@Big Ooooof...
Hitler was very close to losing and never being anything politically

You talk about germany and frankly I dont care about germany at all

Not the war but politically unlike roosevelt

So, you're not a white nationalist...

I'm saying for the majority of whites Hitler discredited white nationalism either through direct means or by the allies lying

either or his actions resulted in white nationalism being demonized

You do realise that Germans are the biggest racial group in the US right?

roughly 30%

Well yeah I'm part german but I'd take the continuing of white nationalism over germany reclaiming Prussia...

Not really
i however do think that people who agitate for "brother wars" should receive some sort of punishment

Not a fan of purity spiral fags

social ostracization would be enough

by the time you can pass laws against brother wars enough people already agree to ostracize him

I would rather have weimar than berlin today lmao

you can fix a shit economy and rectify a decaying culture but the genetic component makes everything difficult because then violence is literally guaranteed at some point

You guys just drank the liberal kool-aid that tells you that Nazism and Hitler are so irredeemably bad that nothing even similar is acceptable in the mordern world while your empires did the exact same thing the nazis did over a longer period of time! YOU declared war and now YOU regret what YOUR choice did to the west! Incredible how much mental gymnastics you have to do to blame the destruction of your own countries on the destruction YOU imposed upon another nation that wanted peace with YOU!

I never declared war on germany lad

I didn't even moralize nazism

I said the end result of nazism was the demonization of white nationalism

nothing more nothing less

in my opinion the end result of nazism was shit for whites

and funny enough for germans

No i mean like people who agitate for European wars or subversion should be denied government jobs 100% of the time

I regard them as right wing sjws basically

Well yeah even the US Gov does that

The white nationalist countries did that to themselves! Hitler and the nazis were dead at that point! Blaming your own actions on dead people is lunacy...

extremists get denied positions in the military

they aren't my own actions though @Big Ooooof...

like I dont care if the nazis were morally correct (invading poland was entirely justified)

that was german land no doubt

Thanks!

I just think it wasn't worth it in the end

I appreciate that admission!

Of course it wasn't worth it!

not really an admission as prussia formed the german empire

yes

so why try to recreate a failed state

It was the biggest fucking desaster the world has ever seen!

yes

the nazis were gigantic fuck ups

Prussia is based and it had polish people in it

literally nothing good happened from them

Well, if you kill a painter while painting, you can't really call him a fuck up for not finishing his painting...

Polish people had literally saved europe from early communism

I'm not purity spiralling btw! I see Eastern Asians as just as advanced as we are! I went to another server where I said that and was criticised and kicked for being a "Gook-loving Weeaboo..."

*criticized

I get your points

Yeah imo I dont have anything against eurasians in russia

Asia isn’t some tech utopia...

It’s full of rice farmers

The half buryat/half slav folks aren't bad

But i feel like you arent focusing on policy

There we have the purity spiralling....

Current policy we should have right now

yeah

Farming isn't anything too look down upon!

you're focusing on the morality of germany's situation circa 1933

that's basically what I've been arguing this whole time

I never said it’s to look down on

the morality of the situation is (unfortunately) irrelevant

I just disagree that Asia is “advanced”

the end state of nazism was failure in every regard

Well certain parts are @L0GAN

So is capitalism by that measurement.

China is a shithole lmao

Japan

Singapore

Taiwan

Korea/Japan/Singapore/HK are nice but not indicative of Asia

Japan, Singapore, and South Korea

Taiwan ehh

Korea

South korea

Like add up SK/Japan/singapore/HK that's 160 million

They have the highest iqs worldwide! Surely has nothing to do with their homogeneity!

vs the 1 billion in china and elsewhere

But china has problems getting even reliable baby formulas

that are shitholes

There own people dont trust the products they make for babys

@Big Ooooof... It really doesn't have anything to do with being homogenous

@Big Ooooof... Last time I checked. Most people we recognize as “geniuses” weren’t Asian

Yes it does

I hate to say this but that says a lot about their society

I’d say the smart asian thing is a false stereotype

~~T POSE~~

homogenous societies actually negatively correlate with IQ

correlate

there is no causation

If European countries were homogenous, minorities wouldn't drive the average iq down.

I really don't think if you took a 110 IQ white, and they had a kid with a 120 IQ asian, that the kid would be dumber than a kid with parents who were both 110 iq whites

yeah see

not causation

That is just wrong! xD

via homogeneity

it's brown people

Look at singapore

It depends on the difference and what genes you lose and gain @Deleted User
Racemixing is complicated

Ok i go now

well I'm not saying whites should racemix

I'm just saying the issue isn't for instance japanese immigrants

I'm not saying that idiot! I'm saying that if you mix people with an average iq of 100 with people who have an average of 70, the total average will be lower! It's not like Europe is having massive immigration from high iq countries!

the issue is literal brown people

who all have low IQs

yes

Not all. But most of them-

the only intellectual group that is equivalent to whites is east asians

every other group is in general inferior unless you take elite subsamples

like Nigerian/Indian immigrants in the USA make the most money and thus probably have higher than average IQs, but we only take people with masters degrees or that are rich from these countries

They really are! They aren't as artistically creative though but that's ok...

So multicultarism isn't REALLY the cause for a low IQ

but in general it will lower IQ simply because most groups are inferior to europeans intellectually

Yes, it is since most cultures are neither East Asian nor European! The total mix will drag the supreme peoples down!

Yeah

also you really shouldn't add more diversity without good reason

Ok would you agree that you could mark most of the western as individualistic
And Asian as family oriented and Africa as tribilized

diversity + proximity always leads to violence

On a map

Africa is communal

And would it make sense

actually I've talked to people about this that have been to africa/asia

Communal my ass

No. I think the reason Europe is falling is that we've become selfish/individualistic.

They have chronic abuse problems

We don't care about the greater picture anymore...

They said, in America/Europe the building block of society is literally a single person, in asia, it's the family, in africa, it's the tribe.

And they vote on tribal lines mostly

Which is why they're winning...

Which makes sense imo

And genocide each other along the same lines

While our genocides have a lot more individualism tbh

What?

"GENOcides can't be individualistic!"

I mean mass murder

I know the definition doesnt fit

I just couldnt find the words at the time

Well like for instance

I'm confused...

The US war in Iraq

we killed hundreds of thousands

we just moralize it more

Total waste of money...

Africa is like wholesale kill the other tribe
Its happened alot actually

Like for instance the races/religious groups were quite often along the lines of terrorism/secularism

The US killed about 1-4 Million Iraqis by directly sanctioning medical imports btw...

I dont believe that but ok

Look it up!

But we are at war
How could we even trade with them

They could just buy from other sources

Plus it was so short

That's why there's something called the "UN" or the "WTO"...

The supplies wouldnt run out that fast

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html

Remeber! That's just children!

*remember

positive vs negative rights

UN is leftist

I'm just saying. I'm not making a moral argument.

I think thats just normal infant mortality

As if one nation has the rights to the goods of another

autistic moralizing

I agree with that

it's basic politics

Haven't you read my comment?

they make everything group A does sound bad

The UN is a garbage source

Ok now i am done

I'm NOT making a moral argument. I'm just telling you that these wars were stupid because now the Iraqis have a reason to hate you while simultaneously storming our countries....

Anyway. Was nice chatting with you guys! We might have slight disagreements but it's important to remember that we're all in the same boat, fighting for more or less the same cause!

I don’t buy horse shoe theory. It’s usually comparing communism and fascism. They are both very restrictive, but fascists understand that human nature is a thing, and a big part of that is hierarchy, and they seek to build a hierarchy that efficiently maximizes human potential based on our nature.Communist on the other hand deny human nature and seek to rebuild humans to fit a fictional, idealistic, and ultimately impossible, utopian fantasy. Fascist may be wrong. Maybe. But they’re not nearly as wrong as communist.

Hmmmm

Saved

I post this to reinforce my earlier point

@iwantfun post that in <#452955256960057385> for future use

About individualism, family(ism?), and tribalism

With the west being he center point for individual

The east (asia) for family

And africa for tribalism

we used to be more on the family side for sure
But not more than asia

@everyone 🔖 Daily Question

"Which is more important to you? Ensuring the rights of the individual or pursuing the interests of the collective?"

Individual

collective

Collective

Individual

collective

pursuing the interests of the collective seems to outweigh

but individual rights can act as a prerequisite to taht

Individual

Collective

It depends but more collective

I think collectivizing is necessary

It's not

Individualists are collectivists in their own right, one could argue

Collectivist in thought

Just not in ethnicity

You do not represent all of the millions of other whites for example, nor do they represent you

huwhite powah

Define 'represent,' because I don't claim that I do

Collective

individualist

@anonymous anonymous Depends on what, exactly?

if he can get some ebony

@Deleted User Well individual rights are a nice ideal but can be damaging, like a drug attic can say its my right to do that drug. Yes it is but that can affect other people there for it should be illegal. Because the damage ought weights the freedom.

But you could say the same about guns. But the right to defend ones self out weights the damage firearms make.

Individuals

Free speech

Wooh

whats that thing in your avi

ensuring the rights of the individual

Collective

It's rather self-evident that the interests of the collective should be prioritized over that of the individual. The near-extinction of smallpox, polio, etc from the general public were collective population-wide efforts that ended more human misery than any single advance in individual political rights ever has. Likewise one of the largest sources of misery in the public today is found in the unchecked consumption of processed foods and the resulting degradation of body, mind, and spirit- the only plausible solution to which involves collective efforts in constraining individuals. If individual rights are important at all they are only important as political tools toward collective ends, particularly as barriers towards the majority appropriating the resources of or otherwise arbitrarily oppressing the minority in ways that ultimately harm the collective.

It's also quite evident that almost every single society on the planet, even those who are supposedly committed to individual rights, is willing to jettison individual rights as seen necessary when push comes to shove during wartime in order to protect the continued existence of the collective.

Outside of a few fanatics very few people actually support individual rights in principle as terminal goods ('God Given', 'Liberty or Death' types) because doing so is fairly stupid. More often people uphold them either because they're foundational to the social order (ex: constitutional rights), because they broadly benefit them personally now and for the foreseeable future (see: the partisan shift on free speech in the past 30 years), or because they believe they are ultimately beneficial to the collective interests of their society and/or humanity (ex: justifying gun rights because it keeps the people from being shuttled into concentration camps by a tyrant).

@everyone 🔖 Daily Question

Do you believe that it is better for private companies to be in possession of your country's natural resources, or should they be in the hands of the state? Explain your reasoning.

that's a question with a lot of hypotheticals.

Hi

The State, they have to atleast pretend like they care about the integrity of the Nation and not destroy everything for shekels.

They should be in the hands of whomever gets them /shrug

INDIVIDUAL

commie

COLLECTIVE

commie

I am a libertarian

he means libertarian (socialist)

Private ownership is best for resources

wew imagine someone unironically saying that

I am a libertarian

I'd say private for a general answer but really depends on the resource and situation in question

Private ownership of land and resources but only for individuals and companies native to the country. Free trade benefits us all, but we shouldn’t allow other nations to rob us of the fruits of our own lands. Take Romania for example. Germany is fucking the shit out of them. Germany has strict rules when it comes to cutting timber in Germany , so they just go to Romania, buy the land from poor farmers, and clear the forest out. It’s bull shit.

And Romania can’t do anything because the EU forces them to let Germany in.

abolish the EU

and the UN

STATE

Private Ownership is good in fields where quality outweighs necessity

Privately owned things will be managed in such a way that are most beneficial for the company. So services and some products. But the nation should directly control its resources, as they pertain directly to the nation. They are a necessity of the state if not the populace itself.

The whole point of The United States of America is to make the title President of The United States of America not the most powerful one in the world.

Reduce federalism

Agreed

If people gain power of the current USA who really shouldn't, we're in trouble. Bring back statism

Im a regionalist

It's called regionalism? I thought it was just statism

I believe in organized cooperative secession between the cultural regions of the USA. I.e., I want all nations to work together to achieve their own sovreignty

@Deleted User depends on the quality of the individuals in said country

I think that political systems overall are very subjective

it depends on the populace

for instance I think most whites have lost their sense of purpose and way in life, in the USA, Europe, etc.

So while I oppose statism as I believe it to be not optimal, it might be beneficial for the state to own the resources and use them to give people a national purpose and thus unity

The USA right now has no reason to exist. The whites in the USA thus have no reason to exist beyond personal ones, which most people don't have. They're sleepwalking through life while brown people slowly replace them.