Sure. Their primary concern is that it lends legitimacy to the claim...
Frankly, fuck their concerns. I'm not going to for a single minute take the arguments of people who absolutely despise "whiteness" when it comes to whether or not white people should look after themselves. It's a bit of a conflict of interests, I'd say.
It's like the people who take every single instance of anything as proof that climate change is real, and they should push the agendas they already wanted to push. Or the disarmament squad, who will take any event as a sign they need to push the gun control legislation they already wanted to push.
They're not reliable or trustworthy, so frankly their concerns when it comes to white people is beyond worthless.
...the claim that white people will cease to exist and white children are in danger...White people as a racial construct are not going to simply die out, that's not really a thing.
I mean, I would have thought so too. Until you notice what they're doing to any and every "white majority" country (and I put that in quotes because they don't call black countries "black majority," or Asian countries "Asian majority," and the whole concept is a linguistic attack itself.) It's not going to be soon, but if white people aren't allowed to have anything for themselves, and any group of predominately or exclusively white people is deemed racist...over time, yes, "white people" will absolutely die out, or at least shrivel away to nothing. and once the numbers get low enough, probably get genocided actively even nearer to extinction. You just have to look at the trends to realize that, yes, white people are being shoved out, and that will at least potentially result in eventual near extinction.
However, there is rampant, systemic, anti-white discrimination at this point that endangers white kids and teaches them to hate themselves.
And, if white people aren't allowed to have an identity, but every other racial group is, and they're mostly trained to hate white people...yeah, whites aren't faring too well in that scenario.
The saying itself is not much of a problem.
Tell them that.
All the other crazy shit before and after it is, and more specifically, the idea that the best way to protect white people is with socialism; well that's a special case of retard.
Awwww shit, there you go again. One of my least favorite arguments. If you care about white people, you're a socialist and a leftist. Tiresome.
Socialism didn't protect Russia, Germany, or Britain. Imagine being fucking retarded enough to think that therefore Socialism would protect white people, when Socialism is actively destroying white people right now.
No one is calling for socialism. You just use that as a smear against people you don't like, to try to score cheap points. It's a shame, too. You're obviously a smart guy, and you're good on plenty of subjects. But this is just bullshit, and it annoys me every time you, and others using the same playbook, use that tactic.
If defending white people is socialism, what should white people do? Because you seem to just lump anything pro-white in with Nazism, and Nazism in with socialism (yeah, point, but it's a tad more complicated), and then with leftism. So basically, to you, any pro-white movement is inherently leftist, and thus inherently retarded. So do white people just die out, or what?
I'm a white person who cares about white people, and thinks they're under attack. What is an acceptable attitude or response?
Just go die in the woods alone like a freedom loving rugged individual bruh
Still a more respectful answer than leftists would give, so that's something, I suppose.
It really is absurd that 'just let white people die out on their own' is a compassionate take when grading on a bell curve, where leftists are involved.
Pretty sure letting white people go off and die in the woods in freedom is far-right white supremacy nowadays. Yikes.
It's not going to be soon, but if white people aren't allowed to have anything for themselves, and any group of predominately or exclusively white people is deemed racist...over time, yes, "white people" will absolutely die out, or at least shrivel away to nothing.
No, this is Progressive Nationalist doctrine. Even in the worst case you can politically imagine, stateless peoples exist regardless of political recognition. That isn't even remotely going to come to that.
One of my least favorite arguments. If you care about white people, you're a socialist and a leftist.
No, just the opposite. If your are a Leftist or a Socialist, then I know for a fact you don't care about American Whites. The same way a Feminist doesn't care about women, or a BLM activist doesn't care about American Blacks.
I'm a white person who cares about white people, and thinks they're under attack. What is an acceptable attitude or response?
Open and immediate confrontation against racialist bullshit. That's what I've done, even at work, directly to people's faces. I make it clear that under no uncertain terms I will respond to racialism with direct, open, immediate hostility and condemnation regardless of consequence. I will not tolerate it, and will not tolerate it being pushed onto my co-workers, nor any member of my team.
You don't tolerate it, you don't compromise, you set the tempo of the battle and you start it early. "But you could lose your job!" Good. Don't work for racist, Nazi, trash. If you are a good employee, then they don't deserve you, and better people should earn your labor.
And yes, that includes these fucking Black National Socialist terrorists talking about "racial equity" and "social justice".
Beyond that, take care of your neighbors, family, friends, and local community. Be the pillar of your community. If you really want to effect positive change for American Whites, then you need to check out what Booker T. Washington did for American Blacks.
And, again, I'm not trying to be mean, I don't dislike or disrespect you. I know you're a smart guy. I just thing you're on the wrong side of this, and disingenuous on this topic as well.
Even in the worst case you can politically imagine, stateless peoples exist regardless of political recognition. That isn't even remotely going to come to that.
Stateless people exist...but not as any sort of power. Stateless people exist...at the mercy of the State.
Again, they're after white people, in every white location. I know you know this. Over time, that will result in white people fading out. In any nonwhite location, whites are the outsiders. In any white location...well, our own governments are turning against us steadily, we have affirmative action against us, we often have all but "No Whites Allowed" signs. If the trend continues, that doesn't leave us anywhere at all pleasant.
US went from +90% white to ~60% in around a century. Many other "white majority" (again, linguistic attack on white countries, no one else is a "majority" country, they're just an Asian or black country, or whatever) followed the same trend. All power structures are against whites. There is no pro-white group with power really anywhere in the world. Almost any country that went from majority white to minority white basically genocided the white people there.
To act like it's impossible that whites get driven to utter irrelevance and put to the mercy of people who have declared their hatred of us means you're either not paying attention (which I know isn't true), or just don't want to admit it.
If your are a Leftist or a Socialist, then I know for a fact you don't care about American Whites.
Again, linguistics. You accuse anyone who says they're for white people of being socialist leftists. So it doesn't matter who you say cares about white people and who doesn't, when you label anyone who says they care about white people as people who by definition can't care about white people. Nope.
It is a shame. I do mean it when I say I think he's smart, and that I don't hate him or anything. He's good on lots of issues, I'm not just blowing smoke. But...yeah, when he's playing defense on this topic it's an absolute pain in the ass, and often first rate bullshit. It's all manipulation and linguistic trickery.
...he's going to tell you which ones good, which ones bad, and how your opinion disqualifies you from one and forces you into the other. Complete nonsense.
I don't hate anyone here. There are people I distrust, people I disagree with and, yes, even people who are completely against me on an issue, but what's the point in hating them? It would just make this board a less pleasant place, too.
I honestly believe something broke him 2 months ago, what that is or was I dunno, but he spurted gibberish which was removed and never answer my query about it.
None of this is a word salad, I'm being as explicitly clear as is possible.
Stateless people exist...but not as any sort of power. Stateless people exist...at the mercy of the State.
None of this has ever been true. Even when people are within empires, power still exists without being an ethno-state. If it weren't true, Poland wouldn't exist, and we'd still be talking about the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Ethno-states are typically the exception in history. A people can have power even without the states to do so.
Actually, I just thought of a good example!
Jews.
They didn't even have a state for over a thousand years.
Over time, that will result in white people fading out.
Again, not even in the worst case scenario, and I don't think the worst case will come to pass.
There is no pro-white group with power really anywhere in the world.
That's because the concept of "white racial solidarity" is an anathema to white people. Even the Nazis weren't Pro-White. They were Pro-German. The are only two groups that were ever really "pro-white". The British Anglos, and the Southern Scoth-Irish & Anglo former Whigs. Even then, those people used two different definitions. The British Anglos referring primarily to the Peoples of Great Britain; and the American Southerner Whigs referring to non-Blacks & non-Orientals. The Brits are, frankly, a mess because of the conflict between the old definition and the American definition; and the Americans south abandoned white racialism because it didn't do shit to help them.
To act like it's impossible that whites get driven to utter irrelevance and put to the mercy of people who have declared their hatred of us
Whomever told you that white people could be driven to irrelevance or vassalized forgot they landed on the moon.
No, seriously, being stateless does not mean being without power or influence in a society. "The only legitimate method for political power is a government job" is simply not understanding history, or operating off of a Leftist dialectic on power.
You accuse anyone who says they're for white people of being socialist leftists.
You're just refusing to listen. I accuse Socialists of being Socialists. Being pro-white is not even definitive of an ideology. The issue is that people assume that National Socialists have a monopoly on that claim. They don't. They are race traitors 100% of the time because they will always sacrifice their own clientele class for power.
None of this has ever been true. Even when people are within empires, power still exists without being an ethno-state.
When did I say ethno-state? Go ahead, show me.
Jews...They didn't even have a state for over a thousand years.
Yeah, and, even when they were powerful, they often eventually got driven out, because they were an Other, easy to turn against.
[white people fading out.] Again, not even in the worst case scenario, and I don't think the worst case will come to pass.
We're already seeing it. White people are fading out demographically in white countries. White people as a group are losing power. All power structures are arrayed against whites. This is nonsense, again.
That's because the concept of "white racial solidarity" is an anathema to white people.
Oh, that's a good one. Play it again. Again, you just make up your own definitions and act like it's the Truth. No group that won't look after itself will fair well in the long term.
Even the Nazis weren't Pro-White. They were Pro-German.
Alright. If you're going to be extremely pedantic (shocker), let me rephrase. There is no real pro-American movement. There is no pro-British movement. There is no modern pro-German movement. There is no pro-X movement in white countries. That's not on the menu.
The are only two groups that were ever really "pro-white". The British Anglos, and the Southern Scoth-Irish & Anglo former Whigs.
And, again, there is no pro-Anglo movement. There is no pro-Irish movement. They're all modern bastardizations. They're small movements, that hold relatively limited power, and are still attacked for being racist.
Because, again, you're not allowed to be pro-white, pro-Anglo, pro-nation, pro-whatever, in historically white countries. That's not a thing. There is no racial/ethnic whatever movement with any power that benefits whites. And if you want to quibble on "white," you can break that down in country too. Again. No pro-white-American, no pro-white-British, no pro-white-Irish, etc. And all those would be quickly cracked down on.
Your arguments are absurd. White countries are not allowed to be pro-white, even within the contexts of their own countries. And nowadays all white countries are actively anti-white.
Whomever told you that white people could be driven to irrelevance or vassalized forgot they landed on the moon.
Uhm. Weren't we around 90% white when we did that shit?
No, seriously, being stateless does not mean being without power or influence in a society.
When you have the State arrayed against you, the laws arrayed against you, and the propaganda media arrayed against you, while you're becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the population in your own countries...that doesn't bode well. I'm not saying there's no power, I'm saying it's not a winning move, and pretending everything is fine is certainly not one.
We used to have white countries. We don't anymore. Simple.
You're just refusing to listen. I accuse Socialists of being Socialists. Being pro-white is not even definitive of an ideology.
Again, you brought up socialism. I didn't. Pro-white people here don't. You are the one who keeps calling people socialists and leftists for being pro white. It's boring.
Hahaha! Jews! That’s your counter example? Putting aside all the baggage on particular group, let’s just take their own history at face value: they got driven out of country after country after country through no fault of their own until most recently they got holocausted. Luckily, many of them escaped or were living elsewhere, and they got enough sympathy and influence in other countries that they were able to build their own state, so their position is a bit more secure now even though they have lots of people that hate them still.
Is that about right? Is that something you’d agree to, as a broad strokes sort of summary?
Great! Now, imagine a much much more globalized world, where the Jews get driven out of a nation or targeted for a holocaust, but no one takes them in because the same exact ideology has taken over (or at least exerts massive pressure on) all the other countries they might also live in or flee to. Instead of it being “Spain expels the Jews” in 1492 or whatever, it’s “every country in Europe expels the Jews all at once, and actually maybe instead of making them leave they formally round them up and kill them.”
Frankly, fuck their concerns. I'm not going to for a single minute take the arguments of people who absolutely despise "whiteness" when it comes to whether or not white people should look after themselves. It's a bit of a conflict of interests, I'd say.
It's like the people who take every single instance of anything as proof that climate change is real, and they should push the agendas they already wanted to push. Or the disarmament squad, who will take any event as a sign they need to push the gun control legislation they already wanted to push.
They're not reliable or trustworthy, so frankly their concerns when it comes to white people is beyond worthless.
I mean, I would have thought so too. Until you notice what they're doing to any and every "white majority" country (and I put that in quotes because they don't call black countries "black majority," or Asian countries "Asian majority," and the whole concept is a linguistic attack itself.) It's not going to be soon, but if white people aren't allowed to have anything for themselves, and any group of predominately or exclusively white people is deemed racist...over time, yes, "white people" will absolutely die out, or at least shrivel away to nothing. and once the numbers get low enough, probably get genocided actively even nearer to extinction. You just have to look at the trends to realize that, yes, white people are being shoved out, and that will at least potentially result in eventual near extinction.
And, if white people aren't allowed to have an identity, but every other racial group is, and they're mostly trained to hate white people...yeah, whites aren't faring too well in that scenario.
Tell them that.
Awwww shit, there you go again. One of my least favorite arguments. If you care about white people, you're a socialist and a leftist. Tiresome.
No one is calling for socialism. You just use that as a smear against people you don't like, to try to score cheap points. It's a shame, too. You're obviously a smart guy, and you're good on plenty of subjects. But this is just bullshit, and it annoys me every time you, and others using the same playbook, use that tactic.
If defending white people is socialism, what should white people do? Because you seem to just lump anything pro-white in with Nazism, and Nazism in with socialism (yeah, point, but it's a tad more complicated), and then with leftism. So basically, to you, any pro-white movement is inherently leftist, and thus inherently retarded. So do white people just die out, or what?
I'm a white person who cares about white people, and thinks they're under attack. What is an acceptable attitude or response?
Just go die in the woods alone like a freedom loving rugged individual bruh
Still a more respectful answer than leftists would give, so that's something, I suppose.
It really is absurd that 'just let white people die out on their own' is a compassionate take when grading on a bell curve, where leftists are involved.
Pretty sure letting white people go off and die in the woods in freedom is far-right white supremacy nowadays. Yikes.
Funny (prompted by the thread yesterday), I've just been watching Bond. So this is very topical.
That thread is probably why it popped into my head
No, this is Progressive Nationalist doctrine. Even in the worst case you can politically imagine, stateless peoples exist regardless of political recognition. That isn't even remotely going to come to that.
No, just the opposite. If your are a Leftist or a Socialist, then I know for a fact you don't care about American Whites. The same way a Feminist doesn't care about women, or a BLM activist doesn't care about American Blacks.
Open and immediate confrontation against racialist bullshit. That's what I've done, even at work, directly to people's faces. I make it clear that under no uncertain terms I will respond to racialism with direct, open, immediate hostility and condemnation regardless of consequence. I will not tolerate it, and will not tolerate it being pushed onto my co-workers, nor any member of my team.
You don't tolerate it, you don't compromise, you set the tempo of the battle and you start it early. "But you could lose your job!" Good. Don't work for racist, Nazi, trash. If you are a good employee, then they don't deserve you, and better people should earn your labor.
And yes, that includes these fucking Black National Socialist terrorists talking about "racial equity" and "social justice".
Beyond that, take care of your neighbors, family, friends, and local community. Be the pillar of your community. If you really want to effect positive change for American Whites, then you need to check out what Booker T. Washington did for American Blacks.
Your word salad gets exhausting.
And, again, I'm not trying to be mean, I don't dislike or disrespect you. I know you're a smart guy. I just thing you're on the wrong side of this, and disingenuous on this topic as well.
Stateless people exist...but not as any sort of power. Stateless people exist...at the mercy of the State.
Again, they're after white people, in every white location. I know you know this. Over time, that will result in white people fading out. In any nonwhite location, whites are the outsiders. In any white location...well, our own governments are turning against us steadily, we have affirmative action against us, we often have all but "No Whites Allowed" signs. If the trend continues, that doesn't leave us anywhere at all pleasant.
US went from +90% white to ~60% in around a century. Many other "white majority" (again, linguistic attack on white countries, no one else is a "majority" country, they're just an Asian or black country, or whatever) followed the same trend. All power structures are against whites. There is no pro-white group with power really anywhere in the world. Almost any country that went from majority white to minority white basically genocided the white people there.
To act like it's impossible that whites get driven to utter irrelevance and put to the mercy of people who have declared their hatred of us means you're either not paying attention (which I know isn't true), or just don't want to admit it.
Again, linguistics. You accuse anyone who says they're for white people of being socialist leftists. So it doesn't matter who you say cares about white people and who doesn't, when you label anyone who says they care about white people as people who by definition can't care about white people. Nope.
He’s a civnat retard with extra steps.
It is a shame. I do mean it when I say I think he's smart, and that I don't hate him or anything. He's good on lots of issues, I'm not just blowing smoke. But...yeah, when he's playing defense on this topic it's an absolute pain in the ass, and often first rate bullshit. It's all manipulation and linguistic trickery.
Yup.
Why don’t you hate him? He is clearly your enemy. You should despise him.
I don't hate anyone here. There are people I distrust, people I disagree with and, yes, even people who are completely against me on an issue, but what's the point in hating them? It would just make this board a less pleasant place, too.
I honestly believe something broke him 2 months ago, what that is or was I dunno, but he spurted gibberish which was removed and never answer my query about it.
I probably forgot to answer. What was the question?
None of this is a word salad, I'm being as explicitly clear as is possible.
None of this has ever been true. Even when people are within empires, power still exists without being an ethno-state. If it weren't true, Poland wouldn't exist, and we'd still be talking about the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Ethno-states are typically the exception in history. A people can have power even without the states to do so.
Actually, I just thought of a good example!
Jews.
They didn't even have a state for over a thousand years.
Again, not even in the worst case scenario, and I don't think the worst case will come to pass.
That's because the concept of "white racial solidarity" is an anathema to white people. Even the Nazis weren't Pro-White. They were Pro-German. The are only two groups that were ever really "pro-white". The British Anglos, and the Southern Scoth-Irish & Anglo former Whigs. Even then, those people used two different definitions. The British Anglos referring primarily to the Peoples of Great Britain; and the American Southerner Whigs referring to non-Blacks & non-Orientals. The Brits are, frankly, a mess because of the conflict between the old definition and the American definition; and the Americans south abandoned white racialism because it didn't do shit to help them.
Whomever told you that white people could be driven to irrelevance or vassalized forgot they landed on the moon.
No, seriously, being stateless does not mean being without power or influence in a society. "The only legitimate method for political power is a government job" is simply not understanding history, or operating off of a Leftist dialectic on power.
You're just refusing to listen. I accuse Socialists of being Socialists. Being pro-white is not even definitive of an ideology. The issue is that people assume that National Socialists have a monopoly on that claim. They don't. They are race traitors 100% of the time because they will always sacrifice their own clientele class for power.
When did I say ethno-state? Go ahead, show me.
Yeah, and, even when they were powerful, they often eventually got driven out, because they were an Other, easy to turn against.
We're already seeing it. White people are fading out demographically in white countries. White people as a group are losing power. All power structures are arrayed against whites. This is nonsense, again.
Oh, that's a good one. Play it again. Again, you just make up your own definitions and act like it's the Truth. No group that won't look after itself will fair well in the long term.
Alright. If you're going to be extremely pedantic (shocker), let me rephrase. There is no real pro-American movement. There is no pro-British movement. There is no modern pro-German movement. There is no pro-X movement in white countries. That's not on the menu.
And, again, there is no pro-Anglo movement. There is no pro-Irish movement. They're all modern bastardizations. They're small movements, that hold relatively limited power, and are still attacked for being racist.
Because, again, you're not allowed to be pro-white, pro-Anglo, pro-nation, pro-whatever, in historically white countries. That's not a thing. There is no racial/ethnic whatever movement with any power that benefits whites. And if you want to quibble on "white," you can break that down in country too. Again. No pro-white-American, no pro-white-British, no pro-white-Irish, etc. And all those would be quickly cracked down on.
Your arguments are absurd. White countries are not allowed to be pro-white, even within the contexts of their own countries. And nowadays all white countries are actively anti-white.
Uhm. Weren't we around 90% white when we did that shit?
When you have the State arrayed against you, the laws arrayed against you, and the propaganda media arrayed against you, while you're becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the population in your own countries...that doesn't bode well. I'm not saying there's no power, I'm saying it's not a winning move, and pretending everything is fine is certainly not one.
We used to have white countries. We don't anymore. Simple.
Again, you brought up socialism. I didn't. Pro-white people here don't. You are the one who keeps calling people socialists and leftists for being pro white. It's boring.
Hahaha! Jews! That’s your counter example? Putting aside all the baggage on particular group, let’s just take their own history at face value: they got driven out of country after country after country through no fault of their own until most recently they got holocausted. Luckily, many of them escaped or were living elsewhere, and they got enough sympathy and influence in other countries that they were able to build their own state, so their position is a bit more secure now even though they have lots of people that hate them still.
Is that about right? Is that something you’d agree to, as a broad strokes sort of summary?
Great! Now, imagine a much much more globalized world, where the Jews get driven out of a nation or targeted for a holocaust, but no one takes them in because the same exact ideology has taken over (or at least exerts massive pressure on) all the other countries they might also live in or flee to. Instead of it being “Spain expels the Jews” in 1492 or whatever, it’s “every country in Europe expels the Jews all at once, and actually maybe instead of making them leave they formally round them up and kill them.”
How’s that work out for the Jews?
This is some of your most egregiously homosexual pedantry.