Race as Family

It's so bizarre that you just posted that video. Only minutes ago was I compelled to image search "Mongolia", and the first picture I saw was one of these big guys wearing funny hats.
They're the same.

This.

It's only recently that popular thought has divorced nationality from race. Two hundred years ago it would have been unthinkable, for instance, to call a black man "french" or "british". Nations were formed by tribes, groups of related people who laid claim to territory in order to preserve their people. The entire purpose of a nation is to preserve a people, and it is meaningless without that people.

Thats exactly it, and thanks.

Well put!

Yes! We also know this on a visceral level. What does your subconcious danger-detection subsystems tell you about the "lets move to vietnam" proposition?

This touches on another thing i believe is important.

Accepting our own limitations
We are doomed to decide on important things in life based on limited information, and in limited time with limited cognitive ability
If we decide not to decide, the consequences are equal to those of one of the available choises, and as such choosing not to act is also a choise. We therefore need to act using heuristics and intuition, when rationality and acccess to information is lacking. This is what God or evolution gave us. Imagine if we had to rationally control our heartbeat all the time.

You might be talking past each other, with nation sometimes being synonymous with ethnicity, and sometimes with state-citizenship. Either way, there are many more or less usefull levels of taxonomy between "All of humanity" and "I the individual", some of which are the family, the extended family, the local culture, the people (eg. Dutch), peoplegroup (eg Germanic) and then maybe race (White).

cont. on the thought about inborn heuristics.

I would argue that the more instinctive an action is, the more nessisary that action has been for our survival in the past / more it reflects the natural order.

Since our emotional states often contain actionable motivations, "go kill that guy", instinctive emotions may show us some important things about what is nessisary for survival.

Abuse of children is one thing that really activates the "kill that guy" reflex in me personally.

No, i want to strike a balance between the rational faculty and the gut instinct. Where we can follow one or the other according to wisdom. Sometimes violent anger is the correct response (as is with child abuse), sometimes it is not even expedient, since it might lead to inability to fulfill other duties. Beating the theif might be just, but going to jail, leaving your children to foster care is not.

say what you need to say instead of 10,000 kiked up words spouting bull shit. Are you drunk, stoned or a fucking kike at heart or a goyim to brain washed to even understand yourself.

genocide is good, and healthy and when DOTR arrives the children go first

You won't convince a liberal because their reproductive strategy is quantity of mating chances (due to social success) rather than quality of offspring. They do not give a single shit about their children, because they will simply have more. The only thing that matters to them are their "cummies" because that is the stimulation of reproductive success.
They are r selected animals that need to be culled.

This is the divide between nationalists and imperialists.

also note that leftists like to frame racism not as instinct, but as somehow learned bad behavior to make it look completely ridiculois to avoid discussion about its evolutionary benefit. Unfortunately they are usually isolated from the nature and unable to even name trees or birds and therefore lack understanding of basic natural laws and the cruelty of nature.

genociding the kikes is self-defense.

Hahaha, i really hate cities.

pic related

Attached: holochaust.png (601x844, 429.02K)

>I would argue that the more instinctive an action is, the more necessary that action has been for our survival in the past / more it reflects the natural order.
Interesting thought, probably true. If so, our raw emotions are tremendously useful tools for discovering truth.

Not boomers.

I maybe should have been more outspoken on this before, but because we are all racists here I said nothing.

You are exactly right, OP. Family was both the foundation anf catalyst for my ethno-political views. Growing up as a large, tightly knit family we were a nearly ideal microcosm of National Socialism, I just never saw it until I became wise. I had taken the first step naturally.
And the day my brother needed a titanium plate to assist facial reconstruction- that day I started hating niggers permanently.

I'm raising my 6 children properly. You'd be proud, they are beautiful beyond words.

Tribe is a big family, ethnic group is a big tribe and race is a big ethnic group, the problem is:

We have to recover proper words first.

You're a hero. I'll try to catch up when I get a wife.

Related to this is Telos, which is the sense that things have built-in purpose/function, the eyes obviously have the function of sight ect. Sexual desire then has the function of reproduction. Dysfunctionality can be defined as any behavior that supplants or makes non-functional an otherwise functional thing. Homosexuality is the replacement of the child-creation instinct, and is thus dysfunctional. If human societies wish to continue existing, it is paramount that we recognize this distinction, and enforce it to maintain health and natural order. Many other examples could be given of functions and dysfunctions, but we are all familiar with these things.

Thats the plague of "we are gods" rationalism.

I empathise with your brother and family user. I hope justice was served.

I want to believe. That really is the dream. Give me a good wife and many children, and a plot of nature to raise them on, and i will want for nothing on this earth.

What if homosexuality has a negative function? Like maybe there's something else wrong with homosexuals that homosexuality is there to put a stop to.

I'd probably not be as single-minded today if it had. Police "investigation" was worthless.

Just make sure to never relax and give an opening in the first place.

Selfdestruction / suicidality might plausibly have an evolutionary function, just as cells selfdestruct if they are damaged. This could, in an evolutionary context, account for foetally hormonally damaged or disrupted individuals, incapable of fulfilling the function of either sex.

But that they recruit otherwise healthy boys, and that they spread disceases to the healthy population, would rather seem like something a parasite would want, e.g. gay germ theory.
Gregory Cochran seems to be relevant in that - and the racial - context.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Cochran

No need for a counterargument attacking from a different angle, their claim is demonstrably false.
Even people you aren't directly related to carry a large % of your genes. By helping people of your own race, you help ensure the survival of not just their genes but some of your own, this is selfish gene action.
So even a sterile man can pass on some of his genes by assisting others of his tribe. A non-White has much less in common with him genetically, therefore racial loyalty makes sense genetically, it only stops making sense when you put it over a smaller group of of your kinsfolk. The child before the cousin, the family before the tribe, the tribe before the race (people from other tribes who share your race.)
Putting race before family is completely retarded because the very thing that's supposed to be preserved (genetic closeness) is greater between your family members than strangers of your race.
This is why telling Brit and German Whites that it doesn't matter about their jobs being taken by White immigrant labour is crypto-communism/crypto-civnat.

Its called National Socialism.

Also ever thought about why most countries are named after their tribe/race and not the other way around?

The USA has started out the wrong way and that is the problem. "United States" …what a shitty and dividing name. It should have been called "White States" or something else instead.

We used to have a word for that, in fact volk was the word.

Indeed. When you are a descendant of half of western Europe's tribes like I am, it's difficult aspiring to be culturally similar to six different nations, but not being able to fully identify with any individual one.

It's hard to consider yourself 'Murican as well when what little culture that was developed here is constantly being destroyed by kikes and shitskins. I saw a bronze star recipient signified by his license plate flying a flag upside down on his truck earlier and thought "holy fuck, he probably doesn't even see how bad things really are, even".

You have absolutely no fucking comprehension of how the US was founded, you illiterate mutt.

damn, you actually bought the propaganda that america has little culture. sad!

Attached: 1452365505518.jpg (3112x2338, 2.21M)

that's just mean-spirited and unnecessary.

Attached: 1453622986787-2.jpg (3874x2269, 2.77M)

Grow some fucking balls.
Truth is never unnecessary.

Also, the various regions each have their unique variations as well.

Where do you think you are, faggot?

You're being fairer than user deserves.

Let them know that the answer to their troubles is sold at the grocer, and can be found in the cleaning aisle marked bleach.

People unironically don't understand that the US is pretty fucking huge. There's variations in alot of things outside of major metropolitan areas.

You could use the word tribe, which refers to both close family and race. Learn from the wordsmithing kikes. They got into power for a reason.

Then look up your own fucking country's history and maybe he wouldn't have to call out your faggotry. Take it as an opportunity to learn.

Not really, on some level they understand what we mean. They don't really have a solid definition of race, the concept is not important to their ideology, but they're often deliberately slippery and obfuscatory when discussing it, and their definition will shift to counter any points we make.

Yes, this is a very good argument and makes a lot of sense. Race can better be defined not by genetic similarity per se, but rather by kinship relationship (which in most cases implies genetic similarity). For example, every Western European is descended from Charlemagne, according to statistics:
archive.is/bpcqN
In fact, every European today is descended from every person who lived in Europe in 1000 AD multiple times.

White liberals don't have any children, what the fuck are you talking about?

Attached: charlemagne-coronation-kaulbach-friedrich-kalbach-1861.jpg (660x357, 272K)

Actually, here's a better article (linked from the Guardian):
archive.is/5iqeW

I've often said this is the reason it makes no sense to argue against examples of white "racism" whether founded or not. It's just further fuel to the fact that we are not getting along and are hurting each other in the attempt. Every time the leftist says "look at this racism is alive and well in Amurrica!!" and can then say "okay, so why do you think that the solution is for us to be even more involved in each other's affairs, placed increasingly in positions of power over another and given increased access to each other to do this sort of harm?"
Then you can move on to stronger pills, like the fact that shared borders have been a precondition of every recent genocide. "If you're so morally upstanding why are you forcing circumstances on us that are so terrible that people literally commit genocide to escape them? If familiarity between the races reduces negative feeling then why do real examples end in the worst violence imaginable? If ignorance causes racial dislike, why am I more likely to get a warm reception from a random semicontacted mudhut village in Africa than the streets of Chicago? Does it not seem to be the case that people are inherently good, and therefore presume the best about each other until they learn differently?"
This upsets the leftist. They don't like having the script flipped on them after establishing their whole crusade on the basis of preventing racial violence. Remind them that causing it by accident is just as bad as intention, and that they have a moral duty to know better (ie, a moral duty to not fall for leftism).

Then you go for the kill and point out that traditional society was so great that even the people who hate it the most have to admit living in one was a privilege

The management of instinct is a tough nut to crack with leftists, who have created an entire psychological tagging process based on emotional metadata. On one hand you have their perspective of the more trivial delights like food and sex as being open to boundless extension and exploration, and their perception of the past as being a sort of mentally destabilizing repression of those instincts that "exploded" into their sexual revolution, rather than being teased along by ((((subversive elements)))). The flip side is their belief that more complicated instincts like ingroup preference need to be perfectly repressed for society to function. In order to dismantle one mistaken belief, the whole thing needs to be tackled.
A proper understanding of man has always been as a fallen creature, in simultaneous need for both the pursuit of holy restraint and the knowledge that it is inevitably unattainable. This is the basis of traditional society - that people are beastly urge and godlike restraint contained within the same body, and will need to express both to be rendered fully human. This is why traditional institutions exist, they propose that instincts ought to be examined from the perspective of their degree of social interaction and extended only to the relevant parties at the relevant times. Sex is between a man and wife, and should be kept within the bedroom. This not only elevates society, it elevates sex, which becomes more meaningful because privacy affords intimacy. Likewise with dining, there are processes and virtues which keep us from bringing the biological process of mastication and digestion into public knowledge, while simultaneously allowing us to share in the social event of breaking bread with our social intimates. The leftist believes in the repression myth, that traditional society hated sex and wanted to be rid of it. Point out the parallels. If traditional society hated sex, why enforce the monogamous pairbond that enables as many people as possible to have it? If so few people were getting sexual relief, why is it that fewer people than even then are having sex in our modern, liberated societies? Is it really fair to say making sex private shows a distaste for it? Does chewing with our mouths closed represent a distaste for cuisine, or a desire to elevate it? Does adorning ourselves in finery show a distaste for the human form or a desire to elevate it?

That's a lot of work, but it's necessary to begin tackling the ingroup question. We know that there is a point that racial preference has to be capped, and a point where its repression is unacceptable. To find that point, one can look at the overall trend of intimacy vs. exposure - that the fewer people who can be reasonably involved in a biological urge, the less that urge should have to do with polite society, the more its mention becomes unmentionable and its indulgence becomes self destructive. Sex for the bedroom, eating for the dining hall. Ingroup preference involves ones whole society, however, so its scope is going to be much broader, and its indulgence much more permissible before it becomes destructive. The ENTIRE nation should be involved in the delights of the racial community.
This gives us a stronger basis to begin assessing the leftist's worldview than before, when we were working in his weaker frame. We can demonstrate to the leftist that he has reached a degree of inconsistency when he leverages the charge of "tribalism" at us as a sort of primitivist shaming, while simultaneously holding the fat acceptance movement and sexual revolution under his ideological belt. We can attack the lack of nuance in his worldview by pointing out he believes in such bizarre extremes of indulgence or repression for different instincts, and wouldn't a more mature perspective involve more complex and dynamic management of the self, rather than his somewhat childish Min-Maxing of the human condition? Finally, question the sincerity of his belief that bottling up ones natural urges actually does cause a building up of repressed feeling that aggressively bursts forth into ill advised action, as he believes with things like human sexuality. If that is the case, you may question, than what is it precisely he expects to achieve by having us bottle up our ingroup urge? "What is a violent outburst of racial solidarity called again?" He must know the answer.

bumping because this thread is good

There wasn't any truth in your post just name-calling and alluding to some vague knowledge you have but are too high and mighty to share. Are you referring to the Naturalization Act of 1790? Some other tangible fact of history? Or just (((semantics)))? Can't know because you decided to be faggot and shit on a fellow European, possibly a future brother in arms, for having I'll guess some Italian German Irish and maybe slav in him. Yes the US was founded as a white ethnostate, but he makes an interesting point that our forefathers could have done more, in hindsight, to make it explicit that this nation is a nation of European peoples only. How is that useful? Well it's a lesson we could apply in the future, if we get our way and reform or build a new ethno state maybe we don't name it after geography but instead patch that bug and call it something like "United States of European Peoples" were it to be a federation, for example.

Attached: the good ol days.png (1314x752, 640.62K)

yeah can't believe people here are still arguing about the cause of faggotry, a few years ago it was common knowledge that fags molest regular boys which turns them into fags and the cycle continues as such. maybe we need a separate comprehensive thread to remind the newest batch of newfags

Attached: 41hD6A RnuL._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (321x499, 30.9K)

I say "my relatives" all the time when dealing with bluepills. The key to dealing with bluepulls is not necessarily truth, however–it is saying anything which sidesteps their programming. They have been programmed to believe that anyone who acknowledges race as bad, so you just replace the terminology. Most people are NPCs and will believe anything with new terminology that is not co-opted.

The other aspect of "my relatives" is that it has more syllables and softens the impact of the statement, which is necessary when speaking to cucks.

sage

Ingenious argumentation user.

Great idea! These central things really should be periodical.

Good point.

very smart, as we are all somewhat related within our respective nations and this excludes foreigners without mentioning the word "white"

Yeah only single handly inventing Rock music, Hollywood (before it was a tool for kikes) space travel, credit cards, telephones, television, nukes I could go on for hours. Each state has it's own history going back hundreds of years, it's own dialect, slang and history. To say "HURRR America has no culture!" is one of the most retarded things you can say. We helped shaped the modern world into what it is today

Attached: de5.jpg (1023x800, 106.45K)

I think that your post is correct and also the reason is correct is something of an interesting point.
we were through such a era of racial purity before airplanes and cars and such things, that a mongrel was actually something of an outliner.
and an nation was so pure that could be divided onto the values of families that were part of it.

now days every country is forced into position of mongrelization by marxists, that finding someone of your own nationality that shares the nationality's blood and racial traits is like finding a brother, for that deed is so rare it deserves some note and attention of the man.

at least that is my view as an white Portuguese man living in Brazil [which was white before britcucks].

Attached: azE5P1x.png (720x540, 396.57K)

you might be retarded. here is a simplification on why race is more important:

now you know why race is hundreds of times more important than national identity.

Attached: Give me your company.jpg (460x701, 62.41K)

Attached: a8c3bec984b115d6ad99060a6307763bc04736e48b50f6ef8865cf5d511de53e.gif (353x448, 1.47M)

How?

Poland might be an example

Another talking point I use with friends is, say I had a mixed nigger child. My white friend would be more closely related to me than that child. I probably don't use that tool well, but I think there is some rhetorical power in there somewhere if used properly.

by reading books and following it's steps.
Hitler resurrected the german aristocracy and the iron cross as an symbol of Teutonic spirit, using the historic knowledge.
…..but actually Poland might be a better example.

wasn't rocketry invented by the nazis and further developed in the states by the nazi scientists rescued from the post-war genocides of germans during operation paperclip?

But that is not true though

Attached: 1462234409692.jpg (236x367, 16.52K)

Never mind, I am retarded and do not know how to read

genius
user
did you think this up yourself or am i missing having read a recommended book?

It usually starts with fringe-groups larping shit up until it gains more popularity and becomes mainstream movement with tons of normies behind it.

It's also a typical leftist tactic to laugh at "alt-right pagan larpers" etc as to discourage people from finding their roots/regrowing some new ones and making a community of like-minded invidiuals out of it ie a threat to (((them))).

May need to start with
To remind people. Either that or.

Because, there is only one family - the human family - and if we throw him out, we are familyists.
No you dont. He is a human, and so he is just as much a part of this family as you are. Dont be bigoted!

this reminds me of Lot giving his daughters over to the Sodomites to spare the angels

„Unter einer Rasse versteht die Anthropologie eine größere Gruppe von Menschen, wel-
che durch den hereditären Gemeinbesitz eines bestimmten angeborenen körperlichen
und geistigen Habitus untereinander verbunden und von anderen derartigen Gruppen
getrennt sind.“ Eine Rasse muß demnach eine Übereinstimmung der leiblichen und seeli-
schen Züge bei allen ihren Vertretern aufweisen und muß aus sich heraus immer wieder
Menschen mit den gleichen leiblich-seelischen Zügen hervorbringen. Wo in einer Men-
schengruppe wesentliche Verschiedenheiten der leiblichen und seelischen Veranlagung
vor kommen, wo Kinder von ihren Eltern oder einem ihrer Eltern wesentlich verschieden
sind, kann es sich nicht um eine Rasse oder ein in seinen Erbanlagen gleiches Elternpaar
handeln. Ich habe folgende Bestimmung des Begriffs „Rasse“ für zweckmäßig gehalten.
Eine Rasse stellt sich dar in einer Menschengruppe, welche sich durch die ihr eignende
Vereinigung leiblicher Merkmale und seelischer Eigenschaften von jeder anderen (in sol-
cher Weise zusammengefaßten) Menschengruppe unterscheidet und immer wieder nur
ihresgleichen zeugt. Eine Rasse ist also eine in sich erbgleiche Menschengruppe.
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=9B9733B7B12F08A6C407FE4BA60C4B61

Attached: die kleine rassenkunde.jpg (791x638, 42.59K)

(checked)
It's such a fucking shame all of these have now become kosher certified. It was very foolish for people to think the kikes were their friends. (((They))) are the reason why obesity and nigger violence is a huge problem in the US. One might wonder why most kikes in the US stay fit and healthy while the filthy goy animals are forced to consume ZOGchow through their whole lives. Fucking parasites.

A jewish tool of degeneracy.
Hollywood was a tool of the kikes from day 1.
Paperclip "nazi" scientists.
Usury (jewish)
Scotsman, A.G Bell.
Scotsman, Logie Baird.
Jewish, you only funded it.

Poland never forgot it's identity though. The people had to fight to preserve it, there were attempts at erasing it which all failed because they did not forget.

Race= the general biological characteristics of a group of related people. Sub species.

leftists are irrelivant. We are showing our people/nation/extended family the truth. The traitors and those with little in group preference will be culled. Most of our people will understand.

do you think a nigger would agree with you, user?

we are literally the physical manifestation of our people/family. We are the present link in the chain from the past, through the present into the future. If we go back a few generations we are related to many of our people via great/great grandparents etc… The further back the more common ancestors we have. As an English man i am related to most of the people that fought in the English civil war for example as is every other English man and woman plus some others of English descent. The people of our race alive today are literally our extended family.
This does not apply to racial aliens. Our genetic distance from them can be thousands or hundreds of thousands of years long. Different history, different selective factors, different 'racial souls'/evo psyc.
Our nation/people/extended family shares unique general biological characteristics wich makes them distinct. Misegenation destroys that, replacing it with at best a poor kluge (pic related). It is our job as the present link in the chain to ensure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
Race+Ethnicity=Nation.

Attached: 42a9c5fa65528d86b914f67a2bcc8cc17dd9b66cee31eaf03167678b637cf2ac.png (480x480, 232.2K)

he means humans

Instinct

It IS true.
Mongrel offspring are genetically distinct from their parents (genetic distance) to the extent that bone marrow/organ transplants are extremly difficult becaus there is no match. Even from their own parents.

There you go.
amren.com/archives/back-issues/january-2005/

Quote:
Dr. Salter points out that different ethnies can be so genetically distant that random members of the same ethny are close kin in comparison to members of the other ethny. Ethnic loyalty thus becomes a continuation of family loyalty. Australian Aborigines and Mbuti pygmies, for example, are about as genetically distant as two ethnies can be. Two random members of either group are — in comparison to members of the other group — so genetically similar to each other they are almost the equivalent of identical twins. Compared to Australian Aborigines, all Mbuti pygmies are, in fact, so similar to each other that actual Mbuti identical twins are, relatively speaking, not much more closely related to each other than any two random Mbuti.

When parents from distant ethnies have children together it can lead to surprising results. Rules of genetics hold that children always carry half the genes of each parent. However, when parents are from the same ethny, they have many distinctive genes in common, so their children actually carry more than half of each parent’s distinctive genes. In this sense, parents who descend from the same lineage and who share many of the same genes are more closely related to their children — in terms of the number of genes they share — than are parents who have children with someone of a distant stock.

Surprising as this may seem, if an Australian and a Mbuti were to have a child together, each parent would be more closely related genetically to everyone in his original ethny than he would be to the child. Complete strangers would be closer kin than the child, and from a strictly genetic standpoint would have a greater claim on family loyalty.

Attached: sLHexIY.jpg (1440x470, 123.19K)

nah I just sit around thinking a lot because I'm idle these days
I get some basic inspiration from having read Theodore Dalrymple's "Our Culture; What's Left of It" but that's an incomplete redpill and needs some inference to glean any value from it

i wish you luck lad
your focused mind is as sharp as diamond

Attached: 8daee7188e22c507a3efe2f4b78039dda3a5def1ea522eb08db248bad0aa6d9b.jpg (567x850, 124.55K)

Race and ethnicity are distinct and incompatible ways of looking at some of the same phenomena. "The White Race" (Europid race) is not divided into Germans, French etc. but into Nordid, Faelid, Alpinid etc. race types. The grouping above Germans, Dutch, English, Norwegian is Germanic; Poles, Serbs, Russians are Slavic; Italians, Romanians are Romanic. All of them are branches of the Indo-European peoples.

You can look at ethnic groups (e.g. Germans) and find that the racial types among them are Nordid, Faelid, Alpinid, Baltid, Dinarid, Mediterranid, etc. but nowhere in the world do typological race types match exactly the ethnic divisions that have existed and developed since time immemorial.

Having to choose whether race or ethnicity is more family-like, the answer is obviously: our ethnic groups are extended families. Tacitus writes that many of the tribes of ancient Germania were little more than overgrown family clans and large confederations of these families like the Franks, Saxons, Swabians were eventually united under a common name occupying a portion of a common empire.

Likewise, the oldest political institutions of Rome and Greece bear the mark of clan-like forms of organization that are assumed as foundational to customary life and ultimately grounded in Indo-European religion and its mode of transmission, the heroic epic.

Race+Ethnicity=Nation

Incorrect. The same racial type can span different nations and ethnicities. The other user really said it best:

They are not reducible.

Anschluss!

Race is the general characteristic, ethnicity is the more specific variant combined with and blending into culture.
So yeah, Race+Ethnicity=Nation.
You can quibble if you want but this hits the truth well enough for our purposes.
It works, its clear, its readily accepted and 'they' have to explain it away rather than us having to play catchup.

IMO certain cultural aspects that indicate future division and genetic trends should be taken in account.

For example turks have a great genetic proximity to Greeks and albanimals are nearly genetically indistinguishable to Greeks with existing methods but there are such great cultural fissures and reproductive selection between modern Greek and neighboring mudslimes that make Greece have by far the highest HDI in the region and an average of sixfolds greater output of patents and literature than the economically comparable and vastly more numerous turkey, while turkoalbanians are comparable to subsaharans even though they are less mongrelized than mainland durkey.

Attached: IQ-Map-of-European-Nations lynn revised.jpg (917x960, 104K)

hell if i know!
Like most things the R+E=N thing will start to crack a little if you really push it. But as a basic approach it works.

Here are some Greeks that disprove your conclusion. Some Greeks have light eye/hair features yet absolutely zero Turks have these features. Greeks are very similar to Italians. Hence the phrase, "una faccia, una raza". If you go to Athens you will find a range of white features including natural blonde Greeks. They truly are part of the European family.

Attached: 2dmh6oh.jpg (450x680 26.84 KB, 23.17K)

Really interesting

there's an argument that needs to be destroyed, that one that claims that pride to one's race/nationality is stupid because you did nothing to contribute and are just riding on the shoulders of dead people who aren't even related to you.

what's a good meme to spread in destroying it to the ground?

probably the gay uncle hypothesis, which is based on the fact relatives to gays reproduce more. So their IS an evolutionary reason for being gay. the molestation I'm going to look into further.

I've thought a lot about this and I essentially agree with you. A nation is essentially an extension of the family unit. It is a big family. They are people with common history, genetics, and so on.

One thing to add is this:
Culture, institutions, and the nation itself can be anologised as family heirlooms or wealth passed onto the next generation. A father works hard and passes on the family home to his son. His son does the same, building upon the oppurtunites given to him by his father. He maintains and improves the family home and amasses things which he then passes on to his own son. The son's son then does the same thing. He puts in blood and tears and toils to the same.

On the large scale, that is what a nation is. The people of that nation have it handed down to them from the previous generation. The people then do what they feel is best for the nation. The toil endlessly to make a country they can enjoy living in. They put in blood sweat and tears towards improving and maintaining their culture, institutions, and nation. They then pass it onto the next generation which then toils as well. Then they pass it onto the next and the next and so on. A nation, and everything encompassed within, is an inheritance which forefathers toiled and died for. The French who toiled and died in 1814 did so for those who would come in 1914. Those who toiled and died in 1914 did so that their prodigy might live better and do the same. A nation is not just the here and now, but it is a familial inheritance which stretchs back for thousands of years in some cases. It is something for the people to which it belongs. If ones grandfather died, it wouldn't make sense to give the deed of his house to a random stranger. He same can be said for a nation.

This is a fundamentally difficult thing to argument because of different views of pride. A healthy, functional type of pride is the pride that inspires self improvement and action. You are proud of your fathers accomplishments, so you seek to emulate him. An unhealthy sort of niggerish approach to pride is a prickly arrogance, which reacts angrily to any suggestion of self improvement. This is not pride, but laziness. The fundamental disconnect comes from the fact that subhumans (even the white ones) tend to have the latter definition of pride and project the same thing onto you. The idea of setting standards for yourself, self discipline based on pride, is so foreign to them that there is no point in arguing it.

I've always found the "gay uncle hypothesis" a terminally stupid argument. First, it ignores the alternate explanation: that young men with fertile sisters are more likely to have experiences which result in homosexuality. Secondly, the idea that your sisters genome can influence your behavior is laughable. Certainly you share a portion of your genetic history, but a gene which expresses by turning the carrier infertile will eventually work itself out of the genome. Your sister may pass the gene on as a non-expressing carrier, but it will eventually stop expressing.

That ending though.
Chills.