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.
According to this morons paradigm the Holocaust was totally really killing 6 million jews, and so the jews are a great example of why it's totally fine to be a stateless minority? Not risky at all!
White populations are not "fading out". White populations are being displaced by Mass Migration. Mass Deportations fix that. The white populations are pretty much static, except for Leftist Whites which are in decline because they keep killing themselves with nihilism and abortions.
MAGA is literally the Pro-American movement. America First is the Pro-American movement. You might not like that American isn't innately White, but that's because it's a Liberal Revolutionary country. Americans are both Civic National, and assimilatory, not exclusively White. The pro-British movements are nascent. There is an emergent Pro-Anglo (Read: Pro-English) movement, and the Pro-Irish movement was a Leftist project that is currently attempting to re-assert itself against globalism as the Irish were inevitably betrayed by Socialists.
Yes we were 90% white around that time, I'll say it again, what makes you think a group of whites can't accomplish things?
I didn't say there aren't problems facing whites, or that everything's fine. I explicitly said that it's not and that anti-white racialism should be opposed.
Yes, the fake Pro-White people here bring up National Socialism all the time, because they are National Socialists. There are hardly any pro-white people that aren't NatSocs on this board.
Again, you are explicitly refusing to listen to my responses, and substituting them with what you think I'm really saying.
No, you’re a dishonest piece of shit. The western white demographic is in literal decline. The last census showed it. We’re down several million whites in just America. And you can say they were “just leftists”, but the victims of leftist brainwashing still count against the total, dickhead. No one is born a leftist. The net outgroup preferences of white peoples are not an organic evolved behavior. It’s dysgenic. It was taught and enforced.
No it isn't, at least not any more than the rest of the planets demographics are in decline (even in Africa). For the most part, the white populations are in minor decline, except for White Leftists because of their insane outgroup preference and abortion promotion. They are the ones actually swinging the demographic growth down because other wise the population rate would be stable.
What your seeing in "decline" is two forms of statistical error: fewer people identifying as white (see "white hispanic" as a fake ethnic group), and the classification assertion that mixed race individuals are, by definition, non-white. If you have a kid that is 1/8th black, and you call him black rather than even mixed race, or just white; you intentionally eliminate only the white category on purpose. We don't see a 'mixed race family' where you have someone who is 1/8th Hispanic, 7/8ths Black, and declare it impossible for them to be Black and they can only be Hispanic.
White populations are being displaced by Mass Migration. Mass Deportations fix that.
That's a start, but not a fix.
The white populations are pretty much static, except for Leftist Whites which are in decline because they keep killing themselves with nihilism and abortions.
As someone else already said, that's still an attack, that's still a decline, too. You want to say white identity is anathema to white people...firstly, I don't agree but, secondly, radical leftism used to be anathema to white people, in a big way. The very fact that we have tons of white leftists is itself a sign of decay.
You might not like that American isn't innately White...
I honestly wouldn't care, if the powers that be weren't actively trying to get rid of white people. We never should have had as many nonwhites shoved into this country but, no, I don't need an exclusively or innately white America. But now, all modern demographic trickery is an attack on whites, it seems.
...but that's because it's a Liberal Revolutionary country. Americans are both Civic National, and assimilatory, not exclusively White.
That's, uh, that's not exactly how any of that works. Going from +90% to ~60% white was not some natural, 'liberal civic nationalism,' it was an outright attack. Which is why it happened so quickly. There is nothing organic about it, so it's a joke to try to say it's because we're innately a "Liberal Revolutionary" country. Mass migration went against the entire country's history up to that point, and it went against the wishes of the people, too. No one signed up for this.
Yes we were 90% white around that time, I'll say it again, what makes you think a group of whites can't accomplish things?
But you were talking about state power. You were talking about state versus stateless people. A very, very predominately white state landed on the moon. Not just some random assortment of white people. Only reason I brought it up is because you were talking about the state.
Also, a group of whites will be harder pressed than ever to accomplish things, because the very concept of "a group of whites" is, in the current framework, deemed incredibly racist. As we've talked about. We're not allowed to be "a group of whites," which causes some serious problems.
Again, you are explicitly refusing to listen to my responses, and substituting them with what you think I'm really saying.
You want to say white identity is anathema to white people...firstly, I don't agree but, secondly, radical leftism used to be anathema to white people, in a big way.
Absolutely not even remotely close. Leftism is emergent form a psychotic bastardization of Liberalism which is an explicitly western european invention. Leftism usurped Liberalism and dominates European societies, and has always found favor among European populations.
That's, uh, that's not exactly how any of that works. Going from +90% to ~60% white was not some natural, 'liberal civic nationalism,'
Your complaining about the Hart-Cellar Act, when the founding of the country as a Liberal state doesn't change what the cultural values of the population still remain. If anything, your complaining about the American Liberal values that the Hart-Cellar Act appealed to.
No, I'm saying your arguments are wrong.
No, you're not. You're saying the arguments your making for me are wrong. You've repeatedly made up new arguments from things I didn't say, and condemned me for saying things that you made up.
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.”
And yet, the jews still exist, correct? The jews haven't had a homeland for over 2,000 years, and despite not having a political state they still have their own communities, traditions, culture, and even language. In fact, the largest population of jews on Earth, to this day, remains in the US, where they have never had a state, and have never had a majority of the population, and were never institutionalized.
And yet there they are, largely in peaceful and prosperous communities in the US.
You think given the worst possible case scenario for whites, which is still not even remotely likely, they couldn't preform at least just as well as the jews. Last time I checked, even the Boers and Rhodesians are still holding together under terrible conditions.
You completely dodged (or missed) the point. It was very clear. This response, IMO, can only be explained by either ideological blindness or actual bad-faith behavior.
Since I don't think you're a bad-faith actor, that just reinforces my opinion of your ideological blindness on this topic.
Can an ethnic group: exist, be prosperous, be influential; without an ethno-state?
Obviously, the answer is yes and that is clearly demonstrated by jews who have a) existed continuously for over 2,000 years, b) been without a state for around that time, c) remained a tight knit ethnic group, d) prospered during that time in different areas for different time spans, e) have been influential during that time in different areas for different time spans.
So yes. Congratulations: white people can successfully exist without an ethno-state because I don't think whites are inferior to jews. I especially don't think that whites are inferior to white jews.
This argument that each and every state must be a single ethno-state or the ethnicity dies is an archaic progressive argument from the Woodrow Wilson era. It was silly then, and it's silly now.
And why are Jews so powerful and successful? Because they practice the most aggressive tribalism of any ethnic demo on the planet. Exactly the same ethnic tribalism that you are denying to white peoples. Seriously, you couldn’t have brought a worse example to prove your point. You’re actually quite stupid.
No, you're thinking of the Mayans, that's why they conquered and ate their vassals in their empire.
The jews are successful due to literacy, economic productivity, and strong communal ties. Same reason the Anglos and eventually Scots became wildly successful. You don't need tribalism.
Aryanism is not White Solidarity. Otherwise, they wouldn't be seeing the Slavs as a sub-human species. National Socialism was for Germans, not "Whites".
Hell, just take a look at the shit the Azov Battallion has been saying for 20 years. They're avid Hitler fans and reject the Rus as Orientaloids.
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.
According to this morons paradigm the Holocaust was totally really killing 6 million jews, and so the jews are a great example of why it's totally fine to be a stateless minority? Not risky at all!
White populations are not "fading out". White populations are being displaced by Mass Migration. Mass Deportations fix that. The white populations are pretty much static, except for Leftist Whites which are in decline because they keep killing themselves with nihilism and abortions.
MAGA is literally the Pro-American movement. America First is the Pro-American movement. You might not like that American isn't innately White, but that's because it's a Liberal Revolutionary country. Americans are both Civic National, and assimilatory, not exclusively White. The pro-British movements are nascent. There is an emergent Pro-Anglo (Read: Pro-English) movement, and the Pro-Irish movement was a Leftist project that is currently attempting to re-assert itself against globalism as the Irish were inevitably betrayed by Socialists.
Yes we were 90% white around that time, I'll say it again, what makes you think a group of whites can't accomplish things?
I didn't say there aren't problems facing whites, or that everything's fine. I explicitly said that it's not and that anti-white racialism should be opposed.
Yes, the fake Pro-White people here bring up National Socialism all the time, because they are National Socialists. There are hardly any pro-white people that aren't NatSocs on this board.
Again, you are explicitly refusing to listen to my responses, and substituting them with what you think I'm really saying.
No, you’re a dishonest piece of shit. The western white demographic is in literal decline. The last census showed it. We’re down several million whites in just America. And you can say they were “just leftists”, but the victims of leftist brainwashing still count against the total, dickhead. No one is born a leftist. The net outgroup preferences of white peoples are not an organic evolved behavior. It’s dysgenic. It was taught and enforced.
No it isn't, at least not any more than the rest of the planets demographics are in decline (even in Africa). For the most part, the white populations are in minor decline, except for White Leftists because of their insane outgroup preference and abortion promotion. They are the ones actually swinging the demographic growth down because other wise the population rate would be stable.
What your seeing in "decline" is two forms of statistical error: fewer people identifying as white (see "white hispanic" as a fake ethnic group), and the classification assertion that mixed race individuals are, by definition, non-white. If you have a kid that is 1/8th black, and you call him black rather than even mixed race, or just white; you intentionally eliminate only the white category on purpose. We don't see a 'mixed race family' where you have someone who is 1/8th Hispanic, 7/8ths Black, and declare it impossible for them to be Black and they can only be Hispanic.
Yes, they are.
That's a start, but not a fix.
As someone else already said, that's still an attack, that's still a decline, too. You want to say white identity is anathema to white people...firstly, I don't agree but, secondly, radical leftism used to be anathema to white people, in a big way. The very fact that we have tons of white leftists is itself a sign of decay.
I honestly wouldn't care, if the powers that be weren't actively trying to get rid of white people. We never should have had as many nonwhites shoved into this country but, no, I don't need an exclusively or innately white America. But now, all modern demographic trickery is an attack on whites, it seems.
That's, uh, that's not exactly how any of that works. Going from +90% to ~60% white was not some natural, 'liberal civic nationalism,' it was an outright attack. Which is why it happened so quickly. There is nothing organic about it, so it's a joke to try to say it's because we're innately a "Liberal Revolutionary" country. Mass migration went against the entire country's history up to that point, and it went against the wishes of the people, too. No one signed up for this.
But you were talking about state power. You were talking about state versus stateless people. A very, very predominately white state landed on the moon. Not just some random assortment of white people. Only reason I brought it up is because you were talking about the state.
Also, a group of whites will be harder pressed than ever to accomplish things, because the very concept of "a group of whites" is, in the current framework, deemed incredibly racist. As we've talked about. We're not allowed to be "a group of whites," which causes some serious problems.
No, I'm saying your arguments are wrong.
Absolutely not even remotely close. Leftism is emergent form a psychotic bastardization of Liberalism which is an explicitly western european invention. Leftism usurped Liberalism and dominates European societies, and has always found favor among European populations.
Your complaining about the Hart-Cellar Act, when the founding of the country as a Liberal state doesn't change what the cultural values of the population still remain. If anything, your complaining about the American Liberal values that the Hart-Cellar Act appealed to.
No, you're not. You're saying the arguments your making for me are wrong. You've repeatedly made up new arguments from things I didn't say, and condemned me for saying things that you made up.
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?
And yet, the jews still exist, correct? The jews haven't had a homeland for over 2,000 years, and despite not having a political state they still have their own communities, traditions, culture, and even language. In fact, the largest population of jews on Earth, to this day, remains in the US, where they have never had a state, and have never had a majority of the population, and were never institutionalized.
And yet there they are, largely in peaceful and prosperous communities in the US.
You think given the worst possible case scenario for whites, which is still not even remotely likely, they couldn't preform at least just as well as the jews. Last time I checked, even the Boers and Rhodesians are still holding together under terrible conditions.
You completely dodged (or missed) the point. It was very clear. This response, IMO, can only be explained by either ideological blindness or actual bad-faith behavior.
Since I don't think you're a bad-faith actor, that just reinforces my opinion of your ideological blindness on this topic.
I didn't miss the point, I addressed it directly.
Can an ethnic group: exist, be prosperous, be influential; without an ethno-state?
Obviously, the answer is yes and that is clearly demonstrated by jews who have a) existed continuously for over 2,000 years, b) been without a state for around that time, c) remained a tight knit ethnic group, d) prospered during that time in different areas for different time spans, e) have been influential during that time in different areas for different time spans.
So yes. Congratulations: white people can successfully exist without an ethno-state because I don't think whites are inferior to jews. I especially don't think that whites are inferior to white jews.
This argument that each and every state must be a single ethno-state or the ethnicity dies is an archaic progressive argument from the Woodrow Wilson era. It was silly then, and it's silly now.
And why are Jews so powerful and successful? Because they practice the most aggressive tribalism of any ethnic demo on the planet. Exactly the same ethnic tribalism that you are denying to white peoples. Seriously, you couldn’t have brought a worse example to prove your point. You’re actually quite stupid.
No, you're thinking of the Mayans, that's why they conquered and ate their vassals in their empire.
The jews are successful due to literacy, economic productivity, and strong communal ties. Same reason the Anglos and eventually Scots became wildly successful. You don't need tribalism.
This is some of your most egregiously homosexual pedantry.
It's not pedantry, read Hitler.
In fact, read Himmler.
Aryanism is not White Solidarity. Otherwise, they wouldn't be seeing the Slavs as a sub-human species. National Socialism was for Germans, not "Whites".
Hell, just take a look at the shit the Azov Battallion has been saying for 20 years. They're avid Hitler fans and reject the Rus as Orientaloids.