One of the problems that Western nations are facing is a crisis of national identity. What do these nations stand for besides adherence to abstract concepts such as personal freedom and tolerance? Patriarchal Nationalism offers a distinctive answer to the problem.
Various types of national identity
2016 French football team
There are three different ways that national identity is understood today:
A nation is its people. For a nation like Japan, national identity is not based on a form of government. Japan is a democracy today, but it was still Japan when it was ruled by a feudal government. This is because the national identity of Japan is inextricably linked to the Japanese people. Most Asian nations have maintained this understanding of national identity.
A nation is its people and its religion. Other nations, such as Israel or the Islamic countries of the Middle East, base their national identity on a combination of ethnicity and religion. It would also be possible for a nation to ignore ethnicity altogether and self-identify solely with a particular religion. However, I am unaware of any modern nation that adopts this view.
A nation is a particular form of government and a set of people who agree with an abstract set of principles. In Western nations (Europe and those nations that have their origin in Europe), a different view of national identity now prevails. These nations do not view themselves as a people or followers of a religion. Rather, their identity is defined by a particular form of government and agreement with abstract concepts such as equality, democracy, freedom, and tolerance.
These nations do not recognize ethnicity or race as playing a role in national identity. The people within a nation are interchangeable with any other group of people provided they assent to the abstract principles. The inhabitants of a nation are viewed as economic units who buy and sell. It is irrelevant whether the economic units come from England, Somalia, China, or Mexico.
Patriarchal Nationalism rejects the idea that people are interchangeable. The identity of a nation must be something more than the acceptance of abstract principles or a set of economic policies. For a nation to cohere over the course of many centuries, it must also be based on culture and genetics.
Culture matters
E.B. Tylor defined culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”
When we think of culture, the first things that jump to mind are language, cuisine, and modes of dress. The conventional wisdom is that if a person learns to speak the language and dress like the natives, they have sufficiently embraced the culture.
But this is a very superficial understanding of culture. It goes much deeper than that. Culture affects a person’s way of viewing and interacting with the world. For example, westerners view women as having a right to not being raped regardless of whether they are chaste or slutty. But some Islamic cultures view women who are not wearing the hijab as being “fair game.” This is why we see things like the mass sexual assaults that occurred in Cologne. Just because someone understands the language or dresses in a western way does not mean that they are western.
Most importantly for a nation, culture influences the voting patterns of people. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, which set the stage for the enormous federal government of today, was only possible because of a coalition of blacks, women, and Jewish and Catholic immigrants.
National identity is also dependent on genetics
While culture is essential to national identity, that identity cannot be reduced to culture alone. Genetics is inseparable from national identity. Japan would not be Japan if it replaced its people with Swedish immigrants, even if those immigrants learned Japanese and did their best to try to assimilate Japanese culture in every detail. This does not mean that the Swedes are bad people. Only that they could never replace the Japanese. Furthermore, if Swedes, rather than Japanese, had inhabited the island of Japan for several thousand years, the culture they would have produced would be nothing like Japanese culture. It would be a Swedish culture.
We know this intuitively even though it flies directly in the face of everything we have been taught. But why is this? Why does one group of people produce one unique culture while another group produces an entirely different one?The answer lies in genetics and selection.
Humans, like any other animal, adapt to their environment. What is successful in one part of the world, may not be a successful behavior in another part of the world. For example, ethnic groups that developed in colder northern regions also developed a very high degree of monogamous pair bonding. Babies who were born with a father who stayed on as a provider were more likely to survive. Thus, monogamy became a selected trait in these ethnic groups. To this day, northern Asians have higher rates of monogamy than any other group.
Pair bonding is not the only difference among ethnic groups. Researchers have noted other differences among various ethnic groups including intelligence, brain size, sexual behavior, fertility, life span, and maturation. I do not raise these points to pass judgment on any particular group—only to point out that different ethnic groups selected for different tendencies based on the region where their group developed. These tendencies have become part of the genetics of each ethnic group. They do not evaporate when an individual crosses a border into a region inhabited by a different group of people.
Applying the PN concept of national identity to Western nations
Most Western nations were originally based on a distinct culture and ethnicity. Poland has always consisted primarily of Polish Catholics, regardless of whether Poland was an independent nation or part of a greater Empire. For nations like this, the only thing that is necessary to implement the PN view of identity would be to reject the idea that a nation is based solely on abstract principles and affirm the role of its people and culture as the foundation for the nation.
Some nations are made up of several, smaller nations. The United Kingdom is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Each of these smaller countries has a distinct ethnic character.
The US is unique among Western nations in that even though it was founded by one group—the English—it was always open to all white immigrants. However, the US also included a large number of African slaves who were emancipated during the Civil War. The US downplayed the role of religion in the public life of the nation, but it remained a majority Christian nation for most of its history.
The racial and religious character of the US began to change in 1965 with the passage of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act. Hart-Celler removed the restrictions on non-European immigration. This, combined with massive illegal immigration from Central America, has dramatically altered the demographics of the United States. The change in demographics has been accompanied by a shift in the political orientation of the country. Whereas the US was once a center-right country, it has become a center-left country as immigration has turned conservative bastions like California into solid blue states.
If political change were the only effect, it might be tolerable, but racial tensions have been fanned to a fever pitch which is spiraling into violence more frequently. The tactics that have been introduced to ease racial tensions have only made life more unbearable. Political correctness was introduced as a way to make people feel more comfortable. It failed to achieve that goal. Instead it has become a noose that threatens to strangle free speech.
The current approach that the elites are using to solve the problem appears to be hybridity, the idea that all the different racial and ethnic groups should interbreed and form a single American people. As far as I know a deliberate attempt to fuse many races into one has never been tried before on such a large scale. The process is likely to take longer and be more painful than anyone expects.
One possible Patriarchal Nationalist approach, on the other hand, would be to decide that the national identity of the US is primarily a white nation that holds the unique American values of hard work, ingenuity, confidence, enterprise, freedom, and tolerance. Immigration policy could be reformed to gradually return the US to similar racial balance circa 1960 or 1970. Non-white American citizens would not be in any way second class citizens, but would fully participate in the life of the country. Everyone in the country would be expected to strongly adhere to the values of the nation.
This approach bears some resemblance to Vladimir Putin’s approach to managing Russia. Russia is a highly diverse country with many large ethnic minorities including a large Muslim population. Putin’s approach has been to be inclusive while simultaneously insisting that all Russian citizens fully embrace the values of the nation.
Conclusion
Please share your thoughts on national identity in the comments. The development of Patriarchal Nationalism is a collaborative process with the ROK readers.
Read More: Patriarchal Nationalism: The Only Societal System That Can Save The West
Good article. I hold some resentments towards nationalism, particularly since I see nationalism as being the root cause for the Second and especially the First Great War, which is the single event which is responsible for the destruction of western civilization and patriarchy. But I can see some benefits to it as well. I suppose the question is how does one keep a patriarchal nationalist nation in check, so that it does not expand militarily? The empire of Japan and the Fuhrer both lead their PN nations into destructive and horrible wars.
Concerning the US, I think blaming immigrants for the changes is misguided and wrong. First, the immigrants from Catholic latin nations are more conservative, family oriented, and traditional on the whole than the typical American. Indeed, if it wasn’t for a few positions mainly concerning work visas and deportation (and until the 1990s the Republicans including Ronald Reagan were completely for a temporary worker program where immigrants could come here for employment, but weren’t granted all the public benefits like health care, retirement plans, etc.). If it wasn’t for the Republican party reversing its position on these issues, I think you would see the immigrants supporting the Republican party (I’m not advocating for that party or pretending that it’s patriarchal or good). In fact, most immigrants I meet (taxi drivers, small business owners, etc.) are in fact Republicans.
The racial group that does support the Democratic party is blacks. But I do not even say this as a criticism. Prior to 2000 I supported the D party and their positions. Since then it has shifted to a pro-degeneracy party. By and large, immigrants are anti-degeneracy. Including the African ones (not Afro-Americans but new African immigrants).
As for the solution. I”m sorry but whether or not your plan for redefining immigration in America would work or not, demographically it is too late to try. This could have been implemented in the 1800s when the majority of the population was still western European, but it has been several years since nonwhite babies were the majority born in America. Even without immigration, in 15 years, the average college age kid will be majority nonwhite. Changing immigration laws cannot change a country that is majority mixed race.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-account-for-under-half-of-births-in-us.html?_r=0
What do you propose then, Spicy? A re-shaping of national identity?
I don’t have the answers and am not knowledgeable enough on this topic, but would say that a unifying force other than the nation-state should take the place of the nation. In the past this was religion, although scientific advances are causing many to stop believing in a supernatural god. Another past unifying force was patriarchy, the family, the father. We could attempt a return to that. But we need something. Something to unite behind that is good and right and just. Even if it is just a Noble Lie.
I do think the concept of the nation is outmoded and won’t exist in 1,000 years, maybe less.
This is the problem with civic/multiracial religious nationalism; it doesn’t work. What I’ve noticed about the folks most skeptical of ethnic nationalism is that they have no better solution other than to complain about bigotry or racism.
Besides an abundantly small indian and Mexican population America was in no sense multiracial until blacks got voting rights and immigration rules were relaxed. Since then we have become divided and more violent than ever before.
Brazil is not a desirable place to live. It’s full of segregation, poverty, racism, and socialism. Ask any “white” Brazilian in the south how they feel about working to pay for the mixed race government dependents up north.
I simply don’t entertain this notion because that America never existed in my lifetime. While you may very well be right, I live in a majority black city and since the outcome of the civil war in 1865, the demographics of the US as you rightly pointed out, changed drastically and permanently. The fact is America today is multiracial. I don’t even argue whether or not that is a good or bad thing because there is no way it is going to change, short of genocide. There are far better options than that.
Democracy has always been an unsuitable form of government, requires people of high intelligence and no women suffrage under any circumstance.
What are these better options?
Better options than genocide? Well, if you really want to live in a place where everyone looks like you do, (assuming you are white) move to a Nordic country or rural Idaho or something. Trying to change the demographics of the place you live in is not going to work. The last time that was tried was in the 40s and it didn’t turn out well for anyone.
See this is the perfect cop out for denialists. Nordic countries are being flooded with blacks and Arabs, and refugees being settled in rural states. You don’t have a real answer to the problem.
Are you trolling? Advocating for genocide? If you are a racialist and want to live with only people of your background there are entire websites dedicated to that, and there are places where you can go. I’m not up on them because I don’t long for that kind of life. Knock yourself out, though.
You are the one who entered this conversation claiming to have great options, none of which you have listed thus far. I believe in deportation. The only thing you have proven is that the civic nationalist and libertarian mindsets are fundamentally flawed when it comes to race.
Starting a discussion with “name some things better than genocide or else I win” is not something I take very seriously. Deportation will never, ever work. The most aggressive deportation scheme in modern history was during WW2 and it failed miserably. There was a strict formula in place to determine what lineage of Jewishness was allowed. Today there is so much race mixing, it would be nearly impossible to determine who was “pure” enough to stay, to say nothing of the logistics of moving around tens of millions of people you don’t want around you. And like I have pointed out, nonwhites could make an argument that THEY are the true Americans, as they are now in the majority (since 2012) of new births. No one anywhere has seriously considered sending back racial groups from America since the 1830s with the Back-To-Africa movement. It could have worked then, but it didn’t, and it’s no longer an option. End of story. If you want to go live with other white people, go seek them out. Otherwise, you will die still hoping for this supposed deportation, angry and frustrated.
LOL. You were the one who argued there is a better way, but then failed to explain what it is.
“It’s no longer an option.” ~ spoken like a good liberal. Everything is impossible for people with your mindset because you assume history has a linear trajectory and we can never shift from an egalitarian model. Your brain is unable to think outside of the scope of liberal democracy, hence all the conclusions you have made thus far, and your unwillingness to actually discuss these better options you claim to be knowledgeable of.
If one wants to live in a racially pure society, it is far easier to seek out a racially homogeneous society than to murder or deport, without even considering the moral or legal consequences. I can only assume this is some creative trolling, implying one supports genocide without explicitly stating it and setting up strawmen arguments and personal ad hominem attacks. I guess if my liberal brain worked a little better I could become a mass murderer too… perhaps in the next afterlife.
I never said anything about a racially pure country, I’m talking about one that is largely homogeneous, like eighty some percent. I never said I supported genocide. You’re far too sensitive because you were brought up in a liberal environment that demonizes white ethnic pride exclusively.
It’s funny because this entire time you have been using ad hominem and strawmen arguments. They don’t bother me but they are a symptom of your fixation with liberal mores.
If a post is full of “I me mine and your” it is not discussing an objective point, but falling back on strawmen arguments. This is a common logical fallacy. Make an absurd claim “There are no good alternatives to genocide”. Provide no evidence or logic to support the claim. Attack the speaker. Demand victory if sufficient evidence refuting said claim is not provided.
Further, any claims about the background or upbringing or mindset or point of view of a person presenting an argument are completely irrelevant to the validity of the argument. These are sadly, common logical fallacies which are all too prevalent and prevent the rational discussion of ideas.
My friend, you were the one who brought up the idea of better alternatives but failed to explain them properly. You continue putting words in my mouth. I am simply exposing the roots of your perspective, which lie in a liberal environment. Most of us grow up with the same background but diverge based upon our own experiences. I have been the target of enough unsolicited racial abuse from non-whites to conclude homogenous countries work better. If you disagree so be it, but quit arguing like a leftist. Complaining about Ad Hominem and straw men is typical of liberals on the internet who are guilty of the same tactics themselves. Also, you have never denied being a liberal or believing liberal democracy is the only system we can work within, so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about.
When I think of mixed race national identities, I think of places like Mexico, Brazil. Conservative? Yes. But no thanks. At some point you’ve got to consider Jason Richwine’s side of the debate with IQ.
Asia, Africa, Russia, India, etc., all have national identities that are fundamentally based on their genetic roots, and nobody fucks with them.
I’m surprised you think it is acceptable that the West should be the one to sacrifice itself in the name of “progress” or “evolution”.
I always respect your opinion but I would need a hell of a lot more convincing to just accept that nonchalant bureaucrats get to decide who and what my children are to become.
Did you read the link in my comment? The problem is if one were to undertake the idea that we should organize America based on its national ethnic origin today, the solution would be to throw the whites out, because they are the minority( since 2012).
The only way to stop this from becoming a reality is to deport minority children before they grow up and crowd out the European base, but since 2012, the majority of births in America were non-European. We’re talking BIRTHS only (when you add in immigration, of course, it is worse). It’s not a matter of agreeing with the principle; it’s merely a realistic look at the facts: that ship has sailed. Were we making this argument 100 years ago, or perhaps even 10, I would likely agree with you.
I’m merely realistically judging that demographics in the west have reached the point of no return for us to be a European nation. Likewise, I find it difficult to see how we will eradicate feminism in the west; it is far better to work on a traditional, patriarchal society and try to preserve and better it (what Roosh is doing) than to somehow unsluttify a generation of ruined woman and try to retrain the kids of single moms to be strong, masculine men.
I do think there is some hope for building enclaves within our society that are traditional, conservative, and based upon a local culture. Smaller, low population areas like Montana, and apparently GoJ’s home of Ohio, seem to be more European, so one could work on building those up on a micro level. But the government forces are dead set against you.
Interestingly enough, New Orleans was one of the most cohesive cultural areas despite being very multiracial ( it had high crime and rather pro-gay and some other problems but it was a strong, Catholic community with identity and unity) and the feds have repeatedly broken them down with forced changes to the laws and culture there.
I think I misread your initial comment.
From the article this quote stuck out to me.
“The question is, how do we reimagine the social contract when the generations don’t look like one another?” said Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, co-director of Immigration studies at New York University.
If you check out the RVF, there is a similar sentiment being expressed in this thread from today.
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-51911-page-2.html
Yeah, that first comment reflects how I (sadly) feel about my home country. I wish it were something I could be proud of, but it’s turned into a den of evil and degenerate behavior, so I can only be indifferent to it.
We are in the days of the decline of the west. To me it is silly to continue to praise the beauty of a sinking ship full of holes with water rushing into its hull, when there is a smaller, less impressive, less advanced, slower, older but intact vessel I can hop on to before we all drown.
Are there any regions of Canada that would be conducive to a micro-community of European culture like Montana, Idaho, Ohio, etc. ?
I understand completely.
Every day I see some new degeneracy, some new push towards political correctness, some new hypocrisy, and it leaves me angry and ready to fight.
Every morning I read the paper on the bus and am shocked to see some new inanity. Today it was “black woman Iron Man”. Because to write an original story is more difficult than to sell identity politics to the masses.
In terms of Canada, it is difficult for me to tell you as I haven’t been to those American locations. The prairies (particularly Calgary Alberta) get good reviews for scenery and traditional lifestyle. The Atlantic provinces are nice too for that. The only true metros in Canada though are Vancouver or Toronto, and both of them are becoming more and more multi-cultural and gentrified. The weather in Canada is itself a huge reason I’d say forget about it, and instead just find a nice nook in the US.
Montana is a HUGE state with a population of a million or less. It’s very rural, very friendly, very white. You can drink water out of natural springs, unpurified. There is wildlife abounding, and families and groups will hop in the truck and drive around just to enjoy and observe it. It’s wholesome and free and open. It’s not a great place for a young single man to make a career, but I’d love to be there later in life. But its on the Canadian border so it’s similar weather as you in winters. I know a guy there who still owns and runs (successfully I guess?) a DVD rental company. They don’t like outsiders of any type staying (they’d love for you to visit, but please leave after.. they get really worried whenever the population reaches the 1m mark). People will approach you and make conversation if they don’t know you. It’s like America from the 50s I imagine was. I guess my plan if any is to eek out some more money in the city, marry a foreigner, then move to an enclave like Montana.
You’re one of the most honest and measured posters on this site. When you state your opinions about the way society is becoming more degenerate around you, I reckon you’re telling it as it is. It makes me sad to think this is the way the whole ball of wax is going.
I like the fact nevertheless that you know what you want, and, all you have to do is figure out where you’re going to settle? America is still is a vast country that can accommodate folks who want to be free in the true sense. You’re intelligent, able and have a clear plan of what you want, all you need is that skill where you can be self reliant in Montana or Idaho. Did you ever consider setting up a place where people can go on fishing trips on some of the rivers there? (Maybe fishing isn’t your thing, but, there’s lots of opinions when you think about it)
Much thanks for the kind words. The explorer’s life does appeal to me, being a world traveler (and I do travel the world) but living abroad and seeking out a new and exciting life sounds great, but I do have friends and family that I don’t wish to abandon back home. Perhaps because I’m aging, and it gets harder to escape America with age, I think I will stay here. At least as long as it’s tolerable and I can find a few places where I can live out my days happily.
There really is something about that wide open sky out there. I spent a month out there last year, and hope to return soon. I met a guy who married a Filipina wife, and brought her out there, and he seems really happy. I could see myself doing something similar. Although I have to say it’s so remote and plane travel so expensive, I might as well be in a Caribbean or Latin American country when it comes to visiting friends and family. But it’s peaceful and safe and natural and clean there.
In the end, life is short, and we need to make the most of it and find as much happiness as we can. The occasional sex escapade with a millennial chick is kind of fun, but not really that rewarding to me. I’m looking for something more and to build something that will last. In many ways men today were dealt a shitty hand, but at the same time we still hold almost all the cards. This site is a great outlet for men to talk about important issues, which doesn’t happen anywhere in our society today, certainly not in political leadership. It’s a shame the meetups were smeared the way they were, but I think they will happen soon, and in many cities they already are.
Well, best of luck on whatever or perhaps wherever across the land you decide to settle upon.
I don’t buy that the USA is a special WASP/Euro culture. The USA is a nation founded in the modern age and we’ve always been a nation of immigrants seeking freedom. It just so happened that the first people were white Euros and shipped in blacks. There is no long history to keep us all together, only our belief in an abstract set of principles. And it worked and made us the most powerful, wealthiest nation in the world that people still want to come to. A few generations of your family being here, doesn’t make it your nation.
“First, the immigrants from Catholic latin nations are more conservative, family oriented, and traditional on the whole than the typical American.” <–As a Latin American, I feel it necessary to dispose of this myth.
Latin Americans, especially Mexicans have almost no conservative values. They are cultural collectivists who are used to, and prefer socialism.
Look at the dominant political parties in Mexico: Institutional Revolutionary Party;
National Action Party;
Party of the Democratic Revolution;
Labor Party; Green Ecological Party;
Convergence Party;
National Regeneration Movement; Recently many of these parties have sort of merged together, but the National Action Party (socialist) has been the dominant force for years.
Only two of which (the parties of weakest influence) have any conservative principles whatsoever. It’s no coincidence that the Democrats are importing so many people from countries whose political beliefs are so much aligned with their own.
If one looked at the American political parties, one would come to the same conclusion. They both support trannies and gay marriage and all that. And yeah, Mexico today is different than the 90s before the druglords took over. But the Mexicans I knew were all conservative, Catholic, family oriented patriarchal groups who adored their father.
Romney only got 26% of the Hispanic vote and Hispanics voted 30-35% Republican in the 80s, 90s, 00s. I don’t think the Republican party pandering has worked at all, much like trying to get black voters by running black congressmen, cabinet positions, etc before Dems did AND voting 20% higher for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats did got Blacks to vote for Republicans.
I have zero problem with legal immigration of people we want – educated, hard working, net contributors, see the US as their home and assimilate, not something we want to bring back to Mexico, working on “over the counter jobs,” and paying taxes. I’d also get rid of the anchor baby issue with an amendment – only babies of legal permanent residents or US citizens.
That’s true, although the Republican party wasn’t a social issue party until Reagan. In other words, it wasn’t socially conservative in the ways that the Hispanics typically are.
I don’t have a problem with letting anyone come work here, but not have citizenship. A work visa but not citizenship. A lot of Hispanics I use for day labor don’t want to stay here. The only reason they stay as long as they do is that it’s so hard to cross over the border, they just stay here and work as long as they can, instead of going back home every year, because they don’t want to risk not being able to get back in.
The illegals must be deported. This is something which cannot be overlooked. Legal immigration is one thing, but people who cross our borders illegally and have zero respect for the laws and customs of this country should be deported, regardless of national origin.
I cannot put any credence in this argument. Argue completely for immigration, or against it on racial grounds, and I can respect that position. But saying that because one did not fill out some bureaucratic paperwork one is inferior as compared to another who did? Plus in the past legally immigrating just meant crossing a border and being disease free. Where those guys also bad?
They were invited here. That’s the difference.
In a western liberal democracy, if 51% of the people vote to allow immigrants to come (inviting them) does that suddenly make it good and right? That’s probably what will happen this November, by the way.
I live in a country where the rule of law matters. If the first thing you’ve done when entering the country is break the law, you are a criminal. This is black and white and not debatable.
It has to do with law and order. Having no regard for national laws should not be tolerated.
Taking pride in a fair honest legal system could even be considered a cultural trait worthy of maintaining.
We are either a land of laws or a lawless land. And there is a difference. In certain countries like Australia I believe–they are much more selective about who they allow to immigrate. Short of doctors? They import doctors and so on. Only the best and the brightest.
When my father immigrated to the US from Mexico, he graduated high school, married a white woman, earned a Master’s degree, joined the ROTC and retired a Colonel after serving in combat three times earning enough medals to decorate a Christmas tree. People who come legally, assimilate and grow to love Western culture understand why they were leaving their sh*thole of a country in the first place. American culture is superior to Mexican culture. My father understands that, I understand that and that’s why we are both supporting Trump.
It’s not that they didn’t fill out some paperwork, it’s that they are here without our permission. It’s our country and we don’t want them here. They don’t have a ‘right’ to live beside me if I won’t have them.
Bureaucratic paperwork? You mean making sure they speak English, aren’t criminals, have an IQ over 80, and aren’t smuggling drugs?
wish that cunt merkel and her buffoon hollande may hear you.
Crossing the border illegally and having zero respect for the laws and customs of the USA are two entirely different things. There are plenty of law abiding illegal immigrants, just as there are plenty of born and bred ‘mericans who have no respect for our laws and customs.
I’ve witnessed the horrible mess that is our immigration laws first hand. I have a good friend who had to get greencard married when the economy tanked and she got laid off from her accounting job. Not only did she immediately find under the table work as a waitress so as not to mooch off the system, but she got multiple job offers after the fake marriage made her legal again. A woman more competent and responsible than 90% of American women had to spend thousands of dollars and years of her life just to stay here. So yeah, I don’t begrudge people who sneak in.
Of course there are many good, law-abiding illegal immigrants who only want to create a better life for themselves and their children. I don’t begrudge these people for wanting that. The fact remains, however, that they are here illegally, and we cannot give exceptions no matter how much we may sympathize with this people. I am, however, in favor of allowing certain illegals back in (legally) so long as they have no criminal record and are capable of supporting themselves and their families without mooching off the system.
Right, so let’s cut out the wasteful middle part of kicking of them and then letting them back in, by letting them apply for citizenship/amnesty without having to completely uproot their productive lives first.
I also don’t share your apparent view that all laws are just and we must adhere strictly to them. Zero tolerance/no discretion is almost always the wrong policy. Should men have to pay ridiculous alimony just because its the law? Should a dude with a dime-bag of weed be locked away for 10 years?
Those that have come here illegally are already a population that’s enriched from the bottom of the barrel economically, intellectually, morally, and legally, so to say that they should get special treatment and consideration just because they are already here is ludicrous… They should pay a fine, get deported, and then get in line like anyone else. The average unskilled Mexican immigrant will have a net lifetime economic cost of about a half [corrected] million dollars… In other words some productive American-born citizen will pay taxes for more than their entire life to offset the economic drain of one illegal immigrant. F-ck that. We’re better than them. They can get out, or we can make them get out, and then maybe we can see about letting in just their best and brightest.
P.S. Your whole ‘the laws don’t apply equally to everyone if doing so hurts my delicate immigrant loving sensibilities’ is dumb-shit Nitzchean ‘slave morality’ / woman talk and completely undercuts the foundation of western civilization. We have the laws for good reason, and as such they should apply to everyone.
Do you have a link for the quarter million snippet?
Sorry I misremembered, it was actually even higher, at $530,000, taken from some $500k quote I remembered that itself seems to have been based off the heritage foundation’s study on the $6.3 trillion cost of lifetime benefits to the proposed 11 million amnesty candidates, minus the comparable tiny 0.441 trillion sliver of the amount that they’d add to America’s GDP that doesn’t go to the immigrants themselves, all divided by the 11 million illegals… $500k was thus rounding down, then I cut it in half in my head (I guess my brain just had trouble absorbing the reality of paying taxes my whole life and realizing it still won’t be enough to pull the weight of just one illegal.)
See:
www[dot]heritage[dot]org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer
www[dot]washingtonpost[dot]com/opinions/amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants-will-cost-america/2013/05/06/e5d19afc-b661-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html
Oddly enough, it was Texas under the rule of Santa Anna that learned the hard way what happens when you don’t make immigrants, whether legal or illegal, adapt to your culture.
True. Texas history is unique. If Santa Anna would have stepped aside and held elections it would be a different world.
I always encourage people to read the names of those who were killed in the Alamo and where they were originally from. Sturdy folk.
The key is that a country needs to protect its national identity by exercising careful control over immigration and culture, not ban outsiders completely. This is especially true for huge countries like Russia, China, and the US.
Are the Japanese not Japanese because they have Ainu and plenty of mainland Asian mixed in with them? Change, both cultural and racial, is inevitable. But it shouldn’t be destructive.
FYI Yamato Japanese do not consider mix breeds, Ainu or Okinawan to be Japanese.
And no, they don’t have plenty of anything mixed in, my wife is Yamato and has zero outsider blood in her family’s bloodline going back as far as the Koseki Tohon and registers reach, which is a very long time.
Mix breeds can only be sort of seen as Japanese if they are 1/8 or less foreign and have a Koseki Tohon of some note. Probably I’d think it takes more than that.
And still it would be conditional on the father being Japanese multiple generations back and the person being 100% indistinguishable from a Yamato.
Didn’t the ancestors of the Japanese originally come from Korea, though?
Afaik there is nothing settled about it as there were no written records prior to about 700 or so in Japan.
The Chinese have records of them being there thousands of years before, and funnily enough Nihon/Nippon/Japan comes from the Chinese old word for “dwarf”. The Chinese were in contact with all people around the region to some degree and never equated them to any other people, nation or group.
There is a fair bit of DNA connection with Koreans but I don’t remember right now if there was any calculation done in terms of timeline/amount of intersection between them.
At any rate I don’t believe I have seen anything mentioned that would not be in the range of 4500-5000 yrs or so. Plenty of archaeology to show very very early activity.
Well, it’s been thousands of years, so the Japanese are probably their own genetic sub-group at this point. (Sort of like how American Indians are technically Mongols, I believe.) But it’s interesting see where various ethnic groups originally came/evolved from.
Genetically I’m Finnish (pure to the point where I can track it hundreds of years) and the theories as to where we came from are also still very very vague, but originally without doubt from northern Asia.
But yes it is indeed very interesting, I wish more DNA studies would be done on the tracking of timelines and intersection couple counts on wider scale than is currently done.
It takes a lot of resources but it is at least something that gives a very good view of the origins and histories of different groups far into the past much beyond anything else.
The technology for this does exist but it’s never been used really widely other than by that genealogy project thing in a very basic fashion.
The really interesting things will come when we find out which groups when encountering another killed all the males and kept the women for example, which is something we COULD find out if we put the resources into it.
But regarding the Yamato and other groups in relative isolation for thousands of years they not only become a subgroup but a distinct branch. Like Hungarians and Finns. The Ashkenazy Jews and other Semites, etc.
No, they originally came from southeast Asia. Modern Japanese share very distant ancestry with Vietnamese and Cambodians.
Further north, Koreans, Mongolians, and northern Chinese all share a common genetic ancestry.
They do. The “Yamato Japanese” were almost certainly created from a mixture of the Koreans and northern Chinese and the original aboriginal population. But there has been no significant migration from mainland Asia since over 1,500 years ago so the Japanese population has homogenized by now.
See? That’s where I’m at, diversity is a spice not a main course. The idea is that decisions need to be made for the benefit of those that live there. Importing people who are foreign in every sense of the word (including uncivilized) to drown out the local culture can get grim fast.
Could we please eradicate the word “gender” as a substitute of “sex” in ROK? If we speak like them, we’ll never win.
Personally I use them interchangeably, but I still believes there’s only 2 sexes/gender; none of the fluid, interchangeable shit.
The problem is that gender is defined by what a culture deems is appropriate for a certain sex. Thus, to say that your sex doesn’t match your gender is logically impossible. Gender fluid, etc. just means that you don’t like the attributes that society says you as a certain sex are supposed to portray. Which is fine by me. This is the land of freedom.
Freedom doesn’t mean nonsensical
Actually, three. He, she and it.
Just use “sex”. Seriously.
Let’s just refer to people by their chromosomes (determined by genital phenotype at birth). XX and XY
Lets see the libertards fuck that up.
From now on I’ll be asking ambiguous blobs if they’re “sex fluid”. Well, I’ll be thinking it anyway just to amuse myself.
When they get the tingles they sometimes leak sex fluid (or is that “gender fluid”?).
Sex fluid? I thought that was lube
This belongs here.
Sorry my mistake it’s just body fat, btw can I have my hand back before you eat it like you did that baby?
‘Sex’ refers strictly to the genetic characteristic. ‘Gender’ has the connotation of social, biological, mental characteristics, etc.
I run into the same problem as you, though.
I understand where people are coming from when they say “use sex, not gender.” I think they’re missing my point though. To me, gender means the exact same as sex and I think there’s only 2 sexes that are based on what you were born as, not what you FEEL you are.
Unfortunately, not overheard in bar:
“I would like to engender you in the restroom”.
Lol
Indeed. The use of the word “gender” comes from a Doctor Money, a pervert who changed the sex of a toddler and did nasty things to it.
Back in the 1990s I saw the modern use of the word “gender” starting up and KNEW there was going to be trouble. All of it was intended.
Someday we’ll know who was who in the think tanks. They will be thrown from helicopters in front of the rest of the faculties.
I always know something is nefarious from where it comes from. If something is being offered from the left you can bet without doubt it is evil. I can’t think of a single exception.
I’d happily hold the cyclic & collective.
It may just seem like semantical bullshit to an onlooker, and we’re fans of free speech here, but I would agree not to use the word. I am not sure if that Perv Dr. Money coined the term, but I’ve been on this bandwagon for a while now.
You’re correct, in a meta-political sense. If they control the language, they will persuade the manipulable on critical issues we can potentially win. Divisive political elements have been at this and know what succeeds and know well how to envelope people in with their skewered identity political system. If we agree to use their terminology, it is a vulnerability even if we understand its consequences and can articulate the negative results in a reasonable manner. We aren’t competing against reasonable people, after all.
The added benefit of not using vocabulary acceptable to the mainstream is that, aside from dropping out of the vulnerable ideological fold, you are forced to think outside of the box on issues surrounding it, when you apply yourself. I stopped using the word capitalism a few years ago when I started to study economics in college. This is because I thought the political elements who used it so regularly were not using it from a point of rationalism, they were often merely believing in what they subscribed to, and these debates were often furious. That one decision really opened up my mind to an entire branch of philosophy that has been reduced to picking a side in many respects. I’m able to understand the market, monetary policy and fiscal issues so much better because I moved away from rationalizing economics and applied myself to learn it.
Yes. I’ve made a conscious effort to do this when I talk and write: You are born either man or woman (sex) and correspondingly identify as male or female (gender) if you are healthy. All the other gibberish doesn’t even deserve a mention.
I got such a pain in the gender.
Patriarchal white Southerners have gotten crapped on for generations as the “bad” kind of white people. But we have always loved the United States; many of us fought in its wars to protect it even when Israel hijacked the U.S. military to turn it into an Israeli foreign legion; and we warned the whites in the rest of the country that their utopian social engineering to integrate blacks wouldn’t work, based on our long experience with blacks.
Frankly I think we deserve a better reputation, given our actual performance.
Just like Nazis needed a scapegoat to point their finger at to rise to power, liberals are no different.
G-Vegas South Carolina right here. I’m not fond of some the parts of Southern culture, but I’m proud as shit of others. We were decimated by the Civil War, and set back significantly financially and culturally, but now being a few decades behind culturally seems to be paying off. Oh, yeah, feminism ruined the non-religious women down here to, but we are ascendant in other areas. We tend to have a broader perspective on things, not being so narrowly focused on the cubicle rat race. I’d take a 300,000 home with a huge yard and stream and the skills to survive in the woods in Greenville SC, than a 3 million dollar apartment in Manhattan and the skills to order a complex cappuccino and know the trendiest bagel joint of the moment any day. Sure white trash, black trash, and Latino trash abound, but they do the blue collar stuff and even they are 10x more polite than yankees. Get an education and move to my town and live like a plantation owner, but your slaves are better taken care.
Lots of libertards hate the south because of slavery, but I recall reading one of the most notorious plantation owners was a former slave. He bred his slaves like cattle.
Even his neighbors didn’t like him very much.
Polish Hussars. Greatest heavy Calvary in Europe. Don’t see shout outs to them often.
Husaria
Jan Sobieski
Everywhere we see nations realigning themselves along two axes:
1) Small monostates based on a single genetic inheritance, a single language, or a single culture. (E.g. Quebec, Catalunya.)
2) Large globalist multiethnic states. (E.g. U.S., Brazil.)
The nineteenth-century idea of a “nation” — many of which, such as Yugoslavia or Iraq, were created arbitrarily by European powers — is slowly disappearing.
You obviously haven’t heard about the Brexit?
Sure the world is a more interconnected affair than a century ago, but for better or worse it’s not that clear that many people want to be world citizens before they want to citizens of a particular nation. We’ve had a hundred years of assuming that that fact is a mere detail to be overcome.
Vatican City is a country that bases itself on the religion of Catholicism yet does not base itself on race. Case in point: African/Filipino prelates and cardinals.
Catholicism is heavily based off Roman culture and uses Latin for a reason. Words like prelate, cardinal, pope, diocese, magisterium all find their roots in Latin.
Historically, something like the city of Calais would be an example of a culture that did not base itself on nationalism but rather on a common of goal of making as much money as possible. Flemings, Englishmen and Frenchmen alike lived side by side, tolerating each other and intermarrying provided you could pay the dowry. They were united by Catholicism.
The Vatican can’t be called a country, come on man. 932 inhabitants?
There are parties people hold privately with more people than that for fucks sake.
Calais history I’m not familiar with so I can’t comment, but historically city states have existed for quite long and been successful, but that was in a very different kind of environment where control of information was relatively good and easily done. Also at the time there was little need for large volume commerce, more than 90% of consumed goods were produced within 50km or so, and if you go to 300km it’s up to 99% or so.
Vatican City, in the framework provided by international law, is a country. A spade is a still a spade even if its made for a midget.
A modern day city state would be Singapore. It is multicultural, but held together by a common goal of self-betterment and meritocracy. White people, Malaysian people and Chinese people live side by side and work for the betterment of society.
One of the really big mistakes of the identitarian movement is of jerking off to past cultures as an excuse to demonize people who aren’t white and immigrants, hence why identitarianism, as with all political tools, is a tool for professional politicians to gain votes with.
I’ve never been to Singapore but I think this would be a good model. If it’s truly a “Multiracial” society, there are strong boundaries on acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and if you go there and spit your gum on the sidewalk, I don’t care what your skin color is or if your ancestors were oppressed in the past, you are going to get caned hard. They have a culture, and you can be part of it, or you can have the cane. If anyone has lived there, I”d love to hear some experiences and thoughts.
True. In fact, I worked as an intern patent agent for a Singaporean defense company. I was treated with remarkable respect. In fact, a lot of the interns were African, and were treated with the same respect.
It appears America is too afraid of “judging” anything, whereas Singapore has true community standards.
Good example in Singapore. I think to some degree Hong Kong also.
The historical city states often had very diverse populations, and for the most part this worked in peace. The interesting thing is what they did when there was strife between one group and the rest on a majority or large scale at least. They kicked the whole group out with few exceptions. They rarely harmed them as far as I recall.
Anyway I think in the future, like a few hundred years into the future large cities will become the controlled areas and basically outside of them, there will be no real law.
This would actually make sense even with today’s society, if you think about it hostile nations trade all the time now, unlike in the past, and since transport by air is easy controlling territory outside of your core densely populated areas lose cost/benefit.
If you work your butt off, respect laws, live in Singapore and are an all-around genuinely kind human being, you are Singaporean.
Racism is almost non-existent in Singapore, as people are taught in school to treat all with respect, regardless of their race, provided they’ve deserved it.
I bunked with a Filipino guy who worked as an intern cost accountant at the same firm. He wasn’t stereotyped as being racist.
Singapore is neutral in terms of defense and economics. It’s literally the Switzerland of the East.
Agree. The West is multi ethic. Done deal. There is no way (short of Armageddon) that genie will be put back in the bottle.
However, multi ethnic is not the same as multi cultural. The challenge is integrating people of mixed ethnicities into a common culture and by that I mean deep culture. Surface culture (food, art, music etc) make life interesting for everyone but I don’t think social cohesion is possible without some degree of unifying deep culture. Creating conditions for such a unifying culture is possible I think but it needs to be enforced in terms of immigration policy (i.e. integrate and assimilate or you’re not welcome to stay).
Religion is for sure a great assimilator that transcends ethnicities. It’s part of the mad genius of Islam frankly. Convert or live as a second class citizen (at best) or be killed. The problem is that such a totalitarian method backed by a rigid religion is no recipe for human flourishing.
It’s also the genius of Christianity. Christianity conquered the Saxons at the point of a sword. As it did with many other cultures (omit the usual Islamophobic tirade of “Christianity is different! It’s a religion of peace”. Yeah, tell that the those who fell under the blade of the Crusaders).
Abrahamic religions succeed because of their emphasis on ideological purity. Buddhism succeeded because it offers real results in this life. That’s why those three religions dominate the world.
The Pope wanted the Muslims out of the Holy Land – same shit different players 1,000 years later.
I’m going to be the jerk here and say not really on the Saxons. In the ecclesiastical history of the English speaking people by Bede, we saw that Christianity in the British Isles was a long complex process (pre dating the Saxons by a LONG time). One of Bedes gripes was how the local Christians kept to more Eastern style Christianity than his own Western style Christianity.
There really was no Muhammad style get down or lay down moment.
The Crusades only kicked off after literal centuries of Islamic conquest, including stealing slaves from as far as Ireland and sacking Rome.
As far as a religion of peace, some Churchians and other goofs may say so, but Christ said he came not to bring peace, but a sword.
The Saxons in Germany were forced to convert by Charlemagne or be killed. Anglo-Saxons (as in the Germanic peoples that settled in England) were different.
Islamic conquest was provoked when the Sassanids and Byzantines decided to invade the Arabic peninsula, thus giving Muslims the holy mandate (as they were attacked preemptively, something the Qu’ran authorizes war against).
The Crusades were caused by many things, most notably the Byzantine emperor begging the Papacy for help. Muslim writers accurately pointed out that the fact the Kingdom of Jerusalem was given to a Frankish noble and allied to their crown showed that it was an expedition to claim land, not to seek protection for pilgrims. If that was the case, they wouldn’t have stolen the land.
The stealing of slaves lasted until the French conquest of Algiers in 1830. Slavery is an inherent part of Arabo-Islamic culture, though there is disagreement how one can acquire a slave. The same could be said about Christianity, who held serfs in complete bondage, only stopping short of actually killing the person.
Religion is a fantastic tool for getting what you want politically. All of this clearly shows it.
And the Muslims wanted to Christians out of their lands.
The concept of land being someone’s by right is patently false. If I can defend a piece of land with the sword, its mine. If I can drive you off it, its mine.
“Islamic conquest was provoked when the Sassanids and Byzantines decided to invade the Arabic peninsula”
There is absolutely no evidence of that.
Indeed there is. If you look throughout the Hadith, you can see that the Sassanids attacked more than once, and the Byzantines even sent expeditions southwards. This then allowed the Muslims to get the okay they needed to invade.
The Persian Satraps of Yemen and Oman converted to Islam, which enraged Khosro II, who attacked. The Arabs then countered and conquered much of the Sassanid Persian Empire.
As for the Byzantines, the Tabuk expedition was sent out with the intention of invading Arabia.
Well crap. Reading comprehension failure on my part, I saw Saxon and immediately thought Anglo Saxon.
Still think my point in the crusades stands notwithstanding your point. They took forever to get started, were started by a cleric semi-independently, and I mentioned the slave taking as an example of extreme provocation (although I could write at length why serfdom, while not great, is still greatly superior to Arab slavery).
The lands only value was a place for pilgrim! If they wanted to loot land, there were options besides a grim desert. Of course they put a Frankish noble in charge because they couldn’t trust the Muslims, hence the crusade to start with. That’s not an a-ha point to me.
I also take exception to the idea of religion as the opiate of the masses used to gain power, when the truth is considerably more chaotic.
Religion is many things. It’s been very successful as a way of people to maintain their power. It’s also produced some amazing philosophy texts. Then again, this isn’t the place to discuss this.
Arab slavery is very similar to serfdom, though the term serfdom as a comparison is meaningless because there’s many different types of serfdom ranging from quasi-slavery (as in the cases of the Messenians and early middle aged serfs) to enlightened overlordship (as in 19th century Russia).
The Muslims invaded Christian lands for 500 years prior to the first Crusade. The Crusades if anything should have happened sooner and were defensive in nature. By the way, the main command in Islam is expansion, they didn’t need a kick in the butt by the Sasanids to start a holy war and the historical record shows that.
Fair points both, I think I owe you an apology; I was a little reactive. Usually when someone mentions religion as a power base they mean it in a reductive sense, which apparently wasn’t the case here.
Additionally, love the ROK comment section, only place on the net with dick jokes and familiarity with the history of serfdom.
There is no source, that i am aware, from the Byzantines and from the Persians regarding any type of military excursion. Muslim sources alone should not be trusted on this matter because the aim is to have a casus belli in order to justify jihad.
During Mohammed’s conquest of Arabia, all of his acquisitions were either conversions to Islam or self-defense.
We have no proof either way in that case. The default answer is “I don’t know”. Regardless of what western sources would have you think, the reason the entire Muslim world is not in a perpetual state of jihad is because jihad has very specific rules that ISIS and Al-Qaeda seem to constantly break.
It’s a well-known fact that Manospherians are more intelligent than the average population, minus the biological determinism about gender issues.
“Expansion” can be many things, either conversion or conquest. Conversion historically has been the main way Islam expanded, evidenced by its peaceful inroads into Africa and Southeast Asia.
Islam is not a monolithic bloc. Many scholars nowadays view conquest as illegal with the exception of injustice, while a minority view disbelief as allowing Jihad. The big issue I take with people here is to assume Islam is only one uniform belief, which, like Christianity, is patently false.
“During Mohammed’s conquest of Arabia, all of his acquisitions were either conversions to Islam or self-defense.”
False. Not only most of the conversions were forced, but also the notion of self defense is just islamist propaganda to put, as always, the muslims as the persecuted and , like i said before, to give them a casus belli. Islam spread by the sword, nothing more, nothing less, since Muhammad took control of Medina and created the very first islamic state.
From there he launched attacks on mecan caravans and slaughter all who resisted him. This is in the quran and in all muslim sources, like for example the extermination of the Jewish Khaybar tribes:
“Muhammad said: ‘Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory’, and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: ‘Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?’ Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ‘Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger’ (Sahih Muslim 31:5917)”
Their wealth was stolen and their women and children taken and distributed as slaves . Muhammad even took a woman for himself – after have her husband put to death.
Muhammad ultimatum to the Roman Emperor:
Sahih Muslim Bk.19, No.4380: Narrated Ibn Abbas: “…Abu Safyan … said: While I was in Syria, the letter of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was handed over to Hiraql (Ceasar), the Emperor of Rome …[who] called for the letter of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and read it. The letter ran as follows: “In the name of Allah, Most Gracious and Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Hiraql, the Emperor of the Romans. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. After this, I extend to you the invitation to accept Islam. Embrace Islam and you will be safe. Accept Islam, God will give you double the reward.…”
Notice how he makes a direct threat: submit and you will be safe, if not…So similar to the muslim mayor of London and other islamists…
Ultimatum to Ethiopia:
“Peace be upon him who follows true guidance and believes in Allah and His Messenger. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah Alone with no associate, He has taken neither a wife nor a son, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I call you unto the fold of Islam; if you embrace Islam, you will find safety … Should you reject this invitation, then you will be held responsible for all the evils of the Christians of your people.”{2}
Ultimatum to Egypt:
“In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad servant of Allah and His Messenger to Muqawqas, vicegerent of Egypt. Peace be upon him who follows true guidance. Thereafter, I invite you to accept Islam. Therefore, if you want security, accept Islam. If you accept Islam, Allah, the Sublime, shall reward you doubly. But if you refuse to do so, you will bear the burden of the transgression of all the Copts.” [Here “Copts” means “Egyptians” rather than “Coptic Christians”.]
Ultimatum to Persia:
“In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah to Chosroes, king of Persia. Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allah and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god but Allah Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion of Allah. I am the Messenger of Allah sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allah in every living person, and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians.
This is all in Bukhari, a muslim source. Dont try to clean the hands of Islam like Pilate. Its a totalitarian ideology.
Ironic, because I can find sayings from Sahih Al Bukhari saying exactly the opposite.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html
“False. Not only most of the conversions were forced, but also the notion
of self defense is just islamist propaganda to put, as always, the
muslims as the persecuted and , like i said before, to give them a casus
belli. Islam spread by the sword, nothing more, nothing less, since
Muhammad took control of Medina and created the very first islamic
state.”
“Most” is a misnomer. You didn’t give any evidence other than one specific invasion, not that all were like that.
“Their wealth was stolen and their women and children taken and
distributed as slaves . Muhammad even took a woman for himself – after
have her husband put to death.”
You give no evidence for it.
“Notice how he makes a direct threat: submit and you will be safe, if
not…So similar to the muslim mayor of London and other islamists…”
Sadiq Khan is a secularist who represents a secular party of leftists (who, unlike what the alt-right will tell you, do not support the institution of Sharia) and who’s never made any ultimatums of the sort. Don’t lie to fit your agenda.
I also never said Islam has a militaristic aspect to it. I simply said that assuming 1.5 billion muslims are all terrorists by virtue of a Wahhabist-Salafist reading of the QU’ran is bigotry.
Islam is not a monolithic religion, granted, however its orthodox expression admonishes the believers to take up the sword and fight the infidels, if they are Christians or Jews they are to be subjugated (“your boots over their necks” paraphrasing a verse in Koran), other religions are to be exterminated, something practiced since the beginnings of that religion.
Moreover Sufism and similar movements within Islam are not representative of orthodox Islam, something akin to Protestantism not being a manifestation of orthodox Christian thought and in many cases departing from anything you can consider Christian.
The majority of Muslim do not view jihad as being valid unless Muslims are dying or being severely persecuted. Offensive wars tend to be looked down upon.
1400 years of conquest say otherwise but…be my guest we’ll have to agree to disagree.
More like 200 years of conquest, followed by 1200 of relative nothingness
(Btw, if you’re going to bring up the Ottomans, they weren’t using Islam as a casus belli.)
Let me rephrase that: Open racism is almost non existent in Singapore.
Their society is engineered beyond belief. If you have ever been there, note how fake it feels.
It’s an experiment in building the ultimate consumerist society.
It’s engineered to the degree that in many parts, people of the same ethnicity are prevented through laws to buy property next to each other.
“”Most” is a misnomer. You didn’t give any evidence other than one specific invasion, not that all were like that.”
Like i said before, that notion that the poor muslims were always attacked and always persecuted, therefore justifying muslim expansion, is false. And muslim sources are the ones that prove it:
Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat.”
Bukhari (53:392) – “While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”
“You give no evidence for it.”
You just have to read Sahih Muslim and Bukhari . Both mention the attack on the Jews at Khaybar :
“Muhammad said: ‘Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory’, and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: ‘Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?’ Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ‘Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger’ (Sahih Muslim 31:5917)”
“Allah’s Apostle offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned.” The people came out into the streets saying, “Muhammad and his army.” Allah’s Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah’s Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission. Sahih al-Bukhari, 2:14:68
Sadik Khan as a history of connections with jihadists and he his using the same tactic as many other “moderate muslims” that is…”Dont criticize us, dont criticize Islam or some of us could get angry”. Its the same victim mentality as fanatical muslims, only more refined. They are the ones with a agenda, not me!
Finally, i never said that all muslim are evil or fanatic, that is a ignorant notion that is often used to shut the discussion down on Islam and its many problems. I am sorry to disappoint you, but that does not work on me. Salafism??? Muhammad WAS the original salafist:
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Salafists are against the type of Jihad you’re talking about, btw. If that were the case, Saudi Arabia would be at war against everyone.
Christians also use that same rhetoric, i.e agree with us or we’ll get really angry. Also, by angry, he doesn’t mean genocidally militaristic, he means really pissed off.
It is fake as hell, but it works marvelously.
The vatican? Hitler’s gift to the church? I think you are going a little far by saying they have a national identity.
Mussolini’s gift to the Church. And their national identity is synonymous with church history. The Papal States once existed in central Italy,
I think it is hilarious that Italy thinks it has a national identity. Almost as silly as thinking that Mussolini was allowed to go to he toilet workout checking in first.
Rome and everything south of it is North Africa. The church has its own interesting history and the Vatican still can’t be considered a country.
Italy is an amalgamation of various smaller local identities that joined together because the people from Turin wanted to line their king’s pockets.
Italy doesn’t have a national identity? It’s one race, one ethnicity, one religion, and pretty much one language with various dialects.
How is southern Italy North Africa? The country is 99% white.
Hannibal and his boys really liked rape. It’s why Italians south of Rome have dark features. They raped the blonde right out of a country.
Funny, I wonder if Germans will be all dark in a few hundred years.
If ancestry is anywhere from Rome or south you are black.
Southern Italians supposedly have Arabic admixture, which would explain their swarthy complexion, among other things.
Only a small percentage is from inter-breeding. Most is from the southern mediterranean demographic which is not far from Africa itself. Other mediterranean countries such as Greece and Albania have similar skin tone.
Bullshit, only a small percentage of Italians are the result of interbreeding. That sounds like a “purist” argument from a white nationalist who can;t accept that white culture wouldn’t even exist without the Italians.
“Furthermore, if Swedes, rather than Japanese, had inhabited the island of Japan for several thousand years, the culture they would have produced would be nothing like Japanese culture. It would be a Swedish culture.”
Are you saying that if Swedes had inhabited Japan for several thousand years they would not have evolved as an isolationist agrarian/fishing society? I don’t buy it. I subscribe to the guns, germs, steel theory that geography played a much bigger hand in the development of societies than some embedded genome difference. Besides, a few thousand years is enough time to breed different genetic traits into a society.
Japanese facial traits etc have a lot of influence on arts, dress, culture, architecture, poetry, standards etc.
Agrarian/fishing society hardly defines Japanese identity, lol.
Right, but those are tip of the iceberg, aesthetic parts of culture. The roots of culture are in the industry and geography of a place.
“The identity of a nation is not only cultural but genetic.”
This is true, in the sense that people with the same genetics generally tend to also have the same culture.
Some nations, like Singapore, Hong Kong, Vatican City and most of the multiracial nations of the Americas do not have genetic requirements to be acculturated within them. Case in point, most Asians who live here are acculturated in Western values, i.e in the case of girls to be useless and vapid.
Because up until a few hundred years ago, most people didn’t travel or move from where they were born. Thus, similar genetics and similar culture.
You’re dam right. National identity and love of one’s country should have nothing to do with race. Black people in countries like French and Britain think of themselves as French or British and our proud of it.
I think what’s happened to the shooting dead of those two black men by those trigger happy cops in the last few days is a complete disgrace. Christ in one case he shot him in the back at point blank range. This type of shit done either by incompetent and/or bigoted cops has to stop as it eventually destroys a Nation.
When our version of the brownshirts come, its not going to be the military turning on us as people fear. It will be the easily manipulated cops and reservists.
COPS should be made do to IQ tests before they are allowed join. More importantly as with everything in life- TEMPERAMENT, TEMPERAMENT, TEMPERAMENT….Reactive people who respond to their environment based on fear are worse then useless in my book, in fact they’re actually dangerous..QED.
Can you imagine if we screened and trained our police as extensively as we trained recon marines and used all that temperament, skill and knowledge to police our own country instead of sending those kids off to get shot up in Afghanistan?
“..sending those kids off to get shot up in Afghanistan?”
They’re men, not kids. Why do you denigrate them?
Spot on. These actions coupled with the 24/7 media attention create hostility, distrust and fear on all sides. How can a multi ethnic nation survive that?
it won’t……and never will…..
Except that culture evolves from the persistent tendencies of a people over many generations, including inborn genetic differences, so even though that black person might be a French citizen who adheres to all of the cultural, linguistic, and other parts of being ‘French’ they are nonetheless adopting western culture, which is just another way of saying the culture of the white race, and there’s no reason to expect that culture to survive a fundamental shift in demographics (as should be obvious to anyone paying attention) nor is it appropriate for you to try to sever the cultural and national accomplishments of whites from the race that accomplished them…
Japan for Japanese, Israel for Israelis, Mexico for Mexicans, but each and every single white western nation, along with all of the economic and cultural accomplishments therein, is for eveyone? Hell no. If the ethnic minorities in western countries are not content remaining minorities in a majority white nation, and instead seek to impose gradually genocidal conditions upon it, then they are choosing to be enemies and forfeit all the rights and privileges that they have enjoyed from living amongst whites.
This is incorrect. I consider Latinos western even though they’re genetically different from whites (non-Caucasians), but, their cultural outlook, religious sensibility, hell even their Indo-European language is western. When peoples’ assimilate, like Latinos, “our values” then they’re western. National identity is the exact same principle, united not through genetics or race but through common values.
Looking at how well our western culture and ideals have taken root in this mixed Mestizo population you might want to reevaluate your opinions… In their nations, even after transplanting ‘western’ cultural values look around and all you see is collectivism, totalitarianism, and an almost autonomic acquiesce to top down centralized control in everything from their religious views, politics, businesses, oh and an entire standard deviation relative deficit in IQ and all the attendant economic, criminal, and political consequences thereof…
You’ve merely proven my point… If they took to western ideals so well why would they have to actually immigrate to a majority white nation to find the happiness they long for? It’s because white people make better nations, because white people are better (at least at the stuff white people care about, which incidentally is the same stuff that makes humans, well, human.)
Oh, and P.S., even in majority Mestizo nations they still have significant white admixture, much more so in the classes that actually run things… Even still they are nothing like white nations culturally, socially, or economically.
Latin American nations are nations still in formation, something akin to Germania in 200 BC a place where no civilized person wanted to be without a legion or two as support but whose people lacked a notion of themselves as nation, no one looked beyond their little tribe and extended family.
They have a long way to go and collectivism and totalitarianism are in the region those are things that have taken root in the Europe and even in the U.S., hell, in most cases they adopted those crazy ideologies as direct imports from Europe and America (Liberation theology spearheaded by heretics from Europe anyone?), just like SJW is only descending over the region with all its concomitant madness ie. feminism, promotion of homosexuality et al (Source: I live and work there)
Yeah because welfare societies that foster parasites and bastards are the new gold standard. I am white and if anything destroyed the west (besides feminism and the abandonment of Christianity) was the adoption of welfare. Remove welfare and at least 90% of all those immigrants would self-deport overnight before you can say raus aus meinem Haus, sadly most citizens and “patriots” support that monstrosity (welfare).
Sure, welfare without eugenic controls is suicidal for an advanced civilization like ours…
You go on to argue that they are developmentally behind us, despite having thousands of years of head start, the climate to support advanced agriculture and population densities needed to build specialized economies, and yet they had to be colonized and borrow ideas from OUR best and brightest before they could start to do well, and none of this supports a claim to them being just as ‘western’ as we are…
Lots of white nations started with far more adverse conditions in virtually every way, got started much later, and still have surpassed the mestizo nations by leaps and bounds developmentally. The IQ difference doesn’t go away after assimilation and twin and adoption studies prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it’s largely genetic, and having a national average IQ that’s just on the cup of viability for a technological civilization is never going to yield results comparable to whites no matter how much we might want it to.
The mestizos are still dealing with the genetic consequences of the uncontrolled population explosion when the relatively bright East Asians arrived in the fertile tropics and got lazy and shifted from k-selective reproduction (like whites) to being r-breeders (like rabbits) and we ourselves are at the start of a similar trajectory now.
Eastern Europe isn’t doing much better, bro. Authoritarian rule is pretty much the default setting for most of humanity, except for western Europe, the US and Japan.
What headstart? Latinamerican nations started in the 19th century as local oligarchs failed projects at starting without the Motherland and their previous history only got rolling since 1492. Only a few nations like Bolivia, Peru or Ecuador (Indian majority not mestizo nations) can make the claim of being the continuation of whatever was in the land before Columbus arrived.
Latinamerican nations are mostly hybrid, neither European neither Indian and will remain so for the rest of time, even those like Argentina. Only deluded madmen and clowns like Chavez and related demogogues try to claim that they were “robbed” or oppressed by Spaniards when they themselves are the products of Conquistadors mating with Indian/Black women, that is when they are not direct white descendants of them (like many presidents and SJWs down here).
However you might have a point about the weather. P.S. Welfare is suicidal even with “eugenic controls”.
I’m talking about the arc of entire civilizations, not individual nations (which come and go, but even at that level I think you’re making excuses, our own nation ripped itself in half barely 150 years ago, the nations of Europe turned to dust 75 years ago, etc…) The Amerindian population had everything they needed thousands of years ago to become THE ‘cradle of civilization’, yet it never materialized (quite the opposite,) and they remain culturally, politically, and economically stunted relative to whites, for very good reason. Latin America can probably do okay, they are nowhere near the sub-Saharan Africans with regard to genetic and cultural liabilities, and as a minority can assimilate relatively well in a majority white nation, but they are NOT ‘more or less western like us’, they exist straddling the cultural and genetic border of western civilization, and when their numbers get high enough they transform the culture, economy, and politics of white nations/states in notably deleterious ways (of which California is a prime example as they in effect try to replay their civilizational collapse all those centuries ago.)
I get what you are saying. My point is that “Hispanics” (with some exceptions) are by no means a continuation of the Precolumbian peoples, they are in most cases neither European nor Indian they are new people altogether, in itself an argument against mass immigration if you want your people to survive and a proof that mass racial mixing can indeed produce new peoples and nations at a high cost and setting back the identity development process for hundreds of years if not millennia.
Yeah and there are IQ differences there too (and many Western Europeans consider Slavic people ‘less white’…)
Authoritarian rule exists unless intelligent men with balls make up a large enough percent of the population to demand otherwise… This is (part of) why defending what we have is so monumentally important.
I don’t think the case of South America is a parallel to immigration. The creation of Hispanic/Latino peoples was the byproduct of colonialism.
There’s not a single junta in south America anymore. Your view strikes me as a man who’s never traveled much.
The fact that they’ve evolved from being ruled under a single strongman dictatorship to either nonfunctional ‘socialist utopia’ hellholes or rule under plutocratic oligarchs isn’t saying much (and unfortunately as more of them immigrate to the U.S. some of our states are heading in the same direction.)
Yeah, but I mentioned it in regards tot he real live consequences of mass immigration, something completely different from regular immigration a phenonmenon where the nation decides who will stay based on objective criteria.
When mass migrations occur the best outcome is massive mixing and the creation of a new nation (the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons in 11th Century England, Spaniards, Indians and Blacks in Hispanic America, etc.) or outright extermination (Whites vs Indians in US and Canada, Han Chinese vs Tibetans, et al).
I understand what you were saying, and I agree. I’m just saying it’s not quite the same thing.
Yes, the mixture complicates the situation somewhat, but with a genetic contribution of on average 2/3rds to say that the Mestizos are not largely a lineal continuation of the Amerindian populations strains credibility… Sure some Hispanics are racially white, but most aren’t, and most genetic (and many cultural) tendencies are going to carry over (plus the outbreeding depression which is more than evident in the worse disease susceptibility of this group.)
I mean no offense but it’s pretty obvious that you haven’t visited many of the countries in the region or read their demographic profiles at least. The only Amerindian majority (not mestizo) countries in the region are Perú, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Paraguay (the last one so heavily influenced by Amerindian culture that Guarani is more widespread than Spanish in spite of its heavy european admixture)
The 2/3 may be true of Mexico and parts of Central America but not for Colombia, Venezuela, the Caribbean, large swathes of Central America, Paraguay, Brazil or Chile, let alone Argentina or Uruguay , the latter two almost “European” (>80% white population), and coincidentally the regions (ctral and South America) where at least 4/5 of “latinos” live.
Moreover “outbreeding depression” will continue until the races consolidate (in a few centuries or millennia). Please don’t confuse the poor health of Mexican immigrants and their descendants in the States with the population in general in South or Central America since the stats show the latter have a much lower prevalence of things like obesity and diabetes than them.
Fair enough, my perception of Latin America is skewed by my more immediate experience with Mexico, Mexicans, and Guatemalans… The racially European nations have just as much claim to being ‘western’ as the rest of us (coincidentally they are also by far the most democratic and economically developed parts of Latin America.)
Granted. I understand what you are saying however I don’t get your “The racially European nations have just as much claim to being ‘western’ as the rest of us ” . Europe itself is the cradle of the Western civilization.
I also don’t understand your praise of democratic properties. Democracy is one of the reasons we are in this mess. And no I am not American.
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean, the Mestizo majority Latin American counties aren’t truly ‘western’, though they often emulate it, while those with European descended populations are…
Democratic ideals are great when you have an educated, responsible, freedom loving electorate with the balls to stand up for their own civilization. When these prerequisites aren’t met its just tyranny of the majority. Thankfully western nations have a chance to actually meet those criteria, but for an enduring civilization we should shift back toward an electorate that’s more limited in scope.
With all due respect have you spent much time amingst Blacks in France or England? Or Portugal or Sweden, Belgium for that matter?
Because if you have you should have noticed that in no way as an aggregate in no way are Africans living in Europe assimilated nor do they consider themselves European in their hearts. I’m gonna assume you are English and are sugarcoating this.
I lived for a time years back in a London district that was about 30% black Jamaican and they considered themselves very British. They played cricket, went to the same Christian churches and pubs as the traditional white communities.
There was never any serious conflicts and they were much better integrated into British life than the Muslim and Jewish populations in the same area.
No offense but, those are not examples that high lite that Blacks in America are less connected to America than Blacks in England. American blacks are overwhelmingly Christian, play American sports and frequent American nightclubs.
The parralels between the two Black communities are very similar because Blacks have their own culture that they import to places they live. And a lot of that leads to crime and social ills . And if you lived in an area with a lot of Jamaicans you should have noticed this.
Even though the 19th, early 20th century immigrants were “white”, they did not see themselves as “the white race”. They stayed in their ethnic enclaves. What was important was that they were forced to assimilate. That is must be done now. Groups should be forced to be Americans and see themselves as such. Use of languages other than English should be discouraged. Laws distinguishing people by race and even collecting census data based on race should be illegal, as is done in France. Multiculturalism and diversity must be discouraged. People must be Americans. Similar to how people of different races can worship the same religion and be harmonious. People need something bigger than race. That would be national pride.
Since there was no welfare state, the kinds of people who immigrated were people who wanted to work hard, not people who want to live off the government. They were industrious. Hence, the welfare state must be limited.
Immigration must be strongly restricted. As Mark Krikorian has written, we should base an immigration policy on zero immigration and any immigrants that are admitted must have some justification as benefitting America.
“any immigrants that are admitted must have some justification as benefiting America” AND stop sending educated immigrants back to their home. College educated in the United States. Please fill out this form if you’d like to stay here permanently and renounce your citizenship to wherever you came from.
I slightly disagree with you on this. I am not opposed to the best and brightest Nigerians, Indians, Poles, etc. coming in to this country to learn. A small number (maybe about 10% or so) can be allowed to stay on a case-by case basis. Ideally, however, the majority of the best and brightest of these populations should return to their nations of origin and use what they’ve learned to make their home countries’ better.
Yeah, that horseshit has been said before about why we should educate every dumbass from every backwards craphole.
Education is a business. The foreign students pay for their education. Do you want America to make money or not?
Sure. Let’s just not sugarcoat it with some sort of “We Are The World”; Michael Jackson bullshit.
Would you rather we educate them and potentially prevent more shit from happening in the third world, or leave things as they are?
Beat me to it. It’s one of the biggest businesses next to resources and real estate.
But what happens is: The foreign students become anchor students and stay indefinitely.
Australia is a prime example.
Go to Melbourne CBD today and compare it to only 15 years ago. The change is not subtle.
Do you even fathom how arrogant your post sounds? We educate them? How the heck appointed us as this bastion of superiority that we need to educate the world? How about we just leave people alone, let them figure things out on their own and we take care of our own backyard.
For the most part I do agree with you. We should largely leave the rest of the world alone. Unfortunately, for better or worse, the modern world is a global one, and all the countries are interconnected in one way or another. Better to give the elites of other nations the tools to improve/change their own nations so we don’t have to deal with it ourselves. Think of it as preventative medicine. (The Middle East, however, we can’t really do anything about, unless they give up Islam, which won’t happen. We need to pull out of there and leave them to their own devices.)
Isn’t that an attitude rooted in supremacist beliefs? That we now better and they that they don’t and thus, need us? That’s where I take issue with it. That we’re doing such a bang up job that we need to go tell those damn Ecuadorians how to live.
You don’t want to live in a multi-ethnic/racial/cultural society? Wouldn’t it behoove you then to have these people improve the standard of living in their own countries so they won’t want to come into western countries and take advantage of western European universalism?
Meh. Im indifferent to multiculturalism. I currently live in one of the most multicultural cities in the world and I observe little benefits so yes, I suppose I would prefer that nations retain their homogeneous culture.
However, I don’t think my culture is inherently superior and thus, we need to educate the rest of the world. I think the people of non Western nations should be left to determine their own fate as we Whites should be left to determine our own.
I don’t see how it’s forcing the rest of the world to do something if these people genuinely want to come in and learn. I’m not necessarily saying these people should adapt their nations to western culture. That would be impossible, since only western Europeans are capable of creating western civilization. But they can certainly adapt certain characteristics of western civilization while at the same time maintaining their own cultures. Look at Japan.
Yeah, I’m not saying that you are forcing them. What I am saying is that it’s arrogant of us to suggest that people should live like us which and that we know better. That is what ‘regime change’ and NGO’s are all about and it’s wrong. If a nation pro actively decides that they want adopt Western cultural ways then I have no beef with that.
Foreigners are the ones who seem to think the West is superior. Why else are they flocking to Western universities to learn the “wisdom” of the West? Why don’t they just stay in their own countries and learn from their own?
Um. Yeah. I want to break this to you gently but, they dont come cause they think our civilizations are superior but, rather our welfare system is WAY more superior..
Agreed. Teddy Roosevelt said as much back in the day.
A nation held together purely by some ideological slogans (America) is perhaps the flimsiest reason to have a nation at all.
240 yrs or so now and we see what “all men are equal” has done to any former greatness.
Blood and Soil. BLOOD AND FUCKING SOIL.
If Jefferson had just left out those four words….
Indeed. All men aren’t equal. This is obvious to even a child.
And yet so many “adults” can not comprehend the phase.
It’s not comprehension, but rather a desperate clinging to the words to compensate.
By the end of a life no one person will ever be equal to another and that is the result of free choice. Surely Jefferson meant that at the point of birth, no one man is more or less entitled to freedom than another. A man may make of his free life that which he pleases. What we are struggling with today is that when a weak man makes nothing of his life, we must tax better men than he to perpetuate his weak existence out some some cancerous sense of social justice. We fail to judge weakness and pass sentence. But men are created equal, they just don’t end up that way.
Well, all men are equally entitled to freedom, or equal in a spiritual sense, sure, I can concede that, but even starting with the sperm and egg all men are not equally well endowed genetically, and the increasing inequality only snowballs from there generation after generation as lesser genes contribute to worse parenting, worse societies, worse culture, and recently as natural selection has been eliminated as an evolutionary pressure for a species for the first time in the history of life on this planet this will dramatically accellerate as the damage from genetic drift alone as it utterly decimates the fitness of the human gene pool, add to this the voluntary forfeiture through admixture of genetic advantages that already exist in one population over another (the magnitude and specifics of which depend on the populations and individuals, but some are certainly there,) I can easily see the whole of civilization collapsing soon and us being either wiped out altogether or set back a quarter million years evolutionarily by the consequences of the ‘all men are equal’ mythology.
Even at birth, not everyone has equal genetic potential in all areas.
Jefferson didn’t write it. Paine did.
You sir are an idiot
Please peruse this first:
http://www.crookedlakereview.com/articles/67_100/76july1994/76williams.html
You know I read a letter once of Jefferson’s to one of his friends, possibly John Adams. Either way, in it, Jefferson set out what he thought America’s system of education should be. And it was anything but “equal” by our modern standards. His idea was that only the best would even go to our universities, paid for, I believe by the state. While the rest, if they couldn’t make the cut, would go to trade schools. Jefferson, like all the founders, gets used by the left, and the right, for their own interest. But he was most definitely no modern equality nut. Properly understood, I believe his ideas of equality are equal under the law.
You realize that means the Eastern Europeans would have to leave, right?
If it was my country, I wouldn’t be kicking white people out. They assimilate.
You’d be a hypocrite then. Poles, Russians, and other Eastern Europeans are not the founding stock of this country. No “blood and fucking soil.”
yammer on philistine
It is the land, climate, air, the elements that shape the races.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
People haven’t read the declaration in so long they don’t even remember the words properly…
Needless to say I don’t agree with or support what that says in any way.
The only “rights” you have are the ones you will kill for.
I know that other men are not equal to me. That those beneath me have the same “rights”, the same political power is a mockery of Natural Law and doomed to failure as we are now seeing.
The seeds of our doom are written in the founding documents.
This. Rights, like democracy, are a myth. There is no inherent right to rights for man by nature.
Natural rights are an abstract concept rooted primarily in the work of John Locke. And while they undoubtedly sowed some of the seeds for today degenracy they also gave birth to the most advanced civilization in human history.
We should be able to say that ipods, electrical engineering, air conditioning, manned flight,free market capitalism, the rule of law, scientific progress and the internet are objectively superior to Hobbesian life of warfare, brutality, and squalor. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Indeed. Freedom is our natural state as granted by our creator, but that it is a right is something we grant to ourselves by force of arms.
Liberty, for one’s self, for one’s kin’ and for one’s allies, is THE right worth killing for, and everything else is derivative.
It was a romantic time. People were more hopeful. It did work for a while…
America’s identity needs to be value based. Those values need to be AMERICAN and not just white but respected American values. The diversity crowd really did a number on america making proper common sense acting white.
England is soon going to be ruled by a woman,and at the same time the USA,white have completly been destroyed
Along same lines, jus soli, citizenship by soil, is an attack on fatherhood and nationality.
Gods, this article is full of bullshit:
“For example, ethnic groups that developed in colder northern regions also developed a very high degree of monogamous pair bonding.”
No they didn’t. Vikings were highly polygynous with top warriors maintaining harems of women. Monogamy was developed culturally in the Middle East (starting in Egypt, Africa, then to Israel, then to Italy, then northwards) and imported into Europe. I don’t know about the Celts. I know Greeks and Romans kept harems of sex slaves. Monogamy is a foreign, imported concept in Europe.
Yet who gives a fuck? It’s the choice of the individual whether they wish to be monogamous or polygynous, which is my point: Stop twisting facts to push your own brand of bullshit on others.
Silly one, the function of a harem is much different than the function of a wife.
If you’re having sex with multiple women then you’re polygynous. That’s the definition of the word. Whether they’re wives, concubines, sluts, whores, or slaves, more than one = polygyny.
I’m not sure whether Vikings called them a word that means “wives” or regarded their harem as “concubines”. It doesn’t make a difference. A man with a dozen women sitting at his feet is not monogamous.
In the context of family, would you prefer your wife to be monogamous or polygamous?
It isn’t a matter of preference. If my wife isn’t monandrous from the point I meet her onwards then she isn’t my wife.
Where do I find pictures like the first one in the article? Whats the genre called?
That would look great in my cigar lounge.
Google “Hussar”.
True nation is made up of people who share common language, culture, history and race.
off-topic but not really
For all of you Russia-philiacs around here – check this out :
,,Russian President Vladimir Putin signed on Thursday a series of critically acclaimed anti-terrorism law that strengthens surveillance of communications and Internet forces companies to store user data for several months, according to AFP.”
For anyone who has any idea where this is going…give a shout out.
,,The measures, published Thursday on the website of the government and adopted in late June by Russian lawmakers, penalizes failure to disclose a crime, reduce the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years and introduce penalties reaching up seven years in prison for “public justification of terrorism ‘, including on the Internet.”
A laws and war connoisseur is kindly asked to reply this comment with a pertinent opinion on what these measures will actually mean.
Communist Bolshevism is alive and well.
Like almost every country.
[In Russian accent] No, Soviet Russia didn’t change. Soviet Russia changed you!
actually it’s the bolshevik khazars who did it all. russians are normal people, like all of us.
Your third national qualifier broaches an interesting point which is this: rationalism erases borders and amalgymates countries. With, though I called it rationalism I will refer to it hence as modernism, the primacy of conscience is what reigns supreme therefore it stands to reason if we all follow our conscience, or at least what we think of our conscience ha, then we’re all essentially one people seperated by how we interpret the world. Which is to say we are the sum of our experiences. Therefore there is no real reason to be seperate politically into different nations since we are all unified through our humanity. Of course this is a total bunch of BS but it is the logical conclusion of such a premise.
Whilst I understand the intent of this article’s argument is a reaction against the unadulerated immigration of recent times, there are tremendous holes in it.
What of the people who aren’t white? There are many who have non-white heritage and have assimilated to Western society near-perfectly. I’ll use myself as an example.
My parents are immigrants but I was raised in the West. I’ve contributed to this society and I’ve suffered just the same as everyone else thanks to anti-masculine policies. I’ve paid my dues and I’m proud to be a Westerner fighting against degeneracy.
Now if I’m now to be excluded from society because I don’t fit the banal criteria of race then it would appear this ‘patriarchal nationalism’ is no better for our kind than the SJW’s.
America has been a primarily white nation but the same white people allowed non-whites to relocate here. And now it is veering towards non-majority white. Whose fault is that?
White people need to take responsibility for this and work with minorities to find an appropriate solution that INCLUDES all demographics. Instead of yelling feel-good rhetoric, it would be the pragmatic approach. Then perhaps we can avoid a race-war and the unecessary bloodshed that will result from it.
I doubt you would be somehow excluded if you fit in peacefully with the rest of people around.
But again, you are trying the same old SJW tactics that everyone hates, so you bring up whitey and the responsibility whitey has to all other fucking people.
You know what? “Whitey” doesn’t owe you anything.
Whatever happens, everyone is responsible for whatever they do. You can’t blame away shit.
And you know what? We don’t need to include everyone, because we are not SJW cunts that give a voice to misfits.
And the vitirol of your message differs no less to the SJW’s. As you assume I’m against ‘whitey’ and feel personally slighted, it suggests your view stems from emotion rather than logic. There is no SJW tactic involved though it is unfortunate in your anger you are unable to perceive that.
As such, to ease your umbrage I will clarify. White people have a responsibility to the minorities because they are the progenitor race of Western nations. All the non-white races in the West will and do look up to them. Short of mass expulsion or ethnic genocide, the minority races need to be governed by white people with firm expectations to their behaviour, so to complete the integration process.
Inclusion does not mean ‘equality’, it means to adapt and contribute to the society’s culture regardless of one’s racial background.
Adaptation means to effectively demonstrate host cultural traits and practices with minimal reference to the previous culture. With such training they can be accepted as fellow brothers by Whites because they are able to relate and identify to the cultural continuum.
Thus if the process is guided properly this can allow black, brown, red and yellow people to be programmed like whites, without the racial component.
The current problem exists because several minorities have been let in to the West for economic reasons without any incentive to reduce their resentment for the colonial/slavery era. This is the fault of whites for not properly utilising propaganda (in the same way as Russia or China) in order to unite these people and eradicate negative sentiments. In this way the values of the nation would take precedence over petty historical differences which minorities still harbour.
Destabilisation also occurs when you prioritise the racial component. This automatically disregards a huge portion of the population who are in the middle. Suddenly, perfectly malleable citizens who can be protectors of a culture end up become enemies. The blame to this will automatically go to white people for failing to strategise their cultural and by extension, ethnic betterment.
When SJW’s scream about white guilt they are ridiculous as clearly a person doesn’t owe any individual anything due to racial heritage. But for a harmonious society (and I don’t mean holding hands and ‘accepting’ differences but for people to get along based on the above scenario), it is imperative for whites to work with integrated minorities and build such social structures which currently do not exist.
Otherwise you risk completely wiped out as a demographic in the next few generations as your race becomes outbred by Muslim fanatics and the like. Either that, or a war with an enemy who is much more savage and unbrazen than yourself. Given statistics, it doesn’t seem an unlikely scenario.
Ultimately, it’s sad that so many are ready to bandwagon for war without considering how to channel ethnic tensions into a productive force.
Edit: This lack of responsibility is the precise reason Western women are rancid harpies and men scour to other countries.
Yeah, but people don’t necessarily have to take responsibility for anything, especially if they weren’t actually directly involved in it. My being Caucasian doesn’t tie me to the West’s problems.
I agree and no I don’t support the SJW notion.
The issue is that the West is the White person’s homeland. This gives you a larger responsibility to take care of your nation, including all the people there. The minorities will only follow the example you guys set because they are not native to the land, even though they may aspire to be.
If you want to clean your hands of that responsibility then there will be consequences. The problems with immigrants in Germany, France and Sweden stem directly from the SJW’s ignoring this fact. Hostilities will continue to boil… Race war, mass rape and ethnic genocide will follow.
Think of it like a little brother (unintegrated minorities) following the older brother (whites and integrated minorities). Unintegrated minorities must pay deference but will only do it if the ‘natives’ show themselves worthy of it. It’s not fair but it would lead to a stable society.
“The issue is that the West is the White person’s homeland. This gives you a larger responsibility to take care of your nation, including all the people there.”
Hey, it’s not my home, and it’s not my responsibility.
“If you want to clean your hands of that responsibility then there will be consequences.”
Yeah, but it sounds like you’ll be the one to cop the brunt of those consequences! LOL Good luck with that!
Actually, I live in China and speak Chinese. Worst case scenario, I’ll roam the Inner Mongolian steppe : ) (Love horseriding!)
Then why are you even bothering with the West?!
Same as me. I’m from Thailand, really, despite being Caucasian. I plan to go to India soon.
What happens in the West only amuses me like a TV drama. I don’t really care for it because I’ll never live there again.
My family are Asian-British aristocracy. We’re imperialists and Anglophiles. We’ve considered ourselves as British for a long time and we’ve served the Empire ever since Britain took control of the Indian Subcontinent.
I guess it’s hard to step down to the proletarian view of ‘race’ once you’ve been enlightened. Unfortunately, Cultural Marxism has wrecked havoc on the British Class system and disorientated our social consciousness. And so, even though it gives me satisfaction to see SJWs destroy themselves, I can’t stand by and watch my country burn. Brexit is a big step forward for us in that regard.
Asia is a good place to fix the psychological damage from Blue Pill society, especially if you’re connected to the culture and can speak the language. Girls are cute too. I won’t stay here forever though, the homeland always awaits!
You should stop caring about social politics. It really isn’t worth it.
Ah alas, from a research perspective it’s too fun… We live in a time unseen in human history. I’m always curious to see how it plays out.
What made you move to Thailand?
I was attracted to Thailand to learn Muay Thai kick-boxing, but I stayed there for my wife after I married her.
Now I simply believe SE Asia offers a superior life-style, and I’m intent to stay.
Yes, I agree. Asia has benefits unfounded in the West. My LTR is Chinese, though I plan to take her back should we ever marry.
I assume you can speak Thai or are learning? Learning the language improves the experience tenfold…
My Thai is alright, but I’m not fully fluent.
I’m considering learning Hindi at a proper language school when I go to India.
You’re right that it’s useful. Speaking Hindi will help me build a relationship with an Indian girl for sure. Yet I doubt it’s necessary to START a relationship. All I need for that is my sexy white body!
Keep your shirt on, the UV rays may turn you into a squirrel.
Before we jump to any quick conclusions regarding changing the racial demographics of our immigration policy, lets acknowledge that our country has a pathological obsession with immigrating the underclass.
Yes, it happens with whites: Italians, Irish, Russians, and Slavs all sent working-class uneducated immigrants accompanied with a crime wave.
Then came the Castro Cubans to Miami and the Mexicans/Central Americans to the Southwest.
Now we have to take in the Syrian Muslims, who are the worst, low IQ garbage batch that you can get.
I’m fairly certain that a good amount of people on ROK would have a different view on multi-racial immigration if we got a sampling of the most beautiful women from every country.
“A nation is its people and its religion. Other nations,
such as Israel or the Islamic countries of the Middle East, base their
national identity on a combination of ethnicity and religion. It would
also be possible for a nation to ignore ethnicity altogether and
self-identify solely with a particular religion. However, I am unaware
of any modern nation that adopts this view.”
Here are few examples:
“Bosniaks” – a “nation” which ignore ethnicity altogether (Serb ethnicity mostly) and identifies solely with Islam.
“Croats” – another similar example, a bit different, a lot of Croats are of Serb ethnic origin.
So who are “Serbs”? – those ethnic Serbs whose ancestors never decided to convert to Islam or Roman Catholicism, and remained Orthodox Christians.
Reason for this was centuries of forced conversion of Serbs to Islam (by Ottomans) or to Roman Catholicism (by Austro-Hungarian Empire/ethnic Croats) from Orthodox Christianity. During Ottoman rule, all those who convert to Islam had it easier. During Austro-Hungarian rule, something similar, until WW2 when Croat Nazi State declared their “final solution” for Orthodox Serbs – to kill a third, to expell a third and to convert to Roman Catholicism a third. That plan was finalized during ex-Yugoslavia civil war (1991-95), with NATO help.
Quite a several genocides against Serbs during last few centuries, almost all inspired by Roman Catholic World Dominantion agenda…But, you would not read about it in MSM, since all those “good guys” would appear not so good…
Especially with the “Catholics” today. So progressive and tolerant among those other ignorant and bigoted redneck Christians.
Then would europeans be willing to accept this same nationalistic patriarchal model practiced by non european populations and societies? To allow, for example, the vietnamese to govern themselves in which ever way they see fit as long as they do not directly intefere with european interests? Also, for europeans to not interefere in the economics and governance of other non european populations?
An easier way to put it; are europeans willing to live and let live?
Last time I checked, they do. Correct me if I’m wrong
What is vilified by putin’s policy was once praised as teddy roosevelts ideology.
The argument is silly because the entire notion of a nation-state with a particular national character is a modern phenomenon.
The notion of white, black, brown, and yellow are all modern names to distinguish the races as well.
Nationality and race are not etched into world history as undeniable truths. This type of thinking is completely modern.
It always amazes me how brainwashed people are to believe in myths when we live in the age on the internet and every history book known to man is available in seconds.
There was no such thing as a unified white nation so why pretend?
Every single white person is a mutt. Europe was composed of multitudes of tribes that were just as different and distinct as the tribes that were found in the New World by Europeans.
People don’t see to get it. Our true cultural identity was eliminated hundreds of years ago by the convergence of small principalities into these nation-states, and then these nation-states raping and pillaging each other.
When you go to Europe, there are very rarely any true national cultural festivals. Most festivals celebrate local culture and traditions. Some of these traditions are alien to other people in the same country.
You talk about England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland as separate national identities when each of these territories have even more cultural distinctions from region to region.
Instead of looking at the past, what needs to be done is define who we are now and decide what we want to look like in the future.