Message from @ram3n
Discord ID: 368077497155321856
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
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?
no
being a nice person and having the morality to assist your fellow white man is not communism
I suppose I want a drawn border between altruism and socialism
if a community forced me to share then is it socialist
but if I share on my own accord is it charity?
being forced to share is leaning to communism, i believe
as in the great words of adolf hitler "instead we say: german people, help yourself"
@Roman Dreams your question is fundamentally an anthropolical one... why does indifference and alturism exist simultaneously in the same species?
the answer has to do with social habits, dunbar's number, in-group/out-group, and kin selection
dunbar's number refers to how many primates can exist in one social group, as extrapolated by brain measurement... Robin Dunbar measured the brain and the troop size of many different kinds of primate and found that this roughly correlates
our number is about 150... meaning we can only keep track of our social obligations to about 150 people, and remember their obligations to us