Post: #151

Getting back to what Atlanta Man said, at what age does a man become "old" --- at least as far as one who is considering to have a family?

Post: #152

(02-14-2019 10:14 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Getting back to what Atlanta Man said, at what age does a man become "old" --- at least as far as one who is considering to have a family?

When you're too old to be involved with your child's childhood. Imagine being too brittle to dance at her sweet 16, unable to play with your son, and the show goes on. If you can't be a grandparent, you're too old.

Post: #153

(02-14-2019 09:37 PM)RawGod Wrote:  Waqqle, I stopped reading when I skimmed "Hungarians are 70% non-white" or somesuch. At this point I'm putting you down as a Slovak whose grandparents had bad memories of Magyarisation in the 1910s.

I stopped reading this comment when you said you hadn't even read my post that you were commenting on and then proceeded to claim that I said something I didn't say in it.

See? I can be rude and dismissive too.

This is the sort of emotional self-esteem diminishment tactic that I would expect from the kid who sits in the back of his civics class saying to the teacher "this is just gay and you only teach because you can't be an engineer" because he doesn't understand the material. You seem like a smarter guy than that and I think you can do better.

Anyway, in seriousness:

*What I actually said in Post #138 of this thread (just below the map of Mesopotamia) was "Even if I grant you a freebie (Haplogroup l2a - South Slavic, Sardinian), we still don't come up to even 70% white for Hungarians (I'm estimating the exact percentages based on the visible representation of the segments of the pie chart)."

I'll also reiterate, as I did in that post, that I was operating solely with the terms and data that you yourself provided.

I told nomadbrah to not let me mischaracterize his statements if I was misunderstanding him (I was not being sarcastic) and now I'll ask you to please not misquote me, especially when it is so easy not to as Post #138 is still up and anyone can go look at it to see exactly everything that I actually said.

(02-14-2019 09:37 PM)RawGod Wrote:  Edit: so you deserve a bit more of a response. You seem to be going on a false premise that only a couple of haplogroups are "white" or "European". i.e. that lineages from Central Asia, the Levant or Siberia are "non-white" and breaking up the "purity" of R1a and R1b. I'm saying that all the blends of the various lineages in Europe make up the "white race" which is you guessed it...a social construct. Greeks aren't "less white" because they have a greater amount of Middle Eastern DNA than do Lombards. Greeks are white because they are Europeans, historically Christian, and that Middle Eastern DNA is part of the diversity of the white race.

I may have to amend my previous assertion that race is not a social construct and agree with you here as the lines are looking blurrier the deeper we get into this subject and it does very much seem to be the case that, ultimately, only haplogroups and the mutations which occur in them exist (and, from them, we can make cases for ethnicities as Ouroboros said in Post #148) and not anything so large and yet exclusive as "race" as the concept is usually described and thought of.

So, if race is a social construct, then what is there to say about it and for what reason, if any, should it have a greater influence on our decisions than any of the other factors? To revive the original question of this thread, why shouldn't OP get with the Mauritian female when she seems to tick all of his other boxes and also to be pretty well-adjusted despite her own obviously mixed heritage?

(02-14-2019 09:37 PM)RawGod Wrote:  With regard to Hungarians, a few decades after the Magyar tribes entered Pannonia in the 9th and 10th centuries, they decided to become "more European than Europeans". They became Christian and adopted Latin as the tongue of law and learning. Essentially, they voluntarily joined the European family. That is why we don't speak of Hungary like we do Turks (many of whom are descended from Homer-quoting Greeks). Of course, genetics is another thing. But as we have seen, Hungarian genetics is complex. Clearly though, those original invaders left no more than traces, and over the centuries, "Slavs", "Germans" and so on have all moved into the region of Hungary, mixed, and started to speak Hungarian. The diversity of European peoples includes all sorts of DNA, and they are all "white" Europeans.

So my formula is correct?

Family > Tribe > Cultural Community > Nation > Race

It seems that, when you say "white" here, you are speaking of something that would more comfortably fall into the realm of "cultural community" in the sense that Ouroboros seems to be describing in Post #148 or even possibly "nation" in certain cases as it appears very much to me that you are describing an identity that people chose which was not the same as the one they did not (race, which, I think we have decided to agree, is ultimately a social construct when it is really taken to its final logical conclusion based on the rules we have established here).



*For the record, I don't have any Slovak ancestry that I am aware of (at least, if I do, it is farther back than my parents have done genealogy research for). Being American, I don't really know much at all about my ancestors and don't care very much if I'm being honest because I'll never meet them and they are not me. I'm as close to them as some kid who was given up for adoption at birth is to the birth parents he never met. I don't have any bad feelings toward them and I hope they had great lives but they were people I never had any communication or contact with who came from another place and another time that I'll never belong to.

I have my own life and experiences as well as my own mind which inhibits me from being able to comfortably argue purely from emotion or feeling, hence why I write so much as opposed to just "you're a nazi/race traitor." I also just think that writing is generally a better way to kill time than Netflix (if you want to talk about "programming," look no further than Netflix).

That being said, your logical fallacy with the Slovak jab is "ad hominem" (attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument). I am not saying this to be mean but only responding and explaining why it is irrelevant.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Post: #154

(02-14-2019 06:09 PM)TheMost Wrote:  Waqqle seems rather triggered. Red pill as you are, you are blind in this area, Waqqle. What say you, Leonard?

Very little. The thread is becoming unfit for purpose. I've already given my opinion. There is no such thing as legitimate "white" ethnocentrism in Australia. OP can still choose to marry white for a lot of good reasons or decline for other good reasons. Or he can do a 23+me test and "go home".

None of these choices are morally wrong. The end.

Post: #155

(02-14-2019 07:32 PM)Ouroboros Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 03:45 PM)Waqqle Wrote:  Family > Tribe (Dunbar's Number) > Cultural Community > Nation > Race

I think this is accurate if you're defining 'race' as something as amorphous as 'White', 'Asian', 'Black' etc. However, if you define it more precisely as someone's ethnicity (English, Japanese, etc) then 'race' becomes largely synonymous with 'cultural community'.

I attempted to articulate this same idea in previous posts in this thread in which I mentioned the Newari of Nepal, Paraguayans, and other genetically mixed but culturally homogenous people groups but you have successfully put it here in many fewer words than I did.

(02-14-2019 07:32 PM)Ouroboros Wrote:  I suspect that many people who talk about 'race' are really thinking about 'ethnicity', which is not merely cultural (e.g. if you picture a Japanese person you would imagine certain phenotypic characteristics, not a disembodied set of cultural traits).

I harbor the same suspicion. I think that a particular group whose members, on average, carry certain percentages of certain haplogroups in their DNA while also having certain non-genetic things in common such as a cultural identity and language could be called an ethnic group. That said, any outsider breeding into that group will invariably and permanently alter the genetic makeup of said group (though, if they are assimilating, they will not alter the cultural makeup of that group greatly if at all).

(02-14-2019 07:32 PM)Ouroboros Wrote:  Furthermore, the examples you gave of individuals who had successfully integrated into another 'cultural community' had, I think, two things in common: (1) they were isolated from their original community, so that they were forced to integrate with and take on the customs of their new community due to overwhelming social pressure; and (2) - a related point - they were not accompanied by large numbers of their former kinsmen, so they did not noticeably affect the genetic and cultural characteristics of their new home (which would have also stoked the resentment of their new community, inhibiting their ability to assimilate).

This is a reasonable point and I do agree with you that the factors you mentioned most likely made it far easier for the individuals in question to assimilate than it might have been for them if they had grown up in a Parisian no-go zone. In my view, it is down to the individual and how much they either do or do not want to assimilate into the culture that surrounds them.

I do not necessarily think that having people from your original group around will always prevent assimilation because it is possible that said people want to assimilate as much as you do but, if I were a dictator, I would force everyone to disperse upon arrival, live apart in different locations, learn the language, and spend a certain amount of time each week engaging in community events and public service with natives until they are deemed sufficiently assimilated, at which point they can be granted citizenship if they want it.

I don't believe in the magic dirt fantasy that, after simply physically existing within the borders of the country for a certain number of years, a person is a native. Someone who has lived in a place for only 2 years can easily and often is more assimilated than someone who has lived there for 20. It comes down to choice and effort.

That's only my view though and most countries likely would not go as far as Paraguay and Singapore when it comes to compulsory assimilation, probably because they fear the controversy that would ensue if they were to mandate such a ridiculous thing as making people earn their new passports in some way other than buying real estate or just physically being there for years (neither of which have anything to do with culture, tribe, family, etc.).

(02-14-2019 07:32 PM)Ouroboros Wrote:  It's true that Hungarians and Englishmen have a genetically diverse ancestry - but you can be sure that the means by which they became diverse (from the invasion and rape of foreign men) were even less welcome to their predecessors than modern large-scale immigration is to contemporary Englishmen and Hungarians. Fast and large-scale genetic/cultural change never was and never will be welcomed (except with self-hating white people with misplaced historical guilt).

It was often but was not always (and probably usually was not) rape. Plenty of people (probably most in many areas) surely joined the Romans and other empires and kingdoms willingly for their own reasons in the same way that the majority of Puerto Ricans voted a few years ago to not upgrade to state status or become their own country but instead remain a territory of the USA for their own reasons.

I don't think one has to be self-hating to be indifferent to large scale genetic change but I agree that large scale cultural change would likely come with significant resistance from just about anyone who doesn't hate the culture they already have.

I think that most of why large scale genetic change has been so strongly resisted in the past as it is now in many places, is because it has historically been accompanied by large scale cultural change. The two have historically been linked (mostly because people could not usually move alone as far and freely we do now and so mass movements of people tended to be military in nature) but are two separate things in their own right and do not necessarily always have to be as closely related as they may have been historically, if they continue to be related at all, going forward into the future which will undoubtedly, for better or worse, be home to an even more inter-connected human species than currently exists and in which it may be even easier to physically move around the planet than it is now.

(02-14-2019 07:32 PM)Ouroboros Wrote:  I'm not necessarily refuting anything you've said, and I'm certainly not suggesting that someone of a different race cannot assimilate into a new community or that interracial marriage is wrong (I'd happily impregnate a Habesha or two). There is also no contradiction in supporting individual mating preferences while opposing large-scale migration or the replacement of national identity with multiculturalism as matters of public policy.

Understood and agreed.

(02-14-2019 07:32 PM)Ouroboros Wrote:  But I do think it's a slight misnomer to place genetics right at the end of the ranking along with the vaguely defined 'race', as though one's cultural community is unrelated to ethnicity.

Ethnicity as you described (being primarily cultural - the main identifying difference between a Turk and an Armenian is not genetic) in the beginning of this could fit comfortably within the category of "cultural community" and/or "nation" (which may or may not overlap with "cultural community") but I would still leave genetics in the last and least important position where it is. As long as your own kids are yours, who cares whose anyone else's are.

Post: #156

(02-15-2019 12:06 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  OP can still choose to marry white for a lot of good reasons or decline for other good reasons. Or he can do a 23+me test and "go home".

None of these choices are morally wrong. The end.

Agreed. Neither choice is ultimately more or less moral than the other.

Post: #157

@Waqqle your ideas are well-expressed and reasonable; I'll just briefly comment on a few which I slightly disagree with.

(02-15-2019 12:25 AM)Waqqle Wrote:  This is a reasonable point and I do agree with you that the factors you mentioned most likely made it far easier for the individuals in question to assimilate than it might have been for them if they had grown up in a Parisian no-go zone. In my view, it is down to the individual and how much they either do or do not want to assimilate into the culture that surrounds them.
…

It comes down to choice and effort.

It technically is a matter of choice and effort, but since most people are rather lazy and unmotivated, I'm not optimistic that most people will choose to make the effort to assimilate if there is a choice not to. It's analogous to language learners who, even if they genuinely want to learn a foreign language, will usually fail unless placed in an immersive environment in which they have no choice but to utilise the language.

(02-15-2019 12:25 AM)Waqqle Wrote:  It was often but was not always (and probably usually was not) rape. Plenty of people (probably most in many areas) surely joined the Romans and other empires and kingdoms willingly for their own reasons in the same way that the majority of Puerto Ricans voted a few years ago to not upgrade to state status or become their own country but instead remain a territory of the USA for their own reasons.

Well, it would be interesting to do a global study on this topic to identify the causes of major genetic and cultural change. I did say rape and invasion; it's possible (actually, depressingly likely) that women willingly chose to procreate with invaders enough of the time that rape wasn't as necessary. In the case of England, at least, I'm confident that the male Celts did not welcome the Romans or Anglo-Saxons, that the male Anglo-Saxons did not welcome the Normans, and that almost no-one was thrilled about the Viking incursions. But maybe in other countries migration played a larger role than invasion in sudden and large-scale genetic/cultural changes...

(02-15-2019 12:25 AM)Waqqle Wrote:  I think that most of why large scale genetic change has been so strongly resisted in the past as it is now in many places, is because it has historically been accompanied by large scale cultural change. The two have historically been linked (mostly because people could not usually move alone as far and freely we do now and so mass movements of people tended to be military in nature) but are two separate things in their own right and do not necessarily always have to be as closely related as they may have been historically, if they continue to be related at all, going forward into the future which will undoubtedly, for better or worse, be home to an even more inter-connected human species than currently exists and in which it may be even easier to physically move around the planet than it is now.

Partially disagree with this one. I do agree that one reason genetic change is resisted is because it is usually a proxy for cultural change, and that the two will not necessarily correlate. However, I think there is another major factor why genetic change is resisted (and here I may inadvertently sound like a feminist): men tend to view women as their property, at least subconsciously, and resent men of other races 'taking' what they believe to be their birthright. I suspect that much of the hostility to interracial mating that you can see all over the world is not due to racism but rather due to this tribalistic view. The result is that a large-scale and sudden change in the genetics of a population would probably still be perceived as an invasion even if it somehow did not result in cultural change (and we are a long way off from genetics being a poor predictor of culture).

Post: #158

I'm a firm believer in going after what you truly want. Ask yourself, would you prefer a woman had the same race and culture? If yes, you pussing out with this chick, and you should go after what you truly want. If you don't care, then go with this chick. To each their own, but I would never settle and betray my true desire.

Post: #159

(02-15-2019 02:22 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  Well, it would be interesting to do a global study on this topic to identify the causes of major genetic and cultural change. I did say rape and invasion; it's possible (actually, depressingly likely) that women willingly chose to procreate with invaders enough of the time that rape wasn't as necessary. In the case of England, at least, I'm confident that the male Celts did not welcome the Romans or Anglo-Saxons, that the male Anglo-Saxons did not welcome the Normans, and that almost no-one was thrilled about the Viking incursions. But maybe in other countries migration played a larger role than invasion in sudden and large-scale genetic/cultural changes...

There's a certain group with a certain stance in this current geopolitical climate who seem to conveniently forget the history but that's for a different conversation for a different time.

Post: #160

(02-15-2019 02:22 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  It technically is a matter of choice and effort, but since most people are rather lazy and unmotivated, I'm not optimistic that most people will choose to make the effort to assimilate if there is a choice not to. It's analogous to language learners who, even if they genuinely want to learn a foreign language, will usually fail unless placed in an immersive environment in which they have no choice but to utilise the language.

From what I have observed, I would say that it is reasonable to expect that most people will not commit to something so life-changing if they do not have any strong desire or need to do so, especially in this world in which so many can hardly be bothered to even slightly alter their diet during pregnancy so that their children are less likely to be born with diabetes or some sort of defect. However, those who are willing are often great assets and can embrace their adoptive identities even more enthusiastically than natives at times, as we can see with cases of converts to new religions who wind up becoming scholars, leaders, etc. (or simply carrying the torch in their ordinary and unremarkable lives) within those religious communities.

(02-15-2019 02:22 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  Well, it would be interesting to do a global study on this topic to identify the causes of major genetic and cultural change. I did say rape and invasion; it's possible (actually, depressingly likely) that women willingly chose to procreate with invaders enough of the time that rape wasn't as necessary. In the case of England, at least, I'm confident that the male Celts did not welcome the Romans or Anglo-Saxons, that the male Anglo-Saxons did not welcome the Normans, and that almost no-one was thrilled about the Viking incursions. But maybe in other countries migration played a larger role than invasion in sudden and large-scale genetic/cultural changes...

There are definitely certain kingdoms and cultures which, on the whole, put up more of a fight than others but, even within those groups, there were undoubtedly numerous people, male and female, who willingly chose to bend the knee and join the legion as opposed to giving their lives in a hopeless struggle. Plenty surely did it for economic, religious, family, and other reasons as well. Likewise, there were surely defectors from the larger groups and empires in the same way that there were white colonists in America who willingly abandoned European civilization to live with the American Indian tribes in the woods (as Sebastian Junger describes in his book, Tribe). When we say "the Celts" and "Vikings," we are not necessarily referring to a group in which everyone born into the fold saw things the same way but only to those who made the choice to identify as a member.

(02-15-2019 02:22 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  Partially disagree with this one. I do agree that one reason genetic change is resisted is because it is usually a proxy for cultural change, and that the two will not necessarily correlate. However, I think there is another major factor why genetic change is resisted (and here I may inadvertently sound like a feminist): men tend to view women as their property, at least subconsciously, and resent men of other races 'taking' what they believe to be their birthright. I suspect that much of the hostility to interracial mating that you can see all over the world is not due to racism but rather due to this tribalistic view. The result is that a large-scale and sudden change in the genetics of a population would probably still be perceived as an invasion even if it somehow did not result in cultural change (and we are a long way off from genetics being a poor predictor of culture).

I suspect that there is some truth to your point about women being viewed on some instinctive level as a form of property or territory to be lost. I think this is especially true for those males who, for whatever reason, find themselves unable to secure the intimacy of females outside of their group. It is also true that there are and always have been certain cultural groups which viewed outsiders as less human than themselves and/or somehow outside the bounds of normal morality.

Post: #161

Dude if you met wife material and falling head over heels for this women then marry her. I know you said your a white nationalist but first you should care about your own personal happiness (a forum member already said this). But let me put your white nationalism at ease. First no society is 100 percent homogeneous so your children will not spoil the make up. For example Japan is a very xenophobic society but it has 2 percent of different races in it. Even in the past before globalization, every nation on this planet had pockets of outside races within them. And this is needed since it helps the gene pool stay healthy. But you know where you can put your nationalism to good use? By raising your kids Australian and teaching them about their history and Australian culture. It will all depend on how you raise your kids. Those mixed race kids you talked about tend to be from black fathers and white mothers. Usually the father figure has left and the mother is too busy to raise their kids. Then the kids try to replace their father figure with black culture but start to follow the worst aspects of it because their is no guiding hand (I am referring to Black-American culture). Please take note that black culture was the same as mainstream American culture and was a major contributor of it once (black people produced Jazz and rock and roll). This was all before the democrats destroyed black communities in order to get a guaranteed voting block. I'm not promoting mass immigration that globalists are trying to use to destroy nation but what I am trying to say is that every nation will have a bit of diversity and it will all come down to you on whether these diverse individuals will still follow your nations pride.

Post: #162

Without going through the other seven pages, I would say that you cannot expect to have it better at the age of 41. I'd rather have a good, caring mother, that is not white, than a trashy white one.

Post: #163

(02-14-2019 10:14 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Getting back to what Atlanta Man said, at what age does a man become "old" --- at least as far as one who is considering to have a family?

Do the math-I am 43 , If I have a kid today I will be 63 when he is 20. I am in excellent physical shape and I intend to be 75-80 when I die, I would like my children to be 30 or close to it when I kick my air addiction. I will not be in a secure financial position until 2 more years where I can legitimately pursue my plan to find a suitable bride-I have a plan in place-it is unorthodox but when planning to build a life with a woman you must be ruthless in your evaluation of a mate for childbirth.

At the very least I want to be able to play with my children and be physically able with them until their late teens. I also want to be aware enough of current dating trends to aid my son if I have one.

Post: #164

(02-14-2019 11:30 PM)Waqqle Wrote:  That being said, your logical fallacy with the Slovak jab is "ad hominem" (attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument). I am not saying this to be mean but only responding and explaining why it is irrelevant.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Thanks mate. Your fedora is in the mail...

Post: #165

(02-14-2019 04:47 AM)PixelFree Wrote:  Hey guys, just FYI I do log in a read this from my phone at work. If my work caught me even reading this thread, I'd be out the door within a week. It's that bad here. It's moving quicker than I can read and digest, but let me just add a few things.

I number closed a hot blonde/blue eyed 21 year old Australian chick last night. She mentioned multiple times how she 'never wants kids' and how they would be a 'hassle', and how she wants to 'live life' and doesn't want to get married. Obviously she's young, but still, this girl has been full on programmed.

This sort of discard pile material is everywhere.

Quote:I don't really care about 'race purity'. Previous girlfriends have been all kinds of colours and people, never cared about this ever before in the past.

These thoughts simply come from the fact that I can see the obvious attempt to program me to procreate with a woman of another very different race. I see many of these posters every day and on TV - you can't miss them.

Add to this the programming that I'm bad because I'm white, and my country sucks, and my flag is racist, and I should feel sorry and give all my money away to everyone that I have apparently 'wronged'.

Now, the reaction I would expect *anybody* to have to this - no matter if you're white, black, or whatever, is to say 'fuck you!' and push back against this agenda. That's it.

The way to push back against it is by writing it off as pseudoscience that happens to be fashionable at the moment. Every minute you spend agonizing over it is a minute your enemy has won from you. Don't try to fight them on their turd, shut them out.

Quote:If I did proceed with this women, we'd have very good looking kids. My sons would be lady killers for sure. My daughters, little princesses. This women is tall and has a kind of suave / swagger / soul I can't describe. She's really cool.

Also, on her mothering abilities, she currently works in childcare - today (and every working day) she's looking after 4x 5 year olds, playing nice with them, changing their pants when they wet themselves, calming them down when they are upset, etc. These kids are in love with her and have bonded with her more than they have their actual parents. It's like she's a professional mother.

Great she's passed the audition. Move forward with bringing her into your household she she can start popping out potential heirs and apprentices.

The most basic political unit of every successful human society is the HOUSEHOLD. The household's patriarch is king of his castle however humble it may be. The women, apprentices (children approaching maturity who don't suck), and children carry out operation of the household to the best of their abilities, and some particular details of the arrangement may vary along cultural lines.

For all of history, in every successful society the measure of a man's success and status is his household. Not the physical house as consumer culture pushes. The household as a an organization of capital supporting the man's mission and tending to his needs.

Quote:I think it's natural for me to have these thoughts - nobody likes to be told what to do, especially when it comes to what type of partner or family to have. I don't want to grow up with kids who 'hate' me because *I*, the white guy, 'stole' the wealth of their country or some other bullshit. Nor to do I want them to have identity issues. I had mild identity issues myself as a kid being from 2 very different white countries, growing up in one and living in another, and all the while I look like I'd fit into any of them.

Stop putting this excess worry on kids you don't have yet. You haven't even started solidifying your household if you are wavering on this woman.

Even when you have two parents who should be excellent breeding stock, human children tend to regress towards the average in the best case. If one or both the parents are losers, the kids are almost always going to be losers. What matter more is will the mother be capable of raising the kids to your standards to the best of her apparently ample ability in this case.

Some kids will just suck. That how the odds work. Have more kids, if necessary bring in another wife or concubine if the kids keep coming out bad.

Quote:Just the other day I was walking behind a dark African looking guy who was pissed because some lady asked if he was from Africa (he is American with a strong American accent). This lady didn't mean any malice, it was a genuine / normal question, but perhaps it uncovered an insecurity (or at least a constantly annoying thing in this persons life), as displayed by some responses to this thread as well.

Closer to home, I have four mixed race first cousins who primarily identify with their non-white ethnicities (as if the white side is 'bad'), yet are rejected by some of their friends in that other ethnic group 'you're not a real xyz'. Maybe it's a big deal for them, maybe it's not, I don't really know. Maybe they consider themselves just as 'human' and it's all good. One of my best mates (white guy) married a Sri Lankan lady, and her father had a huge problem with it. It's been tough for him.

But yeah, mainly it's because I want to fuck the globalists and tell them to shove it.

Will keep reading and processing - thank you all again for your input.

Here's your problem. You are engaging in way too much detail/idealism wank and nowhere near enough "How do I get what I want?" action.

Post: #166

(02-11-2019 03:39 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  ^^^He is right. All you dudes who are 33-it is all good now, but ten years will fly by like nothing-Trust me.

As a man who just turned 30, I'm starting to realize that. It's time to put everything on the line as Jack Ma stated in a video (a DAMN good video I might add).



That said, a white ethno-nationalist (OP) mixing with a non-White woman??? That hypocrisy is as old as time itself. Worst part is the other ethno-nationalist never accept them, not matter how much hey follow their father. Don't believe me? Check out Stormfront.

You remind me the the WN on Springer (yes I now) who knocked-up a black woman.

Say what was the name of that gov. official you vehemently opposed integration but knocked-up his black maid? I believe in VA if I'm not mistaken.

If there's something that I dislike, almost hate, is the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance of white men. Example: mixing in Europe, the Kalergi plan supported by (((others))). Brazil? South America? To the victors goes the spoils (and rightfully so?)
black pigeon hates the migrant crisis. His location? Japan. The fall of Western civilization will be (or as) being acceleration by the massive reproduction of the Original Man in the Motherland (5+ vs 1.9-) but built on the bodies of previous civilizations they're conquered—well, I forgot SSA didn't have any. I hate being low-IQ.

All that said, you wouldn't be the first potential WN hypocrite who bred with non-white. It actually unsurprising for me.

Just do it bro, just don't litter the comment section of certain YT videos with your hypocrisy. It's all part of (((their))) plan, amirite?

Post: #167

It’s not cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy.

It is possible to believe that nations should have a dominant ethnicity, character and culture, and at the same time like/fornicate/have kids with someone from a different race, or be a minitory in another country.

I simply don’t like the idea of a country losing its cohesion or dominant culture and in its place being fractured / self-segregated along multiple ethnic lines.

e.g. do you think people like going to London to experience ‘British culture’ yet get there and find out its now some bizzare combination of Pakistan, Somalia and who knows what else (native British are a minority in their own homelands capital and the next two largest cities Birmingham and Manchester - so much for ‘going home to Europe’).

I don’t think so, just as I wouldn’t want that to happen to any other country or culture. I like enjoying diverse cultures and preserving them.

Don’t confuse nationalism with supremacisim.

Post: #168

(02-21-2019 03:05 PM)TheKongoEmpire Wrote:  Say what was the name of that gov. official you vehemently opposed integration but knocked-up his black maid? I believe in VA if I'm not mistaken.

That was Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. The longest-serving senator in US history. He also did the longest filibuster ever, 24 hrs of continuous speaking, to defeat the Civil Rights Bill of 1957. All of his policies were segregationist.

Thurmond impregnated his family maid (black) when she was 15 and he was 22. This resulted in a daughter, whom he kept secret over 75 years. She revealed herself in public after he died at the age of 100 (and when she was 78).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essie_Mae_...n-Williams

A blonde female friend of mine interviewed Thurmond for a class project when we were in college. She came back from the interview looking kind of dazed.
"How did it go?" I said.
"He petted my head and said I had pretty hair," she said. "What a dick."

Post: #169

Interesting. Goes to show you a person can be segregationist but still not ‘hate’ other races.

Personally, I’m not a segregationist, that’s too far for me. I just think societies work better when there is a dominant culture, say 80% minimum.

Any less than that causes fracturing and tensions, which is exactly what the elite class want as a people divided can never stand up to them - there is no philla.

Post: #170

I'd marry that woman. The kids would have some challenges to overcome though.

Like finding an organ donor if the need arises.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/why-mixed-ra...nt-matches

And mental stress from wondering where they fit into society.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

Post: #171

(02-21-2019 05:03 PM)PixelFree Wrote:  It’s not cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy.

It is possible to believe that nations should have a dominant ethnicity, character and culture, and at the same time like/fornicate/have kids with someone from a different race, or be a minitory in another country.

I simply don’t like the idea of a country losing its cohesion or dominant culture and in its place being fractured / self-segregated along multiple ethnic lines.

e.g. do you think people like going to London to experience ‘British culture’ yet get there and find out its now some bizzare combination of Pakistan, Somalia and who knows what else (native British are a minority in their own homelands capital and the next two largest cities Birmingham and Manchester - so much for ‘going home to Europe’).

I don’t think so, just as I wouldn’t want that to happen to any other country or culture. I like enjoying diverse cultures and preserving them.

The simplest story I tell people is this.

There's a group of 20 islands.

19 islands have red parrots only. 1 has green parrots only.

The red parrots are pretty aggressive - that's why they have spread to and dominate 19/20 of the islands.

What is better for "diversity" - allowing the red parrots access to the last green-only island? Or keeping them out?

(This is basically a real scenario and well-known to conservationists.)

Post: #172

Interesting thought experiment.

If I’m consistent with what I wrote above, it would be to keep their numbers to some kind of limit such as max 20% (and end up with some olive coloured parrots).

Although, when presented in this way, you can imagine the conversationalists answering to not allow them at all.

Post: #173

#GreenParrotSupremacy

All red parrots must hang.

Post: #174

‘The red parrots took our jobs’, cries the uneducated, redneck green parrots.

To the best of my knowledge, there are 5 main ‘races’ (white, yellow, ‘red’, brown, black), and roughly a billion of each (1.x B in some cases to make up 7B).

If this is accurate, then it’s more like 5 islands (rather than 20) with everyone on 4 of them wanting to move to the 1 island.

Post: #175

The problem is that the green parrots see their homeland as mundane and boring, all-green and placid as it is. They don't have the perspective to see it as a global rarity. Also, when the first red parrots arrive, it seems cool and exciting, and the road to the minority status or extinction for the greens is not immediately obvious.

White people need to viscerally understand how outnumbered they are globally. Other races are doing just fine, with 85% of the numbers, the nation-states, and the territory. Also, whites don't understand that their civic norms are NOT the global norm. Trash that gets picked up promptly? Buses that run on time? Public places not filled with homeless and touts? Hell, in Australia I can go to the local park and use a CLEAN public BBQ, sometimes wood-fired with firewood that is chopped and provided by the local authority! Theses amenities exist in a tiny number of societies and disappear rapidly in a "diverse" society.