like most political loons, when you scratch the surface of your movements, the degenerate maggots come crawling out. Jews and niggers gnawing on the bones of the last White Woman - turns out she had a native grandparent and her bones are just as rotten as anyone else's.

It is genetic and biological. I acknowledged that Whites aren't hermetically sealed from Non White blood or cultural influence.

Mulatto blood in the US, Indian blood, not even to mention the mutt land Latin America is-with only Castizos being "White" in any arguable sense.

"White" is a recognition of a shared European ancestry, heritage and set of inherent cultural and psychological patterns.

And yes, "White" only makes sense in contrast to what is not White-in the roman empire or 500 BC, the concept of "White" would have never been imaginable, due to even more provincial levels of identity(clan and tribe)-White identity is a social construct only in the sense that we live in a globalized world-I have more in common from a genetic and cultural point with a native Briton or German than I do an American black-whom are the disapora of West Africa.

If all non Whites disappeared-or we suddenly found ourselves surrounded by a galaxy of aliens-then "White" identity would be reduced in importance as either-we'd share more with africans and chinese from alien insectoids, or in the former case-different White groups would inevitably diverge and their differences would spring to the surface.

In groups and outgroups can expand or invert depending on the broader geopolitical and sociological context. What is my ingroup today is not the same as my ancestors 3,000 years ago, or my descendants 10,000 years from now.

That doesn't make these groups any less real or important.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

Don't give me that sophistry.

Next time someone tries to argue with me I'm going to shout the above at them.

Although up to this point I actually wasn't sure if having Italian ancestry let you into the white club. I'm glad to hear that you can still get an invite to the ethnostate if you really like garlic in your food. Although a lot of Greeks and Italians are very tan and for Italians even the lighter skinned ones usually have very dark hair, how come they're allowed to be white? Italians tend to be aggressive and have a history in organized crime too.

Anyways, cultural/geographic ignorance is an American cultural tradition on par with gun ownership, anyone who knows what the Balkans or Iberia are should be fucking deported.

That doesn't make these groups any less real or important.

They aren't real or important, this is all faggy made up nonsense obsessed over by arrogant impotent liberal elitists parading around in the skin of conservatives, and any discussion of it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

 

[Ishtar]

They aren't real or important, this is all faggy made up nonsense obsessed over by arrogant impotent liberal elitists parading around in the skin of conservatives, and any discussion of it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Identity matters. Ethnic groups matter. No one is an individual-I mean yeah in the West we want to be individuals and be judged as individuals. But Whites are judged as a race. and we should judge Non Whites according to the standards and conduct of their brethren.

Anyways, up to this point I actually wasn't sure if having Italian ancestry let you into the white club. I'm glad to hear that you can still get an invite to the ethnostate if you really like garlic in your food. Although a lot of Greeks and Italians are very tan and for Italians even the lighter skinned ones usually have very dark hair, how come they're allowed to be white? Italians tend to be aggressive and have a history in organized crime too.

I mean you aren't protestant(likely anyway) and lack the puritan work ethic. That's why people of your ancestry were disliked or seen as different.

Nowadays such distinctions no longer mean as much.

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

Groypers couldn't handle 2 leafs, one who had a cocaine addiction, retardation and a stutter, and the other an obese man who displayed his glorious pink anus to the internet. Leafs and petrol sniffers combined will be the end of you.

Speaking of Petrol sniffers when will PPP and Randbot team up with Randbot as the OBS slave? Rand is actually funny unlike Tardski

 

[Spud]

No. You’re worse than a Jew. You’re a race traitor.

Race traitor only holds value when the person saying it is over 95% White

 

[Gaston LaNoir]

this explanation kinda supports the geopolitical-social construction of being white....

I don't understand why people are so obsessed over what is and what is not a social construct.

You know what's a social construct? Money. Try going $5,000,000 in debt to your bank and then telling them "Why you stressing out, bro? Money is just paper, maaaaaaaaan. It only has value because we believe it has value." Which is true. But fat lot of good that will do you.

Even if it were true that race were a social construct (which it's not), pointing that out would not advance the conversation in any meaningful way. It's still a currency that people trade in.

I know that Anglin is basically old news, and there's no way to say this without shilling my site, but you all should know this. A while back I created Hyphen Report with another guy, before splitting off to do the Daily Rake. Anglin and the Gamer Uprising fags got really angry about this and started leaving some hilarious comments on our site. Many were ovened, but some were so stupid that I kept them up because they amused me.

View attachment 3281641
However, when I went over to the Gamer Uprising forums, days later I found something that jogged my memory.

View attachment 3281643

That post was from Andrew Anglin himself. This is his account.

View attachment 3281644

So yes, "real alpha male" Andrew Anglin was trying to have sex with me. And yes, I am a man. The funniest part of this whole saga was that I almost deleted his comment, but kept it because it was so ridiculous. It's possible that someone in the Manlet Cult copied his comment over to our site, but I choose to believe that he wrote that himself, deleting the references to himself in the first person.

Your criticisms of Andrew Anglin would pack a lot more punch if you were not obviously trying to emulate his writing style. You write with Anglin's cadence. Short punchy sentence like Anglin does. You think no one can tell but oh no. We can tell.

And it's not just that your memes are cringe. It's that you use the same 10 meme over and over and over. You have a particular fondness for reaction memes.
Shit like this:

Here's some advice from some who actually knows how to write.
Interspersing reaction memes into your writing is the blogging equivalent of using a laugh track and it demonstrates either a lack of confidence in yourself as a writer and/or a lack of confidence in the intelligence of your readers. It's a way of saying "Oh, by the way. You're supposed to find that last thing I just wrote funny" like you're afraid that if you don't tell them, they won't know.
It's incredibly condescending to your readers. I'll make up my own mind about what you just wrote, thank you very much, But more importantly, it just shows a lack of confidence. Like you are unsure that you will get the reaction so you want from your writing alone so you are literally telling people how they are supposed to react. I'm embarrassed for you every time I see you do it.

Your shitty takes are actually the 17th worst thing about you. You're just a bad writer.

 

[Sneedlerino]

No. You can hate Nick Fuentes without being Jewish but people who go to the mat on denying race and do the whole tactically nihilistic “what is white?” sophistry like Bernadette was doing are always Jewish.

Every. Single. Time.

Nihilism isn't a unique trait to the Jewish. And that's not really nihilistic when you break it down. It's actually pretty optimistic as it implies that race itself isn't a contributing factor to how one carries themselves and what they can/can't accomplish. That people are able to rise above their stereotypes and become more than what they may be perceived as.

That's actually a pretty positive message.

People hate Nick because he's a grifter, a liar, and a cult leader. He is a closeted gay man that cannot be open about his sexuality as that would go against the tenants he built for his little congregation. So he instead decides that if he can't get fucked in the ass, no one should be getting fucked at all, so all sex is "gay". He lies about his 500k in order to drum up sympathy and more donations. He changes viewer numbers to make himself seem more successful than he is. He's a spiteful, vindictive, hateful little gremlin that wants to tear everything down because he can't have it. That's nihilism.

 

[GordonRameses]

Your criticisms of Andrew Anglin would pack a lot more punch if you were not obviously trying to emulate his writing style. You write with Anglin's cadence. Short punchy sentence like Anglin does. You think no one can tell but oh no. We can tell.

And it's not just that your memes are cringe. It's that you use the same 10 meme over and over and over. You have a particular fondness for reaction memes.
Shit like this:
View attachment 3285049
View attachment 3285053
View attachment 3285060
View attachment 3285079
Here's some advice from some who actually knows how to write.
Interspersing reaction memes into your writing is the blogging equivalent of using a laugh track and it demonstrates either a lack of confidence in yourself as a writer and/or a lack of confidence in the intelligence of your readers. It's a way of saying "Oh, by the way. You're supposed to find that last thing I just wrote funny" like you're afraid that if you don't tell them, they won't know.
It's incredibly condescending to your readers. I'll make up my own mind about what you just wrote, thank you very much, But more importantly, it just shows a lack of confidence. Like you are unsure that you will get the reaction so you want from your writing alone so you are literally telling people how they are supposed to react. I'm embarrassed for you every time I see you do it.

Your shitty takes are actually the 17th worst thing about you. You're just a bad writer.

it'd probably go a lot easier for you if you just admitted that you backed the wrong horse. Nick and his gay boys club are sinking fast and you still have the chance to walk away from that mess or let the cum hunter himself drag you down, only to knife you at a later date regardless.

 

[Chris Chad]

Your criticisms of Andrew Anglin would pack a lot more punch if you were not obviously trying to emulate his writing style. You write with Anglin's cadence. Short punchy sentence like Anglin does. You think no one can tell but oh no. We can tell.

And it's not just that your memes are cringe. It's that you use the same 10 meme over and over and over. You have a particular fondness for reaction memes.
Shit like this:
View attachment 3285049
View attachment 3285053
View attachment 3285060
View attachment 3285079
Here's some advice from some who actually knows how to write.
Interspersing reaction memes into your writing is the blogging equivalent of using a laugh track and it demonstrates either a lack of confidence in yourself as a writer and/or a lack of confidence in the intelligence of your readers. It's a way of saying "Oh, by the way. You're supposed to find that last thing I just wrote funny" like you're afraid that if you don't tell them, they won't know.
It's incredibly condescending to your readers. I'll make up my own mind about what you just wrote, thank you very much, But more importantly, it just shows a lack of confidence. Like you are unsure that you will get the reaction so you want from your writing alone so you are literally telling people how they are supposed to react. I'm embarrassed for you every time I see you do it.

Your shitty takes are actually the 17th worst thing about you. You're just a bad writer.

Your posts are so supremely shitty and gay that you're making me think white genocide might be a good thing

 

[Gaston LaNoir]

Nihilism isn't a unique trait to the Jewish. And that's not really nihilistic when you break it down. It's actually pretty optimistic as it implies that race itself isn't a contributing factor to how one carries themselves and what they can/can't accomplish. That people are able to rise above their stereotypes and become more than what they may be perceived as.

That's actually a pretty positive message.

But it's not true.

 

[trickyzerg23]

Your criticisms of Andrew Anglin would pack a lot more punch if you were not obviously trying to emulate his writing style. You write with Anglin's cadence. Short punchy sentence like Anglin does. You think no one can tell but oh no. We can tell.

Your comment was inspected with a blacklight and tested positive for cum.