Message from Convo in Vibrant Diversity #effortposting

2017-03-22 22:40:40 UTC  

10 years or more

2017-03-22 22:40:59 UTC  

at the moment I would be willing to ally with Hotep or Commies or literally anyone that is anti globalist and anti immigration

2017-03-22 22:41:12 UTC  

What i meant by the sword analogy was

2017-03-22 22:41:45 UTC  

some guy who comes up to me and says "Gee whizz convo, you're sure not creating an IMPERIVM EVROPA by allying with communists."

2017-03-22 22:41:49 UTC  

is equivalent to a guy saying

2017-03-22 22:42:24 UTC  

"Gee whizz, why are you cutting your 700lb slab of metal? You should sharpen it so it can be closer to your ideal IMMEDIATELY."

2017-03-22 22:42:38 UTC  

"put a handle on the 700lb piece of metal, that way it will IMMEDIATELY be like a sword"

2017-03-22 22:42:56 UTC  

this is a hypothetical though

2017-03-22 22:43:05 UTC  

I do not foresee any situation where I might want to ally with a communist

2017-03-22 22:43:24 UTC  

but if there was a situation I would take it up in a heartbeat, we're fighting for not only our survival but the existance of order and life in the universe

2017-03-22 22:44:23 UTC  

Yeah. I agree.

2017-03-22 22:51:46 UTC  

I guess I was shifting to a more ideal future time in which our people were already strong again. Even then someone will occasionally be born with a physical defect or something. And at that point, it I think it might be wise to use a case by case strategy. For instance, maybe there's a guy born with a gimp arm, but is a badass still with only one arm, then he's probably making the group as a whole better off and maybe should not be kicked out. That said, there are probably things which can get someone booted regardless of their otherwise good qualities, for instance committing unsanctioned violence against another member of the tribe.

2017-03-23 00:48:13 UTC  

not mine but pretty good

2017-03-23 13:43:05 UTC  

"libruls r da REAL warmongers" is babby's first redpill

they're retards that believe what they're told because they get cummies if they do

2017-03-23 13:43:45 UTC  

What I think is interesting is the discussion on whether there is a "ghost in the machine" orchestrating all of this for some sort of goal

2017-03-23 13:44:19 UTC  

or whether it's just a bunch of jews kvetching forever with no logic or goal, and they will jew themselves over and end all life in the universe because they're too jewish to realize what they're doing.

2017-03-23 14:00:34 UTC

2017-03-23 14:18:41 UTC  

I think its a mix of both kvetching and goals

2017-03-23 14:38:37 UTC  


2017-03-23 14:39:16 UTC  

good effortpost

2017-03-23 14:39:20 UTC

2017-03-23 14:39:35 UTC  

Thanks! I worked really hard on it

2017-03-24 21:56:52 UTC  

"Then during my civic nationalist phase when I was becoming interested in Governance structures I recognized there was something that the American constitution was lacking, that being there is no head and thus no assurance of the veracity of your legal system. The united states legislative system lacked something identified by the Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI when he established a modern state in Sicily with a normative and legislative body, which relied upon Roman law, as opposed to canon law which presented him with a problem, who governs the magistrates? Since in the US and eventually all democratically governed judiciaries Judges, rather than obeying and upholding precedent and taking a traditional interpretation of the law they will eventually be vulnerable to corruption and selective interpretation of legislation to the point where the legislative branch might as well not exist at all as the judicial branch is effectively and functionally sovereign. The only way of avoiding this is to have the hereditary element at the head of your state for their anti corruption element, managing the veracity of the judiciary is a traditional responsibility and seems to be the only method geared towards the judiciary performing the function they are ...

2017-03-24 21:56:55 UTC  

intended to perform. Sicily had a loose legal precedence of primarily byzantine origin with some Norman centralization and Henry created a legal system of weights and balances like the american system. However in order to maintain the traditional interpretation of the constitution he made the Judicial branch of government subservient to the crown, thereby maintaining the veracity of the judicial system as the monarch had no incentive to corrupt his own legal system and remove his subjects access to justice and he could even be trusted to appoint a deputy to ensure the validity of the judiciary and his deputy would be subservient to the monarch in much the same way a chairman owner can appoint a CEO to run day to day affairs with minimal oversight, the point is the competent and meritocratically appointed position of CEO can never do the same job as the owner, the owner must ensure the work of the CEO, who’s descendants will never inherit their position, is being done; the CEO can’t do this themselves, and has no natural incentive to do so. A CEO has the incentive to go to board meetings due to his salary but the owner/shareholders must keep him in line and ensure his work is done; this is because they either nominally or substantively believe the business to be theirs because they own it and any vicissitudes of the business are felt by them personally. Weather or not the monarchy is limited, civil or absolute a monarch is either nominally or substantively the owner of the country, weather or not you wish to denote them with that honour in name or a first among equals policy to the monarch the principle is the same." - Ælle Sussex, Forum anlgorum media

2017-03-26 03:58:05 UTC  


2017-03-26 04:10:03 UTC  


2017-03-27 03:00:18 UTC  

Have you read "The Nigger Question"? It's a great essay by Thomas Carlyle

2017-03-27 04:03:49 UTC  

what server is this in?

2017-03-27 04:05:09 UTC  

Common Filth

2017-03-27 04:10:47 UTC  

skeletonkang is obnoxious

2017-03-27 15:31:36 UTC  

how can you save the white race if you accelerate white genocide?

2017-03-27 18:34:23 UTC  

@Campin' Carl I think the CF critique raises a few fundamental questions to consider.

2017-03-27 18:36:32 UTC  

The first one that comes to mind is rooted in the Collectivist ethos vs. Individualist ethos.

2017-03-27 18:46:12 UTC  

If we accept CF's observations as valid and agree that these are, in fact, negative traits, then it becomes very difficult to reconcile the bad apples within a Collectivist framework.

2017-03-27 18:55:25 UTC  

Assuming that our ideology is rooted in a Collectivist ethos, the only way to maintain ideological "purity" when addressing the "bad apples" is to establish a narrower definition of our collective and who its constituents include.

2017-03-27 19:02:57 UTC  

I think that most people who try to address this issue typically opt for this "maintain ideological purity" approach. As of now, the debate over what definition is best is still on-going; in the meantime, everyone usually sticks with broad default of "White Gentiles".

2017-03-28 03:56:08 UTC  
2017-03-31 22:58:45 UTC  

@Roscoe Living in 2017 and not listening to ExAmericanus the day it comes out=SMDHFAMYBITO

2017-03-31 22:59:31 UTC  

Shiggity, fam.

2017-04-01 18:06:48 UTC  

Assault Doge lol