Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Post by **StCapps** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:37 am

Quebec is real world example that proves dystopia is not required to achieve a White Ethno State, yet you both assume that only way to create a White Ethno State is through dystopic measures. Reality says otherwise, your hypothetical bullshit is trumped by real world examples that prove you wrong. You're both just mad that Quebec holds more weight as an example, than your bullshit hypothetical which view the creation of a White Ethno State in America, as the Sky Falling.

Post by **K@th** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:38 am

LMAO - reverse, rinse, repeat. 'Round and 'round we go.

Post by **StCapps** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:40 am

Kath wrote:LMAO - reverse, rinse, repeat. 'Round and 'round we go.

Where are you're real world examples of dystopic White Ethno States Kath? If you think that is the most likely result of a White Ethno State being created in America, surely you must have a modern example to fall back on that helps to prove that dystopic White Ethno States are more likely than non-dystopic White Ethno States.

Or do you? Maybe you are just assuming the worst about White Ethno States, for no real reason, other than the bullshit hypotheticals you have in your mind, and historical outliers like Nazi Germany. Maybe it's all in your head, and has nothing to do with reality whatsoever.

Post by **K@th** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:44 am

StCapps wrote: Where are you're real world examples of dystopic White Ethno States Kath. If you think that is the most likely result, surely you must have an example other than Nazi Germany to fall back on. Or do you?

Are you dense? It's not POSSIBLE in the UNITED STATES. It can and does work in other places. I've never once said otherwise.

Here's a summary of all my thoughts on the matter.

Kath wrote:It's NOT possible in the USA.

Post by **StCapps** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:48 am

It's not impossible, it can be done, it's just more difficult in America, because of the 14th amendment. I'm with you on the, "it's hard" part, but that doesn't mean that just because it's hard to do, it will automatically result in dystopia if it's ever tried. It likely won't work in America anytime soon, but that's not because it's impossible, just really difficult.

If other countries can do it without resorting to dystopic measures, why can't America? Because it's harder to do? Not buying that.

Post by **K@th** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 am

StCapps wrote:It's not impossible, it can be done, it's just more difficult in America, because of the 14th amendment. I'm with you on the, "it's hard" part, but that doesn't mean that just because it's hard to do, it will automatically result in dystopia if it's ever tried. It likely won't work in America anytime soon, but that's not because it's impossible, just really difficult.

IMPOSSIBLE. We can't even amend the constitution for shit we all agree is needed.

You are in Fantasyland. Over here in Reality-Ville, it's not possible.

Post by **StCapps** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:52 am

Kath wrote:IMPOSSIBLE. We can't even amend the constitution for shit we all agree is needed.

You are in Fantasyland. Over here in Reality-Ville, it's not possible.

You assume that because it hasn't happened yet, it's impossible, but that is faulty logic. If other nations can accomplish it, then America can to, if they put their mind to it. Not saying they will put their mind to it, they likely won't in the foreseeable future, but that doesn't make it impossible, just really unlikely.

Saying it's impossible is exaggerating for affect, never say never. It's impossible in the current situation, I'll give you that, but current trends will not continue forever, and the situation will change, so keep that in mind.

Post by **Speaker to Animals** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:02 am

DBTrek wrote:
Speaker to Animals wrote:Notice how DB has zero argument. I guess the only thing left to do is leave him in his corner to flail away and beg for virtue affirmation until he decides to come back and discuss the topic like an adult (i.e. actually try to defend his position).
My argument is simple - your argument sucks because you see skin color as a deciding factor in who is a “real American”. Doesn’t take a PhD to figure that one out. The most anti-American, pro-Comminist, anti-religious, anti-traditional voices in America are largely white. The very ideology you decry in the MSM, in the Democratic Party, and among the SJWs is almost 100% driven by whites.

Derp.

There’s the incredibly complex argument “I can’t defend”. That labyrinthine maze of philosophical reasoning known as basic math and simple deductive reasoning. Your butthurt is all white-inflicted, and you seek to resolve it by beating on minorities.

You don't actually respond or rebut anything presented here. The assumption that race reduces to nothing more than skin color amounts to a fallacious straw man built upon an anti-scientific world view.

Race exists and consists of far more than mere skin color. It results in differing IQ distributions, differing attributes, and differing social behaviors. Most of the top engineering jobs are held by Oriental and Caucasian males. That's a fact. It derives from the fact that people of East Asia possess the highest average IQ (with Caucasians coming in third after Ashkenazi Jews) and high spatial and reasoning skills. Ashkenazi Jews, while possessing a very high average IQ, don't score so well on spatial reasoning. They do, however, score at the top on average for verbal and communication intelligence. Thus they dominate legal and media professions. Why do you think black Americans, representing about 12% of the American population, account for so many of the top athletes? They possess different physical adaptations that, on average, are superior to the rest of the races. Your doctor has to tailor medical treatment to many illnesses based on your race. An anthropologist can look at the bones of any human and determine the general racial group to which that person belonged. You can see that we are different people with your own eyes every single day.

I realize it's difficult to break the conditioning and allow yourself to see these facts, but they really are facts.

You might then contend that those differences ought not make a distinction with respect to integration and some shared national identity. But they actually do. Furthermore, there exist subtle social differences between races that, while slight on the individual level, translate to enormously different kinds of societies. Subsaharan Africans are tribal people. Their social and national structures reflect that. That doesn't integrate well with European cultures like the United States. Asians are high-conformists. Their societies rest upon conformity rather than high-trust as our society does. Theoretically, if we replaced the Latino (really the Mexican for the most part) demographic invasion with Asians, one should expect our nation to drift further towards a a more regimented and conformist society like you see in Japan or China. Instead, we see a demographic invasion of Mesoamericans who have several thousand years of collectivist civilization under their belt. Expect instead a more collectivist and communitarian form of government. None of these things really can integrate with or coexist within the framework of American government and society. Our Bill of Rights, for example, does not in any way match the political and social leanings of these immigrant groups.

Then you have the problem of Mexico's proximity. These people have no reason to integrate and become Americans. They still maintain constant communication with family back home. They send their surplus earnings back to Mexico. They maintain their separate language and culture, creating little colonies all across our nation. That is not in any way the same thing as happened during the previous two centuries of immigration. Instead, it is much more like what European settlers did to North America. Most of all, it's like what Zionist Jews did to Palestine. Many of them are quite open about it. We have a Latino Nationalist congressman who openly admits he only serves the interests of the Latino people in an effort to colonize and take over the United States. He is literally the Latino equivalent of a David Duke, and yet nobody seems to mind when he does it.

At some point you need to face facts and realize that these people are not integrating at all, have no intention to integrate, and their continues mass migration into our nation is better described as a colonization or invasion. The end result of what you have defended here is no different than a military conquest of our nation. The end result will be our own people reduced and actively discriminated against by a government that serves only the invaders.

I don't mind immigration to a point. Somewhere between "ZOMG White Nationalist Fourth Reich!!!" and white genocide is a happy median where we can still accept a diverse population of immigrants without destroying our own people.

Post by **Hwen Hoshino** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:04 am

StCapps wrote:It's not impossible, it can be done, it's just more difficult in America, because of the 14th amendment. I'm with you on the, "it's hard" part, but that doesn't mean that just because it's hard to do, it will automatically result in dystopia if it's ever tried. It likely won't work in America anytime soon, but that's not because it's impossible, just really difficult.

If other countries can do it without resorting to dystopic measures, why can't America? Because it's harder to do? Not buying that.

And the First and the Second...

Post by **K@th** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:14 am

StCapps wrote:I

If other countries can do it without resorting to dystopic measures, why can't America? Because it's harder to do? Not buying that.

It's impossible. I repeat, we can't get shit done that everyone agrees should be done. There's no way we'll do something that almost nobody wants to do.

But, you're cute to say so, and quite naive.

Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Re: Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Re: Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Re: Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Re: Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Re: Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Re: Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Re: Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Re: Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Re: Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?

Re: Did the the race talk debate start happenning more often since we know how many white ethno staters we have?