I have a perfectly fine rebuttal to this, but it's against the rules.
And what would you do about the vast numbers who would not fit into these 'ethnic blocks'?
That depends on what they do. Most will either just mind their own business and be apolitical or caucus with one of the established groups, I would imagine.
As far as lunatics, we're a fringe ideology. As such, we attract our share of anti-social sperges. As America deteriorates under neoliberalism, our views will start leaking into the mainstream, and we'll have more normal people. Basically, very few well-adjusted people will want to endure everything that comes with being on the fringes when times are good. They aren't good anymore and will only get worse for a good while here.
If you look at this community, I'm one of the few people who pushes back against the celebrating whenever some random pleb get murdered or something (unless they are really far gone like that guy with AIDS). This place is overwhelmingly anti-social, and if you pay close attention, you will notice that it's actually the "Wamen Question" people who are the worst. Some of them do the racialist stuff too, but I don't think that "WQ" stuff is compatible with being a White Nationalist. If you hate women, you hate white women. If you hate white women, you hate white people.
It's funny you mention NrX because it has a clean, intellectual veneer, but it's actually very anti-social, elitist, and Social Darwinist. Those guys think the average plebe has too much power (lol). That type of thinking has as much potential to go off the rails as anything even it looks very clean by comparison while it's out of power. The WNs with the most potential don't talk about things that way.
I have a perfectly fine rebuttal to this, but it's against the rules.
You can always PM people the answer in such cases.
That depends on what they do. Most will either just mind their own business and be apolitical or caucus with one of the established groups, I would imagine.
This sounds more like political racialisation. If I understand you correctly, all you want is just for voluntary separation from other groups to be allowed. To be honest, I don't see that many people going for it at the moment. Many people (myself included) like to live in mostly white neighborhoods, but they don't mind affluent blacks who don't go around causing trouble everywhere.
Now, you seem to suspect that things will get steadily worse. If blacks of the bad variety start going around causing trouble in such neighborhoods, I can see people wanting exclusively white neighborhoods so such people can be caught quickly.
As far as lunatics, we're a fringe ideology. As such, we attract our share of anti-social sperges.
That makes sense.
As America deteriorates under neoliberalism, our views will start leaking into the mainstream, and we'll have more normal people
Meh, normal people are fair weather friends (as you say right after this, I believe). They'll be on your side for as long as their petty hides are threatened, and then return to their old ways. They revere power above all else.
If you look at this community, I'm one of the few people who pushes back against the celebrating whenever some random pleb get murdered or something (unless they are really far gone like that guy with AIDS).
You being one of the more sensible people here is not exactly a shocking occurrence. I don't mind the celebration quite as much as the fact that it does no good at all, while making everyone look bad. Of course, they did the same - actually much worse - with Herman Cain, so they're not exactly in a position to complain.
It costs nothing to pretend to be a good person, which is why so many 'normies' do it.
This place is overwhelmingly anti-social, and if you pay close attention, you will notice that it's actually the "Wamen Question" people who are the worst.
Yes. I'm glad that there was at least some pushback on that latest, quite awful post about rape. It surprised me positively, that not everyone here is a sociopath.
Some of them do the racialist stuff too, but I don't think that "WQ" stuff is compatible with being a White Nationalist. If you hate women, you hate white women. If you hate white women, you hate white people.
WQ is Woman Question?
If hating women implies hating white women, and that implies hating whites - does the same not go for hating whites => hating blacks and hating Jews? So they're general misanthropes. Actually, that is not that far from the mark.
I mean, I absolutely agree that it's stupid beyond belief. A lot of white women are insufferable, but it's not because they are white women.
It's funny you mention NrX because it has a clean, intellectual veneer, but it's actually very anti-social, elitist, and Social Darwinist. Those guys think the average plebe has too much power (lol).
I'm not that familiar with Yarvin's thought, except in its MacIntyre formulation. He seems to buy into the idea that 'democracy' is real, but he believes that this only means that the media determines policy.
I think a sharp distinction should be made between traditionalist forms of rule (so called absolutist monarchies), where the average pleb did not have much power, and depriving the average pleb of even more power in current conditions. The former was acceptable, the latter is not. But it can't be brought back. Unfortunately, I do know that Yarvin has a very misinformed view of history - he thinks that kings had a lot of power due to a common misunderstanding of the term 'absolutism', when they were actually extremely restricted.
The WNs with the most potential don't talk about things that way.
Who do you regard as that group? The only public WN whom I respect is Jared Taylor, but I'm not exactly familiar with a lot of them.
The only thing that is a bigger waste of the time than publicly arguing about politics on the internet is privately arguing about them on the internet. I think I'll void crossing that rubicon.
I think things will get steadily worse, more or less. We might get some minor reprieves for a couple of years, but the longer term, overarching trends will remain negative.
Correct on "WG" and yes there is a ton of general misanthropy here. A lot of the stuff they post is social media garbage. They're very reluctant to entertain the idea that their image of white women is being curated by a social media feed with an agenda.
NrX isn't wrong that the media gets used for consent manufacturing, but our system will do things that are widely unpopular like bank bailouts. Winning over the public is just something they do to stabilize things.
As far as WNs, Taylor is good but doesn't touch the JQ. It leads to holes in his world view. TRS/NJP is my biggest influence. Counter Currents is also good. Occidental Observer has some good writers as well, but mileage varies over there.
The only thing that is a bigger waste of the time than publicly arguing about politics on the internet is privately arguing about them on the internet. I think I'll void crossing that rubicon.
We're already there, no one is reading this.
I think things will get steadily worse, more or less. We might get some minor reprieves for a couple of years, but the longer term, overarching trends will remain negative.
Maybe. I tend to think so as well. But I think that things getting worse will result in adjustments along the way, rather than a wholesale sudden swing to white nationalism. Look at all the Dems suddenly concerned about immigration, because it's now their ox being gored.
They're very reluctant to entertain the idea that their image of white women is being curated by a social media feed with an agenda.
To be fair, a lot of young white women are absolutely insufferable. But as I said, this is not due to race. Their problem is not that they're observing that there is a problem here, but their focus on them being white. A lot of brainwashed Indian and Asian women are exactly the same. The corrupting influence of woke Western 'culture' is hardly limited to one race.
NrX isn't wrong that the media gets used for consent manufacturing, but our system will do things that are widely unpopular like bank bailouts. Winning over the public is just something they do to stabilize things.
I think that's where 'democracy' comes in. Allow people the illusion that they are in charge, and they will be less likely to want to get rid of a system. Burnham's Machiavellians was a real eye-opener for me, I always knew that it was a sham, I just didn't know the mechanism by which it is a sham.
As far as WNs, Taylor is good but doesn't touch the JQ. It leads to holes in his world view.
So what is your view of that if you don't want to go 'Holovey' on them? I've never seen anything beyond "Jews are bad because they're overrepresented among people I don't like". I've never seen anything productive discussion of this issue leads to. Suppose you were able to persuade everyone that Jews are bad. What then?
TRS/NJP is my biggest influence. Counter Currents is also good. Occidental Observer has some good writers as well, but mileage varies over there.
I don't know those two acronyms, and I actually don't know the rest either.
I have a perfectly fine rebuttal to this, but it's against the rules.
That depends on what they do. Most will either just mind their own business and be apolitical or caucus with one of the established groups, I would imagine.
As far as lunatics, we're a fringe ideology. As such, we attract our share of anti-social sperges. As America deteriorates under neoliberalism, our views will start leaking into the mainstream, and we'll have more normal people. Basically, very few well-adjusted people will want to endure everything that comes with being on the fringes when times are good. They aren't good anymore and will only get worse for a good while here.
If you look at this community, I'm one of the few people who pushes back against the celebrating whenever some random pleb get murdered or something (unless they are really far gone like that guy with AIDS). This place is overwhelmingly anti-social, and if you pay close attention, you will notice that it's actually the "Wamen Question" people who are the worst. Some of them do the racialist stuff too, but I don't think that "WQ" stuff is compatible with being a White Nationalist. If you hate women, you hate white women. If you hate white women, you hate white people.
It's funny you mention NrX because it has a clean, intellectual veneer, but it's actually very anti-social, elitist, and Social Darwinist. Those guys think the average plebe has too much power (lol). That type of thinking has as much potential to go off the rails as anything even it looks very clean by comparison while it's out of power. The WNs with the most potential don't talk about things that way.
You can always PM people the answer in such cases.
This sounds more like political racialisation. If I understand you correctly, all you want is just for voluntary separation from other groups to be allowed. To be honest, I don't see that many people going for it at the moment. Many people (myself included) like to live in mostly white neighborhoods, but they don't mind affluent blacks who don't go around causing trouble everywhere.
Now, you seem to suspect that things will get steadily worse. If blacks of the bad variety start going around causing trouble in such neighborhoods, I can see people wanting exclusively white neighborhoods so such people can be caught quickly.
That makes sense.
Meh, normal people are fair weather friends (as you say right after this, I believe). They'll be on your side for as long as their petty hides are threatened, and then return to their old ways. They revere power above all else.
You being one of the more sensible people here is not exactly a shocking occurrence. I don't mind the celebration quite as much as the fact that it does no good at all, while making everyone look bad. Of course, they did the same - actually much worse - with Herman Cain, so they're not exactly in a position to complain.
It costs nothing to pretend to be a good person, which is why so many 'normies' do it.
Yes. I'm glad that there was at least some pushback on that latest, quite awful post about rape. It surprised me positively, that not everyone here is a sociopath.
WQ is Woman Question?
If hating women implies hating white women, and that implies hating whites - does the same not go for hating whites => hating blacks and hating Jews? So they're general misanthropes. Actually, that is not that far from the mark.
I mean, I absolutely agree that it's stupid beyond belief. A lot of white women are insufferable, but it's not because they are white women.
I'm not that familiar with Yarvin's thought, except in its MacIntyre formulation. He seems to buy into the idea that 'democracy' is real, but he believes that this only means that the media determines policy.
I think a sharp distinction should be made between traditionalist forms of rule (so called absolutist monarchies), where the average pleb did not have much power, and depriving the average pleb of even more power in current conditions. The former was acceptable, the latter is not. But it can't be brought back. Unfortunately, I do know that Yarvin has a very misinformed view of history - he thinks that kings had a lot of power due to a common misunderstanding of the term 'absolutism', when they were actually extremely restricted.
Who do you regard as that group? The only public WN whom I respect is Jared Taylor, but I'm not exactly familiar with a lot of them.
The only thing that is a bigger waste of the time than publicly arguing about politics on the internet is privately arguing about them on the internet. I think I'll void crossing that rubicon.
I think things will get steadily worse, more or less. We might get some minor reprieves for a couple of years, but the longer term, overarching trends will remain negative.
Correct on "WG" and yes there is a ton of general misanthropy here. A lot of the stuff they post is social media garbage. They're very reluctant to entertain the idea that their image of white women is being curated by a social media feed with an agenda.
NrX isn't wrong that the media gets used for consent manufacturing, but our system will do things that are widely unpopular like bank bailouts. Winning over the public is just something they do to stabilize things.
As far as WNs, Taylor is good but doesn't touch the JQ. It leads to holes in his world view. TRS/NJP is my biggest influence. Counter Currents is also good. Occidental Observer has some good writers as well, but mileage varies over there.
We're already there, no one is reading this.
Maybe. I tend to think so as well. But I think that things getting worse will result in adjustments along the way, rather than a wholesale sudden swing to white nationalism. Look at all the Dems suddenly concerned about immigration, because it's now their ox being gored.
To be fair, a lot of young white women are absolutely insufferable. But as I said, this is not due to race. Their problem is not that they're observing that there is a problem here, but their focus on them being white. A lot of brainwashed Indian and Asian women are exactly the same. The corrupting influence of woke Western 'culture' is hardly limited to one race.
I think that's where 'democracy' comes in. Allow people the illusion that they are in charge, and they will be less likely to want to get rid of a system. Burnham's Machiavellians was a real eye-opener for me, I always knew that it was a sham, I just didn't know the mechanism by which it is a sham.
So what is your view of that if you don't want to go 'Holovey' on them? I've never seen anything beyond "Jews are bad because they're overrepresented among people I don't like". I've never seen anything productive discussion of this issue leads to. Suppose you were able to persuade everyone that Jews are bad. What then?
I don't know those two acronyms, and I actually don't know the rest either.