/ot/ - off-topic

Western countries should have similarly strict immigration systems to non western countries. If that's white nationalism then cool, I'm a white nationalist.

>>194421

i dont see how doing the same thing as other races is somehow nationalism or racist.. you don't see anyone arguing about the chinese, koreans and japanese not letting migrants in so why do we have to shit up our country.. i have dual citizenship but with the way things are going in europe im going to stay in the west for a while..

also /pol/ seems stupid and like a bunch of memes. wouldn't surprise me if half of them secretly want a bbc to defile their pure white gf

/pol/ is dumb and from what I've seen on Stormfront, white nationalists are pretty dumb too.
Why is it always the dregs of the white race that are the most racist? It seems like all the traits they look down on other races for are things they do or are themselves. This is especially true of those who identify as Neo-Nazis (or "natsocs", "neo fascists", whatever trendy name they've branded themselves with now lmao). They tend to be complete gutter trash in physical appearance, upbringing and mental fortitude, ie the exact opposite of what Hitler would want.

Dumb and stupid

It used to bother me when I first discovered it (I'm mixed race and a lot of white nationalists would consider my existence degenerate as fuck) but soon I realized it didn't impact my life at all before I discovered white nationalism and there's no reason it should impact me now.

i think both sucks balls

White nationalism is at least a step away from "race is a social construct so everybody is cognitively the same" egalitarianism, which is slowly turning most humans in the world into retards.

Most people on /pol/ are very dumb, some are smart. Never tell a girl about your edgier political opinions if you browse there.

>>194441
>Why is it always the dregs of the white race that are the most racist?

Because racism is considered to be a beyond-the-pale faux pas in western society so only stupid people tend to loudly advertise their opposition to the paradigm, being ignorant of the consequences of doing so (not able to pick up on patterns or social cues).

That being said, the fact most are stupid doesn't disprove the veracity of their assertions, which should be argued on their own merits. >>194441

White nationalism is hilarious because it stopped being relevant to most countries centuries ago, and most "white" countries brought that on themselves through colonisation, global trade and (in many parts of Europe/Americas) the slave trade.

America especially is super hilarious, as it was never a "white" country to begin with, as Native Americans wouldn't be classed as Caucasian. If Americans are so damn proud of being white nationalists, they need to f*ck off back to their European "white origin" countries and be proud of it there, where it makes slightly more sense. Same goes for Australia, South Africa, New Zealand…

That being said, racists don't tend to make a lot of sense or be all that clever. Most of the statistics I hear used to support racism are created by racists. Not really the most objective form of proof, is it.

>>194454
Race is quickly becoming a social construct. Being Caucasian, Mongoloid or Negroid were biological classifications defined by differences in physicality, but they are quickly becoming irrelevant due to the fact that all societies are so mixed these days. Being "black" "white" "Asian" etc are defined by a number of things - where you were born, where your parents were born, certain characteristics people have decided are more common in certain races, your particular skin tone, the culture you grew up in… it's not a very solid system. Once upon a time people were classified as "Jewish" purely because their noses were big.

Of course there are a couple of features that do solidly speak to racial heritage - monolidded eyes being one, and Afro hair being the other. Other than that, race is becoming so ambiguous that classifying certain people is starting to seem a bit, well, racist. How light can someone be and still be black? Would someone with monolids, with the last 4 generations of family including themselves being born in America and never having been to Asia, still class themselves as Asian even though it would barely feature in their genetic profile anymore? I'm white but I have Jewish heritage, can I still call myself Jewish? It's frankly becoming pointless trying to classify people like this. Why does it even matter?

skin colour isn't nationality

White nationalism as an ideology is self-defeating, as it ends up as a perpetual virtue-signalling death spiral with 'whiteness' being virtue. Everyone starts excluding and shunning everyone else in ridiculous arguments over who is whiter than who, and eventually what minuscule support the idea ever had is destroyed by internal bickering.

It's a stupid idea anyway. Virtually all white folk live in democratic societies, and achieving anything politically in such societies requires popular support. If your ideology is constructed in such a way that it automatically destroys its own popular support, then the people who built the ideology can't be very bright. It's sort of like bankrupting yourself in building a machine whose purpose is to take itself apart.

Besides, culture is far more important than race. The problem is how conflated the two are. The UK and Canada have far fewer problems with violent ethnic minorities than the US because their minorities weren't segregated in self-sustaining communities. Their minority groups were forced to engage with and eventually be subsumed into the national culture. Keeping minority groups segregated in ghettos means that they don't have to adopt the local culture and you basically end up with nations inside of nations, which is a recipe for perpetual strife. So it's easy to see why people in nations that have minority ghettos use race as an identifier for social problems.

It's good to be able to talk about these problems though, because they exist. There are major crime problems in some nations that clearly exist along ethnic lines. The freedom to even ask how things got that way is under threat, and if we can't even talk about the problem there's no hope to ever fixing it.

>>194498
>Besides, culture is far more important than race.

Culture is, at least in part, a racial construct.

Western Europe is the ultimate demonstration of this. The idea that all people on earth are blank slates and that if you take in some Moroccan immigrant, he simply takes off his "culture" at the border and replaces it with a French or British "culture" is laughable.

Of course, there are individual exceptions to this. There are small numbers of Lebanese, Arabs, Indians, Chinese etc who are more akin to westerners than their own people - but these people are outliers, so mass immigration by its very definition, being non-selective, defeats the idea of creating a deracinated "cultural identity" in the first place.

>because their minorities weren't segregated in self-sustaining communities.

I can assure you this isn't the case. Plenty of places in Britain are segregated Pakistani communities which may as well be hermetically sealed off from the rest of Britain. A few years ago there was a case where Pakistanis who controlled the local Labour party had tacitly started excluding women from party shortlists for example: If you change the people, you will invariably change the culture of a place.

>>194488
>that all societies are so mixed these days.

Spoken like someone who has never traveled outside of Western Europe, North America or Oceania before.

The nations outside of the west are still largely homogenous, racially conscious and what little interracial marriage exists is statistically insignificant.

The west is the only place receiving demographically significant numbers of immigrants for permanent settlement.

>>194485
>as it was never a "white" country to begin with

Are you claiming Amerindians founded the United States of America?

When Americans say America was a white country, what they mean is that the polity called the United States of America was created by whites. Country denotes a polity. Learn 2 English.

What you're saying is equivalent to me saying that Ionian Greeks founded the Republic of Turkey or that Austronesian natives on Taiwan founded the Republic of China. It's a purposeful and retarded obfuscation of the meaning of words.

>>194502
I have an English degree, but thanks for the concern for my English capabilities. No, I'm not claiming Native Americans founded the United States of America, I'm pointing out the irony of literally stealing a landmass from an already established group of people, then form a right-wing fascist ideology based on being white in the country you stole from non-white people.

Is that okay for you, nit-picker? Or did you just want a reason to show how cleva u r? claps

>>194500
I agree with most of this. I don't see what the big deal is about making people of other cultures conform to the culture of the country they live in - as long as they are following the laws I don't really care. I also agree that there are some secular Asian communities in Britain, but I think what the other anon was trying to say is that black culture in America was forced to bloom in the dark, if you will, because of slavery and racism. These small communities in the UK aren't being made to be that secular, quite the opposite in fact.

>>194500
>The idea that all people on earth are blank slates and that if you take in some Moroccan immigrant, he simply takes off his "culture" at the border and replaces it with a French or British "culture" is laughable.

Never said that. Really has to be from birth. First generation immigrants are never going to really give up their birth culture. Second generation immigrants who are not segregated in an ethnic ghetto will adopt most or all of the host country's culture in my experience. Key is not letting ethnic minorities form independent self-contained sub-communities. Preventing mass immigration is a big part of this. Taking hundreds of thousands of immigrants all from the same place at the same time is a recipe for disaster.

>>194508
You used the term country. Not land mass.

Not my fault you're incapable of proper English. The distinction between country and land mass is fucking huge. You wouldn't claim the Republic of Turkey and the byzantine empire were the same country.

>>194475
If they had any actual merit, more intelligent people would openly be backing them and reversing the "social unacceptability" factor (unless you're implying that the people who find it to be a faux-pas are so intelligent/successful/capable that not even that will work, which may not be wrong, but still highlights how garbage racism is).
>Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

>Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

>Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
etc

>>194516
Nonsense. There are plenty of pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical and other unsubstantiated opinions held by a broad mass of people at one point or another. For example various works based religious beliefs.

Your error is that you assume your own beliefs are simply a default set of things that all sane and rational people believe in. Liberalism is just as ideological as white nationalism, communism, islamism etc.

Take the belief that making things more equal makes them better.

The real test of an ideology's veracity and adaptiveness isn't whether or not it can suppress internal dissent but whether it can face down external challenges.

I don't think western liberalism will out live islamism or Chinese nationalism to be quite honest. Everywhere you look the west is in decline.

This is actually a great example of what I mean when I talk about how ideological liberalism is:

>Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited

We already know a huge part of human behavior is heritable. And liberalism itself inconsistently adopts this science when it is convenient (for example the claim that all homosexuals are born that way and that it's genetic), but then turns around and adopts pseudoscientific views like saying mendelian heritability arbitrarily doesn't apply to the brain to assert the moral righteousness of egalitarianism.

Studying heritability is a big part of what turned me away from liberalism incidentally. It's outrageous how anti science liberals are when it comes to science they don't like, such as the heritability of intelligence.

The rest of the guy's quote is just a big strawman so it's not worth addressing.

>>194510
>Preventing mass immigration is a big part of this. Taking hundreds of thousands of immigrants all from the same place at the same time is a recipe for disaster.

We're more or less on the same page here. The example I use is something like those very few westerners who ended up in Japan in the 18th century and managed to stay there in spite of the sakoku system, ended up marrying Japanese women and so on. There were actually a few, but because their number was so limited they basically got so absorbed into the overall Japanese population that today you wouldn't even be able to pick their descendants out of a crowd.

Real "integration" comes from absorbing demographically small numbers through intermarriage over time. Inter-generationally breaking down any sense of an "outgroup".

>>194513
>nitpicking intensifies

"The Byzantine Empire" was the name for a collective state that happened to also be a landmass, so no you're right, I wouldn't claim it was a country at all. The British Empire wasn't even a singular landmass. Poor example to back up your point. Hope you get your knickers out your ass soon!

/sage for the most boring exchange I've ever had on lolcow

>>194488
Race is a social construct with some basis in biology. Geographical ancestry is not independent of gene frequencies, that much is visually obvious. It's arbitrary and socially negotiated whether somebody is "white" or "black", but that does not mean Australian Aboriginals are phenotypically identical to Japanese people- visually it's obvious they're not. Nations and peoples generally vary with height, facial features, and responses to medical treatments, it's weird to assume that variation stops just before the brain

>>194508
>I have an English Degree
I'm so sorry, anon.

>i dont see how doing the same thing as other races is somehow nationalism or racist.. you don't see anyone arguing about the chinese, koreans and japanese not letting migrants in so why do we have to shit up our country

Where does this stupid myth come from? Plenty of "non-white" countries like Singapore, Israel, India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Malaysia etc. are multicultural. Even in countries like China - which you treat as homogeneous - in reality often have long-lasting ethnic and linguistic divisions between dozens of groups.
China does accept immigrants and refugees, btw, the latter mainly from Vietnam. It just isn't that appealing because it's a developing and nondemocratic country. Nevertheless they get illegals from Mongolia, North Korea and the Middle East. You're just another generic uneducated racist that assumes everywhere outside your sphere of experience is a monocultural stronghold and that western countries are special victims.

>>196972
>Israel
Literally an ethno-state on the verge of totalitarianism.

China is a staggeringly racist country. See https://www.gwern.net/docs/2013-anonymous-strategicconsequencesofchineseracism.pdf. Their solidarity with and respect for Vietnam does not change that.

Clearly multicultural countries exist, that does not mean being multicultural is desirable, anymore than Japanese anti-immigration is desirable.

Im a white latino (Argentina is white reeeee) living in an English speaking country. Over the past few years browsing /pol/ Ive realised I agree with many of the things posted there especially about Europe and western countries walking into demographic doom.

One side effect Ive had from browsing /pol/ is now I realised that jews are not really "white" but as an ethnic group they tend to be rich and successful no matter where they go. I feel like going on /pol/ has inadvertently given me a jew fetish and now I want to find a relationship with a right wing jew that doesnt hate whites like pic related.

>>194424
The strictest border policy laws in the world are often western ones. Australia is one example.

>>198796
>Literally an ethno-state on the verge of totalitarianism.
I never said I liked the government of Israel. I said it's an example of a country that WNs tout as homogeneous when it's more diverse than most western countries.