Yeah, I thought that was weird. Trees tend to agree with me

Very true

I'm not sure of the benefits post-1965

You can consider people equals but wish them separate

There may have been Fouding Fathers who wanted to abolish slavery, but none of them wanted the Africans to stay

There was actually a government program back then to buy slaves and ship them back to Africa. I believe Monroe was the last president where that was a thing.

I agree that sending them back was/is wrong. John Jay's quote in one of the pics above is really the crux of all of this. The government and people of the United States were made for each other in that they are the same -- ethnically, religiously, etc. Whereas multiethnic societies tend to host several, several problems. Africans in the Americas had been separate for hundreds of years, they aren't African in the same sense those still there are.

And with that, a separate African state in the Americas is really the only solution which fits that philosophy.

I think what I said will happen regardless if it's intentional or not

It's really what happened to any multi-ethnic empire or republic

Who outperforms whom is irrelevant, really

>*"Anything beyond right of me is larping"*

>inb4 horseshoe

I assume you mean like Fascism and Nat Soc?

Well, depending on who you ask, they aren't even on that spectrum

I'm sure you've come across that, maybe

lol

I agree there is a ridiculous amount of larping in the Nat Soc/Fascism sphere, and I agree some of the things you're calling larping is larping, i.e.: *"Let's carve up America into ideal states"*. What I'm saying is that ethnostates are born naturally regardless of intent.

In what way do you mean

I'm not even sure what you're arguing, really. The US and Canada are both still majority white, and that is where people of the Old World flock to.

Assuming you mean that immigration established this, or something

Well, I can agree with that, assuming you're not using a very laxed range. When whites obtain minority status toward the year 2050, something is bound to happen beyond that point in regards to what I'm saying.

Does that mean it really doesn't matter at all? What if one of the minority groups within that 25% held disproportionate power?

To keep things simple, let's just say a majority seats in government or in multiple branches

Well, that's not the only reason

On average, whites are the only net producers for the economy (aside from Asians and Jews, who make up only 3% or so of the population)

Would you say racial tension is not natural, I suppose?

purely societal?

Most Tejanos I've ever encountered strongly relate to their Latin American roots.
Are you actually Jewish? I know you get accused of it, but idk if that's because of opinions or that you actually are

I see

So what of Jews who don't consider themselves white?

Are you Ashkenazi?

I'm familiar

So, then what do you say about genetic tests being able to tell Ashkenazim apart from Europeans?

Well, yeah, that goes back to your wondering about Tejanos

Yeah, I can agree with what you're saying to some degree

Are you religiously Jewish as well?

So, I suppose marrying a non-Jew is not out of the question then for you

or is it

such as

At the point that Jews are considered non-white, I doubt there'd be much favor for them

fair

with Jews specifically?

lol

I was interested to pick your brain, moreso

That's not an unfair assessment

not as antisemitic as some, sure, but most anyone would consider me so

I have yet to read MacDonald. I would not say you're intrinsically evil, though.

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.

it's in the picture

bottom

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

I'm speaking to the philosophy behind it

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

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

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

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

equally wrong

Ethnostates throughout history have had small minorities

They are just especially small

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

all good

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.

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

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

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

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

Yeah

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

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

being the ethnostate, I assume you mean in this case

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

That he was

let me ask you this

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

Do you ever play poker?

How conservatively do you bet?

Well, how do you play, though

Can't say I'm an avid player

I was just curious how risk averse you were

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

I see

*

*

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

but I tend to agree with you

https://prnt.sc/m1rlk5

@Meowffenϟϟ™©®

I've been kinda interested the split between "libertarian" sorts and the more "fascist" sorts, but I assume that's already been a poll and I just don't recall

The results of some polls surprise me here, honestly, but I assume that's because of the number of libertarians

Except they invaded in the Spring

He retasked Feder von Bock, after several failed attempts at taking Moscow, to trying to take Stalingrad 🤷🏻

Hindsight is 20/20, friend. Hard to criticize, really

I don't really think he thought he was "superior". Also, he only attacked the Soviets after they encroached on Romania (who was his ally) and already took all of the Baltic states and invaded Finland. Clearly they were moving West

I didn't realize this type of content still had viewers