> The circumstance of Superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man?

- Thomas Jefferson on Whites

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/ThomasJefferson.htm

So much for Nazism @Monstrous Moonshine

People agreed with us back in 1776

This Reductio ad Hitlerum is a convenient strategy to fall back to

To generate a visceral reaction

And relies on feelings than facts

It’s such a easy claim to blow out of the water, our beliefs are older than communism.

Also I don’t like Richard

I’m much more of a Nick Fuentes guy even though he’s a paleo con

Because unlike Richard, Nick is actually advancing

https://youtu.be/p6n-ZFUSV18

In other news, Crowder did a much better job than Kirk

Yeah he was afraid

That’s probably what made him more sober about how to respond

The last thing he said, "we don't all have to be like the left, we don't have to follow lockstep and silence people we disagree with" a) showed a lot of awareness to the question as a groyper question and b) is a dig at Charlie Kirk

Crowder has a pretty poor argument, but I know it resonates with Groypers because it's such a poor argument.

I mean, "marriage is not a human right, it's a privilege". And so is "citizenship" so de-citizen niggers and deport them all, shoot if they resist, because human rights were not violated.

Well, that resonates with paleoconservativism because niggers weren't supposed to intermingle with whites.

But it's a piss poor argument.

Marriage to citizenship is quite the leap, marriage isn’t a right, otherwise the incels would have a point when they talk about state mandated girlfriends

If you reject equality under the law and only refer to inalienable rights, you can remove privileges arbitrarily. Why should a nigger be allowed to own a car?

I mean, it's not a human right! It's a privilege. Privilege can be taken away.

A skin color test might be a good way to determine who loses his driving license.

That doesn’t really have anything to do with equity under the law or inalienable rights. In fact here in the US driving is JUST a privilege the state can just take away at the snap of their fingers

whoa - who's talking about rejecting equality under the law?

But we don’t see blacks losing their cars

Well unless they break the law but that’s the same with whites and other races

@snake But should it done to niggers for being dark-skinned, and why not? Not talking about traffic violations here.

No, what would be the point of that?

What is the point of gays not having a way to get state-based marriage benefits like heterosexual couples?

And before you go with "children", do acknowledge that people with tubes tied can get married.

Why should sterile heterosexual couple have the privilege of marriage?

Maybe they shouldn’t

Yeah, but **we don't hear Crowder or Groypers arguing that**.

We hear them being anti-gay but not anti-sterile.

Because it hasn’t been brought up

They have the chance to bring it up, yet they bring up gays instead. You cannot blame a third party for them to use bad arguments.

If you went on twitter or payed Nick Fuentes 1 buck on his stream to ask the question then you’ll get the answer

If marriage is for children, marriage should **NOT** be allowed to childree heterosexuals. They should get at least a certificate of pregnancy. (edited)

It’s not a bad argument, because the focus is on gays which is LGBT