Well, I would suggest doing research on other regions every 5 years or something like that. The entire world is pretty volatile right now and things could change. When nonwhites have control of the nukes in the West, we shouldn't have already taken the option of having a colonies in the southern hemisphere off the table.

Either way, thanks for the back and forth. I appreciate it.

sure thing

Building in Africa is a bad idea... because it would be awesome and nogs would nog it up and want in on it.

Thailand is also a bad idea

You wouldn't get enough people to come and stay to maintain a pure bloodline

Southern Brazil is a slightly better idea (I was born in Northeastern Brazil)

and places like thailand simply do not have good land that isnt already occupied by lots of brown people

there's a LOT of pure europeans in the southernmost two or 3 states

and the weather is really good

and the people are awesome, and very beautful

Patagonia is an option

Patagonia is good if you don't mind the occasional earthquake, but it lacks big game

and a stable European population

We'd have a hard time getting people over there, and having them stay there

PNW is our only option, and there's also Appalachia

Say what you will about the current state of politics, at the end of the day America is still the only country with 112 guns per capita

and that means alot

yeah it really does

There's a reason why it's the core state of Western Civilization, while also being one of the youngest

Giving that up isn't wise

the European people here are just too valuable. The culture we've built is too valuable.

i ❤ america

Furthermore, in many of the countries that have low gun ownership, many of those guns are owned by warlords, druglords, and various other criminals (that list doesn't include guns owned by the military). As much as shitlibs like to whine about Americas gun culture, the guns are still mostly owned by decent citizens which is very important, and if there's ever a chimpout, all of your neighbors will be ready to shoot.

>mfw supposed las vegas shooter could just be shot at and killed if people in las vegas decided to have guns

there's a reason we have guns, and that's to stop criminals and defend ourselves from the government should they ever become tyrannical

Also should the government ever collapse, having a gun in the hand of every law-abiding citizen is critical to maintaining order

In deep red, very conservative (very white) places in this country, almost everyone owns a gun, and a large percentage of people carry guns all the time... no problems

but when black people in urban areas have guns, it's a war zone

so if there ever was a SHTF situation, I'd fel much safer around white people with guns than around white people without guns

>mfw africans went from spear chuckers to bullet chuckers because "muh slavery"

kek

I have a question about nationalism and accepting inequality, but still wanting to live in an altruistic community that shares and helps each other

how can the two simultaneously exist without being hypocritical?

for instance if there was ever a family that was on the brink of going homeless and another accepts them into their house is that gearing more towards communism?

what do you mean? Theres a middle ground between anarcho-capitalism and communism

not really

helping your neighbors is not communism

^

are people who donate to charities inherently communist?