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

[Okeefenokee]

I knew hookin up with this chick was gonna pay dividends.

I heard all that talk about forty acres and a mule, and I knew I had to get in on it.

[Smitty-48]

Forty acres and a mule was only promised to newly emancipated African slaves in compensation for unpaid labour incurred during their specific enslavement, it wasn't promised to all non whites from anywhere in any circumstance for all time.

Forty acres and a mule is in fact jus sanguinis in of itself.

[StCapps]

Where would this white ethno state be located and how much territory do they get? If they want prime real estate here in North America, they can go fuck themselves.

[TheReal_ND]

Canada

[StCapps]

Canada

Canada is a place not a race, take your white ethno state and shove it on some other continent, or no white ethno state for you.

[TheReal_ND]

Day of the rake soon lads

[StCapps]

The White Nationalists are going to have settle for much lesser real estate, or they aren't going to ever have any white ethno state to call home, it's that simple.

[TheReal_ND]

Pay debts

[Speaker to Animals]

Liberals like Capps (yes, you are, and fuck off with any attempts to balk at it) perhaps would profit from listening to Malcom X or perhaps even Marcus Garvey.

Liberals equate white nationalism with racism, which actually is quite ridiculous. Racial supremacy as an ideology or doctrine has little to do with ethno-nationalism. Ethno-nationalism is the default state. The United States itself was an ethno-nationalist country until the radical (Marxist) political shift of the 1960s. But that trend is reversing now and it stands to reason that we either need to walk back this diversity cult garbage or divide up a little so that people have some choice in the matter.

The fact is, what liberals, progressives, globalists, and conservatives call "diversity" is anything but. Their use of the word diversity is purely Orwellian and means the precise opposite. When democrats, for instance, talk of making a more "diverse" society, they are talking about genocide and the elimination of human diversity altogether in favor of some homogeneous common-denominator race of mindless consumers. In their context, "diversity" means no more actual diversity. No more Mexican culture. No more American culture. No more Mexican people. No more American people. It's all just one population of mutts who have no genetic or cultural diversity at all other than consumer identity choices, which mean nothing in the long run.

We need areas where blacks and whites can freely choose to associate with their own people and preserve their own culture. Likewise, we should keep major cities as the "multicultural" entities that they are and just let the chips fall where they may.

I think the fact that the multiculturalists oppose something like this belies a deep dissatisfaction with their choice. At some level, they must know they are defending cultural and racial suicide, and setting themselves up for war and sectarian conflict. Otherwise, they would take my position and support dividing up so that us nationalists can't possibly interfere with their paradise-making.

The United States as a whole is trending away from this from stuff except for a few areas. But even in those areas that go deep blue, the irony is that the people driving the preservation of democratic party control are themselves ethno-nationalists. The Mexicans in California want California to become their own ethno-state. Blacks in the southern crescent want their own black ethno-state. If you remove them from the equation, it's just a laughibly small number of white urban women and their beta orbiters that support actual multiculturalism. It's really quite silly when you look at it objectively, and yet they act as if they are the default moral position (they are not).

[StCapps]

A liberal? He thinks I'm a Liberal.


Oh wait, of course Strawman Capps is a liberal, that's only way StA can delude himself into think he is winning an argument against me.