Is racialism modernistic and leftist?

It doesn't. Islam encourages shitty characteristics with polygamy. Lots of inbreeding, and lots of men who can't get a wife running around allahu ackbaring.

They have harsh criminal penalties but their breeding policies are the complete opposite of those that reduce degeneracy. Christian European with its one man one woman marriage policy fared far better, and the racial quality was improved due to good management.

These people don't really understand this.

Found a newfag

Also, I ask anyone disagreeing with this to dare give their own definition of who counts as white.

Which groups? What percentage of non-European DNA is acceptable?

I guarantee that this will lead to autistic collectivism and failure. No pre-enlightenment societies defined things like this. It's easy to remove darkies and obvious subhumans, but not so easy to decide where the boundaries are, and when you are applying that centrally as part of a state that creates all sorts of problems, especially when you bring in socialism to protect your chosen people from selection.

We'll have to see how Trump's isolationism and eastern European nationalism will end before we can make any rule. We literally need more data.

Back to >>>Holla Forums

Spotted the historically illiterate here. People have always been "racist". They haven't always been "racialist" like modern white nationalists want. Your norse and germanic ancestors were big into pillaging and colonizing other places and interbreeding with slaves and the conquered populations.

It's easy to say "ethnic kin group" when you are talking about a family, but stretching the metaphor out to the level of a state requires you to delineate where the boundaries are, and I tell you that I won't take any criticisms seriously until you are capable of defining this, because that's entirely the point of my argument. Trying to handwave this away will not work.

If your not a Burger you fall back on your nation state, which makes your ideals for civic nationalism irrelevant to nations that can really be traditionalist. I.e europe. All of this is irrelevant though because traditionalism is LARPing as a form of goverment and civilization that is no longer at all relevent it cert entry isn't relevent to the US a nation founded on enlightenment ideals.

Anyone who falls within the dark blue oval on the left side of this map.

Very little would be acceptable. Almost none.

They didn't have to because their people were stuck on a plot of land and never strayed more than a few miles in their entire lives. They were racially pure just by technological, cultural, linguistic barriers. Today the conditions are much different and necessitate different methods.

The nation is the natural extension of the traditional kin group to larger organizational structure, made necessary and possible by technological advancement.

Boundaries are well defined in everywhere except the US. Poles Russians English and French all know who they are and it certainly is not a multi ethnic identity. The model you are pushing for is an american construct. If you were truly a traditionalist you would push for a similar model to the Europeans by making a set "American" race.

Image was already posted.

Long story short, it is easy to define the barrier because there is a clear and marked discontinuity between European populations and non-European populations.

Also, coarse categories to not negate more fine categorization. We need them at all levels, from race to ethnicity to locality.

That's why I said it is an extension, retard.

For non-Americans, white is a useless term. Some men over the pond will be flustered when I say this, but their amalgamation of white culture took the worst materialism from white and worst influences in general from black culture. As such, when the steam runs out of their still European driven soul, they'll have to discover a new identity thru centuries of suffering. As such, teleology of US is divergent from European one and we can't really talk about the same spiritual race.

But even when we enter Europe, we're talking about multiple races. The mediteranean race; Italians, Spaniards, Greeks. The nordics; Sweden, Finland, Iceland. The Germanics. Anglo-Saxons; who could be more equated with the anglosphere than Europe proper. Russians; who are literally not even western culture. Eastern Europeans; Bulgarians, Serbs - who are an extension of Russia. Western Slavs; Poles, Croats - who are an extension of Germany in a different race of body, but not spirit. And even this is simplified.

When confronted with this many races, we can generally simplify them to north, central, southern and eastern Europeans. And to simplify this, we can say western civilization and Russian culture.

However we slice them, we must admit they're not a singular race in body. Slavs and westerners are of a completely different race. And in character, thing is even more complex. The one thing they all have in common is that they're creator people - just like Japanese. Here we're faced with either adding Japanese among Aryans, and Persians, too - or we can just stop to define the "one white race". Instead, we can call them creator races - those who can create, in opposition to those who can maintain already existing - arabs, dravidians and those who can't be civilized - various negros etc.

So, we come to the realization there are three races:
One of body. Anglo, nordic, slavic.
One of character. Mediteranean, Germanic etc.
One of the very essence of spirit - race of a male or a female principle. And the creator races are of the male, the solar.

So, when we look at which races are compatible, we look at physical likeness, which can be ignored under right circumstances.
More important is the character. A mediterranean race mixing with a slavic might work based on my observation. However, with a Japanese, not so much. Japanese and Nordic race may have something in common though.

There's also the matter of religion. Rational Catholicism and Mystical Orthodox shape the soul. First in a Germanic way, the second in a Russian. So, a Slav of a Catholic family for a thousand of years will mix better with a German or an Italian than with a Russian in the long term.

It is a complex topic and a lot more could be said. But take this as a short introduction.

Have you tried changing a few pixels?

Look up any European genetic distance maps. There is a very clear discontinuity between European population groups and non-European ones. There are also clear groupings along nationality. There are broad categories and lower subcategories, all clear and definable through genetics.

I'm not seeing any percentages listed. If you want a "celtic" nation, define "celtic" and then tell me what percentage you have to be before that's unacceptable. Don't retreat into vagaries. Let's get specific.

Using words like broad or sufficient and so on allows to avoid drawing the line properly and facing the consequences of doing so.

It isn't really. On a larger global scale it is useful and necessary. Europeans are attacked as a group and they need to defend themselves as a group. This doesn't mean that they should intermix or give up their nationality, but they do need to band together or they will be destroyed.

It would obviously depend on the distance of the mixture. Half nigger celtic is a lot different than half German celtic. That is why it would need to be based on genetic distance. It is not a difficult problem, really.

Agreed, and that American race is english, german, and dutch WASPs. Maybe non-nigger-nosed irish can be included too, as they're already heavily mixed into most American whites anyhow.

Only as a signal that you've helped build Western Civilization. And it'll be useful to signal you're on European side when shit hits the fan. Beyond that, it's not much else.

This.

Being individualistic against united groups of shitskins is going to end badly. That's how the Jews managed to infiltrate Europeans societies and now are using the same tactic to destroy it. If you call yourself white you won't loose your national identity.

And there is no "race of spirit." There is only race. Dualism is retarded.

Forgot to add that calling yourself white is for when you are dealing with shitskins. Calling yourself white when talking with another one is retarded.

Racism in-and-of-itself is just another type of materialism. However a well-rounded worldview must inevitably BE racist.

It's telling that all the major modern ideologies say "more [ideology] is better", while all the classical civilisations said "too much of anything is poison"

Okay then. Draw up the big chart you want to enforce and we'll see which big chart your fellows want, and then what?

Don't you see that this is populist nonsense? Don't you see that you're not actually arguing for civilization?

It's cargo cult behavior. You see that cars have wheels, and then you build big round stones and expect to go.

Counter point: I don't need to call myself white because it's implicitly understood that when my neighbor starts a battle against Mohammedans that I'll stand on his side since we've cooperated over a thousand years and share a history.

This, too. "White" is a very infectious meme that can mutate into a cancer easily, which is why it should be applied only during a war,

Back in the day, when Poland helped Croats, Magyars and Austrians drive out Turks, no politics of white identity was needed. They were neighbors with a shared history and many shared values, so they banded together.

*tips fedora*

That is why we say that broader categories do not override lower categories. An organism can be classed by genus, but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong to a species. A human can be classed on broader race but it doesn't mean he has no more specific ethnicity. It is just categories and subcategories, not a difficult concept.

There is only the Tao: but it helps to use other words to describe it, even if they're floaty-meaninged, and possibly confusing to the stupid

Monism is not fedora, retard. Dualism is a heresy even in Christianity. Body, soul, and spirit are what make up the man in an integral way. They are not three separate parts that can just be changed around.

It's frightening how difficult the average person finds this concept. Like, yes, there is a singular human race, but I also don't want my daughter fucking a nigger.

I don't see that because it isn't. It isn't populist or not populist. That term doesn't apply here.

That is exactly what I am doing.

What are you, Modernist, post-enlightenment scum?

Yet some people seems to think that calling themselves white against people like the jews will magically erase who they are.

But in the end even if they scream that they are Germans or Russians it will make no difference to the nigger who will still them as white.

Dude literally what.

White trash that coalburns probably does have spirit of a lesser race. And of course, I don't want to marry such a lesser girl after nignog runs. It's integral to me to keep my spirit and soul intact. I have no idea why you're denying it.
Are you going to deny racemixing is possible because different races are different in an integral way?

Dualism is not heresy. One heretical sect doesn't discredit the whole thing. We're tainted with the original sin. As such, we're removed from God's world of ideas to a higher or lesser degree.

This is impossible. A person cannot have any spirit other than the spirit of that person. The idea of "race of the spirit" that does not correspond to race of the body is wrong. It is like some perverse transgender conception, where the person is born in "the wrong body." It can only be nonsense.

Simplifying it into those 3 races is preposterous. There is no Mediterranean race, either. I think as of right now, most peoples that could be considered separate "races" already have their own country, except there are a ton of offshoot smaller countries that could be absorbed.
Examples:
Austria is by all accounts Germanic and could be absorbed into a greater German state. The Czech Republic is tough because of it's Slavic influences. Same with Poland. The Netherlands is probably more German than Germany itself. And Scandinavian countries were just Northern Germanics, and are also probably now more German in blood than the people of the country of Germany. I would never include Iceland as part of a Nordic or Germanic state because they descend from vikings and Irish. They are completely separate and unique.

Portugal as far as I know, besides being a different political state for a while, could be absorbed into a Greater Iberian state.

France is unique on it's own and can't really be labeled Germanic or Celtic or something else.

The case in the UK and Ireland is much more complex, but the situation as of right now seems to be perfect, except for maybe the existence of Northern Ireland. Scotland, Wales, and England being able to keep their regional identities while being united to protect the island is a good idea.

Albania and Macedonia could probably be absorbed into a greater Greek state, although it would be tougher with Albania being Muslim.

I won't get into the rest of Eastern Europe because it's kind of a mess, but it's important to evaluate if there is a common descent, language, history, religion, culture. I completely agree that white is a useless term for Europeans and that it erases the separate ethnic identities in Europe.

A nigger isn't going to care if you are French or Polish when he chimps out. He just wants to kill whitey.

I disagree on two points.

Austria. Greater Germany was a mistake anyway. And even then, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was such a great thing, I don't think they should ever be degraded into an equal of something nebulous as "Germany".

Bringing closer Scandinavia and Germany. Germany was one of the greatest contributors to Western Civilization. Scandinavia wasn't. They're the odd one out, participating and being extremely efficient, like Germans, but their soul is somewhere else in many ways. And it shows in their art.

Ah, so you're one of those. People mix and they're not pure and accidents happen. Aristocracy is the prime example. Their soul often doesn't correspond to the people they led because they mixed with other aristocrats.

What do you mean by this? One of those what?

Their race still corresponded to their body and necessarily must. Being a distinct population group, they were different in body as well.

What you're saying doesn't make sense.
Spiritually Czechs have more in common with Germans than Russians even though physically they have more in common with Russians than Germans. That means their higher spirit shifted from traditional Slavic to Western European and lies at some point in between. So, if a spirit of a group of people can shift by interacting with the Other and interbreeding with them, then it must be possible on a smaller scale too.

How about no. And how about they piss off Galicia instead.

Stick your superstates up your ass. Id rather die than be ruled, no matter by whom.

No, what I am saying makes perfect sense, metaphysically. If you are going to talk about soul and spirit, you should at least know what that means. There can be no conflict between body, soul, and spirit in a person. I understand you are just repeating some shit you read on a gay Evola radtrad blog, but you really should familiarize yourself with metaphysics before speaking on it. A lot of problems could be avoided that way.

And you're wrong on that anyway, since Czechs are typically more closely related to Germans than to Russians, even in "race of the body."

What do you define as "rule," and does it include a governing body overseeing state administration?

You're talking about a conflict that I'm not seeing. It's just as with genes. An asian man and a white woman can produce a highly functioning mix. An asian woman and a white man gives you the supreme gentleman (yes, Elliot was half jewish not white, but the point stands). While both, in this case, are generally undesirable, the level of "conflict" or how the two work together varies.

Various European races can generally mix without big problems because they're similar enough. The same is in body and the same in their soul as long as it's individual and not whole ethnicity.

This is interesting, thanks.

In this context think the appropriate word is "racialist"

sage
sage for more /christian/ D&C

What is a caste system, you fucking Jew worshiping pleb

Not a single foreigner be he nigger, Spaniard or whatever has a right to even a single ballot of any decision affecting my people.

Im more than happy to colaborate. But piss off with the fucking superstate united Iberia crap

Evolution can be visualized as a tree. What is the difference between a twig, a branch and a limb? Only degree

So too, what is the difference between a German Shepherd, a Dingo, a wolf a coyote? Only degree

Specialization is along process that takes place every single time a individual reproduces, and the process continues if that new individual then continues the process by choosing a mate with the appropriate level of distinction to afford a small amount of differentiation

I'm not trying to push an agenda here, I actually just want to know what you define as "rule"

And I generally agree with what you say here.

The person has certain possibilities. The race also has certain possibilities. These possibilities can be actualized or not. So if a Czech is spiritually like a German, then that just means the possibilities were already there and actualized in that direction. It doesn't mean it is a different would or different spirit, just that those possibilities were already there and became actualized by experience.

I'm not as read up on Austria-Hungary but I always had the impression they were a weak empire. If Austria really wants to be it's own thing and preserve whatever unique identity they have, fine. The more conservative we are with preserving identities the better. I was just stating what I thought would be the major sub-races of Europe and what that would look like if the sub-races all had their own states. And like I said, I think the current map of Europe is pretty good at that save for a few tiny countries that seem like they should't be there, but I would much rather have that then have multiple groups and sub-races in one state creating a cesspool.

Many people forget that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are Germanic nations, so I just had to point that out. And keep in mind, despite the size of the their countries, their population is small. Of course they are never going to compete or have just as many achievements as the Germans who have much, much more people then them.

I do understand what you mean by their soul being somewhat different in some ways. They are a more sea oriented people and their diet is also different.

*different soul

sage
You can tell this is another /christ/ D&C because the responses are so rapid, they try to shut every opinion down

Depends on the system. In the parliament democracy we have now its them being allowed to vote on our matters

Because it is newspeak for accepted corruption, nihilism, atheism, degeneracy, leftism, superstitiousness (tarot etc.), weakness, lies, barren; ugly souls and landscapes, worthlessness, equality, apathy, vanity, jealousy, witch hunts, depression, pollution, blindness, and death.

But isn't actualization of a people thru generations in a different way the same as changing their soul?

Yes and yes. Any people belonging to an indigenous European ethnic group is white, OP. Stop trying to create confusion where none exists for the purpose of promoting your anti-racialist agenda.
Except there is no "problem" at all. You've constructed a "problem" to support your narrative when no such problem exists. The point of racial politics in a nationalist society isn't to exclude, it's to protect. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of racial nationalism and the concept of nationhood. I support racial homogeneity not merely out of some materialist observation of what is "better". Although true, that comes as an after thought, and is not the primary reason for wanting to maintain racial integrity. The real reason is that I have an undying love my race and people and what we have collectively accomplished over the millennia. The science, philosophy, epics, and high culture - all of it is an expression of our unique racial spirit. It goes beyond mere materialism.
And why can we not have this along with racialism? A racially-conscious nation with high standards is the ideal that all genuine nationalists are striving for. I don't believe anyone here has ever advocating maintaining the degenerate "standards" we have today. What you seem to be proposing is some kind of race-blind meritocracy, which I fundamentally disagree with and despise the concept of. It's anti-nature, and bastardises the entire concept of nationhood. A nation should be an organic body of people with share culture, race, history, and identity, all working together for their collective benefit. "Standards" alone does not a nation make.
No OP. You fundamentally do not understand the basis for a nation. You do not understand the entire nationalist philosophy behind nationhood and what it really means. My nation is my race - the laws that govern this land should always come secondary, and should be designed for the benefit of our people. I have no interest in engaging in your race-blind, anti-nature civic "nationalist" garbage. I means nothing to me whether an Asian or a Black can live up to your arbitrary standards, because they are not my people, and on a fundamental level, the do not belong in a white nation. It was my race that built this civilisation, and it is only my race that can ultimately maintain it and keep its spark alive. Non-whites, no matter how "exceptional" you might consider some of them to be, can not and will not connect to us, or our civilisation on a deeper fundamental level, because they are entirely foreign to it in blood and history. A society that rejects racialism in favour of race-blind "meritocracy" is inherently flawed and in opposition with both nature, and the foundational principles of nation hood as outlined in pic related.

D&C is a really stupid meme, because the divisions are inherent to the concepts we're dealing with here. We can't help but fight for our respective sub-ideologies. This process is inevitable, which is proven by the fact that the D&C argument is invoked in every single thread, yet never changes squat, and never brings any unity because there is none to be found.

The default of the left is inevitable, so the question of which nationalism replaces the tumbling globalism cannot be avoided forever.

No it won't. Race should be the prime standard, because it was from race that springs brotherhood. It is from race that springs nationhood. It is from race that springs identity, unity, culture, and ultimately civilisation. One could argue that an Asian has the right "behaviour", but that doesn't change the underlying fact that they are a foreign racial group with their own inherent survival strategy. I do not care one bit about your race-blind cuckery, OP. You only want to promote it as a way of "proving" to everyone around you how "not racist" you are, possibly because you're too afraid to fully embrace racial realism yet. You just don't "get it". I want my nation for my people, not assorted "exceptional" shitskins whom I can not share any deeper connection with on a cultural and racial level, and with whom I share no history. Race is the only gold standard. We can not and should not try to built a nation on purely the "exceptional". It takes all strata of society to form a functional nation. The point of racial nationalism is to unite the people from all levels of society around their common blood and identity. What you're proposing is some soulless, destructive, anti-nature bastardisation of what a nation really is. The result of what you're proposing will ultimately be the result that libshits wants - the death of the white race, and as a result, the civilisation we have produced.
Because you say so? Top fucking kek. You claim that it will only create an "autistic collectivism that will destroy itself form within", yet you present no evidence or reason to believe in such bullshit. You only hate the idea of whites forming a nation for the benefit of our people alone, despite the fact that literally every other people on earth think this way. Tell us, you cucked civic "nationalist", why would wanting to structure society around the undying love of our people, and our unity through blood and culture, "destroy itself from within". Racial-centric societies are literally an evolutionary survival strategy. You want to completely disregard this fact so you can promote your special brand of racial-egalitarianism lite.
You're entirely wrong, you moronic cow. Racialism doesn't assume merit at all. We strive for it - in the context of bettering our own people and reaching out full potential. We just reject your cancerous universalism, which has proven time and time again to be entirely destructive to us as a race. Racialism is the only reaction to the left. Your ideology is just another brand of univeraslist leftism, albeit steeped in pseudo-nationalist rhetoric. If your "solution" involves furthering the process of national mongrelisation and the displacement of my race, then I want none of it. Racial nationalism is the only way we will survive as a people, and under that, the only way our civilisation will survive.

tl;dr LURK MORE, CIVCUCK "NATIONALIST"

key word: conquered.
we aren't conquering any more civilizations and implanting them with our seed. we're standing around and waiting while tribes with inferior genetics settle our homelands as neighbors and pollute the local gene pool.
in other words, we're being conquered.

i fully support interbreeding with whatever race you want; as long as you don't bring the foreigner back to our ancestral homeland and ruin the foundation of our culture.

Oh gee, racialism is so bad, goy. You don't wanna be suspected of atheism or egalitarianism, now do ya??? Forget the world succumbing to idiocracy and eventual self-destruction if the replacement migration keeps up, what's important is you avoid those labels at all costs!

Only way to show what a tradcon individual you are is becoming a #cuckmissile and go kiss some refugee feet. Ride the defeatitiger and deus evropa, bruthas!

O rly??? Somehow shared history didn't stop France from financing the Ottomans' progress into Austria. And there was no "banding together", just Poland acting on it's internal ideology and the rest trying to save their asses. Meanwhile Lithuanians came into Hungary avoided the military activities entirely, instead started pillaging. Austria in turn also had no problem helping destroy Poland not much later.

Muh shared history my ass.

Oh yeah, the wisdom of racemixing Romans and Greeks flooding their homelands with other races. Clearly they had the superior grasp on all subjects!

That's all I'm getting from your post. France acting like a dick to someone on the other side of the continent, nothing strange here. Still a dick move.

Bollocks. You can't have spent much time on Holla Forums or around nationalists in general if you think these divisions have been invented for this thread.

Hilarious. Protection by definition excludes the things its trying to protect against.

Ok, but the only way to know what your race is in the first place is to engage in "materialism" by defining it. There's no escape from reality. You are trapped in a spiritual maze you've made for yourself.

All things materialistic here. You are contradicting yourself.

And yet you can't name any of those things can you? Saying "beyond materialism" is just Nietzchean claptrap, and utterly meaningless.

What you've actually done is mistaken the emotions that your race's (however you define it and you have to) material accomplishments invoke in you for some kind of substance that can stand in place of those accomplishments, but it can't.

You can, as long as racialism is relegated to its proper place.

What you are failing to understand, and this is the source of a lot of misunderstanding from nationalists, is that if races are the primary motivator of success, then meritocracy, by definition, cannot be race-blind. Applying meritocratic policy would produce results in line with (but not matching, and this is important) a racial view of the world. What we'd actually produce is a more accurate sense of caste than race approximates.

Collective benefit. Here's the stealth egalitarianism I alluded to in my OP.

The purpose of society should be to foster excellence, and to the extent that group policy can foster excellence in others it is good, but to the extent that group policies coddle weaklings it is bad. Putting collective benefit first leads exactly to degeneration.

(I almost feel like putting a disclaimer here because I expect you to mistake this for individualism/lolbertarianism, but I'll wait).

If the people degenerate and become shit, then they are not my people. They are simply not worthy of life.

I'm not a civic nationalist. I'm not a nationalist at all, which is a concept you lot have a hard time understanding because you think "nationalism" has existed forever.

They aren't arbitrary if they are measures of success, flourishing, and civilizational excellence.

Also, another interesting thing is that you aren't confident that other groups will fail these tests. I don't really see what the problem is. If we stop coddling people and bring down firm justice, only the just and strong will survive. I don't see what the problem is if whites are best at this stuff. What happens to niggers with no EBT and death squads coming in to kill rioters?

Half your race is invested in destroying it, and the other half is squabbling over how to define itself. The only thing I'm doing is highlighting something that already exists, but you don't like it, because you want to brush it under the rug in order to feel good and maintain your ego.

You ignorant faggot, HRE was right next to France.

If you have no problem with funding mongrel muzzies to destroy others of your kind fuck off, all of you turbocucks can fallow. The garbage you peddle is worthless, its only use is your onanism.

No. The Greeks recognized race and called all non-Greeks barbarians, same with the Chinese, the Japanese; Germanics looked down on Romans as a race of soft decadent effetes, as did Celts. Race is primal, just because formal race theory didn't come about until the 19th century is irrelevant: did gravity not exist before Newton "discovered it? Did people not recognize or were not effected by gravitational forces before there was a formal theory?

The only thing that has changed is technology and understanding has improved: modernism is not technology or technological advancement. Modernism is an ideology and worldview founded on materialism, positivism, consumerism, humanism, universalism. Using technology to classify race genetically and biologically does not fit; also our contemporary race theories contain socio-cultural and metaphysical dynamics rather than being strictly materialist and positivist, so they're not "modernistic" and they're certainly not liberal as they assert and use empirical evidence to prove that racial equality is impossible and undesirable.

Not going to sperg about it, but I agree with OP, and thank him for posting this.
Pic related. Honorary white man.

Western Indo-Europeans.

No hard and fast rule, we're not "modernistic materialists", race is a multi-dimensional concept encompassing biological/genetic, socio-cultural, and metaphysical dimensions, however 10% non-Western Indo-European would the absolute maximum acceptable amount by the most liberal of standards.

Right, and US is right next to USSR due to Alaska.

kek keep sperging out about things I never said
Dick move on their part, but it happens when two empires hate each other.

Collectivism like organizing into family units and communities and clans and tribes and nations? We run better when we're all atomized individuals each acting in our own individual interest with no fidelity or collaborative effort with our racial tribe? Because open markets run by powerful transnational megaconglomerates and overmighty banking cabals with extra-governmental authority is the most efficient system? According to whom?

Race mixers, NEETs, non-Irish, and non-Christians deserve the rope.

Das it.

There's this thing called the Historic American Nation, America really isn't the muddled melting pot, only the post 1965 population is a muddled mess. Americans whose lineages have been in here since the Founding and before are a distinctive ethnic group.

Your post reeks of kike intellectual bullshit. You're making problems where there are none by confusion. Fuck off kike.

Our goal is the 14 words which can best be realised by the 88 precepts which define the laws of nature.

There is no need and in fact very damaging to our people to make an artificial system where we are forced to behave in a certain way that's deemed "correct" or "good" by some intellectual faggot.
Because it is our Racial soul that defines us, not some artificially made up laws of how we should behave. Society must be built based on the values found in our blood and on realization that laws of nature are the absolute truth.

Sage for retarded intellectual blabbering in the OP.

This entire post is hilarious, but this is the best bit. You're literally a hippy and you don't even realize it. Nietzsche was the great grandfather of post-modernism, after all.

We Aryans don't need critical thinking, philosophy, and laws! That's kike shit (even though it goes back to the Greeks at least)!

Modernistic yes, leftist somewhat. Originally sovereignty was believed to be granted by God. The leftist Enlightenment attempted to make everyone equal and vest sovereignty in the populace. Racialism is a right wing reaction throwing out the equality but keeping sovereignty with people.

Keep in mind the majority of Europeans and even whites in the US are still 100% European. Even some people outside of Europe are still 100% Indo-European. When we consider this there is no reason to be liberal in our standards, there is an abundance of pure Indo-Europeans.

Move to Aidsfreaka and get a head start, cretin.

You know full well that nonwhites will always push for the lowest form of mass society and deaden any "natural selection", instead opting for tribal redistribution of goods, where the only thing proliferating will be pathology. But since you're as sincere as a neocohen you in fact don't really care at all. It's nothing but a smokescreen for whatever you'd want to push for. Probably your universalist faggot cult or an excuse for why your brown ass should stay where it is.

Every community that self-governed developed some comparative sense of self.

Of course the fallen half-slaves you aspire to only identified by monarch.

You're a civic bollock of some kind. A larper indifferent to everything but his emotional comfort. No better than a progtard lemming.

Wow. That would be idiotic if someone said that.

Most densely populated rwgion of Europe equals now Alaska+Pacific+Siberia. Because otherwise you'd look like a cretin, wouldn't you?

Oh no, wait. Austrians had nothing in common with the non-Austrians in Western HRE - was that the argument rather? lol Retard.

You certainly don't manage to actually state much at all, however two posts before you tried to detract from the point I was making. The point was: "shared history" and other amorphous concepts don't build unity and will not save you.

Go ahead and try again.

1) Of course not. We save ourselves. Other can help in critical moments.
2) No matter how you rant about internal strife, Poland helped after all. And that is my point. I don't care about your "nation to a nation wolf" stories.

Where did I say we don't need laws and philosophy? I said we need to base our society on nature's laws and values that define who we are.

Exactly my point, faggots like you think that Race doesn't define how society is ran, that we need laws that apply to all people equally, completely devoid of our racial spirit.
Our blood is everything, it is what defines an ethnic nation and reflects its civilisation. The decline of our peoples started because of artificial thinking like that, started by Kikes and their minions.

I don't expect you to understand this though, since you've already proven how dumb you are.

Because Poland was the "Bulwark of Christianity". If Poles didn't first convince themselves for centuries it was their mission to save Europe they'd stick a knife in Austria's ass just like France or at least sit and wait til Turks got tired and stick it into them.

So your argument has no basis in reality. In fact you have no business talking about history you have no idea about.

But of course you will try to latch onto new information and twist it or your stance so you'll still be "correct".

Wow, shared history and wider ethnicity, at the time under the aesthetically pleasing motto of Christian brethren, made them lend a hand. Exactly as I said.

I love your post and how you worded it to sound so vile. Instead of brothers in XZY, you're saying Poles were delusional to convince themselves they have to help their neighbours. Begone now, jew. I don't talk to liars and snakes.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. The distinction is important to understand the fundamental motivations. The point of racial politics isn't just because we "hate niggers and other non-whites" and want to keep them out, it's because we love ourselves and want to keep the uniqueness and independence of our race in tact.
I have created no maze. I don't exactly understand how you've arrived at the conclusion that I'm trying to "escape from reality". I recognise materialism as an aspect of society, and there are many justifications against non-white presence in our nations, but the reason for us promoting a homogeneous society goes beyond pure materialism (i.e. more blacks increase crime etc. etc.). I want homogeneity because I love my race and the spirit of our people
Maybe I wasn't specific enough. What I mean by "more than materialism" is that concepts of love for ones own people and nationhood go beyond the material and enters the metaphysical. My point is that I don't reject non-whites in my nation merely out of some vague notions of what would be materially better for everyone in their immediate circumstances, such as "immigrants take jobs and depress wages" and "blacks commit more crime on average", but on a deeper level that relates to the love and pride I have for my race.
Philosophy itself by definition deals with stuff "beyond materialism", so you're essentially disregarding the entirety of philosophy as "utterly meaningless"
And you decide what it's "proper place is"? Why? All you've done is decided that being pro-my race and only my race is somehow "wrong" and how I should support opening my nation up to shitskins as long as they're "exceptional".
Meritocracy can be race blind, and in fact, in it's most fundamental form, is race-blind. On its own, it is entirely race-blind and universalist, demanding only that the "best" succeed, regardless of who they are and what race they belong to. This idea of unbridled, race-blind egalitarianism is fundamentally opposed to the foundations a nation. This is not me rejecting meritocracy in the context of a racially homogeneous nation, it's just me rejecting the race-blind universalist "meritocracy" that you suggest in the OP
No it wouldn't at all. And you still don't understand would truly underlies the concept of nationhood. Asians, some niggers, arabs, spics, etc. are perfectly capable of living up to your set of arbitrary standards, but that doesn't mean they belong in our nation any more. A nation is more than a bunch of random people from random places living up to a set of random standards some race-blind egalitarian-lite civic "nationalist" decided were "right". What you're proposing is completely inorganic and unnatural. You seem to not reaise that a nation is constituted of people all different strata of society. The point of racial nationalism is recognising that is the racial collective, united as an organic body around a common culture and ideal, that forms the true basis for a successful nation. Multiracialism, which you seem to have no problem with in principle, is anti-nature and entirely destructive to the unity and viability of ones society.

And here you are still operating in your hyper-materialist universalist framework of "production" for some vague greater good. You talk like the value of people is only determined by their ability to "produce", as though they are mere units of production like communists and capitalists maintain. You still don't get it. I don't reject non-whites because they "can't produce", I reject them because they do not and cannot share a deeper racial connection with my people to our history and struggle as a race over the millenia, and thus are inherently degenerative to the unity and integrity of my nation. You also seem to be forgetting that ones civilisation is intrinsically linked to ones racial group, so if you think that you can maintain a civilisation by composing it of some chocolate-brown mix of "muh exceptional shitskins" then entirely misguided. European/White civilisation is the expression of our racial stock, so in order to preserve it and ultimately ensure we continue to prosper, we must maintain our race, and foster a newfound racial identity.
I reject racial egalitarianism in all its forms. I have no interest in some vague "collective benefit" - only the benefit and triumph of my race.
No. The purpose of society should be to ensure the survival and propagation of ones race. The strive for excellence comes after the fact, and generally as a result of this fundamentally purpose of society.
If by "others" you mean foreign races, then I disagree. We should not want to foster excellence in foreign races, who would inevitably use that excellence for their own group interests against the interests of our race.
Collective benefit strives from fostering excellence within individuals within society. If you're proposing some kind of hyper-individualist atomisation of society and the rejection of all racial/group identity, then your ideology is fundamentally opposed to reality and human nature, and also ultimately opposed to strong national foundations. I don't see why you have created some false dichotomy between "racial nationalism = degenerate collectivism" and "race-blind egalitarian-lite universalism = productive meritocracy" at all. If you spent any time actually trying to understand racial nationalism, then you'd know that it's fervently in favour of meritocracy, but in the context of improving the race.
And this just outlines the idiotic edginess and degenerate nature of your entire worldview. You would spit in the face of your brother and disown him if he came by hard times and needed some help and support. The ideology you're proposing is the antithesis of national unity and quite frankly, repugnant to anyone with any genuine love for his race and people. A mother does not stop loving her child and does not disown him if the child goes down a bad path in life.

Every community since the dawn of humanity has some concept of the "nation", i.e. who they are as a collective group. "Nationalism" is just a modern definition for this concept of self and belonging. There either exists nationalism or globalism. You can't have neither. If your idea is the creation of some global meritocratic state devoid of all genuine racial, cultural, or historic identity, then you really are no different than the globalist lefty filth - just with slightly different talking points.
Yet you reject the entire foundation of "civilisational excellence" and what constitutes a flourishing society the moment you suggested that multiracialism is even a feasible idea in the first place. Human races are not atomised individuals. We are naturally tribalistic, and as determined by evolution itself, want to be around those who share our race/ethnicity. You're basiclaly promoting some edgy brand of "muh valoos" cuckservativsm, while rejecting the vital role race plays in society. I can tell you've just recently become disillusioned with leftism, because you're still trying to reconcile its inherent universalism.
What tests? I know for a fact that many Asians are capable of performing many "tests" quite well, but that doesn't make them any more a part of my people, and that doesn't make them capable of maintaining the unique nature of white/European civilisation. The entire premise of your argument is that multiracialism is perfectly acceptable in principle, which is entirely incorrect for the reasons I've stated multiple times.
And you also apparently see no problem if whites weren't the best at this stuff. You've tried to completely remove yourself from your race as a group. You'd be happy to see whites buttfucked out of existence, because you place no value in the group that you belong to or the particular civilisation that that group has produced, but just some vague universalist concepts of "excellence".
What is your point? That doesn't make them any less a member of my race, and that doesn't make my point any less valid.
Oh please. Save me your fucking condescending arrogance. All you're doing is spouting dried up egalitarian-lite universalism, and pretending like you're being "profound", when in actuality, you're just a slightly edgier brand of cuckservative. You aren't "highlighting something that already exists", you're telling us to reject racial nationalism because it doesn't fit your universalist ideology.

There was no sense of ethnic bond between Germanic and Slavic nations. Christianity didn't help with France or other cases I mentioned.

Polish state ideology that consciously grouped Europe together and elevated Poland's role in the world saved Austria's ass.

Poland was later destroyed, in part by Austrians and Germans, while Poles themselves were repaid with suppression, degradation and marginalization of their elites and intellectual class.

Weather that was failure of adhering to the ideology or others' failure to adopt it doesn't matter. What matters is country "neighborliness" and other bullshit delusions aren't worth shit. Countries and groups compete and undermine each other, unless they identify as part of a greater sodality.

Retard.

Poland was actually paid pretty well and entitled to spoils of war to help Austria.

Wow, spoils ow war in a defensive war vs a stronger enemy. Gee, Austrians really were generous, huh?

Now you've contorted yourself so much you're even ready to turn this supposed neighborly solidarity nonsense into a mercenary hire. You're so full of shit its beginning to be entertaining.

Calm down faggot. I have no intention of arguing with you and what I posted actually somewhat reinforces your point.
It was also Vatican that funded Polish army though and there were Teutonic protestants who helped for free but were shunned at the end because of their denomination.
My point is that there was little to none European unity in that battle, which was a consequence of division caused by different denominations. It was mostly Vatican realising that mudslimes actually do pose a threat to them otherwise shitskin hordes would be stopped long before, at Byzantium.

False, Swedes had ethnic cleansing programs against Finns up until 70s or 80s.

Finns and Swedes are different ethnic groups. They may belong to the same race, but their immediate cultural and ethnic differences come before that - and rightly so. Why should Sweden, which isn't based on a white identity like America/Euro colonies, but a Swedish identity, want Finns in their nation?

Ask the Swedes who conquered us, enslaved us, genocided us and destroyed our culture why. Their old propaganda machines still run here, with their old aristocracy being the jewish thralls, or the national level jew. The Swedes 'helped' Finnish refugees (mainly children) by putting them in slave camps during ww2. This was possible because Finns were influenced by the media of the time.

We're talking about Sweden 30 years ago, around the same time they started seriously taking in immigrants. The double standard should be obvious. It's like Turkey propagating ethnic tolerance.

Kikes are a major source for evil, but the northern somalis have never been up to any good.

Go read the historian and sociologist Charles Tilly. A major component of civilization is trust networks: cambridge.org/co/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/comparative-politics/trust-and-rule

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-010-9119-z#/page-1

We know from empirical studies of multiculturalism (like Robert Putnam, among others) that such politics breaks up these trust networks. Ethnic "others" break up the core ethnic groups. This leads to distrust, which further on a long-term timeline leads to complete breakdown of trust networks. So from a consequentialist standpoint, you want some end-state that you attribute a high utility (civilization), while ignoring the underlying major component that would stop the current spiral into chaos: homogeneity of trust networks.

You're also ignoring the fact, from Tilly's research, that these trust networks generate themselves organically from outside threats. It's not that Holla Forums is secretly conspiring to create racialist utopias. It's that they are responding to an outside threat. Complaining about this on Holla Forums of all places shows you do not understand the sociological mechanism at play. Want to stop racialism? Stop the left wing and the various other groups (like Jews) from pushing civilization wrecking horseshit through politics, law, media, education, etc. That's your center of gravity. Not trying to stop ethnic nationalists. The comparative philosopher of nazism and communism Ernst Nolte had this nailed years ago. Out of control leftism produces fascism. Not the other way around: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Nolte#Fascism_In_Its_Epoch

Also, the law won't work. That's a social pressure. Not baseline behavioral moral aspect like trust networks. This organic nature of the organization of fightback against the left and jews is likely a level one moral phenomenon. The primatologist Frans de Waal, backed by a number of other behavioral ethicists and moral philosophers in his edited work Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, has three levels of morality that animals may or may not share with humans. Level 1 is moral sentiments, reciprocal behavior, cooperation, trust, among other components. Level 2 is social pressures like culturally inherited norms (level three is to do with judgement, reason, and decision making. Basically, the level of normative ethical theories). Humans and some animals (especially the great apes, of which we are part of) share level 1 morality. It's the bedrock where we have biological and psychologically shared moral behavior. Where we start to differ is level 2. I'm not going to go too much more into this, but the main point is this: trying to fix level 1 problems (break down in trust and cooperation) with level 2 (social pressures like norms and laws) will not work. You're ignoring the fact that multiculturalism, open borders, and other family resemblance political positions attack and disrupt level 1 morality. It's a direct attack on millions of years of evolved moral behavior. Again, your solution, if you want one, isn't to stop racialism, or introduce laws. It's to stop groups from disrupting level 1 morality.

This is why the NRx/Hestia crowd like OP will fail. They start with the phenomenon of civilization, reason backwards so that anything that doesn't fit that phenomenon is ignored, and then also ignore the underlying components of the mechanism (trust networks, evolutionary ethics) that generates civilization in the first place. NRx and reactionaries are stuck at the level of talking about level 2 morality (muh high culture, muh post-enlightenment culture is bad, muh Christianity) while ignoring the robust nature of level 1 morality, which is where the real problem lies. If you cannot pinpoint the strategic center of gravity, you are doomed to fail. Holla Forums may in general lack sophistication, but it really has nailed what the strategic center of gravity is when it comes to civilizational collapse.

Additionally, the sperglord aspect of complaining about vague boundaries (muh sorites paradox) is fucking stupid, since both reality is vague and our categorization processes inside our minds are vague. The cognitive psychology of concepts (prototypes, exemplars, etc) is all about these gradients of categories in the first place. It is no surprise then, that this whole categoriztion effort is vague. So complaining about this is fucking stupid and ignores both the empirical and epistemic grounding of the categories involved, as well as the ontology. Deal with it. You aren't going to get philosophical definitions involving necessary and sufficient conditions. That's now how it works.

Shit thread, tbh. The OP and his posts reads like babby's first smug reactionary posts.

Now you're sounding exactly like the whiny shitskins who cry about "muh whitey oppressor". Every population on Earth has been "conquered, enslaved, and genocided" at some point in history. You're no different. There is absolutely no reason Swedes should want Finns in their nation. I do not hold anything against either of you, and quite frankly, I view both of you as racial compatriots against the influx of shitskin foreigners, but there's no reason for you to act exactly like the rest of the shitskins throughout the world.

Or Irish vs. Brit, or Serbian vs Turk, or Bosnian vs. Serb, Balt vs. Russian…
Russian rule was better by far, with no artificial famines or mass conscriptions leading to 60-80% of Finnish men dead… I'm talking merits. I'm not saying Finns controlled all of Europe until evil Swedes came.

The old colonialism was largely a positive influence on Africa and Asia, with notable exceptions (Leopold, Dutch indies, Opium wars), but this current one is just plunder. Be it kike, chink or any other oligarch group controlling the policies. In Finland it was a net negative, just like EU.

Up in the north it was far easier to control the populations, since winter made housing mandatory. Anybody who was 'impolite' to Swedes got their burned. But hey, we were Mongols back then so it was k. Now we are whites so we should pay for colonialism and white privilege. But I'm sure the endless wars against Poland, Russia, Denmark and HRE were worth it.

Hah, forgot the most obvious one as well. We've been under the Swedish boot since the 1200s, which makes it 700 years of slavery. Blacks ain't got shit on us. The Swedes didn't build shit, except during one 7-year period the local cuckservatives and leftists remember with glee. The Russians made our language legal in our land. They built more in a century than Sweden in seven.

Also, unlike fucking blacks, we have built this nation. Now the fennoswedes, leftists and kikes have sold it to EU.

Europeans (even Russians) are so similar to eachother and so obviously different from other races that I get immediately suspicious when someone pretends to be confused about who is white. And make no mistake; they ARE pretending just to muddy the waters. It's an old leftist tactic. Nobody serious would actually look at an Irishman and a Hungarian, compare them to a sandnigger and think that the Irishman and Hungarian didn't fall into a closer genetic category to one another than to the Semite.

It will happen, not because people are confused, but because confusion can yield profitable or useful outcomes. Such as 'our neighbors are subhumans and need liberation'. Romans had that attitude to all they conquered as well, more or less.

I never suggested you should be happy about being ruled by swedes, just that you shouldn't whine about it like shitskins as though you deserve some special sympathy points. Every people has been invaded and subjugated at some point throughout history. You are not unique.

I never understood this meme. Russians are entirely European genetically. There isn't any "mongol blood" in the Russian people at all.

Tbh the only real historical precedent we have of stormfag level autistic racialism is the Jews. They are so fucking inbred, its ridiculous.

only freechkikes and trolls use that word

...

Swedes were shit to Finns, both in Finland and in Sweden.

I don't think you understand English particularly well

I agree. I was preemptivly countering the "Russians aren't white" meme because I already saw it in this very thread. I guess I just worded it poorly. Sorry for any confusion. Polite safe because I think this thread has pretty much run its course and I don't want to slide anything more important.