The ethnocentric question

How is it false equivalence? First of all, we have had periods of war and infighting, and periods without. The difference between the two hasn't been ethnic purity. Secondly, the equivalence between the videos and the white ethnic 'ethic' (if you can call it that) is clear but you're avoiding it.

What happens if the blacks in video #1 are successful in pushing out the Koreans? Are they going to be better off for it? Would a white neighborhood be better off for pushing out Koreans?

sage

OK let's have it: What was the dichotomy I was presenting. If there was one it should be easy to point out directly. Point at the fire, not the smoke.
No-U
To settle whether the race of the service provider is more important than his merits at providing the service, and why one would advocate for such a discernment. That's not a dichotomy BTW.
I'm posing questions to determine the truth, not to state it brazenly. I'm not closed minded.
I'm not trying to impose or frame a narrative. I don't give a shit about narratives, only objective reality. I would prefer to refer to reality and not bullshit narratives or opinions. My opinion or yours shouldn't matter; only reality does. If you have a point to make, point to reality not your paranoia about what my opinions are.
Not only have I lurked for more than two years, I've read books on history and watched 10+ hour white ethno centric documentaries on the holodomor/hitler/blah blah that's not the point. How does white ethnocentrism help anything beyond "no more jewz controlling banks and staring warz n'sheeeiiit" (which isn't a bad objective, but that won't be the only result)

Die.
We don’t give a fuck.
Yes.
Does chocolate taste good or does my car run well?
Yes.
Yes, since the jew is expressly told to kill the non-jew.
If you want to suck your own cock, go back to reddit.
It wasn’t, in fact.
Oh, when the dune coons were invading? You know, from outside? Gee.

You asked:
user said:
You replied:
In any case, perhaps false equivalence was not the correct terminology here, but here's what you're doing: You're going right back to that "it doesn't create utopia therefore fuck borders and homogenous populations and shit", and that's ridiculous.
Let's get this straight right off the bat:
There will always be conflicts.
Population can be totally homogenous, there will still be conflict, and crime, etc. Its a matter of EXACERBATION.
You're basically saying "Well, there's always been conflict and strife and crime goy, even when you were totally pure!", and that's true… But its a matter of degrees, and you're being disingenuous in suggesting otherwise.

As had everyone.
Not strictly, but in many cases? Oh yes it has! For example, when were the most-prevelant conflicts in the context of periods of war? The more technology advances and allows other clades to enter our area of operation.
You're basically trying to say "homogenous populations have no effect upon the degree of war/infighting within a society" and that's obviously and objectively false, specifically as regards Europe.
I would outright say there is a degree of equivalence, but not direct equivalence, and your entire bullshit approach here relies upon it.
Why does a nigger want koreans out, eh? Does he actually think it will reduce conflicts within his area that would be remedied under a more homogenous paradigm?
Of course not, niggers can rarely even think that far ahead - these niggers are, I wager (because I can't be assed to watch the videos if you can't be assed to webm them), because he doesn't like the koreans.
Why? Because they don't like niggers. Why? Because niggers are niggers.
So, really, what you've got here is blatant demonstration of why multiculturalism doesn't work - the koreans don't like the niggers, the niggers dont like the koreans, for entirely justified reasons no doubt in at least one case (arguably in the other), and it creates conflict.
Would there be less conflict between these two groups if they were not in direct contact with each other? Obviously, yes.

Better question: Will the Koreans be better off for it? The answer is yes.
Will the blacks be better off? Probably not - but its because the koreans actively improve their situation, the koreans are a more functional people at the biological level, in terms of maintaining a functioning 'civilized' society. So the niggers, bereft of the koreans, will likely just remain as niggers - which, they might prefer, in fact… But in terms of objective improvement, being better off? No, because they're niggers, and the koreans improve their state… While the koreans are koreans, and the niggers degrade their state… Seperate them, and the koreans are better off, while the niggers are still niggers, and so may be comfortable in their niggerdom but are still living in niggerdom (now bereft of whatever value the koreans, as a superior clade of hominid in the contexts that matter here, offered them).

Yes. Again, minimization of conflict.
And again, this isn't theory, this has been studied in practice - see Putnam.

I did. I laid it out directly after the accusation.
You're being a faggot and acting like a jew.

And that's being incredibly disingenuous, because you're attempting to address an issue with far-ranging consequences in a vaccuum.
You basically want to ask "In a pure meritocratic sense, do you care about race relative to ability?", and that's not the truly important issue, because I can't have that without the rest, you understand?
You can't have JUST the meritocratic argument and ignore the rest of the picture and pretend you aren't being a faggot.

Do I want a service provider of merit? Yes.
Do I want them to be of my own kind? Yes, if able, and as I am able, that is fine.
Do I want a service provider who is of merit, but not of my own kind, specifically and especially given the paradigm that, along with that individual - who in most cases is exception amongst their kind - there will be many others who are NOT exceptional in that way and cause strife, cause an exacerbation of conflict?

Basically, you're trying to ask whether we care MORE about a service provider being of merit or of our own kind, and there's no need for us to make that choice - its a false dichotomy, suggesting we must choose one or other other, and thats simply not so.
I can have a service prodiver of merit, AND have him be of my own kind, without any of the risks associated with employing an exceptional member of another clade.

You're being a disingenuous faggot.

Yes, you most certainly are, barely able to contain it at this point no less.

Okay, well, objective reality: Multiculturalism causes an exacerbation of already extant state of conflict within and between groups. Done.

Proof or it didn't happen nigger, because you write like a lellypol faggot who got lost on his way to shitpost on faceberg about how white genocide is just a meme.

I've laid out how explicitly to you already.

Here's a bit from the wikiJew about the Putnam study, BTW:

?Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
Less likelihood of working on a community project.
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
Fewer close friends and confidants.
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".

Putnam published his data set from this study in 2001 and subsequently published the full paper in 2007.

Nice dubs, but there is no point trying to call out logical fallacies on 8ch Holla Forums.

Just report OP and hope that the mods smile on you.

Eh, fair enough.

Examples please.
I'm not saying war is inherently bad, either. I'm saying where is the evidence that ethnocentrism has prevented it.
I concede that culturally homogenous societies are less internally conflicted. Multiculturalism is the death of a nation. However I don't see evidence that white people have created homogeneity in the past. Europe is a history of infighting which has been saved off mostly by geography than anything else (something Africa lacks and is probably explains nigger behavior to a large extent)
I haven't suggested an approach. I just have severe doubts that white ethnocentrism is going to make things significantly better or get us to a better place in short order. I think it would quickly devolve into the Visigoths and the Vandals if it isn't a movement based on western values and meritocracy. However, those are just MY opinions and I'd rather stick to the historical and material facts.
I agree 100% as that's undeniable.
They are envious of anyone able to start a business. It's a bit more complicated than color X doesn't like color Y
I doubt that's justified. The fact (?) that the blacks will be worse off without the Koreans makes it unjustified. Do you disagree?
Seems we do agree? Then it's unjustified.
I doubt the Korean shop owners see it that way. They're making money selling booze and smokes to welfare queens and if they could make more money otherwise I'm sure they wouldn't say no.

The only question I'm raising here is if it's unjustified for blacks to universally want all Koreans out of their neighborhood then why is white ethnocentrism justified. I think that's a fair question to ask!

OK let's have it: What was the dichotomy I was presenting. If there was one it should be easy to point out directly.
Your false dichotomy was that we have to choose between a white with lower grades and a jew with higher grades. There are more genious IQ white people than there are jews in the world total. It's a problem for niggers, but irrelevant for whites, however even black people would benefit from ethno centrist, because as long as there are superior korean (or white) businesses, they will never succeed in running their own black businesses, which means they will never breed their average IQ higher and improve themselves.
There is more to a person than their individual merit. One must look at regression to the mean. If an individual had children just like themselves, maybe it would be a slightly less relevant issue, but tall Asians have shorter children, smart niggers have dumber children, less jewy kikes have more corrupt children, etc. You can't keep the individual in your midst as an exception because his children will revert to the general rule of his race. This is why libertarian egalitarian pure individualist meritocracy fags fail, we are all groups just as much if not more so than we are individuals.
Stop virtue signalling about how open minded and committed to truth you are, nobody here cares. We care that you are acting like a faggot and using jewish style tactics to try to win an argument that you aren't even honest enough to admit you are having. If you came direct you might fair better than you think, but not by much because you are full of shit.
You're either lying, you haven't been paying attention, or you are one dense mother fucker. Keep lurking until you at least learn how to debate and discuss here. Pro tip: it's not how faggot cuckolds do things like in (((skeptic))) communities. We are a violent place for discourse, but the truth always wins out here. That's no virtue signalling either, that's the power of truth and the power of a place where not just freedom but liberty and knowledge of shill tactics is abundant.

I'm not saying this. I asked which was more important to you and why. That's not a dichotomy.
If you have a meritocracy the skilled succeed and the unskilled fail. Over time this shifts the mean. Also, some orientals are short (they aren't as short in N. China) and also smart. Would you deny smart orientals in your nation? Must those smart genes only originate from white blood? If so, why?
Fuck you. I'm saying you opinion doesn't matter more than the facts. Saying my opinion doesn't matter is the OPPOSITE of virtue signaling.

Just to be clear, I deem it perfectly acceptable to enforce meritocracy by means other than LOLbertarian volunteerism. The death penalty can be a useful tool to weed out the psychopaths and pedos.

That's not the question I'm posing, however.

I just don't want shitskins around me.
Their presence disturbs and sickens me.

Remove Jew doctors so I can only choose my people. Less people will be in the country, more opportunities will arise for our people, the best doctors of our people will be more available.

Nobody supports ethnocentrism, but Holla Forums doesn't actually post real opinions. This place is bait for nervous academics, by nervous academics. It's even got people who hate the intelligence agencies and militaries of the world pretending to be part of them while having no dignity in order to demean them.

This is effectively the SAME mentality as espoused in the first video. Basically the world is a zero-sum-game where one man's opportunities come at the expense of another's.

This is exactly why I think this is a useful discussion because this mentality is either valid or invalid

Dude, nearly this entire board does. Look at the other replies. You can't be serious.
I think academics are busy doing more important shit tbh

...

You are probably a shill.
Almost everybody here supports ethnocentrism. That is one of the few things we all agree on.

They would be better off, but the town wouldn't be. The town would be better off populated with only Koreans, no blacks.

I support white nationalism. "Ethnonationalism" is a broad term so I'm not going to attach that label to myself. If it means supporting niggers and zionist kikes then no, I am not an "ethnonationalist".

Where does it end? When there aren't shitskins in white nations. When France is French, Germany is German and the USA is some sort of pan-European white ethnostate like our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Do I care if my surgeon is jewish? Of course, because unless you flew him in from Israel then he's working in a white nation where he doesn't belong. Our children deserve the right to grow up in safety among their own people. When non-whites take control of the government, as we've seen in Rhodesia, South Africa, India, etc, they always turn the instruments of democracy against whites to massacre and punish us. We cannot trust even a small fraction of shitskins in our countries.

How would they be better off without Koreans?
They think that without Koreans blacks would have businesses. Do you think this is the least bit likely?

I happen to think that the reason Koreans own the businesses is because 1) they have extended family members who are expected to work hard 2) they don't mind kicking a black woman down to the floor if they catch her stealing eyelashes.

Black people know black people, and they're more likely to steal from the boss and not work hard. I don't think the presence of Koreans changes this
hooktube.com/watch?v=WdnBSGgg3AI

So I'll ask you a question:
Presuming that we had a law where no Jew could hold office, influence the media, or own a bank (I know this is an unrealistic hypothetical bear with me) would that change your answer with respect to having a Jewish brain surgeon.

War is inevitable, you fucking tard. Nothing's "devolving" into war; war is merely kept temporarily at bay.

Is inter-clan warfare superior to inter-ethnic warfare?

No, but it's less likely

That's interesting because I would have said the opposite is true: that inter-clan disputes are more common and that warfare between ethnicities is more rare but far bloodier and difficult to stop.

Not sure which is worse, however. Suspicion between clans is what creates closed societies like what we see in Arabia

Not if you control for distance. There is going to be more violence between immediate neighbors than between villages at opposite sides of the globe for obvious reasons.

Also, when comparing historical periods do keep in mind to adjust for technological growth.

Every thread that starts out with, "Does Holla Forums really believe in… >Fill in the blank<
is a shill thread.
This is a shill thread
SAGE

Also, since I'm at it its worth considering violence as a whole and not just confine your consideration to the barely-defined term "war". Different cultures have different approaches to Darwinian competition after all, in a large part on account of biological differences.

For example, I would say that Niggers wage war on a micro scale as a rule and that might not even register on your white-centered radar.

Whites don't need other races. They need us. Living off whites is not a human right. It's not the job of the white man to make sure every non-white has a comfortable life.

...

This is the most salient point of your post;
If you understand the history of nationalism (in that it is merely a contemporary phenomena) then you would understand that clannish rule and conflict are the norm for recorded human history. Due to a variety of sociobiological factors humans are predisposed to organize along clannish lines. This is the natural state of being for humanity. Anything such as nationalism, empires, republics, or a monarchy is taking a population of humans away from this state of being. To achieve this differentiation from the mean one must bring about a temporary solution to The Social Problem; the problem of humans living peaceably together in an in-group. This is achieved through a process called formalization whereupon the power in the given system is implicitly bound in an explicit figure. Once there is a form of unfalsifiable information transfer to break clannish mannerbunds out of the prisoners dilemma you can have your peace for a time. Thus nationalism is antithetical to clannishness and this is borne out in historical examples. Picts on the Northumbrian border no longer steal cattle from the Northerners. There is a formalized system at play which in part is a nationalistic one.

What do you mean by racism? In-group preference? Race-realism? Or Trotsky's definition? In-group preference certainly might harm intellectual capital, but it also has many benefits that relate to social harmony that come prior to such a conception. There is no room for intellectual pursuits when you live in a unformalized state of being such as the American inner-city ghettos. As was the case for most of history.

Probably since niggers can't deal with gentrification and the benefits that emerge from intellectual capital means very little to a high time preference population.

What does having good grades mean in real terms here? Is this hypothetical even realistic? Affirmative action and nepotism ensure that Jews are well and truly over represented in the field and that there is a glut of under utilized, alienated & atomized white men who would have been perfectly suitable in such a setting. However even the most hardliner proponents of an ethno-state will agree that there will be racial and ethnic minorities that can find their place within their borders given some strict guidelines as has been the case for most of history. This is not incompatible with a race realist view of the World. As a matter of fact race-realism is compatible with almost all political ideologies and is the case outside of lysenkoist regimes.

I hope this helps answer your queries. Really however this is a question for 4chan, and we would prefer that you not shit up the board and read the FAQ and other material yourself. Instead of sliding threads and lowering the quality of the board. Keep that in mind and lurk more :-)

GTFO

…'cause I'm paying him?

The United States answered the question of peace between Europeans well. Separate territories in a series of states with a Republic and strong state laws. It lasted well so far up until recently and what's ruined this republic is races of lesser living with us (civil war, civil rights, black president, etc, etc).

This is one of the most solid posts I've ever read. Please someone screencap for posterity.

+1 Reddit Gold

My only hesitation is your last comment that two European villages must fight each other. Let us end this permanently with a cyclical government for whites only, a space imperium.

Monarchy -> Oligarchy -> Democracy

Rotating every ten generations, with a peaceful transition between each. So a white emperor, then a civil government between wealthy patricians, capitalists, aristocrats that are heavily religiously, spiritually and morally connected to their kin and country and empire. Then a democracy.

This cycle could go on for many millennia.

I agree with this, but the earliest examples were multi-ethnic. Mesopotamia etc. There are of course mono-ethnic examples. The common trait is that there is a national ethnic enforced before we can have something approaching an open society.
Most seem to deal with it on a practical level. They buy stuff from their stores. They're still buying beauty products from the Korean they all claim was wacis for WWE slamming that fat black thief.
Intellectually, however, they don't 'accept' it.
It's a hypothetical example to denote skill.

Yes, but was that due to ethnicities or because we allowed mass immigration with no pretense of assimilation and supremacy of English language & law?

Exactly.

assimilation

no thank you, bullets work well and much more cheaply for all non-whites

I'm not asking what you would prefer. I'm asking if the problem is due to the ethnicities of the immigrants or the fact that there is no expectation that they adopt the national ethic?

Out of 35million+ Mexicans that poured over the border since Reagan, 9% steadfastly refuse to learn English because of muh stolen Mexican lands (lie promoted by the Mexican government to destabilize us and other reasons). That 9% translates to a hell of a lot of people causing a huge problem. I'm not sure if this problem is predominantly an ethnic issue or an ideological one (speaking about the Mexican immigrants, not black people here).

There was a fascinating documentary I once saw about the Mexican cartels & murder rate. It was mainly about a policeman in Juarez which had the highest murder rate in Mexico. Three miles away, El Paso had the lowest murder rate in the US (both stats per capita).

They have generally speaking the same ethnic makeup, but there is a national border separating them.

You seem to be arguing that we should allow immigration as long as we make the savages pinky promise that they won't rape anybody.

both

Mexicans even deeply integrated into the state are not as useful as whites. Period.

You still are struggling to grasp the racial filters and fail to understand distinct differences.

Or are pretending not to.

Which is case makes you a filthy jew.

Over soon.

i hate niggers but i hate jews more.

Nobody has a right to immigrate.

I think this is the movie:
imdb.com/title/tt2504022/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
"Narco Cultura" 2013

I think literally everyone supports ethnocentrism to one extent or another. At least for their own group. But it only seems to be considered illegal for one group to do so.

Multi-ethnic "white" or "Caucasian" or "Caucasoid", whatever heuristic you wish to use, but the point is that they were closely related populations. Britain has been multi-ethnic for a very long time but that does not mean niggers can be integrated or that they should be. The closest example you can find of a multi-racial example would be India or Latin America (brazil in particular) and you would hardly want to emulate those and their reliance on extremely strict caste systems. It is antithetical to formalized systems.

That's because niggers have a high time preference. They don't really understand cause and effect the same way other populations do. They are not very apt at contemplating the future. This is not something that has been conditioned into them either. It is evident in their native languages in Africa where they do not have concepts for binding promises or other related concepts that are reliant on time. This has only gotten worse in the post-modern society they live in as they are extremely reliant on social institutions to fill in this role that most other populations have naturally. This has nothing to do with the fact that niggers would at least in the short-term benefit from kicking out all the koreans as they do not have the time-preference to make full use of the total capital provided by the koreans which is outweighed by factors such as gentrification and further disintegration of social cohesion. Not that I support either side of the argument here, I'm just playing devils advocate.

But to me that does not necessarily follow. There are plenty of book smart people, more now than ever, but how does that translate to applicable skill. Just because schlomo can score better on a test does not imply that he would be better at performing neurosurgery. in fact there are many components such as physical dexterity that are much more important than rote learning. I suppose that is the issue with vulgar IQ fetishization; yes it is important, but there are many other factors involved, and IQ itself is an average of many other different factors that can change from population to population. Kikes tend to have high verbal IQ, not high spatial IQ like the white man.

I already have you an example. Mesopotamia was a multi-ethnic nation and one of the first nations in recorded history. So was Sumeria and Akkadia. Most nations have been. The only nations to buck that trend have been in mountainous regions like the Alps or Himalayans. It wouldn't even me possible for most nations in the middle east or central Asia or North Africa to be of one ethnicity.
I don't disagree but that doesn't negate my point.
I'm not trying to make a point about grades. Christ. I'm just posing a hypothetical example. Do you know what hypothetical means?

Are you fucking kidding me?
No, you fucking retard the niggers will cannibalise each other if the koreans aren't there to sell them food.
Racism is good and you would know that if you knew how to lurk you enormous faggot.
What is grade inflation? Why would you let a kike touch your brain you fucking dipshit.
Yes, It's called a race war, you would have heard of it if you lurked like you were supposed to.

Go Back To Reddit

What the fuck does that have to do with ethocentrism? And ethnicity is far more that dumbed down burger definition of skin color, a Swede and an Irishman do not have the same ethnicity, they are of the same race but that's it. Shove your social studies homework up your ass and stop asking Holla Forums retarded questions.