The mistake of some people in my realm of views is to apply the characterizations of "international Jews" to average Jews you may find in your neighborhood. It's undeniable that there are Jews who are in the upper-echelon of society. It's undeniable that Jews, being only 2% of the American population, are grossly overrepresented in the number of millionaires, billionaires, or general positions of influence (Hollywood, etc.). Applying what anyone with power does to those without power is dumb.

Going back to what started all of this (that whole thing with the Founding Fathers), John Jay's quote is very good, and quite Fascist in nature. That the United States government and people were made for each other. Jews do not fit this view, therefore their representation in the upper rungs of society is inherently wrong.

I'm gonna look up the quote

it's in the picture

I came into the convo later

bottom

this:

"Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."[44] He also expressed a belief that the moral precepts of Christianity were necessary for good government, saying, "No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, we will then, be surely doomed.

You're reaching with the agreed upon application and interpretation of that quote

it was in a letter to another individual

he's not the only founding father

had the founding fathers, as a consensus , agreed with not only that quote, but your intepretation of it , it would've been condified into law that only christians can get elected

but even reading the quote, it doesn't necessarily mean that

it reads like a proposal at the strongest and advice at the weakest

nevermind, that it easily includes jews

`and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."`

I see this as voting advice to the public

also

his justification for it

is this:

`"No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion.`

judaism is a minor religion ,statistically

and this wasn't a time when everyone kept saying "judeo-christian values"

Well, yeah, it certainly is advice. I'm not saying it's law.

I'm speaking to the philosophy behind it

but "the moral precepts of the Christian Religion." are almost surely from the old testament

jews satisfy that

also

this would preclude from electing atheist nonjewish whites

You're not taking this as I've meant it

yet, I'm sure that you'll argue

that the US shouldn't make attempts to deport white atheists

even though the advice is not to elect them

now, you're gonna tell me , this statement doesn't just apply to gov positions

but applies to all kind of power

such as power held by the rich

hollywood etc

Well, it's not like I really meant the quote and its philosophy in any way to be subject to this stuff anyway

and that those who are in hollywood , industry, and finance are also our "rulers"

that's a stretch that I don't accept

for the obvious reason

as it would fly in the face of the rest of americana

>is assuming my entire argument after I've said what he's arguing against isn't what I said

and would go agaisnt the other founding fathers

ok, what is your argument with that quote?

Well, you agreed that so long as countries are more than 3/4ths white, then there is no real problem. As Jay said, the people and government of the US were basically made for each other. Taking this in a broad stroke first, the people and government are the same. __For him__, does that include Jews? I'm sure it did. But remember also what I've said of international Jews and average Jews. You may be Jewish, but you certainly don't seem to be of the same mind as George Soros and others. I would say there are ingroup preferences at play, as you've even alluded to your own ingroup preferences.

The philosophy is that a government should not be ethnically different from its people. For Jay, did that include Jews? Yes. Does it for really anyone of the camp I am in? No

The philosophy is the same, regardless of who you're including. The difference is where the line is drawn

There are also "international" goyim

equally wrong

the most important part of your statement

is that you simply won't consider me part of intrinsic fabric of the nation

and since you believe it must be ruled by that fabric and for that fabric alone, I'm not welcome

Ethnostates throughout history have had small minorities

They are just especially small

And I don't think you would/should hold office

you tell me of my "ingroup preferences", where you're alluding to me prefering a jewish spouse

typos because I haven't slept yet

since yesterday

all good

but you're now going beyond our agreed criteria of >3/4s white

you're now designating jews as nonwhite, restricting any given nonwhite minority to a certain threshhold and then preventing them from holding office

you've went way beyond what Israel does

and beyond what I'd like to see it do

the ingroup preference is much stronger on your end

I don't deny that it is. Ingroup preferences historically arise as a response. Knowing whites will become a minority is a warning for soemthing bad, which you agreed to. In this way, whites -- as well as all ethnicities -- should seek to not be minorities.

how does classifying jews as nonwhite and restricting them from office optimal to that goal?

It's more so in response to the doings and opinions of international Jews

if you're creating policy as we go

why not just create a policy which prevents the "international" action

just write in a law about maintaining a certain demographic threshhold

it's no crazier than what you've proposed

If you really boil things down, most any of my opinions politically can be summed in this:
Humans were created and bred in tribal environments and lived in such for the past 200,000 years or so, which is a fraction of a fraction in the evolutionary timescale. Humans have had next to no time to evolve away from tribalism. Multiethnic societies are very new and historically are torn apart (and a fair amount of the time viscerally) due to some ethnic tension. It is best to avoid multiethnic society to keep deep-seated tribal tendencies at bay

And that this has been the way, of course, for millennia until very recently

There is some esoteric Traditional knowledge which has been thrown out with Modernism

we disagree to the degree to which that is true and to the degree that we're willing to invest in it being true

as I said earlier, few studies exist to form a solid conclusion

I'm not an evolutionary anthropologist

I don't think you are either

Well, with what little knowledge there is about human nature, history is not a liar

looking at history

I think the US was great

during the 80's

I want a return to that

whites were >80%

hollywood movies were all arnold blowing shit up

no SJWs

I'm fine with that

I don't want to radically restructure society

people who do that end up with grave results each time

I don't necessarily want to either, because it will restructure itself, I believe. The real problem with any political debate is that they all end up with people talking past each other. You and I could debate the place of minorities every day of the rest of our lives. But until we address the underlying principles behind what informs our opinions, it's meaningless

The real argument you and I were having this whole time was the degree to which humans can escape nature

rather, how severe is that aspect of nature and how much can we trust the results on it

nevermind how ethical or wise it would be structuring society on in your framework, deconstructing it and letting it restructure itself

arguebly, if humans are how you say they are, and society used to plainly reflect it

then where we are is how precisely how society has structured itself

Yeah

Is that to say I'm wrong because America is not in a state of disrepair?

you're wrong to jump to conclusions when we barely have any relevant studies

you might be an actor in society structuring itself

currently, there is a wave of anti-white rhetoric

and the path of whites becoming a minority

no one is saying you shouldn't react to it

what I am suggesting is that you should be react to it within its structure, as understood by the constitution, basic morals etc

as opposed to restructuring it

and let's face it

if you violently dismantle the gov

and then "allow it to restructure"

as you put it

that's still you restructuring it - you're just not having any input beyond a certain point

it's analogous to pavlov's dog - you're still teaching it what to do if you keep smacking it each time it does something what you don't want it do

it just gets there by process of elimination

Where are you saying it goes by the process of elimination?

I'm imaging a naive model with finite options

I really mean that you're imposing it to search for the outcome that you're looking for

being the ethnostate, I assume you mean in this case

yup

because you don't know

you might toppple the gov

and then it naturally restructures itself into something worse

and then you gotta topple it again

Yeah, what I'm saying is that anything not organized according to nature will eat itself

marx was also an armchair anthropologist

That he was

and his idea to topple the bourgoise didn't end up in anything better

despite his model suggesting it would

it's dangerous to much such extreme decisions on such an inexact science

my eyes are getting blurry

let me ask you this

it won't seem relevant, but I'm curious how you'll asnwer

ok

Do you ever play poker?

last time was 2 hours ago, but it feels just like yesterday

How conservatively do you bet?

I get where your'e going with this

you're tellng me you make your decision based on expected value

however, you don't know what the deck is made of here, as the science isn't there yet

and , the variance is too large

Well, how do you play, though

I don't bet according to my psychological risk aversion, whatever it is

at least, I try not to

I folllow basic guidelines which are there to give me a sufficient probability to not go broke, given that I make +EV decisions

i.e 500th of my bankroll on a MTT

maybe 100th on a cash game

I don't know if you're familair with those terms

I'm a regular poker player

Can't say I'm an avid player

I was just curious how risk averse you were

everything is calculated before hand, so that the main decisions aren't up to my risk aversion

the one from my psyche

of course, I sometimes face boundary decisions within game

and at that point my natural risk aversion kicks in

but they don't happen often enough for me to be able to answer your question

If you don't mind me asking, about how old are you?

I'm a millenial according to most memes

but an older millenial

I see

you?

*

*

ok

you a millenial

No Gen Z or as we say in the UK Gen X is older than 20 years old

even 18 years old

I've seen some metrics where the cutoff is pre-1999

but I tend to agree with you

the problem is

that due to insane tech stuff

the Generations are no longer every 18 ish years

but are now every 10 or 12 or 8 years

Thats how radical it is

@Diadochi

But most people in the UK Believe Gen X were born between 2000 and 2006

Born in 2007 in the UK means you are in Gen Y which is 2007 to the present Day

so between 12 and 18 years old in the UK with exceptions made for some 10 and 19 year olds

I n a c t i v i t y .

S l o w

I am from another server. Strictly fascist and nationalist, called the AFC. I am here seeking possible diplomacy

I'm strictly Jewish. Can I join?

I’m a progressive Muslim. Can I Join?

are you actually logan

I mean, you can if you’re Jewish, and are against jews. You won’t be granted full access though

don't let him in

trust me

What a virgin God damn

How many Jews do I need to be against?

Let's negotiate

Is 7 a reasonable number?

Or are you looking for more like 70?

The eventual answer will be 'bout 6 mill'

Damn

What are you talking about joining?

someone was advertizing his larp server here

Oh

https://news.yahoo.com/ilhan-omar-reflects-being-refugee-032303888.html

But we've got muh guns

but we're not as cucked as muh europe

My dudes you guys are getting fucked just as hard as europe if not harder right now. What use is the second amendment when there is no will to actually use it against the gov when it overtly oversteps its boundaries.

My old account

Got pinned

@Doctor Anon

Say it again and maybe your new account will too. 😊

I've seen alot of people mention that the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad is evil and bloodhungry since he shows a lack of care towards his people and uses gas on his enemies, which was banned in the Geneva Convention. However, it simply does not add up. Why would Assad, go on a winning spree in war and have many of his enemies on the run, if this kept going he would end the war within months, so explain to me wh would he out of nowhere use Gas on his people despite knowing that it'd cause international backlash and would obviously end his spree in war, it just doesn't make sense. Even the defense secretary Jim Mattis admits that there is no proof to confirm that Syria used gas. So before you go ahead and start namecalling Assad things like "terrorist" or "fascist dictator" or maybe even "Arab Hitler" think again, and try to be less linear with your thinking

agree or disagree?

@Deli.v2 agree, the syrian gas attacks are most likely false flags, with minimal casualties and even videos exposing the white helmets as actual crisis actors and potentially accidentally killing some victim actors

assad is the boogeyman for US involvement

@Deli.v2 Yeah I said that the moment it happened, it's a false flag

It's illogical

Absolutely, @Deli.v2 . I followed the Syrian Civil War extremely closely for several years. Assad isn't the bad guy, the coalition against him is. Meme related.

I'm a 4.5 on this chart. 😅

I'm probably 3.5-4.0

I am in the middle

But I don’t like him because he Middle Eastern

@Deli.v2 Maybe it is not Assad who's using gas, but it can't be noone. Forensic Surgeons have examined many dead bodies, to see if gas is used in war. In almost all of the bodies that the FSs picked, there was a high amount of poisonous gas' toxicity. That confirms, that gas is indeed used in the war. Now about Assad, he is definitely not a cool, or nice person. You have a point in what you say, but the likelihood of him using gas against the Syrian rebels is terribly big, since in battles that the Syrian army has fought, against both Syrian rebels and ISIS, a significantly big minority of the dead bodies died by some poisonous-like gas/toxicity which was found into their bodies, after they were carefully examined by forensic surgeons. I really don't know what to believe - the Middle East war is a free-for-all game. Everyone is against everyone. I think we should wait for the war to finish, which is going to finish soon, and then we can really find out who uses that poisonous gas.

Now, Assad is definitely not a Middle East's, New Hitler dictator. He is partially evil, and cruel, but there are several leaders that are much worse than him, such as Erdoğan, and that definetely not virgin Iranian muslim dictator.

are these the same forensic scientists that touched gas attack bodies without actual hazmat suits? Or is this a different investigation

if sarin was deployed you are fucked if you touch a body or get too close with nothing on.

Different investigation, most likely.

From what i know only the UN and US sent investigators

generally no evidence was found, those who said evidence was found were filmed with latex gloves and basic sterile masks

> He is partially evil, and cruel
"Evil and cruel" doing what needs to be done to protect your people and keep the country together. Far too often effective leaders are labeled as mean by softies. The country still exists, no? There wasn't a head-chopper bloodbath. The various religious minorities have been protected from the Islamists. The rightful leader has maintained power and not been unjustly run off. He didn't flee, he stayed amid the war and defended. He isn't evil at all, he is effective, but you can't deal with the menace he has faced with kid gloves.

Exactly^

^

https://www.thejournal.ie/assad-war-crimes-un-commission-3543940-Aug2017/

Read this.

It's better for you to read the source itself, rather than me trying to explain to you.

Cruel, and evil enough.

>(((UN)))

Yeah, buddy, we're still waiting for the trusted source...

IMO, all the (((Syrian rebels))) should be bombed on the spot.

Assad successfully destroyed Syria, economically, and politically.

And he successfully won the war, despite him committing terrible war crimes.

>Assad destroyed the economy

>Civil war destroyed the economy

bruh

The civil war destroyed the economy more.

He rightfully won the war

He did.

He's the only good leader left in the middle east

AHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAAHAHA

Nobody's good in the middle east.

THE ONLY GOOD LEADER

HAHAHAAHHAAAAA

Saddam and Ghadafy both got Jewed

oof

Assad is the only good leader left

You've been infected by the shills, mate. "War crimes" report from the UN and that's it. Might as well have not posted it. UN should be abolished as it is, and these "war crimes" charges are incredibly dubious. Same as before, softies bemoan a strong leader doing what's needed to secure his people. You'd have rather Syria be destroyed and the headchoppers get their bloodbath so that this UN hit-piece and/or "war crimes" didn't occur. It makes no sense.

Assad didn't destroy the economy. He had done a lot to help and maintain it, but what can you expect when the West invaded their neighbor in 2003, having Israel to their SouthWest, clearly an international plot to destroy Syria, global financial crisis in 08, and global warming having a severe impact.

For another example and the alternative outcome to what has taken place in Syria, let's look at Libya. Gaddafi was taking steps to help ALL Africa. A continent that so badly needs self-improvement, Gaddafi was trying to lead that. He was keeping the African invasion from flooding Europe. And he maintained a degree of healthy control.

But the rightful ruler was massacred which is already a threat to sovereignty. The pan-African efforts were destroyed. Libya was left destrabalized and with partial Islamist rule. The African flooding of Europe was allowed to accelerate greatly. And now you have OPEN AIR SLAVE MARKETS in Libya.

If "war crimes" could have prevented all that 2nd paragraph and allowed us to carry on from somewhere like the direction of the first, I care not one bit about whatever the outside, corrupting, destroying force wants to label it. The same beast labeling it "war crimes" is the same beast that can't seem to stop causing an absolute mess across the globe and won't let us get on in any sort of sensible way.

(The UN's investigation into the gassings was demonstrated by almost all third parties that dont really have a say, to be retarded and brutally false. the UN has had it out for Assad the day the war started.)

The only war crimes assad has commited is not killing all rebels on sight with no quarter.

^

the thing i like about assad is that he has an unveiled and attractive wife

Uh...

thing I like about Assad is that no reason the western powers Ganges on him

turned something that was small into huge like my cock