> I bet sanic has a fursuit
No, but I am a neckbeard and I have a fedora.

Well, a Russian gopnik could look like Harris, but Harris isn't considered white.

Yeah, get this guy older and unshaven.

He is as white as Harris.

The good Harris. Not the Kamala version.

Sure, he looks like a guy who would ask me for 20 rubles, because he has only 12 for his beer.

But I can't recognize a "pale arab" there.

His mother is "Jewish" though.

Explains what? He is as white as it gets.

Hmmmm.

I am pretty sure that a group able to produce fertile offsprings among each other is considered one species.

It's fine as long as it's fertile. Tigers and Lions look like cats but they are different species. If you make a hybrid, it's sterile.

I fail to register it. The upper guy has some arab in him. Or someone else from the middle east. The bottom one doesn't.

Well, my grandparents call everyone richer than them a jew. I guess that could work.

But anyway, I have recently watched a Contrapoints video "why is altright wrong" and it boils down to "nazis started like white nationalists, so they will end up the same".

Spot the issue with this argument.

When lefties refuse to think logically, no wonder they can't convince anyone that they are not lunatics.

Yeah, sure. Now let's argue the white ethnostate against the stormfront's premises.
> 1. A country for every race!
> 2. We don't need to be violent to do so!
> 3. We do not claim superiority, we just wanna be left alone!

There are already countries with mixed populations. The US, Russia and even China are not ethnostates. Ethnostating them is gonna cost resources and even if you do it non-violently there is gonna be some resistance(which only makes your penis harder, but that's beyond the point). Assuming you manage to do so, you have several states segregated by race.

Considering that the Black Queen exists

We will always see people trying to crossbreed.

We have to suppress that, preferably by physical and communicational isolation. To keep it non-violent.

After all, we don't want RAIDS evicting people not fitting into any ethnostate into the open space, right? That's violence.

So, we succeeded. The issues is that due to having separated states and no communication we have nations with significantly different levels of technological progress and quality of life, who have no idea what are the others up to. The perfect ground to demonize them, which people historically did in similar conditions.

That would lead to conflict, maybe even full scale war. Meaning that sustaining ethnostates non-violently is a very fragile equlibrium that is unlikely to be sustained.

```Masks off now. We don't want to do it peacefully. Say, nazis are right. We want to secure the future of our people, whatever it takes, **by any means necessary**. A bit radical, but let's look into this. Let's even say that you are likely to win.```

What are my direct offsprings more likely to survive, the war against black guerillas(pun intended) or having a slightly tanned skin?

For me the answer is very clear. I don't want any war for my children, so I would gladly give up some "whiteness" to make sure they don't get exploded by some suicide bomber or shot at actual war.

```But hey man, we actually didn't mean that we don't claim superiority. You see, blacks are actually inferior and have lower IQ. We just said that we don't claim superiorty so we don't get wiped off the face of the internet by the opposition. I don't want my kids to be dumb. I'd rather risk my kids dying than sacrificing their 10-20-30-50 IQ points.```

What a wonderful argument. You see, IQ pretty much defines your social standing regardless of your race and CEOs usually don't breed with plumbers. Sexual selection is enough to make sure that your kids, even if they are black*er*, are not much dumber. Basically, even if 0.5% black people are as good as your race on average, there is no reason to bar them from breeding with you, especially doing it artificially.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This is how you argue against ethnostates. Not THIS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyV0yeSZ94o

These degenerates will disappear as we slowly transition to the global state. You don't open borders to everyone to come in, obviously.

But why? Race mixing is awesome.

The reason the US has a crime-infested ghetto is exactly that, segregation. America could be slightly blacker but without THIS:

Mexico is a different issue. Actually, it does have nothing to do with race. Russia was the same as Mexico in 90s, but it fixed itself without changing the race.

There is no need to enforce anything.

It's a natural conclusion of having the internet.

Sure. It will just make it easier to have the global tribe.

But even if you disagree with my idea about the global state, you have to give me that - there are more coherent arguments against the ethnostate than "nazis did it, so it's wrong".

Should I list how it's bad from their perspective or from the rest of the world's perspective?

Watching. I don't believe in magic ships if we got rid of all the niggers/arabs/mexicans/chinks, but let's see your video.

Your offsprings can still have it, even if they turn out slightly more tanned than you.

At less cost than having a military against everyone.

You mix up globalism for "OPEN BORDERS NAO".

Just like I believe capitalism to be a necessary mechanism for the end goal of communism, so do I believe borders to be a necessary step to a sustainable global state. Just opening borders would result in a bloodbath.

Do you have any good arguments against communism?

Apart from the fact that you can't afford it right now, of course.

Russia can't have coups without invervention and Russia can't have an intervention because of nukes. We have so many nukes that even if we, without any warhead delivery, just nuked ourselves, the western hemisphere would feel it.

But that's beyond the point. Communism. Why is it bad?

True. Why does it not work? It's important.

No, there is a simple answer. Communist systems do not abuse human psyche to do useful stuff as efficiently as capitalist systems do. Communism needs the entire population to be fanatical idealists, which is not proven to be achieveable and trying to do so always results in millions of murdered dissenters.

> Alright so what would happend if a country doesn't want globalism
> What would happend then
Have you ever seen a huge business consuming the smaller one? The supermarket selling oranges for $3 while a tent with a woman can only afford selling them for $4?

There is no violence required to deal with the woman. She is free to do whatever she likes. She won't be there for long, she is not competitive. Unless there is some anti-monopoly policy supporting her.

And there is no anti-monopoly policy supporting a group of hippies deciding to create their own country.

I think it's an overstatement, at the very least.

Nah, I'll watch it. But let me tell you a story about actual hate. Back in monarchy times, Poland was huge. And it was in constant state of war with Russia. Before it lost. So it hated Russia.
So it hated Russia up until the point when Russia united with Hitler and took half the Poland for themselves and appended it to Ukraine, rrrright with the population. Then they took 20000 PoW officers and shot them all for no reason.

Poland didn't like it, somehow. Both the German and the Ukrainian parts. So Ukraine as a whole didn't like Russia anymore. And neither did the German chunk, even after it was liberated from Hitler.

And even in this state I can find myself a Polish girlfriend and immigrate to Poland.

Or Ukrainian one and immigrate to the Ukraine(why the hell would I do that tho).

So...what do Jews have against me, again?

Latvia got it hard, but not as hard as Poland.

It was split even before that. Its entire history after wars with Russia is splitting.

So, they hate Russia, but they don't hate individual Russians. Everything is resolvable on a personal level.

Through online communities, through tourism, through marriages.

I will, but I don't have to.

Yeah, we forgot Japan. So why is Japanese ethnostate bad? Well, it's not too bad. Mostly because it's not an ethnostate. You can still immigrate there, marriage is not forbidden or smth.

Is it more difficult to come there for a random Somali guy? No shit. But it's not an ethnostate.

Not something Stormfront argues for.

And not something they specifically force.

Whatever. You can be black and live in Japan.

Happily married and having kids.

And - just think about that - the *blackness* will spreeeeead through the population. 10-15 generations and half the country is gonna have a drop of black blood in them. Reeeeee?

Oh! It explains everything. So you don't want an actual ethnostate. You just don't want people coming to a capitalist country and living like it's a communist one.

What can I say, it has nothing to do with ethnostates.

You can have both when you automate the entire world and all humans are useless regardless of their IQ.

Both can be automated. But I see your point, you are looking at the point when 10% people are useful and 90% people are useless. Capitalism is still viable here, just with high welfare tax. We don't want people dying and rotting on the streets. Shit like that won't hit just *niggers*.

Well, limit the welfare so they can't breed like crazy. Support the population you can afford, not the infinite growth.

Because there can be no infinite growth, at least according to current understanding of physics. We can't leave the local group. Sad.

> Well What if we just got rid of all shitty socialist practies the goverment has
We can't get rid of them completely. Even native population, without any immigration, has 10% people below the IQ threshold and there are other disabled and otherwise incapable people out there. Yes, they are useless and they delay the progress, but your offsprings will be in their place one day.

So just outright murdering them would be ethically inconsistent.

This is where Hitler was wrong when he killed mentally ill.

I agree that you shouldn't support the entire world of immigrants with welfare. It's weird. You can elevate shithole countries to your level and monopolize the world to use it more efficiently though. So people live where it's best to live and produce food where it's best to produce food.

And I don't mean pouring resources into them and hoping it sticks. It's everything. Let's start with cultural reform of Muslims. They are going through the same stuff that took Christians 400 years. And I don't think we want it in the world with nuclear weapons.

So it has to be faster and more controlled.

Not everyone has a family and the number of useless people is gonna grow over time.

There is no "naturally die". There is starvation and corpses on streets. And you don't need a lot of IQ to build a bomb and explode yourself before you starve to send the message.

It doesn't, because everyone has welfare. Even Russia does.

It's not enough to live even remotely comfortable. It's enough just to survive.

But it's there. It's necessary.

Oh, this thing. We don't have welfare for *immigrants*. They have to claim welfare in their home country. It's fair.

But let's take a look at, again, my country. We have Belarus as a neighbour. Separate government, separate rules, but there is plenty of social stuff you can claim in either country if you need it. We have as close to open borders as it gets.

Because we are culturally and economically pretty close to each other.

We don't have a mass immigration from either country to abuse something.

I can think of theoretical example when mass immigration is neutral.

Nope. But you can have a situation with people of all IQs immigrating. Like, I dunno, war.

Waait a minute. America can't stop giving billions to Israel.

Israel is the America's puppet to wage war with Russia's puppets.

It needs money.