Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

White Supramacy and White Nationalism

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 5:35:46 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?

Because Europe is the only white homeland, and the white race has no right to demand special treatment anywhere else. Not in the United States or elsewhere.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 5:41:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 5:35:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?

Because Europe is the only white homeland, and the white race has no right to demand special treatment anywhere else. Not in the United States or elsewhere.

Why should minority races be excluded from equal treatment or citizenship in Europe?
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 5:52:48 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 5:35:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?

Because Europe is the only white homeland, and the white race has no right to demand special treatment anywhere else. Not in the United States or elsewhere.

Why not the US? You think they'd be especially able to demand special treatment in the US right?
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:03:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 5:41:16 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:35:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?

Because Europe is the only white homeland, and the white race has no right to demand special treatment anywhere else. Not in the United States or elsewhere.

Why should minority races be excluded from equal treatment or citizenship in Europe?

The question isn't of "equal treatment". The question is of ensuring that the white race remains dominant (the majority) in its native land. A few minorities here and there aren't anything to worry about. Furthermore, native European culture should take special precedence in Europe over, say, Shariah Law, though a few people here and there practicing foreign ways of life and speaking a foreign language is nothing to worry about.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:11:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:03:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:41:16 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:35:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?

Because Europe is the only white homeland, and the white race has no right to demand special treatment anywhere else. Not in the United States or elsewhere.

Why should minority races be excluded from equal treatment or citizenship in Europe?

The question isn't of "equal treatment". The question is of ensuring that the white race remains dominant (the majority) in its native land. A few minorities here and there aren't anything to worry about. Furthermore, native European culture should take special precedence in Europe over, say, Shariah Law, though a few people here and there practicing foreign ways of life and speaking a foreign language is nothing to worry about.

Whites can remain the majority, and European culture can remain dominant without the need to discriminate or exclude minority races.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:13:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 5:52:48 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:35:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?

Because Europe is the only white homeland, and the white race has no right to demand special treatment anywhere else. Not in the United States or elsewhere.

Why not the US? You think they'd be especially able to demand special treatment in the US right?

The sheer absurdity of giving the entire contemporary Western Hemisphere to 60 million people (and deporting 900 million people who were born here and lived here their entire lives) means that through unfortunate circumstances the Native Americans have been forced to forever give up their position as the dominant group of North and South America. Rather than being the exclusive Native Americans, the American Indians are instead the "First Americans", for everyone who was born and raised here is a Native American and has a right to live here. In the contemporary New World, there are dominant groups in the sense of majority-minority, but no group should be given special treatment.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:17:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
As time goes by, immigration and differing birth rates across different groups will inevitably alter the demographics of the United States. Unlike in other parts of the world, no special measure to "keep one race out" should be enforced, except maybe in emergency situations to prevent terrorism or to prevent immigrants from an enemy nation committing acts of sabotage or whatnot.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:18:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:11:41 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:03:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:41:16 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:35:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?

Because Europe is the only white homeland, and the white race has no right to demand special treatment anywhere else. Not in the United States or elsewhere.

Why should minority races be excluded from equal treatment or citizenship in Europe?

The question isn't of "equal treatment". The question is of ensuring that the white race remains dominant (the majority) in its native land. A few minorities here and there aren't anything to worry about. Furthermore, native European culture should take special precedence in Europe over, say, Shariah Law, though a few people here and there practicing foreign ways of life and speaking a foreign language is nothing to worry about.

Whites can remain the majority, and European culture can remain dominant without the need to discriminate or exclude minority races.

It'd be nice if this were true, but large-scale immigration to the European continent can have a visible effect on the demographics after a few centuries.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:19:59 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:18:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:11:41 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:03:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:41:16 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:35:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?

Because Europe is the only white homeland, and the white race has no right to demand special treatment anywhere else. Not in the United States or elsewhere.

Why should minority races be excluded from equal treatment or citizenship in Europe?

The question isn't of "equal treatment". The question is of ensuring that the white race remains dominant (the majority) in its native land. A few minorities here and there aren't anything to worry about. Furthermore, native European culture should take special precedence in Europe over, say, Shariah Law, though a few people here and there practicing foreign ways of life and speaking a foreign language is nothing to worry about.

Whites can remain the majority, and European culture can remain dominant without the need to discriminate or exclude minority races.

It'd be nice if this were true, but large-scale immigration to the European continent can have a visible effect on the demographics after a few centuries.

Why is white supremacy/nationalism needed if you can simply restrict immigration to those who culturally assimilate and won't cause any issues??
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:28:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:19:59 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:18:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:11:41 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:03:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:41:16 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:35:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?

Because Europe is the only white homeland, and the white race has no right to demand special treatment anywhere else. Not in the United States or elsewhere.

Why should minority races be excluded from equal treatment or citizenship in Europe?

The question isn't of "equal treatment". The question is of ensuring that the white race remains dominant (the majority) in its native land. A few minorities here and there aren't anything to worry about. Furthermore, native European culture should take special precedence in Europe over, say, Shariah Law, though a few people here and there practicing foreign ways of life and speaking a foreign language is nothing to worry about.

Whites can remain the majority, and European culture can remain dominant without the need to discriminate or exclude minority races.

It'd be nice if this were true, but large-scale immigration to the European continent can have a visible effect on the demographics after a few centuries.

Why is white supremacy/nationalism needed if you can simply restrict immigration to those who culturally assimilate and won't cause any issues??

To elaborate, Switzerland has a very good immigration policy where they exclude and deny citizenship to those who refuse to culturally assimilate. Switzerland also has a muslim population equal to the UK in terms of percentages, but it isn't a problem in Switzerland due to their strict cultural assimilation policies with immigration. This is all accomplished without the need for white nationalism/supremacy existing in mainstream Swiss society.
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:30:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:28:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:19:59 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:18:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:11:41 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:03:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:41:16 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:35:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Also why not the U.S?

Because Europe is the only white homeland, and the white race has no right to demand special treatment anywhere else. Not in the United States or elsewhere.

Why should minority races be excluded from equal treatment or citizenship in Europe?

The question isn't of "equal treatment". The question is of ensuring that the white race remains dominant (the majority) in its native land. A few minorities here and there aren't anything to worry about. Furthermore, native European culture should take special precedence in Europe over, say, Shariah Law, though a few people here and there practicing foreign ways of life and speaking a foreign language is nothing to worry about.

Whites can remain the majority, and European culture can remain dominant without the need to discriminate or exclude minority races.

It'd be nice if this were true, but large-scale immigration to the European continent can have a visible effect on the demographics after a few centuries.

Why is white supremacy/nationalism needed if you can simply restrict immigration to those who culturally assimilate and won't cause any issues??

To elaborate, Switzerland has a very good immigration policy where they exclude and deny citizenship to those who refuse to culturally assimilate. Switzerland also has a muslim population equal to the UK in terms of percentages, but it isn't a problem in Switzerland due to their strict cultural assimilation policies with immigration. This is all accomplished without the need for white nationalism/supremacy existing in mainstream Swiss society.

White supremacy is the belief that whites are better than every other race. Therefore you cannot exactly control what people want to believe. If they want to believe they're better than everyone else that's their own choice. Sure it's not needed, but it can't exactly be controlled.
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:33:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:30:52 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:

White supremacy is the belief that whites are better than every other race. Therefore you cannot exactly control what people want to believe. If they want to believe they're better than everyone else that's their own choice. Sure it's not needed, but it can't exactly be controlled.

That's different from white Nationalism.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:35:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:28:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:19:59 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:18:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:11:41 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Whites can remain the majority, and European culture can remain dominant without the need to discriminate or exclude minority races.

It'd be nice if this were true, but large-scale immigration to the European continent can have a visible effect on the demographics after a few centuries.

Why is white supremacy/nationalism needed if you can simply restrict immigration to those who culturally assimilate and won't cause any issues??

To elaborate, Switzerland has a very good immigration policy where they exclude and deny citizenship to those who refuse to culturally assimilate. Switzerland also has a muslim population equal to the UK in terms of percentages, but it isn't a problem in Switzerland due to their strict cultural assimilation policies with immigration. This is all accomplished without the need for white nationalism/supremacy existing in mainstream Swiss society.

Switzerland is fairly unique among European nations in not being an ethno-state in any real sense. The Swiss have always had linguistic and ethnic diversity, they are instead bound together by alpine culture. That isn't true of France, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Italy or England.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:44:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:35:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:28:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:19:59 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:18:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:11:41 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Whites can remain the majority, and European culture can remain dominant without the need to discriminate or exclude minority races.

It'd be nice if this were true, but large-scale immigration to the European continent can have a visible effect on the demographics after a few centuries.

Why is white supremacy/nationalism needed if you can simply restrict immigration to those who culturally assimilate and won't cause any issues??

To elaborate, Switzerland has a very good immigration policy where they exclude and deny citizenship to those who refuse to culturally assimilate. Switzerland also has a muslim population equal to the UK in terms of percentages, but it isn't a problem in Switzerland due to their strict cultural assimilation policies with immigration. This is all accomplished without the need for white nationalism/supremacy existing in mainstream Swiss society.

Switzerland is fairly unique among European nations in not being an ethno-state in any real sense. The Swiss have always had linguistic and ethnic diversity, they are instead bound together by alpine culture. That isn't true of France, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Italy or England.

True, but their cultural mix should remain European. They are better off with not allowing cultures from areas such as the middle east.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:59:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:44:20 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:35:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:28:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:19:59 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:18:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:11:41 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Whites can remain the majority, and European culture can remain dominant without the need to discriminate or exclude minority races.

It'd be nice if this were true, but large-scale immigration to the European continent can have a visible effect on the demographics after a few centuries.

Why is white supremacy/nationalism needed if you can simply restrict immigration to those who culturally assimilate and won't cause any issues??

To elaborate, Switzerland has a very good immigration policy where they exclude and deny citizenship to those who refuse to culturally assimilate. Switzerland also has a muslim population equal to the UK in terms of percentages, but it isn't a problem in Switzerland due to their strict cultural assimilation policies with immigration. This is all accomplished without the need for white nationalism/supremacy existing in mainstream Swiss society.

Switzerland is fairly unique among European nations in not being an ethno-state in any real sense. The Swiss have always had linguistic and ethnic diversity, they are instead bound together by alpine culture. That isn't true of France, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Italy or England.

True, but their cultural mix should remain European. They are better off with not allowing cultures from areas such as the middle east.

Oh, I agree; Switzerland's culture is their bond, it's why they're so protective of it. But Switzerland is a amalgamation of other European ethnic groups. It's not the 'last line' for any of them. If France ceases to be French, then French people will not have a homeland. That's why ethnonationalism is important for them. I think that Americans are a little ignorant on this point because, as Vox rightly pointed out, the US is not a 'racial homeland'. So the idea that 'this country should be x race' has been understandably ridiculed in a nation founded on recent displacement. Then they see someone say that 'France should be French', and they drop context and just transfer that disdain that's programmed into them to a situation where it's improper. It's also tied up with white guilt. If you told a white American that Armenians would be displaced in order to mollify new Azeri demands, there would be a sense of injustice there, because you would be depriving a people of their homeland. I mean, they have that sense of injustice when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on both sides. But we've largely been conditioned to not to feel this for our own people.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 7:08:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy

Silly.

White Nationalism?

Good in Europe.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 11:47:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:59:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:44:20 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:35:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:28:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:19:59 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:18:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:11:41 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Whites can remain the majority, and European culture can remain dominant without the need to discriminate or exclude minority races.

It'd be nice if this were true, but large-scale immigration to the European continent can have a visible effect on the demographics after a few centuries.

Why is white supremacy/nationalism needed if you can simply restrict immigration to those who culturally assimilate and won't cause any issues??

To elaborate, Switzerland has a very good immigration policy where they exclude and deny citizenship to those who refuse to culturally assimilate. Switzerland also has a muslim population equal to the UK in terms of percentages, but it isn't a problem in Switzerland due to their strict cultural assimilation policies with immigration. This is all accomplished without the need for white nationalism/supremacy existing in mainstream Swiss society.

Switzerland is fairly unique among European nations in not being an ethno-state in any real sense. The Swiss have always had linguistic and ethnic diversity, they are instead bound together by alpine culture. That isn't true of France, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Italy or England.

True, but their cultural mix should remain European. They are better off with not allowing cultures from areas such as the middle east.

Oh, I agree; Switzerland's culture is their bond, it's why they're so protective of it. But Switzerland is a amalgamation of other European ethnic groups. It's not the 'last line' for any of them. If France ceases to be French, then French people will not have a homeland. That's why ethnonationalism is important for them. I think that Americans are a little ignorant on this point because, as Vox rightly pointed out, the US is not a 'racial homeland'. So the idea that 'this country should be x race' has been understandably ridiculed in a nation founded on recent displacement. Then they see someone say that 'France should be French', and they drop context and just transfer that disdain that's programmed into them to a situation where it's improper. It's also tied up with white guilt. If you told a white American that Armenians would be displaced in order to mollify new Azeri demands, there would be a sense of injustice there, because you would be depriving a people of their homeland. I mean, they have that sense of injustice when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on both sides. But we've largely been conditioned to not to feel this for our own people.

"Armenians would be displaced in order to mollify new Azeri demands"

But nobody is displacing white French people. France doesn't cease to be French if it lets immigrants in, if anything what changes is what it means to be French. Just like France changed what it meant to be Algerian or Vietnamese when it colonized those countries.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 1:20:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

awesome stuff mannnnnn
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 1:20:37 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 4:41:31 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
This topic is ought to stir up some heated arguments.

That's why I'm here
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 1:21:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

I agree 100%, although I think that whites, who've lived in and have built this nation for almost 300 years should not be displaced by a constantly multiplying minority population.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 1:21:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 5:31:24 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/24/2016 5:08:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?

White Supremacy or White Nationalism should only exist in Europe. That being said, if in the U.S. various other groups rally behind lobby groups to protect their interests, then whites should be able to do the same.

Why should it only exist in Europe?

Europe is the white man's homeland.


Also why not the U.S?

The U.S. is not the white man's homeland.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 1:33:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 11:47:10 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:59:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:44:20 PM, triangle.128k wrote:

True, but their cultural mix should remain European. They are better off with not allowing cultures from areas such as the middle east.

Oh, I agree; Switzerland's culture is their bond, it's why they're so protective of it. But Switzerland is a amalgamation of other European ethnic groups. It's not the 'last line' for any of them. If France ceases to be French, then French people will not have a homeland. That's why ethnonationalism is important for them. I think that Americans are a little ignorant on this point because, as Vox rightly pointed out, the US is not a 'racial homeland'. So the idea that 'this country should be x race' has been understandably ridiculed in a nation founded on recent displacement. Then they see someone say that 'France should be French', and they drop context and just transfer that disdain that's programmed into them to a situation where it's improper. It's also tied up with white guilt. If you told a white American that Armenians would be displaced in order to mollify new Azeri demands, there would be a sense of injustice there, because you would be depriving a people of their homeland. I mean, they have that sense of injustice when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on both sides. But we've largely been conditioned to not to feel this for our own people.

"Armenians would be displaced in order to mollify new Azeri demands"

But nobody is displacing white French people. France doesn't cease to be French if it lets immigrants in, if anything what changes is what it means to be French. Just like France changed what it meant to be Algerian or Vietnamese when it colonized those countries.

I was under the impression that most people agreed that colonization and cultural imperialism had terrible results for everyone and ought not to be continued. All cultures and ethnicities shift gradually on their own terms in a peaceable manner, but, historically, the introduction of another group in large numbers sets off an entirely different, usually violent, process. What it means to be French can be changed in many ways, some of them better than others.

I mean, if you want to criticize Western imperialism and hamfisted attempts at cultural engineering, I'm with you all the way. But I don't see how the premise of that criticism (that a culture and a people ought to have their integrity preserved) jives with the idea of transformative immigration.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 2:58:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 4:10:38 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do you feel about White Supramacy and White Nationalism?
The former is dumb as fvck. The latter is dumb too, but less so than multi-racialism.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 2:59:54 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 5:41:16 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Why should minority races be excluded from equal treatment or citizenship in Europe?
Why should minority ethnicities or religions be excluded from equal treatment or citizenship in Israel?
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 4:56:36 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 1:33:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/24/2016 11:47:10 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:59:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:44:20 PM, triangle.128k wrote:

True, but their cultural mix should remain European. They are better off with not allowing cultures from areas such as the middle east.

Oh, I agree; Switzerland's culture is their bond, it's why they're so protective of it. But Switzerland is a amalgamation of other European ethnic groups. It's not the 'last line' for any of them. If France ceases to be French, then French people will not have a homeland. That's why ethnonationalism is important for them. I think that Americans are a little ignorant on this point because, as Vox rightly pointed out, the US is not a 'racial homeland'. So the idea that 'this country should be x race' has been understandably ridiculed in a nation founded on recent displacement. Then they see someone say that 'France should be French', and they drop context and just transfer that disdain that's programmed into them to a situation where it's improper. It's also tied up with white guilt. If you told a white American that Armenians would be displaced in order to mollify new Azeri demands, there would be a sense of injustice there, because you would be depriving a people of their homeland. I mean, they have that sense of injustice when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on both sides. But we've largely been conditioned to not to feel this for our own people.

"Armenians would be displaced in order to mollify new Azeri demands"

But nobody is displacing white French people. France doesn't cease to be French if it lets immigrants in, if anything what changes is what it means to be French. Just like France changed what it meant to be Algerian or Vietnamese when it colonized those countries.

I was under the impression that most people agreed that colonization and cultural imperialism had terrible results for everyone and ought not to be continued. All cultures and ethnicities shift gradually on their own terms in a peaceable manner, but, historically, the introduction of another group in large numbers sets off an entirely different, usually violent, process. What it means to be French can be changed in many ways, some of them better than others.

You'd be surprised at the amount of people on this site who think colonization and imperialism were great things. Anyway, I'm not saying that immigration is equivalent to wars of conquest. In fact it's pretty ludicrous to even suggest they are on the same scale. When France invaded northern Africa and Indo-China, they toppled local governments through the use of military force, and imposed their own laws on the natives, who had no voice in the matter. That is not what's happening in France today. Laws are still made democratically, nobody's land has been stolen and the political leaders of France are still overwhelmingly white. The only reason I bring up French imperialism is because a) they brought this upon themselves with their own wars of conquest, and b) it's highly hypocritical to go abroad and conquer other countries, but then whine when your nation's demographics change in a much more peaceful manner.

I mean, if you want to criticize Western imperialism and hamfisted attempts at cultural engineering, I'm with you all the way. But I don't see how the premise of that criticism (that a culture and a people ought to have their integrity preserved) jives with the idea of transformative immigration.

The premise of anti-imperialism is NOT that cultures and peoples should remain segregated or have their "integrity" preserved, whatever that means. The premise is that it's immoral for a country to send its soldiers to invade another country, kill and enslave their people, steal their resources and land. It's not immoral for individual families to move to a different country looking for work and a better life for themselves. These are two very different situations. If Syria was sending tanks and planes into France, then yes I would agree that would be as immoral as the French colonization.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 5:33:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 4:56:36 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 7/25/2016 1:33:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/24/2016 11:47:10 PM, ford_prefect wrote:

"Armenians would be displaced in order to mollify new Azeri demands"

But nobody is displacing white French people. France doesn't cease to be French if it lets immigrants in, if anything what changes is what it means to be French. Just like France changed what it meant to be Algerian or Vietnamese when it colonized those countries.

I was under the impression that most people agreed that colonization and cultural imperialism had terrible results for everyone and ought not to be continued. All cultures and ethnicities shift gradually on their own terms in a peaceable manner, but, historically, the introduction of another group in large numbers sets off an entirely different, usually violent, process. What it means to be French can be changed in many ways, some of them better than others.

You'd be surprised at the amount of people on this site who think colonization and imperialism were great things. Anyway, I'm not saying that immigration is equivalent to wars of conquest. In fact it's pretty ludicrous to even suggest they are on the same scale. When France invaded northern Africa and Indo-China, they toppled local governments through the use of military force, and imposed their own laws on the natives, who had no voice in the matter. That is not what's happening in France today. Laws are still made democratically, nobody's land has been stolen and the political leaders of France are still overwhelmingly white. The only reason I bring up French imperialism is because a) they brought this upon themselves with their own wars of conquest, and b) it's highly hypocritical to go abroad and conquer other countries, but then whine when your nation's demographics change in a much more peaceful manner.

Well, it's not really hypocritical considering that it's not the same people making the argument. The French imperialists are almost all dead at this point. There isn't some sort of national karma.

And of course the situations aren't completely identical, it's an analogy. Do you really think that if huge amounts of French people started going to Japan and refusing to assimilate, to the point where it caused social strife, the Japanese would be wrong to restrict French immigration?

I mean, if you want to criticize Western imperialism and hamfisted attempts at cultural engineering, I'm with you all the way. But I don't see how the premise of that criticism (that a culture and a people ought to have their integrity preserved) jives with the idea of transformative immigration.

The premise of anti-imperialism is NOT that cultures and peoples should remain segregated or have their "integrity" preserved, whatever that means. The premise is that it's immoral for a country to send its soldiers to invade another country, kill and enslave their people, steal their resources and land. It's not immoral for individual families to move to a different country looking for work and a better life for themselves.

That depends on how they go about doing it, but it's not a question of immorality on the part of the immigrants. It's a question, sometimes, of limited resources and economics. In Germany, for example, with an aging workforce, immigration may well provide a benefit to the economy, and may be perfectly acceptable to the people living there. In France, however, or Greece, where unemployment is a serious problem, especially among the youth, you introduce a dichotomy between the young people currently living there and the ones being brought in. At some point, there will be a conflict of interests, and a country ought to side with her native sons and daughters.

These are two very different situations. If Syria was sending tanks and planes into France, then yes I would agree that would be as immoral as the French colonization.

You do not deny that the Muslim populations in Europe are being used a recruitment fodder by ISIS? France may not be at war with Syrians, but they are at war with an ideological group which targets all Muslim expatriots with propaganda. When their ability to control egress to their own country is crippled by Schengen Area laws which were not democratically implemented, I think that, in a way, this is a state of asymmetrical warfare. Part of why Germany is so hated in France is the fact that the European free movement laws which they support benefit Germany economically while injuring those nations with high youth unemployment. Germany may, as a country, decide that the security risk posed by increasing their Islamic population quickly and without extensive vetting is worth the growth. But to a country like France or Greece, who reap no economic benefits, and must suffer the potential of radicalization without real democratic recourse, it's a murkier issue.

If France had full control of its own borders, I would agree with you, because the immigration would represent the will of the French people through their elected representatives. But it doesn't.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -