Poll: Who Supports the Idea of a White Ethno State?

[Smitty-48]

Well, at least that’s an ethos, Dude.

It's not my ethos, my ethos wouldn't let the South Germans in, because then you'd have to let the Austrians in, and fuck that noise, bloody Austrians. Was the Austrians who brought Germania down, twice.

My ethos is Hanoverian. God save the Queen (of the North Germans)

[Ex-California]

Just to stir up this bubbling cauldron of Stupid a little more...

Do Norwegians and Swedes not count as “white”?

How about the French? Swiss? Slavs and Poles?

What exactly is the cutoff for “whiteness”? 2/3? 31/32? Skin tone against a color sample from Home Depot?

If it’s based on “culture”, then was Obama black or white?

Just hoping to define the parameters of your Fever dream, if possible.

Technically Latinos and Arabs are caucasian, ie, white.

There are 3 races.

But fuck Germans, all of them, including their retarded cousins like Austrians and Swiss

[Speaker to Animals]

Just to stir up this bubbling cauldron of Stupid a little more...

Do Norwegians and Swedes not count as “white”?

How about the French? Swiss? Slavs and Poles?

What exactly is the cutoff for “whiteness”? 2/3? 31/32? Skin tone against a color sample from Home Depot?

If it’s based on “culture”, then was Obama black or white?

Just hoping to define the parameters of your Fever dream, if possible.

Yeah, those were like my questions that I wanted answered a while ago. Instead I got StA saying that I was "straw manning" or something.

Because it actually is a straw man. You take the argument for ethno states and then impose your arbitrary and unworkable limitations on them, and then try to argue the entire idea of ethno states is unworkable (because of the unworkable limitations you yourself imposed on them).

That's a straw man. You in no way engaged with the argument made by others.

One could, for example, imagine an ethno state that ran on the same immigration policy the US had in the first half of the twentieth century. It was mostly immigration from Western Europe with quotas on immigration from low-performing European nations. For a while there, we limited immigration almost to a trickle because it wasn't in the interest of the American people at the time to let anybody in here. The United States was an ethno state all the way up until the 1960s. We let *some* nonwhites in, namely Chinese, but it was pretty limited really in the grand scheme. The United States that cured Polio, defeated the Axis Powers, and put men on the Moon was over 90% white. I am pretty sure that's what Nukedog implied in his question of whether you would support just the idea of a white ethno state in general.

What we found was a lot of contradictions and nonsense from most of you. You pretend like you oppose ethno states, but you didn't seem to mind when a black nationalist almost led the democratic party last year. You don't mind that the democrats have elected black and Latino nationalists to Congress -- people who to this day speak at ethno nationalist conferences for their own people without nary a mere herz of virtue signal from you. You obviously don't have a problem with the idea of an ethno state. Your problem is with white people having their own nations.

Try to look at this from my perspective. I see a lot of people on the left losing their God damned minds because Richard Spencer wants to speak somewhere, and yet for YEARS I have watched ethno nationalists virtually take over the popular base of the democratic party not only without protest, but with the support of the same people who think white nationalism is the end of the world. Do you not see why I conclude in all likelihood your problem is not with ethno-nationalism but that you are simply anti-white?

[StCapps]

Yeah, we are all against a white ethno state and love the idea of all other ethno states, simply because we don't agree with your ridiculous posts, you got us.


All SIFCLIFtoAnimals does is argue against the strawmen of other people's positions, in order to delude himself into thinking he's won the argument, but really he's just ranting to himself and looking like a fool.

[Speaker to Animals]

Well, you are not even an American so - again - I would caution people against throwing themselves like menopausal women in front of posts not even addressed to them.

I am talking about the left, the democrats, and the so-called cuckservatives. Where was the opposition to ethno-nationalism before Richard Spencer showed up?
The Democratic party has been awash in ethno-nationalism for several decades now. Did Penner complain about that? I don't remember it.

Point being: most of them are only opposed to a white ethno state but not ethno-nationalism as a general principle. Thus it is more accurate to state that they are anti-white rather than anti-ethno-nationalism.

They should ask themselves if they oppose Indian reservations. If no, then they are not opposed to ethno states for Indians. They should ask themselves if they supported "decolonization" of whites in Rhodesia and now South Africa. If yes, then they support black ethno states.

It's obvious most of these people are not opposed to ethno nationalism as a general principle. They are opposed to whites in general.

[StCapps]

Well, you are not even an American so - again - I would caution people against throwing themselves like menopausal women in front of posts not even addressed to them.

I am talking about the left, the democrats, and the so-called cuckservatives. Where was the opposition to ethno-nationalism before Richard Spencer showed up?
The Democratic party has been awash in ethno-nationalism for several decades now. Did Penner complain about that? I don't remember it.

Point being: most of them are only opposed to a white ethno state but not ethno-nationalism as a general principle. Thus it is more accurate to state that they are anti-white rather than anti-ethno-nationalism.

They should ask themselves if they oppose Indian reservations. If no, then they are not opposed to ethno states for Indians. They should ask themselves if they supported "decolonization" of whites in Rhodesia and now South Africa. If yes, then they support black ethno states.

It's obvious most of these people are not opposed to ethno nationalism as a general principle. They are opposed to whites in general.

The Democrats aren't ethno-nationalist just because a few democrats happen to be ethno-nationalists, you conflate fringe groups with the majority of Americans, that's your problem. Until ethno nationalists are getting elected en masse, you are clearly embellishing how big of voice they have in American politics.

Stop projecting your own views on other Americans, they don't think like you do, you are an outlier.

[Speaker to Animals]

LOL!

They fucking cheer ethno-nationalism. They actively pander to ethno-nationalists and almost set one up as the leader of the Democratic party.

Get real.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Just to stir up this bubbling cauldron of Stupid a little more...

Do Norwegians and Swedes not count as “white”?

How about the French? Swiss? Slavs and Poles?

What exactly is the cutoff for “whiteness”? 2/3? 31/32? Skin tone against a color sample from Home Depot?

If it’s based on “culture”, then was Obama black or white?

Just hoping to define the parameters of your Fever dream, if possible.

Yeah, those were like my questions that I wanted answered a while ago. Instead I got StA saying that I was "straw manning" or something.

Because it actually is a straw man. You take the argument for ethno states and then impose your arbitrary and unworkable limitations on them, and then try to argue the entire idea of ethno states is unworkable (because of the unworkable limitations you yourself imposed on them).

That's a straw man. You in no way engaged with the argument made by others.

One could, for example, imagine an ethno state that ran on the same immigration policy the US had in the first half of the twentieth century. It was mostly immigration from Western Europe with quotas on immigration from low-performing European nations. For a while there, we limited immigration almost to a trickle because it wasn't in the interest of the American people at the time to let anybody in here. The United States was an ethno state all the way up until the 1960s. We let *some* nonwhites in, namely Chinese, but it was pretty limited really in the grand scheme. The United States that cured Polio, defeated the Axis Powers, and put men on the Moon was over 90% white. I am pretty sure that's what Nukedog implied in his question of whether you would support just the idea of a white ethno state in general.

What we found was a lot of contradictions and nonsense from most of you. You pretend like you oppose ethno states, but you didn't seem to mind when a black nationalist almost led the democratic party last year. You don't mind that the democrats have elected black and Latino nationalists to Congress -- people who to this day speak at ethno nationalist conferences for their own people without nary a mere herz of virtue signal from you. You obviously don't have a problem with the idea of an ethno state. Your problem is with white people having their own nations.

Try to look at this from my perspective. I see a lot of people on the left losing their God damned minds because Richard Spencer wants to speak somewhere, and yet for YEARS I have watched ethno nationalists virtually take over the popular base of the democratic party not only without protest, but with the support of the same people who think white nationalism is the end of the world. Do you not see why I conclude in all likelihood your problem is not with ethno-nationalism but that you are simply anti-white?

It’s not a strawman to expect a definition of what the fuck you’re talking about. If you can’t do that, then you’re just whimpering about your feelz.

The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. You even cited Hitler being part-Jew. The Nazis has a standard of 1/32 Jewish I think, so at least they had a rule for it.

There is no such thing as a “pure blood” anything. Even German natives are only 60-something percent German.

Ultimately, what you’re worried about is your perceived culture. Some nebulous idea of what the world should be, and you’re making up bullshit to justify it. America has never been “90% white”, other than the first couple years of the colonies.

[StCapps]

LOL!

They fucking cheer ethno-nationalism. They actively pander to ethno-nationalists and almost set one up as the leader of the Democratic party.

Get real.

Fringe minority. You might not like them, but that doesn't make them the majority.

If the Democrats were ethno-nationalist they'd run a hell of a lot more open ethno-nationalists and they would run on clearly ethno-nationalist platforms to boot. Yet they aren't, because that wouldn't win elections, because most Americans aren't ethno-nationalists.

Get real.

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, those were like my questions that I wanted answered a while ago. Instead I got StA saying that I was "straw manning" or something.

Because it actually is a straw man. You take the argument for ethno states and then impose your arbitrary and unworkable limitations on them, and then try to argue the entire idea of ethno states is unworkable (because of the unworkable limitations you yourself imposed on them).

That's a straw man. You in no way engaged with the argument made by others.

One could, for example, imagine an ethno state that ran on the same immigration policy the US had in the first half of the twentieth century. It was mostly immigration from Western Europe with quotas on immigration from low-performing European nations. For a while there, we limited immigration almost to a trickle because it wasn't in the interest of the American people at the time to let anybody in here. The United States was an ethno state all the way up until the 1960s. We let *some* nonwhites in, namely Chinese, but it was pretty limited really in the grand scheme. The United States that cured Polio, defeated the Axis Powers, and put men on the Moon was over 90% white. I am pretty sure that's what Nukedog implied in his question of whether you would support just the idea of a white ethno state in general.

What we found was a lot of contradictions and nonsense from most of you. You pretend like you oppose ethno states, but you didn't seem to mind when a black nationalist almost led the democratic party last year. You don't mind that the democrats have elected black and Latino nationalists to Congress -- people who to this day speak at ethno nationalist conferences for their own people without nary a mere herz of virtue signal from you. You obviously don't have a problem with the idea of an ethno state. Your problem is with white people having their own nations.

Try to look at this from my perspective. I see a lot of people on the left losing their God damned minds because Richard Spencer wants to speak somewhere, and yet for YEARS I have watched ethno nationalists virtually take over the popular base of the democratic party not only without protest, but with the support of the same people who think white nationalism is the end of the world. Do you not see why I conclude in all likelihood your problem is not with ethno-nationalism but that you are simply anti-white?

It’s not a strawman to expect a definition of what the fuck you’re talking about. If you can’t do that, then you’re just whimpering about your feelz.

The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. You even cited Hitler being part-Jew. The Nazis has a standard of 1/32 Jewish I think, so at least they had a rule for it.

There is no such thing as a “pure blood” anything. Even German natives are only 60-something percent German.

Ultimately, what you’re worried about is your perceived culture. Some nebulous idea of what the world should be, and you’re making up bullshit to justify it. America has never been “90% white”, other than the first couple years of the colonies.

I just gave you a definition in the post you quoted, asking for a definition.. How about the immigration policy of the US in the first half of the twentieth century, when the US was over 90% white? Works well enough to put men on the Moon, cure diseases, and build a super power..

Fuck off with the straw man fallacy already. You obviously cannot reasonably defend your position when you try to inject pointless distinctions into the other side's argument and demand definitions that already were provided (but you just ignore them).