White/black/asian/etc. nationalism

Let's just assume race IS a spook fro the sake of argument. Even if it was, a particularly subtle minded and pragmatic ruler would see the merits in humoring this """delusion""" because it would provide some sort of recourse in times of conflict: you wouldn't strike a sibling, parent, or other loved one, would you? So why would you strike one of your own people in times of strife? I'm dangerously dallying in the realm of the "ideal" here, but it seems a more feasible long term solution than multiculturalism.
Also, the societies listed were all highly oppressive. Assuming these societies are successful as homogeneous ones, would you rather live in a tyrannical multicultural society or a libertarian white one (assuming you are white)?

the "nation" is a bourgeois construct and immediately falls apart under any kind of non-Pioneer Fund funded scrutiny

it's like saying "what's wrong with believing in santa claus?" it's a lie fed to people who are too stupid to understand the truth and who cling to it because otherwise their lives are completely bereft of any meaning or achievement to call their own, and so they have to take credit for the hard work of others

Classcucks are the worst cucks of all

this happens literally all the fucking time you stupid retard. blood relations have never, ever stopped people from committing the most heinous acts

have literally never existed in the entirety of human history

Its for weaklings and mental midgets, the strongest tribes were led by a small contingent of brothers and cousins who conquered their neighbors. Only their lineage survived. The good looking Chad whites and the robust blacks are all descendants of strong patrilineages. Most members of the white, black and asian races are loser or rape babies. They're nothing more than peons genetically and don't deserve any honor or recognition which comes from winning battles and conquering other tribes. The majority of whites have done nothing to deserve recognition just as the majority of Asians and Jews have done nothing to deserve recognition. Its an ideology for unimportant peasants.

You couldn't walk the roads in China because there was so much fat from the corpses.
All of their subjects were fellow Europeans, and even so, it collapsed when large numbers of foreigners streamed in.
Everyone but the Ottoman Turks was a slave. The Janissaries were a literal slave army.
Everyone but the Muslims was a second-class citizen. Europeans and especially Africans were slaves.

So yes, I suppose that multi-racial societies have existed: the ones where one race constituted the ruling case and kept everyone else as slaves. Lol'd at the Mongols, though.

What makes my family immune to getting struck? They're related to me? Big fucking deal.

Its completely unrealistic in a world that has been inhabited by a bunch of mongrels for thousands of years

Imagine being this retarded

You're not being very generous with your interpretations of my words, are you? That's upsetting. No, I'm not saying a white nationalist society would be Utopian; spats will always be inevitable, but the notion of racial identity is imperative for an ethnic group to stay cohesive in a competitive world where different ethnic groups vie for control.

The roman empire collapsed due to large corruption. Everybody was fighting for power all the time. betrayals, civil wars, assasinations. That's what killed the roman empire.
Foreigners kek.

I used libertarian as a synonym for good quality of life.

It implies an essence of race fundamental to human existence. In reality, people with a fixation on identity have a tendency to project their own feelings onto others they perceive to be like them.

Racial identity won't even matter in the coming years as more and more people give less of a shit about it. People are retarded about it, but things will change, various holdovers from our evolutionary history will be done away with.

Forcefully if necessary.

The roman empire collapsed because it overextended; thinking it could control groups and people they could never understand.

I said
>it collapsed when large numbers of foreigners streamed in
and not
>it collapsed because large numbers of foreigners streamed in

The "when" is an undisputed historical fact. The "because" has never been conclusively shown, and has been pinned on everything from infighting to Christianity to heavy cavalry.

I guess we finally have our answer from Dr. user now, though, who gathered up his view on the matter from various bits of pop culture and blog articles.

t. neoliberal

except your argument is completely fucking retarded and there's always some mealy mouthed shit like you trying to worm "okay sure under THESE very specific conditions then nationalism is fine"

the whole modern conception of the "nation" isn't just bourgeois nonsense, it's increasingly being made irrelevant by multinational corporations whose interests and power grow increasingly divorced from the "nation" as they further merge with their various state hosts

so not only is the national concept stupid from the beginning, now it doesn't even matter

you're mistaking symptoms for the disease. the roman empire endured for hundreds of years despite endemic corruption that say little change throughout, and maintained borders that also changed little from ancient times

and not
you're still wrong you massive natcuck faggot

The Romans understood their distant subordinates perfectly well. What they failed to understand was their own limitations and fallibility as a society. It was basically doomed to collapse.

Something nazis seem to overlook is that nationalism has served its purpose to oust the nobility in their class war and now it's pointless.

The only thing nazis care about is what particular breed of cheap workforce they are going to provide to Porky (MUH NATALITY)

Hey man I like the way you think. I'm probably your own race and nationality. It's nice having a useful tool like you around trying to make my life better. I'm not going to return the favor because I only love or care for myself but that's cool right? Racial nationalism all the way! By the way it's cool if I have my way with your wife right? I share your race and nationality so you've gotta take care of me. Thanks for being a good little cuck.
Signed - your bull.

So a state should change with the composition of a society and laws should be put in place to mediate the differences between ethnic groups. Okay, fine. This could probably work with some races and nationalities but I ask a simple question: why? Why bother letting people in and expending useful calories just to keep 'em in place? Shouldn't we keep drastic legislative changes to a minimum?

The point is that I don't want to be around blacks or Muslims.

Like pottery

I don't understand what you're trying to suggest. Are you saying I'm a racial reductionist and will put everything else last?

well then have we got a gulag for you

You're fighting for your race and nationality, wasting time and energy, your life, doing so. Meanwhile I do nothing for you and look out only for myself. I reap the benefit of your activism while you gain nothing in return of mine. In the end I come out ahead because I own the benefits of both my and your labor, while you only have the benefit of yours. Enjoy being enslaved to the grouping you assign yourself to.

Good thing the capital doesn't care about your opinions and just rapes the nationalism into submission, now spread that butthole for Ahmed.

I'm judging by your writing that you're rather conceited.

Your point being? Is it not conceited to only care about people who share your nationality or race? They only matter to you because you see a part of yourself in them. It makes sense then that I only matter to myself because that is the only grouping I identify with. But please do go on fighting for my sake, not like it'll ever make me return the favor.

Does nobody actually read about Roman history? The empire collapsed, because the feudal mode of production was more efficient than the system of slavery that defines an empire. The rise of the peasant class and the aristocracy that formed out of Diocletian's bureaucracy made central authority progressively less sustainable. Landlords with peasants in the rural areas of the empire grew wealthier than the slave owners in the cities, which caused places like Rome to all but empty out.

The over-extension argument is complete nonsense. The borders of the empire had remained largely the same since Augustus established them with the only movement being Claudius taking half of Briton, Trajan taking Dacia, and the border with the Parthians fluctuating.

Likewise, the idea that Rome's decline was caused by an immigration problem is hilarious. Firstly, the seat of the empire in Italy held the only real concentration of Latins to begin with. Secondly, peasant migrations into the empire had been happening since Sulla and Pompey had made it a thing. Thirdly, the massive influx of germanic and celtic peasants was the only thing that kept the empire solvent for several centuries. With the plagues and various civil wars slaughtering citizens by the thousands, the only way to support the massive army needed to sustain the empire was to ramp up production by getting as many peasants to work the land as possible. Mass immigration was the secret to the empire's longevity. The Roman army was inviting barbarian tribes into the empire with open arms, because without them nobody would be paying for their upkeep. Finally, Roman citizenship included absolutely everyone within the borders of the empire after the Antonine Constitution was declared in A.D. 212. There were hardly any actual Latins left even in Italy, and even then the latins themselves were a mixed breed. The entire Mediterranean world was a gigantic melting pot and had been for a very long time.

Because it is based on race, which is a completely arbitrary factor. It wants to lump Russians and Spaniards together purely on the colour of their skin, paying absolutely no attention to culture or values like other forms of nationalism.

Funny how you advocate for the same outcome as the capitalists, then.

You are a capitalist, you idiot.

If I'm one, then why are the capitalists suppressing me, whereas you want their program of the dissolution of nations realized?

Really makes one think.

Where are they suppressing you? You can buy Mein Kampf in many places. Assuming you are American:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#United_States

Really makes one think.

I'm not American and selling Mein Kampf is illegal here - as are "hate speech" and questioning the six million. You also get fired from your job if people find out you're an evil Nazi and politicians will regularly take time out of their day to denounce you.

Last time I checked, you could by the Communist Manifesto off Amazon, and I don't remember anybody after 1960 being fired or sanctioned in any way for being a self-described Marxist.

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/07/can_your_boss_fire_you_for_your_political_beliefs.html
10 second google search for "fired for being marxist". Maybe try research before making claims, though it's not a well-known trait of Nazis to be educated so I can pardon you this once.

amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037

False
False
religion =/= race

Imagine being this stupid.

theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/mar/13/donald-trump-calls-bernie-sanders-a-communist-at-cleveland-rally-video
Communist used as a slur to try and slander, as if it's the worst thing in the world. Sanders didn't win btw if you didn't notice.

And thank god for it. Can you imagine how much it would have sucked if the socdem had won, and all of his liberal bullshit inevitably failed? Instead we get to watch and laugh as Trump sells his idiot supporters up Shit Creek. 56D Backgammon!

Of course the Recucklicans use "Communist" as a slur, but that's confined to just them. "Nazi", on the other hand, is a slur throughout all segments of society. Being called a Communist didn't hurt sanders, but being called a Nazi (while being right-leaning) invariably hurts a politician.

I never said it was bad he didn't win, he did kill Rosa Luxemburg after all. But the communist label stuck and was a big reason he lost. I will never understand people who act as if communism is at all embraced in the mainstream.

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/22/bernie-sanders-communist-sympathiser-hillary-clinton-us-election-2016
Not only the opposing party.

Because all group identities above 100 people are fucking artificial. Nationalism is not real, it's just a feeling inculcated by the state to increase its legitimacy, by making you feel part of a group you have nothing meaningful in common with. Consider Dunbar's number. Consider this quote given after Italian unification: Besides a variety of newspaper articles and pamphlets, d'Azeglio's chief works are the two novels Ettore Fieramosca (1833) and Niccolò dei Lapi (1841), as well as a volume of autobiographical memoirs entitled I Miei Ricordi (D'Azeglio Memoirs - p. 1867), a work published after his death, in 1866, but unfortunately incomplete. A quote from his memoirs is "L'Italia è fatta. Restano da fare gli italiani", translated colloquially as "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians."[8]. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_d'Azeglio

Further reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_Communities.

amazon.com/Nations-Nationalism-since-1780-Programme/dp/1107604621. Hobsbawm is great in showing that nationalism is just a feeling used by the state for that sweet legitimacy-booster.

Race is also fucking bullshit. Why the fuck would I want black and Arab people gone? If I meet a cool black guy or girl, I would want to form a friendship, and I would be interested in different experiences. Why the fuck would I invest my time in driving away people with different pigment than mine?

Secondly, Arab girls and black girls are hot. Why would I want Europe to be boring-ass whiteville?

And no, supporting the working class isn't the same. We commies believe we have a material , egoistic interest in supporting the working class. It's not about group identity, it's about self-interest. Unless you start to romanticize workers and hating cappies simply because they have money. That's fucking stupid.

Long story short, don't be spooky.

Are people being fired for communist remarks? Are they banned from universities?

muh itsjusta notrealz

Then the state is not real either, for I cannot touch it, hold it, weigh it or otherwise empirically observe it. The state then, is just a feeling for your impotency in face of the vast unknown that is the matter of earth.

See

Nothing, OP.

This is your opportunity to defect to being a woke-ass NazBol.

Yes nations are a spook, glad you finally learned something.

Yes! Holy fuck yes. The dean of my college got ousted last year for not being SJW enough. If you want to spend your college career getting shit on by angry professors, then challenge intersectionality on a materialist basis or call gender a spook or say that national liberation is not any kind of liberation at all.

That is correct. States are imaginary. What is real is a bunch of guys with clubs and guns who make you pretend that the state is real.

Guy you were responding to here. Yeah, it's not real. The state is a reified way of organizing: it's a collection of symbols, rules, and dots on maps we take to mean something. It's, to be honest, really spooky.

Not to say that that cops can't smash your face in. But if all of us were to forget that the state exists, it would not leave any objective artefacts.

When I speak about 'the state' this is just an useful off-hand to speak about the politicians, policemen, judges, invested in control of the population they boss around.

This. Think of it like witch hunts of the medieval ages. You believe the God of nations exists or prepare to be burned at the stake.

Did you just wake up from a year-long coma? The guy that everyone was calling a nazi actually won the election. The guy who was called a communist was cheated out of the primaries.

It does not exist, and yet it acts. That doesn't make sense.

Communists are so persecuted, they get ousted for not being left-wing enough!

This is like mentioning the banishment of Asser in the third reich as proof that the third reich was horrible to Not Socialists.

Then let it never again be said, that America is an imperialist state; such a statement is pure delusion then.

How is "reified" real then, can I touch it, weigh it, measure it or otherwise empirically prove it?

No, and therefor it is as non-existent as the state is.

It is not real, yet it is useful. Do you also mow your lawn with an imaginary lawn mower?

Well, that depends on the type of analysis you do. If you're not talking to people who think in the same way, it's easiest to just talk about 'the state'. But you should realize that a state is not like a lawn mower. It is not a single thing. If we say that 'Germany declares war', we actually talk about a single entity (a cabinet, or a parliament composed of people) who take this decision. Saying that a whole state, whatever this is, has this power, is just not scientifically useful.

And I'm not sure you know what the word reified means. In Marxism, it's regarding a social relation impersonally, e.g. as if it were real. I was saying precisely that the state, as a thing actually covering a map, isn't real: organizing ourselves impersonally, however, is.

Oh, by the way, you shouldn't change the subject. We were talking about the nation, not the state. It's always annoying to make an extended point and then get attacking on some minor thing not relevant to the larger argument.

I see, you have moved beyond a use of language that the rest of us moved past a 100.000 years or so. Now you have to learn not to fall back into your atavism whenever you think it suits your argument.

Your feelz aren't realz, so don't blame me for being materialist and disregarding them.

"It" does not act. There is no "it." What there is is a bunch of people who act on behalf of "it" like a religious constituency.

Liberals are about as "left" as nazis are, which is to say not at all.

It's just like how Stalin purged a bunch of bolsheviks.

The American state does not act of itself. It is a tool used by a section of the economic elite to secure cheap resources and labor abroad. In that sense it is imperialist. You think you're pulling gotchas, but you don't know enough about what you are talking about to make any salient points.

When something is "reified" it is fallaciously treated as if it were real. That is what the word means.

Yes, immaterial concepts are often used as tools. That does not make them real no matter how much idealists would like to pretend that it does.

You not knowing what words mean does not make them antiquated.

Are you retarded? You used a common Marxist word stupidly ON LEFTYPOL. I explained to you what it means. You then get angry at language above kindergarten level.

Your feelz aren't realz, so don't blame me for being materialist and disregarding them.

1. That does not make sense, 2. That's not even witty. You're not here to discuss anything seriously: you're either a pompous dick, a troll, or a faggot who can't stand sentences including more than three commas.

Not him but can we please not use sentences with more than 3 commas? It hurts my thinking parts.

It's not economically viable

...

OP is unintelligent.

Yet you speak of "it". You do not speak about a bunch of people, individuals, who have names and personhood.

They are patently illiberal, they are marxists who extend their marxism into territory not considered by the more orthodox marxists, if anything, they are more marxist than you are, for they have more of it.

>The American state does not act of itself. It is a tool used by a section of the economic elite to secure cheap resources and labor abroad. In that sense it is imperialist. You think you're pulling gotchas, but you don't know enough about what you are talking about to make any salient points.

Following your nominalism, "imperialism" is as non-existent as the state is. You do not know the subject you are speaking about, as you apply your nominalism selectively as to appeal to the sentiment of vulgar empiricism.

This does not materially exist, and is therefor not real. A "reified" has never been empirically observed.

If they weren't real, using them would be as pointless as using an imaginary hammer to drive down a nail.

Language above kindergarten level is exactly what you declare as carrying the unreal, a toddler has no conception of state, only of things.

Ethnic idpol can help preserve recessive features in humans that are universally regarded as beautiful and attractive but would otherwise be lost forever. If humans of future gererations all have the same skin/hair/eye color and similar facial features they'll maybe wish that their ancestors did something to preserve the diversity of appearances we have today. Why do you think that's a spook?

Thats a spook because dna can be modified in the future

-if they weren't real, using them would be as pointless as using an imaginary hammer to drive down a nail.-

You can use ideas to manipulate people. How is this not obvious to you?

-Language above kindergarten level is exactly what you declare as carrying the unreal, a toddler has no conception of state, only of things.-

Wtf is this even supposed to prove? One, it's wrong. The belief in the state as some entity in the ether covering a 'space' on a map and being an incarnation of a nation is usually based on vague emotions, not careful analysis. Two, it does not respond to any of my points.

Look, I'm a consistent Stirnerite. If you want to call for white people to only fuck white people because you and they love diversity in looks, why the hell not. If that's what's important to you and others, whatever. It's none of my business.

Santa Claus is used as a tool to make children behave. Therefore Santa Claus is real.

I wouldn't call all faulty assumptions spooks dude :). The word loses its meaning if you use it for everything that's factually wrong.

I agree, taken to the extreme even the future is a spook

It ironically becomes a spook.

This is complete horseshit. Current Italians are genetically virtually identical to prehistoric people from the Italian peninsula. Germanic "mass migrations" had a very limited impact on the genetic makeups of territories were they immigrated.

This obvious fact is irrelevant to the subject of nominalism.

It's supposed to prove that your nominalism is an opportunistic argumentation tactic that relies on a misunderstanding of language.

What they believe in confirms to your conception of reality, santa claus is believed in as a tangible person.

Whatever dude, I'm just going to stop discussing things with you. You're more interested in weird slurs than actually achieving some sort of understanding. Discussion on the web should not make you grind your teeth with frustration every couple of minutes.

...

Nah you don't. Right now communism is just as spooky because you invest a lot of effort in a cause with only a marginal chance of success where your efforts would be more beneficial for you used in other ways. Of course in other circumstances being a communist could be not-spooky. Anyway following spooky things is fine if you get enjoyement out of it.

For the same reasons nationalism can be not-spooky -depending on the circumstances-.

ugh, not the karltural marxism meme, do you really think 'marxism' = any continental philosophy after 1955?

you whole post is dumb but this part
is the most stupid of all

Guy you responded to here.

I'm one of those people who believes we're headed for environmental disaster without communism. Also, I hate and detest capitalism because I think it's alienating.

So I'm investing time in a cause I both love and think is necessary for the wellbeing of what I love and myself. I don't think it's spooky. But you're right, it doesn't matter if it is.

Hm, I do think nationalism is always spooky, it's just that chasing your neuroses is beneficial- there is a difference. Morality is a spook: but only psychopaths would actually not be moral. That's my main criticism of Stirner, that he didn't recognize the necessity of our irrationality. I could try to ignore morality, and I would hate myself for it. To live well is to accept being irrational, up to a point.

Jesus fucking Christ

No, nationalism isn't always spooky. The most obvious case is the one of the self-conscious nationalist party leader who aims for power with a reasonable chance of success.

I understand the vulgar nominalism you espouse, you don't. You don't so much grind your teeth with frustration as that you bite your own tongue.

Applying the marxist base principle of exploiter and exploited to areas that marx himself did not directly address is still marxism.

Hm, but then we're discussing semantics. I'd then counter that a nationalist 'self-conscious' of the nation being bullshit isn't much of a nationalist at all ;).

It depends on the area since northern Italians are whiter while southern Italians are clearly darker skinned.

A nation is a spook. It is a fixed concept with no material reality that frightens beleivers into behaving contrary to their own interests. Thus nationalism is spooky regardless of its supposed efficacy.

So much stupid in just one sentence.

There's a reason Holla Forums uses anal sex as a reference so much, to the marxist, everything is a matter of top and the bottom, the same is true of the SJW, the difference being that the SJW knows more anal positions.

Well that would mean that as a communist purposefully pursuing your self-interest through communism you aren't much of a communist since the vast majority of communist treat it like a religion unlike you.

Psychopathy is a spook. Being a psychopath is just name calling for people who don't believe the same spooks you do. It's immoral to eat beef for some people, does eating beef make you a psychopath?

Hm, I disagree with this, just like I disagree with the whole 'gender is a spook' thing. Psychopathy is more of a collection of behaviours than a fixed thing, yes, (like any condition outside of the normal spectrum) but it is a collection of particular abnormal behavior nonetheless. Psychopathy is a collection of traits associated with a lack of empathy, impulsivity, amorality, and usually a good dose of narcissism. Just because something is abnormal does not mean it is not real.

I'm not comfortable with treating the nation -unlike nationalism or the nation-state- as a spook since it involves mores and thought processes (shaped by language and culture) which are very real for the individual, even part of him.

Yeah, I'll readily acknowledge this is true. Workerism is a real thing in the movement, just like 'self sacrifice in the interest of the class' or bullshit like that.

Isn't clinical psychopathy an actual physical development fault in the brain? That's material enough not to be spooky.

Yeah, but being a part of a nation is not limited to having a language or culture. I'm dutch. I am cosmopolitan, educated, atheist and speak the normal 'tongue'. What do I have in common with some Christian hardliner who speaks a dialect I don't understand, and who I've never met? Read this: ucparis.fr/files/9313/6549/9943/What_is_a_Nation.pdf.

It's a text by a nationalist Frenchman, acknowledging that, when it comes down to it, the nation is just a feeling.

You mean like how alt retardeds have their idea of rassenkampf, and exploiter=jewish exploited=white + anything else. hmm, interesting. The postmodern left has a hell of a lot more in common with the alt right than marxism.

I would agree with that definition of psychopath actually. The way he worded it though was that anybody not following morals is a psychopath, which I strongly disagree with. I probably had a knee jerk reaction calling psychopathy a spook, the word was just used incorrectly.

Generally the louder the voice the smaller the minority.

I would have to say, just pulling something outta my ass here, that somewhere along the lines these folk grew up as a form of minority in their home cities or towns. Because humans will almost always regard race as a form of "grouping" people together (it's literally unavoidable and essentially part a human biology at this point) it caused these individuals to feel completely alienated. Out of jealousy of seeing folk living in a more ethnocentric location happy they immediately correlate their unhappiness to the fact they live as a minority.

Probably full of shit but it's the what I find as the reasons behind recent spikes of ethnonationalism. That and the MSM is seriously pushing as much racebaiting as physically possible as…well ya know divide and conquer.

Yeah, I worded it that way because non-psychopaths have moral reactions. We can't help it. We get angry, we feel like helping people because we have to, etc. It's wired in our brains in a way that it isn't in those of psychopaths. When you see someone smack an old lady without reason, you will most probably get angry if you do not suffer from psychopathy, because you intuitively see this as an injustice. If someone would hurt a child of yours, you'd view this person as a monster or would want to.

Conflict theories that see every aspect of life as a holographic image of an underlying bottom/top relationship are nearly all marxist in origin. The postmodern left grew out of marxism, not out of liberalism, it dragged liberalism along and fed of it, but that does not make it liberal itself.

I just don't give a fuck about your spooks m8. If the white race disappears because they fucked too many asians, do not give a single shit. Maybe I'll be able to fuck some mixed race asian qts with my cyborg cock in the future.

I understand nation following the pre-19th century use of the word as only comprising language and culture. Renan clearly subsribes to the modern acception.

Fair enough, although I would point out that Belgians, many of whom also speak a form of Dutch not dissimilar spoken to that in the Southern Netherlands, also have a very similar culture to mine. An urban Belgian would be closer to me than a rural, christian Dutch person in terms of language and culture.

And hey, in terms of culture cities are often very alike, whereas they are often split off from rural cultures. So what is the best nation? The nation of cities? The nation of countries?

It's a excellent concept.

Derp, I meant to say excellent concept

Wait, does Leftypol block you from writing P R O B L E M A T I C???? That's fucking awesome

There is no nation of misers.

Sounds like you just worship the elderly and children as godlike.

wat.

-being angry when an old lady is hit in the street
-being angry when your child is hurt

'worship'.

And I was speaking in a general sense, you know that right? It could also be the case that you are amoral, which would be fine, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the exception here, in what my feelings would be naturally.

Wait, you joking about the Dutch being greedy? Well played, I guess

No, about the Belgians, never before have I met a more treacherous, petty and banal lot.

Lol

People don't just torture others for no reason. Even Stirner says "I can kill them, not torture them". In the event that these scenarios happen there is information that I'm missing since they just don't make sense in a vacuum. To blame the one hurting another with faulty information shows you hold heavy prejudice based on some irrational moral code. Say the person who hurt my kid was pushing them out of the way of a bus. You would jump the gun and call them a monster, never giving them a chance to explain themselves. Meanwhile without a moral code I would ask why they would do such a thing. Maybe they are actually psychopathic in which case they need medical attention. I stayed in the realm of logic while you let yourself be carried away by a spooky moral code.

Yeah, but that's the point. Most people will let themselves get carried away and find it impossible not to do so.

Most people are spooked out of their god damned minds. Even I find myself being spooked constantly. It doesn't justify allowing these spooks to infest your mind and to be complacent being under their control.

Why? 'Justify', user? That's a suspiciously morally sounding word. Why should I not let myself be irrational if that's what's peaceful for me, in my interest, so to say? Going against my interest in the quixotic pursuit of being de-spooked or whatever sounds, you know, a little spooky in of itself. And not egoist whatsoever.

-Even I find myself being spooked constantly-

Yes, that was my original point. People can't help that. :)

I'm your usual non-denominational far leftist, but if I'm going to be honest, I wish Europe would remain white, for the sake of diversity and aesthetics if nothing else. American countries are already miscigenated, they can accept whomever.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Do you even live here?

It seems pretty clear to me that Western and Northern European elites are deliberately trying to turn their countries into multiethnic liberal paradises. I can't for the life of me see why, because genetic makeup is meaningless, but regadless, their leaders seem hellbent in de-white-ning their countries in the same measure Holla Forumsyps want to white-fy them.

It's not really a matter of trying to change demographics. It's a matter of self-interest. They're trying to get the most promising immigrants into their countries because of the shitstorm coming that is climate change. They can't take in everyone and still live in their high standard of living. There will be a lot of starving people resulting from climate change and people always raid before they starve. You want the people who are smart enough to recognize the incoming danger on your side before you slam the borders shut.

Racially dividing the working class broke any potential for socialism in the United States. But tbh I don't think elites care about "de-whitening." I just think they're liberals who feel sad when they see poor brown people drowning (an attitude we should all have), but that doesn't lead them to do anything about the economic or global system. Of course.

If you think I was implying that ethnic differences caused the collapse of the Roman Empire, you are retarded and probably an American that thinks all human societies are like your farce of a country.

That was what I meant. Roman politics were a never-ending mess of Machiavellian violence and ruling class complacency.

All nationalism is dumb, but right-wing nationalists are especially retarded because their beliefs are a paradox: they want to maintain a cultural status quo while ardently defending an economic ideology that demands endless growth and constant social upheaval for the sake of maintaining itself. At least Nazbols know what they fucking want.

If you hate mass immigration so much, literally all you need to do is oppose capitalism. Liberal "progressive" ideology is purely a product of capitalist political climate.

What are you talking about? Refugees are fleeing their home countries because their home countries are already shitholes, not because "climate experts predict climate change will make agriculture in [Third Would country] impossible by 2040"

...

But they don't, unless you're a socialist tard that thinks anything outside your special-snowflake brand of socialism is just capitalism with a re-brand

well a nation has nothing to do with race so it's pretty much nonsense in any non-"i hate the niggers" sense.
(black nationalism a bit of an exception in that african-americans in many ways could be considered a nation in their own right, so black nationalism taken to mean african-american nationalism is moderately coherent.)

What

From an outsider's perspective the distinction between african-american ancestry and american "black culture" seems to be pretty blurry sometimes. Is there even a clear distinction in speech between a black person part of the cultural nation encompassing AAVE dialect, "black music" etc and people who simply have african ancestry but are unconnected to that culture? Both would be called african-american or black, no?

Yes they do, whether they are aware of it or not.

With rare exceptions such as the Black Panthers, nationalism is devoid of any class politics. What's more is, anyone can join a worker's movement. Only white people can join a white nationalist movement, only black people can join a black nationalist one, et cetera. It's self defeating.

Don't groups like the Traditionalist Workers Party kind of defeat your point?

user has the right of it in . Especially since it's honestly REALLY HARD to have african ancestry and be unconnected to that culture because people basically end up getting herded into it.

I mean, if a nation is a shared history, language and culture, and a language is just a dialect with an army and a navy, african americans absolutely fit the bill as a distinct nation

That's the thing, muslims aren't the most promising at all. Eastern Europeans are far closer culturally, and Latinos aren't as close but there's a lot of them to go around. I don't know they focus on muslim countries.

FUCK. It's so obvious I can't believe I didn't think of it first. They want culture shock in order to hinder working class consciousness.

Also, now that you mention it, this de-white-ning might be a simple reflex of self-induced liberal guilt. Not just over drowning refugees, but over all the crimes they commit every day. They know they have blood on their hands, and think that letting a horde of poor immigrants into their developped will wash some of it away; they think of mass immigration as effortless charity, as do the supposed leftists who'll defend globalism for the sake of muh immigrants.

Yeah, it's clear that mass immigration is high on Porky's list of priorities. The xenophobe right, being the dumbasses that they are, just don't want to see brown people on their way to the supermarket. They utterly fail to see the economic reasons for it, so they attribute it to "PC culture gone mad" and whatever dumb shit aut-right e-celebs are spouting.

If your too fucking stupid to realize race dosnt exist, maybe you should just keep in breeding untill all your offspring have the mental capacity of a potato with a bite taken out of it.