The cryptonite for civic-nationalist cucks

A thread for arguments that will undeniably and absolutely BTFO any civic-nationalist.

I've yet to see one of these low-energy mental midgets be able to give a straight answer to this;

Other urls found in this thread:

bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full
www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf
psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/babies-prefer-individuals-who-harm-those-that-arent-Iike-them.html
realclearpolitics.com/widgets/2016/turnout_two_party_vote.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The argument against civic nationalist is easy.

Picture Japan or China.

Now imagine all japanese and chinese are replaced with niggers with japanese and chinese ID, do the civnat seriously believe these niggers are japanese/chinese.

That solves it.

They'll respond with

The fact they aren't chinese, perhaps?

They'll keep running circles around you with arguments like that, man.

Then you are actually arguing with jews and cucks, and they aren't going to be nationalist no matter how you argue.

Normalfags actually do care that chinese remain, you know, chinese.

The problem is making them realizing that the white countries remain white too.

i can't believe it's not blank slate theory
where's a devil's advocate when you need one?

RELEVANT

You respond with: there has never been a long term instance of a successful, integrated multiracial empire. For Romans, as the amount of ethnicities grew within Roman Empire the stability increasingly lessened to the point of complete failure of state. British had to constantly organize armies to defend against local uprisings in India and Africa. Even disenfranchised elements of their own population were revolting against them to become what is known as America. Brazil is a failing state. France, Germany, Sweden are all multiracial countries now and they are failing down the stairs rapidly. Russia has been a multiracial empire for several hundred years and the only reason why Russia never seems to shrink in size is because during Imperial times locals were outbred and/or killed by Russians, only to take over their space. Even now ethnic minorities that remained numerous in Russia seek separatism all the time like in Chechenya, but not only there. One of many reasons Russia is still together is because Russians often dominate cities with indigineous population with something like 60% Russians to 40% locals ratio. China did similar thing. China is theoretically multiethnic empire, but Han chinks massacred or massively interbred with every other ethnicity and thus they are very much dominant across the country. Hell, even India and Pakistan could not stay together even though they were originally one country after British gave them independence.

There simply is no such thing as such thing as a united multiracial or multiethnic population. These states are inherently unstable and rarely last a long time without one hugely dominant race/ethnicity.

Well no shit you're arguing with kikes and anti-whites, who the hell else would argue against white/european nationalism? The point isn't to convince the opposition, it's to convince the audience, and if you let the opposition run circles around you, your position looks weak.

...

The civic nationalists are retarded. The niggers havr been here for hundreds of years. The spics have been here for decades. None of these groups have assimilated so far, but why do they think it will work THIS TIME, as if all the previous attempts to teach them "muh constitution, muh values'' just didnt get it right?

...

And at current rate America will stand with localized uprisings and turbulences requiring special militarized police or military interventions like Russia does now or it will fall apart like Roman Empire did. You can already see the state prepping for future unrest and rightly so. Huge amounts of violent protests, increasingly militarized police, display of federal power like that police lockdown&search after boston bombings, lots of separate intelligence services, easy gun access, huge racial tensions the likes of which were never present in the country before and more intense state propaganda by the day. USA will undergo fundamental changes very soon and it can either collapse or it can recognize the importance of whites in the state and adopt Russian-like model of survival with heavy police (like OMON) and terror acts being a part of every day life.

or it can foster a racial unity and kick all the minorities out, but that is still a long way to go in terms of public acceptance and support.

They'll say that Trump won because he isn't a stormfag so CN is tactically/strategically superior to WN. Whatever if it is done in the name of white taqiyya. CivNat xenos will give no quarter to whitey though.

Then you shouldn't argue with them, because they will never want to argue with the intention of learning the opposition's views. If you want to convince somebody, then convince the fence sitters the CivNats want to convince, but do it by isolating the fence sitters away from CivNat views first.

I think a major point that needs to be discussed is the idea of what a Legacy is, and the following responsibilities attached with it. If you're coming from a wealthy family, or some of your parents accomplished something great in the past and your name is known, what's your individual responsibility toward that legacy? Does it belong to you because you are the latest descent (as of now), or does it belong to the following generations (that is everyone who's born after that famous ancestor, including your kids and grand kids). Take Paris Hilton for instance, she inherited a name that she destroyed and ridiculed through her actions, now the family is trying to distance themselves as much as they can from her. Does this legacy belong to you and you can do whatever you want with it (including destroying it for future generations), or is it something you're only borrowing and have to maintain for the next skilled individual in your lineage to build upon?
There's that whole idea that whites are supposed to feel guilty for their ancestor's negative actions ("buhuhu, slavery"), but they simultaneously aren't allowed to be proud of their ancestor's positive actions ("don't take credit for that shit you didn't do"). It's a double edged-sword (because accepting one means you also have to accept the other), but the idea of personal responsibility toward cultural legacy (could it be it's conservation, it’s expansion, it's destruction ("who cares, it's a silly custom"), or correction of past mistakes ("remember when we freed the slaves?")) needs to be discussed and brought up more often.
Personal responsibilities (for pretty much anything, including individual actions) is a completely foreign concept nowadays. This value needs to be taught again.

It doesn't matter. Even something as insignificant as having a large proportion of blonde haired people would drastically change the aesthetic of China itself.

The argument is a simply one even when you don't have time to red pill them on race. It is a argument of aesthetic. Ask them why culture matters in the same fashion. If the house shelters you from wind, rain why does it matter what it looks like, whats the problem?

oh you mean from planet crypton?

Liberia is a thriving example of BASED niggers. Oh wait, they aren't following the laws which has nothing to do with genetics/intelligence and is just because they are poor. I know let's flood them into America so they can wear maga hats like Obama's brother, SOOOO FUCKING BASED!!

Also all muslims can't follow the laws of another white country as they must hold sharia above all else which means civcucks need to admit they can't be here. Then again they'll know BASED sandniggers who wait for crosswalk signals and dindu nuffins.

These fucks don't argue based on culture, aesthetics, race/genetics. They only care about if they (shitskins) have the veil of patriotism so they can be the shield for them to say they aren't racist when in reality they are cucks.

Checked.

civnat is the shitskin and kikes pleasing position they wish to be the "reasonable right" one, and totally white genocide is their preferable "left" position. civcuck is a position of weakness and pleading.

pleading position* fuck phoneposting

Yep, exactly. This.

They aren't fooling whites, they're trying to fool the ones yelling muh racism. Emperor has no clothes, eventually.

the biggest problem is the sexual market, with jewesses indoctrinating young European women into behaving like kike grandmothers.

this is not really an argument, but i really find annoying, and kinda scary in its implications, the fact that looking at modern TV, you know that EVERY single demographic,race,religion, gender (whichever), MUST be represented, that if it's shown a bad minority guy,even when he's doing the kind of stuff his brethren is known for, you KNOW that you will be shown a good guy, sometimes practically perfect, hailing from the same minority group, to remind us that terrorist are not REAL muslims, and all that stuff.

how long can one go on, trying to not offend people who are perennially offended?

i think a better angle would be explaining the tibet situation, how they will never be free because the majority of people in tibet are han chinese

go tell some normalfag whites that you are a white nationalist and what as they pavlovian recoil at the sound of white interests. these are the idiots that you need to convince by associating positive things with white nationalism

Until recently the US has been overwhelmingly white.
It still has the highest white population in the world. And the wealthiest, most prosperous areas of the US are also the most white.

As white demographics decrease you will get more government interference in the daily lives of citizens.

Non-whites have always chosen to vote for giving themselves white money when they get the chance too.

Politics are more split by race than they are by religion, region, or any other factor aside from political affiliation itself.

Pretty much this.

CivNat is not nationalism at all - its Statism.
A nation is a thing of blood - the word even derives from language which implies 'birth', but you aren't 'born' into a State, you're born into a nation.

Pic related.

An Swiss man born in Nigeria is born in the state of Nigeria, but does that make him a part of the Nigerian nation? Of course not - because a nation is a thing of blood, or its not a nation at all (its a state).
That Swiss person is born within the state of Nigeria, but is born into the Swiss/European nation.

States and nations are not equivalent, and the idea that they are is where CivNat comes from, its core foundation. Once you establish that a nation is a thing of blood, or not a nation at all, then you've got them beat, in that you can show they have no actual love for nations whatsoever - they're patriots, or statists.

CivNats can be defeated by simply pointing out that they have no love for nations - which are things of blood - but rather, they love their state, and are thus merely patriots, not nationalists.

Save the logical arguments for when you are trying to redpill your normie friends. Cucks and kikes argue through emotional appeal and doublethink and you will never get anywhere trying to redpill onlookers by fighting back with logical arguments. In fact, it only makes you look weak and thus unconvincing.

Instead, outright treat them with contempt, laugh at them, expose them for the race traitors they are. It's not hard to do if you're confident and look strong while the other guy's a lisping faggot with a limp wrist. If you need examples, I recommend reading Hammer of the Patriot.

It also should be clarified, if not self-evident, that one does not choose their nation, nor can they change it.

You are born into a nation, and you cannot change which nation it is to which you are born… But a civic entity like a state? You can choose which state to live in, leave one state and move into another at almost any time, should you be so inclined.

Thus there is no real attachment to a state whatsoever - you can abandon it for another at any time. A nation, however, can never be abandoned, and you do not get to choose which nation you belong to - it is inherent, established even before birth, at conception.

This comes down to a difference in what you are vs who you choose to be, and this is a big conceptual matter that many people get lost in.
It has been pushed into the limelight that WHAT YOU ARE are is irrelevant, because we are all equal - what matters is WHO YOU ARE, which is a choice, and can be highly variable.
Our opposition has been quite successful at dissociation of people viewing themselves in the context of WHAT they are as opposed to WHO they are, the former being a matter which they cannot decide (only learn to live with) and the latter being a matter which they can decided (and which can change at any time).

Patriotism/statism/CivNat shit is all about WHO you choose to be - you can become a patriot for any nation at any time, you can move to a new state and take your loyalties with you, and you can embrace any civic entity as you desire… And that's what life is all about, so our opponents would tell you.
What they don't want you thinking about is WHAT you are, something that cannot be changed, something which is intrinsic and invariably once established - there is no choice in the matter on your behalf. And our (((enemies))) don't want you thinking like that - they want you to believe that WHAT you are is 'human', that there is 'one race, the human race', etc.
IOW: They want to eliminate the very notion of there being variation in WHAT you are, in order to get you to embrace fully a prioritization of WHO you are (or rather, who you choose to be).

And why would (((they))) want that?
Because it promotes a state of constantly shifting loyalties, and a means via which such can be justified/rationalized as acceptable.

If all that you are is who you choose to be, well, who you choose to be can vary considerably from one year to the next, one month to the next, one week to the next, one day to the next, etc… And that suits (((them))) just fine, if anything, its optimal - it ensures they've got shabbos ready to stab one another in the back at the drop of a shekel, and that those shabbos have a means via which to justify such behavior to themselves.

You respond with the fact that multiracialism in any form is pointless and retarded. You are in politics for one of two things: to achieve some sort of number you like (e.g. GDP, IQ, "progress") (in which case you are a leftist and there is no point debating with you) or to ensure the propagation and success of yourself and your descendants (i.e. you and people like you). Multiracialism by definition cannot achieve the success and propagation of you and yours so there is literally no point to it.

Bonus: Even if you can't reason with leftists you can still mock them about how retarded they are, because the end result of believing that people only matter insofar as they can achieve some goal (like GDP for libertarians) is a belief that you can replace humans with robots or aliens and be perfectly comfortable with human extinction. Additionally, to be logically consistent these people should be willing to replace their own children with other children who perform better. Many are willing to behave illogically and not follow through with their supposed ideals though.

CIVIC NATIONALISM = DUGIN AND ZIONISTS = ALT-RIGHT

It bothers me that white nationalists tell me I'm not actually one of them, but instead, a civic nationalist.. THEN argue against civic nationalism by constructing a strawman who doesn't share my beliefs, then taking them down. My ideas might not match yours perfectly, but I'm not completely blind to demography.

Pic related. America can be a white country while still giving niggers equal rights.

Are you sure they're not (((white)))?

So kill yourself, TRAITOR.
Sure thing, kike.
Nope. And she doesn’t argue that in the book. Kill yourself immediately, civic nationalist TRAITOR. Holla Forums is an ethnonationalist website.

Nope, not a website. Did you mean a smaller fraction of a larger, more diverse website, perhaps an imageboard named 8ch?

why do you want niggers?

Equality is a big hoax like the so called holocaust.

It doesn't fucking exist.

Swami Vivekananda and many of the ancient philosophers would all like a word with you.

One simple turn BTFOs Civ-cucks and "IQ nationalists": Regression to the mean

Reported for not even trying. Holy shit, you’re cancer personified.

No, it can't. And you ARE a Civic Nationalist… Which isn't real at all - you aren't a Nationalist, you're just a Civicist, or perhaps, a patriot.

Both are an insult.

Checked, capped, and appreciated. Intriguing argument and distinction.

Did you read it? She literally uses white guilt to justify white people not being able to say "nigger." I don't agree with that particular point, but it shows that her views on blacks (which are even more cucked than mine) don't contradict her desire to only admit white immigrants. I don't even go so far as her. I literally just want black people with American ancestry to not be executed or deported.


Because I may be a wacist, but I'm not a monster. I acknowledge that there are distinct races with distinct differences, but people whose ancestors came over to America two centuries ago have as much a right to live here as anyone. This does not contradict my desire to stop NEW black people from coming to America.


I said "equal rights," not "equality."


Why not?
All of this is perfectly humane.

worthless cuck

"Don't deport me, fam, I gotz dat American ancestory!"

We're gonna lynch you, you worthless shitskin. Africans are an eyesore, they don't deserve to exist.

You're stuck with the Nazis. Wonder who could be responsible for that? Hmmmm…

Equal rights to Jews, right, moishe?

Now that we’ve established the logical underpinning of ethnonationalism vs. civic nationalism, let’s look at the actual scientific evidence for these beliefs.

Civic Nationalism is Kosher Nationalism

bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
(2012) Das-Munshi, et. al., conclude that ethnic diversity leads to more psychotic episodes and more social conflict.

pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
(2010) Douglas Massey concludes that human ethnocentrism is driven biologically and it is a natural, healthy phenomenon. This is indicated by increases in oxytocin when acting ethnocentrically and decreases when acting in a humanitarian manner to other races. He further concludes that oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and derogation of the out-group.

ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787
(2012) Alvarez and Levy begin their study by stating their assumption that ethnic diversity will lead to gains in health for African and Mexican Americans and conclude their study by showing that it leads to a degradation in general health of African-Americans, an increase in health in White Hispanics, and a decrease in health in non-White Hispanics. The rates of heart disease and cancer are heightened for all races studied in more ethnically diverse communities.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full
(2012) Vogel, Monesson, and Scott conclude that infants develop ethnocentrism naturally as a means to help their survival and nurture their growth. Babies demonstrate this ethnocentrism before exposure to other races.

www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
(2003) Axelrod and Hammond conclude that ethnocentrism is natural, universal, and likely acquiesced as an evolutionary safeguard response.

curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf
(2015) Dinesen et. al., conclude that being within 80 meters of an individual of another ethnicity or race reduces social trust and creates feelings of unease. This is concluded to be a natural evolutionary response to the out-group.

psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/babies-prefer-individuals-who-harm-those-that-arent-Iike-them.html
(2013) Karen Wynn shows that infants as young as nine months old prefer individuals who are nice to people of their race and dislike people mean to their race. In addition to this they also like people that are mean to others races and dislike people that are nice to other races. This occurs before full development of metacognition and the effects are apparent even in youths that have developed metacognition but not been in contact with other races substantially.

You are a traitor to America. Why the fuck would anyone listen to you?

He's a CommiePatriot, ComPatriot, with the kikes. America was built, into its constitution, for 'free white men'. Jews love profiting off victim-hood; their own and others'.

LMFAO the shill will always reveal himself

I'll be your devils advocate fam.

Can we use pink text for devil's advocate responses? It seems like a good way to exercise arguments without getting more sensitive anons triggered when they mistake it for sincerity.


Good post, deserves more attention. You have some interesting points I haven't heard on Holla Forums before.

"You take the best out of every situation. The trifecta "Hellenic-Roman-Germanic" of western civilization took hellenic culture, roman authority and organization and germanic freedom of individuals to shape itself. Races that cannot contribute anything to the culture can sometimes contribute to something else, as the Romans themselves adapted horseback warfare after being highly influenced by the nomadic cultures, but ultimately will be rejected if they are seen as inferior, which is why you never saw nomad tents or religion in the roman empire.

We simply apply that to all cultures and races. If the races cannot mold themselves, they are rejected. There were Germanic generals and emperors with mixed lineage, because the race they came from could adapt to the culture. As such, Rome never had influence from Pictish culture, because it was inferior, and could never pose any kind of threat or presence outside northern Britannia. History itself proved that there are times races can mold themselves to the culture, but only if the culture remains steadfast and does not mold itself to the race. Which is why something for example needs to be done to the communities which refuse to adapt and live on welfare as way of living, AKA, blacks.

But since that's racist, I suppose I'll just stick with the nat soc's until you fuckers acknowledge there's a problem."

this. appeal to empirical import of race, its usefulness as a predictive factor; appeal to the empiricism of the civnat, he'll like that.

Explain how exactly deportation is evil, or how it is evil when it is done for safety and prosperity (99% of cases). Go

This. solving race means solving all OTHER problems, quickly. Who wouldn't want this. You've got to make the connections, but that's the rub: race CONTROLS other societal factors, so if we control race, we control many other aspects of organization at once! It's so efficient, and when dealing with economies of scale, say, larger than 100,000 individuals, efficiency matters.

Because democracy.

Democratic system won't allow this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Certainly not this!
Irrelevant - you can't do any of it. Why?
Because the presence of blacks and other non-Whites, in a variety of manners, ensures that, so long as the democratic system reigns, you will always walk down the same paths.

Blacks and those who coddle blacks (and other non-Whites) will not allow you to end affirmative action, will not allow you to end gibs, will not allow you to end anti-discrimination laws or close the border, will not allow you to admit only White immigrants.

Any and every mechanism you employ to overcome this paradigm brings about conditions wherein there is no justification for maintaining the presence of non-Whites in our lands, as opposed to deporting them back to their own lands.
That's why.

Deportation isn't evil. Are you saying these niggers have a right to exist in close proximity to us? If niggers are so great, they can go make liberia great again, cuck.

Your obsession with being humane is just retarding our society. It's inhumane that I have to live around niggers as my "equals".

Great post!

...

No it doesn't. Deportation moves individuals from one location to another - there is rarely anything stopping those who call them family, who wish to follow them, from doing so.
Thus, it does not 'tear apart' families, nor communities - they can move together, if they choose.

Nonsense - also, irrelevant. They property rights of any nature only because we grant them - if not for us, they would not have such. Thus, for us to move them from one location to another, with or without direct monetary compensation for their properties, is no violation of any rights but those which we grant to begin with.

Worthless NAxALT.

They and their whole families can go.
And, as per usual civnat fuckery, we do not have a problem with specifically criminal non-whites, we have problem with ALL non-whites. They are all a burden. They all take away more than they give back. Plus, they're frankly ugly as fuck and they pollute my cities with their ugliness.

Never, when done under those assumptions. But I have to tell you: my country deported a shit ton of communists for both of those reasons. They later came back and were hailed as paramounts of alternative culture, and now plague the country as marxist think-tanks fueled by corrupt money.

So there ya go; it was evil to deport them. We should just humanely execute when we had the option.

There is no argument. Civic nationalism is the stepping stone to convince normies to embrace actual nationalism.
People don't change from one side to another in a binary transition, it's a gradient of beliefs which takes time. Civic nationalism is a stepping stone.

...

The 2016 Election by Race and Sex image, where is that information from? I want to use it on some people but they'll ask for sources.

Disregard, found something I can use:
realclearpolitics.com/widgets/2016/turnout_two_party_vote.html

Holy shit, a well-read and verbose user. That's rare.

Artlessly tacking my own 2 cents on: if we are to obtain a one-ethnicity state (a little more difficult than we think it is, even here in the States,) we're going to run into a couple of problems.
1. It's been mentioned before, but 'white' as an ethnicity doesn't really work very well. To the best of my knowledge, it originated with Rockwell as a mirror of the Black Power identitarian movement, and because of the vagueness of the term, it gives us a good understanding of what isn't us, but not a good understanding of what is.
2. Demographics, especially here in the US of A are fucked. See, the majority ethnicity isn't American, or White- it's German, with a smaller, self-identifying American ethnicity in the bible belt zones in the Southeast. I don't know if this is something that's just been covered up by the blandness that is Americana, but the fact remains that we've got 2 or more ethnicities held together under the race banner.
3(actually addressing one of the points the good user made earlier): we still aren't in agreement of what the state does. See, machinations of the state are all well and good, but to create a Legacy, or a Heritage for our children implies some sort of spiritual connection; and at present, we don't have either that or ethnic solidarity within the movement.

tl;dr: we ain't got ethnicity nor spiritual cohesion.

Blacks don't have the right to be "Americans", they don't have the right to be citizens.

(Checked)
America is for free, white men only.

Curious whether I understand Faulkner's point in context - the real past is irrevocably gone, but what we know and interpret as the past is a cultural and personal narrative, therefore can always and only be current. The understood past changes with the narrative, and will always be the present as a structure for interpreting meaning.

I mean, it's not wrong in its own way but it also strays towards (or would support) Jewish cultural relativism.

Because there's no racial identity anymore in this country (HUEland), for at least 100 years.

We're way too race mixed, too. I myself have negroid, caucasoid and native indian blood. So this is the only path possible to me.

and that's also why every civnat group looks like a diversity poster

Be proud of the actions of your ancestors, for they had worked their hands to the bone in order to scrape together all of our civilization. We are all responsible for the continuation of our culture and our people, through individual contribution to a strong family unit. Strong families lead to a strong people, and a strong people will not soon forget the legacy of their forebears: the land worked, monuments raised, battles won- all reminders that your nation is both your blood and your soil.

...

except that we're not majority german, which is not one thing anyhow, but at least as much anglo.

Yeah, I had a talk with someone who just kept using circular logic and semantics to dodge any meaningful answer. They also say shit like, "Well all nations and civilizations fall, some adapt to their new owners… so what's really bad about if they just absorb the old culture?" Shit's fucking infuriating.

Ahhh, citations. I like those. Thank you for your research efforts.


I can agree with your Aristotle paraphrase, though laws that hold everyone to a single standard can be useful. Reminds me of that aborted effort in Australia that removed gender from the application process and it actually resulted in more men and less women getting jobs because based on a meritocratic system males tend to do better than females in many occupations.


The question is how to control it on both the small scale and then the large scale. It ultimately comes down to cultivating culture, which is in some ways more difficult than simply passing laws. Inclinations of people though seem to be on the side of healthy ethnic divisions, so that's an advantage.


The US would be its own case, just like every other nation. 'White' in the US is pretty much just European with islands of specifics thrown in. The euro-mutts like myself and basically everyone I know are good enough I'd say for an ethnic identity as far as the US is concerned. This would not be true in Europe however. That being said, the minor bits of genetic pollution could be ridden through a cultural sense of genetic hygiene basically not sleeping with non-whites within just a few generations.

That does bring up an interesting question when it comes to the idea of deportations or eliminations: What would be the protocol for various half-breeds?

LOOK AT THESE TWO MEMES – THISIS WHAT IMKIKEY HAS TURNED THIS PLACE INTO – A BUNCH OF PATHETIC BETA LOSER WEINERS — FUCKING SAD

SAD


SAD


SAD

SAD

LOOK AT THESE TWO MEMES – THISIS WHAT IMKIKEY HAS TURNED THIS PLACE INTO – A BUNCH OF PATHETIC BETA LOSER WEINERS — FUCKING SAD

SAD


SAD


SAD

SAD
sad

Don't need you fetishizing NSDAP women, kike. Fucking yid.

Depends on how you wanna do it. First you can point out that unless we have a shortage in a crucial field then theres no reason to bring in a foreigner to do a job a local can do. If they argue a need for it (i.e. more nurses for an epidemic) then ask them to justify why they deserve citizenship when they can simply get a work visa to deal with the situation and go home richer when their work is done.

Lets say they argue race doesnt matter and le good migrant meme pops up. Ask them why a foreigner has a claim to our resources when we do not have a surplus. Import tech workers? Why would we do that, we have plenty of white code monkeys that are not employed and usually better than h1b cheap labor? Why should we waste resources making sure that not only foreigners are up to standard but able to integrate whereas a local has proof of qualifications based on local education and integration is assured from being born and raised here?

But what if they can integrate and are of higher standard than workers at home? Claim this and you cannot argue a government is for its people as it puts foreigners first/works for profit at the expense of the native, therefore this argument holds true that a government can go against the interest of the people and therefore shatters the very core of our democratic system.

If you put the interest and wellbeing of a foreigner over that of a fellow natural born citizen then how are you not committing treason to your people by setting their needs aside for the needs of a stranger with no common ties to the host country? If you claim a migrant can integrate how do you ensure that he will fully integrate rather than partially? Civic nationalism can really only work with severely limited and strict immigration, and in order to maintain the host culture you must somehow vet immigrants for american values despite them being from a place where those values never existed. This wastes resources that could have been used to help someone with a claim to the land and culture, how do you not actively hurt those in need by accommodating foreigners with our resources?

Given people typically have an in group preference and even self segregate when it comes to housing, religious grouping, etc, how do you expect a massive number of foreigners to forego their human instinct in order to fit in to a new culture given that the major reason for migration is economic gain? How do you prevent their gains from negatively affecting locals? (Canadian housing market being fucked by Chinese means Canadian young adults are negatively affected as housing becomes impossible for them to own).

Like with lefties you have to ask them to explain their positions. Poke holes until their ideological ship sinks.

I would contest the term 'patriot' for civnats though. Patriotism is a term used in the era of/intrinsically tied to the nation-state.

Statist is a much better term and maintains the negative connotations. A patriot requires a higher ideal while a statist happily melts themselves into the muck of egalitarianism.

Here's a few.

I hated him too at first, until I realized that his autistic shitposting and moderation are top tier barriers to filter out entryists, phonies and potential TRAITORS.

Cuck tier
Top tier
Elder-god tier

Reminder that national socialism follows Nietzschean philosophy. Reminder that the Nazis were basing their sense of ethnic purity off of incomplete science – for example, they bred based on individual performance with the assumption that all epigenetic traits are passed on, when in reality the expression of them is only a proof of their existence, not the creation of them. A more efficient system is cataloguing family genetic histories into a fascist government healthcare database. Eugenic population culling becomes redundant as weaker genes are crushed by the competition of outstanding ones.

Reminder that nihilism is a philosophy emergent from Christianity and is inseparable in its tenets. The distinction is that under nihilism, the zeitgeist of human will becomes our god, and our protection of it is our form of worship. The man elevated above the animal is the ubermench, who commands his emotion according to his will.

Should we make a distinction between civic nationalism with an ethnic element like what this guy in the vid is saying, or are we just lumping it in with pure kosher nationalism?

Like it or not, America has evolved beyond it's initial mandate.

This is the ideal, what we can strive for when we are reconstructing our Nation. Islands of the Old Country amid a mixed European amalgam, with an emphasis on Western and Northern European, which is in effect what we use to have. It maintains the appropriate amount of diversity to make things interesting without destroying Western Civilization. Additionally, once we reestablish America, and once the wounds heal, perhaps we can support …arguments that will undeniably and absolutely BTFO any civic-nationalist.

What no one has brought up is the 'Do Not Touch' point of so many moralizing white folks: the implicit knowing that ethnic cleansing involves violence, and LOTS of it. Realistically, there's no way to bring America back to what it once was without violence. We all know this, so well in fact that it needs no explanation. Because the threat of violence is ever hanging over the question of ethno-nationalism, most white folks just Won't Even THINK About It. Most of us are peace-loving, violence avoidant. In order to make the argument for an ethno-Nation, this point MUST be addressed, dealt with honestly.

Eventually, many centuries from now, we will have both the wisdom and technology to combine societies and erase National distinctions as the Left so wants, but we have many stages of societal development to go through before reaching that point. Imposing the communist ideal on us now will lead to ethnic conflicts and societal destruction. This tendency towards inter-tribal and ethnic conflict is something the Jews have long known and used as they eat their way through the civilizations of history. Eventually, all of this racialism and what-not will be moot due to genetic engineering, but we are centuries of development from that. For now, if we are being absolutely honest about it, for the civic purpose of peace, health, and happiness, it's best to support ethno-Nationalism where it has naturally developed.

This is correct. The only thing to do is just ridicule them. They are only civnat faggots because they are already retarded. Whites who already want to rebel are the only good ones.

The word "anti-white" has revealed that the emperor has no clothes.

They're not patriots, dubsanon. Pater means "father." They are just faggots.

Western regions will also have to make space for independable Indian Nations as part of our American legacy.

If I am mostly Irish but am third generation does that make me american or Irish? or Irish-American I strangely have some loyalties to Ireland and always hope they get bettershould I go back?

The point of ethno-Nationalism is ironically civic: to keep the peace, and to engender a healthy and happy population. Prosperity naturally follows. We naturally segregate according innate (instinctive…) cultural preferences. Irish is part of the American landscape, and has been since the beginning, no matter the (((D&C nonsense))) regurgitated on this board.


_________________________

There are five foundational races on Earth:
- White - of light skin, yet unique because of the variety of hair/eye colors in our genotype
- Brown - mostly Semetic and India peoples
- Red - Indians of the Americas
- Yellow - Japanese, Chinese, etc.
- Black - negroid

All of us are mixtures of the above list, and no one is perfectly pure. This has been true for centuruies already, especially in America. Knowing that, regaining ethnic purity is a lost cause. Rather than focusing our efforts on regaining the past, methinks a better way is to focus on improving what we currently have.

Good post user

I'm pretty sure they're just Asians that walked over the Bering strait land bridge. The Southern ones got nigger slave genes blanda'd up into them.
You also forgot about the Australian Aboriginals, dumber and uglier than any nigger.

"Brown" is also not a race. The swarthiness of North Africans and Indians is explainable by black admixture. India is a case of white Indo-European invaders conquering the black-ish Dravidians, whose land used to stretch to what is now east Afghanistan. The invaders took up the upper castes and slowly were subsumed by the rest of society, less so in the north where their languages are spoken.

most faggots don't bother about history or facts.

Reds have been mixed with Asians in the Western lands, and Aryans in the East (see Solutrean hypothesis…), more recently with Blacks too, but they were their own distinct race at one time, long ago.

Australian/New Guinean Abos are a mixture of Black (African) and South Asian. Additionally, Polynesians changed as they made their way across the Pacific. When they hit New Guinea, their race changed alot, and not for the better.


North Africans, Egyptians are the original everyone-else-is-mixed Jewish ideal.
Because of the castes, some Indians are more mixed than others. Hopefully, the West won't have to resort to castes in order to preserve our genetic distinctions, as they didn't result in a free society overflowing in happiness.

They wouldn't come out that dumb in that case. They are very much a product of the hostile environments which do not promote any kind of progress, thinking, or civilized behavior, since at any point you can randomly die from the wildlife, the heat, or something in the water. This is the reason blacks evolved so dumb, actually - it's just R-selection.

That's a good point, user. It seems that selection strategies do impact intellectual capacities of populations.

Imagine everyone who acts niggery gets send off to a gulag.
If that's all of them then that's fine.
bonus, this will weed out degenerates in your own ranks.

My go-to argument is always this.

To people who believe that replacing white Americans with nonwhites won't change the country, ask them to name a majority nonwhite country anywhere in the world that they would want to move and make a living as an average person. They will maybe be able to name a tiny few, and even then falsely assume they'd be living in beach houses as the top 1% of the population there or something.

In any case, for people who believe that the Constitution and American values are all that's needed to allow these nonwhites to integrate, it would thus be as easy as xeroxing the Constitution over to their home countries now, in order to make them exactly like us. In this digital age the entire world has easy access to the Constitution, so why isn't every country a successful first-world nation like we are then? What is different?

The first American settlers moved here in poverty and started from nothing using the Constitution, so why can't everyone else? What is different?

What allowed Japan to modernize to first-world status and compete with European powers over the course of one or two generations, without any kind of colonization or external force, while African countries have lived in third-world squalor forever? What is different?

These questions have always triggered fruitful conversations and early redpillings. Hopefully some of you can use them.

Met a dood at a rifle range, he was scottish but born in china, he said one day on the topic when someone was giving him some shit for being chinese that 'If a cat gives birth in a fucking oven we don't call them fucking cakes.' Made sense to me.

Bullshit, Indians aren't self sufficient and whites shouldn't be their slaves.