Last parts of your country that didn't fall for multiculturalism

I'll start with Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, France. Small islands near Canada. No nignogs or whatever, only french people there (6000 if I recall correctly).
Not saying that I'd want to live there though. It's always rainy or snowy between september and april and there's nothing much to do apart from working, fishing and going for a walk to the seaside.

Attached: SaintPierre&Miquelon.webm (854x480, 7.36M)

Great now all the subhumans that read Zig Forums will know their next destination of choice so that they can parasite off fresh and uneducated Europeans.

Fuck off back to kikechan nigger.

Help (((us))) identify the places needing pozzing the thread.

Attached: 4afd83b89c2535901685c08e27932acb9263eee4af216a5a77a9300b604750ec.jpg (255x249, 15.06K)

/thread

What's more important IMO is, why did they fall for multiculturalism in the first place?

Why does neutral ground always become leftist ground rather than rightist ground?

Is it accidental, or are the leftists pushing their stuff on purpose somehow, and being wildly successful at it?

If it turned out they were doing it on purpose, it would be pretty smart for right wingers to copy their methods but push back the other way, wouldn't it?

Careful anons, if we discuss things here, the kikes might figure out that the sky is blue!

…Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men…

That's a passive explanation, implying it was inevitable.

Really, according to the accounts I've read, it seems like leftists basically formed clubs to peer pressure people into being leftist.

Sure wish rightists could form clubs like that or something, too bad it's impossible

Colors are social constructs, goy!

That's the spirit.


You are correct. It is not inevitable. Our race has a strong tendency towards compassionate idealism and religiosity. Jews have corrupted this trait.
My opinion is that "right wing" or rather; ethnocentric thinking manifests itself most strongly under threats. Thus, racially homogeneous communities tend to have the freedom and stability to allow wordist pseudo philosophies like liberalism to thrive. When the states based on these poorly thought out religions collapse, ethnocentrism, the natural philosophy for all races reasserts itself and restores order.

Then again, it's probably possible to have an ethnocentric and prosperous nation indefinately. We've never lived in a world without the jew. Maybe liberalism really is all the fault of these inhuman monsters.

V4

If that's the case, couldn't you just get a bunch of guys together and then flood a target audience with notions that diversity does not work, and that other groups are existential threats due to competition for resources, land, political rights, opportunities etc?

If what you say is true, waking them up to the obvious fact that different racial groups have intrinsically different and mutually exclusive interests should go a long way towards getting people to "wake up."

And the occasional Newfie fisherman. Oh, and these guys.

Attached: Logo_of_the_French_Navy_(Marine_Nationale).svg.png (448x600, 26.05K)

There is only one problem. There is only one solution.
Period. Everything else is mere ranting from useless faggots that don't understand those two irrefutable points.

In order to answer that you have to start from the assumption that every person is trying to acquire a means of survival and reproduction (in the evolutionary sense. We are evolved organisms, after all.)

There's a variety of means of survival and reproduction based upon a person's characteristics. For example, for a creative, disciplined, but reserved person the means may be creating great artwork with which to attract social attention and wealth. If a person is also creative, disciplined, but now instead of reserved is very outgoing then their means to survival and reproduction may be through entrepreneurial business. The point is that people's personality traits largely dictate what means are available to them to gain wealth or power or whatever else they may use for survival and reproduction.

Now, leftists, like everyone else, are trying to acquire the means for survival and reproduction but their personality traits of high emotionality, high empathy, and low discipline mean that their means are along the lines of social control.

Have you noticed that they don't seem to actually care when the majority of people accept their moral diktats? If you point out, for example, that the majority of people are generally tolerant of openly gay people, it doesn't matter because it's not enough to be tolerant; people must now also be accepting or if it's not gay people, it's now transsexuals. The real reason for this seeming moral goalpost shifting is that the moral rules themselves don't matter; it's actually through the process of creating moral rules and compelling wider society to conform to them that leftists gain power.

But back to your question. The simple answer is so-called rightists aren't so interested in social change because, for them, the means of survival and reproduction lie elsewhere while leftists are fully satisfying their behavioral programming by creating social change.

Finally, only when society becomes so unlivable for rightists will they actually be compelled to create societal change and only then will you see neutral ground (and leftist ground) become rightist ground.

Attached: time_to_be_reasonable.jpg (322x306, 24.3K)

Attached: first decent post of 2019.png (1785x346, 152.13K)

This is patently false, though. And saying it HERE of all places is unbelievably stupid.

Fucks sake dude…

It's the same tolerance that people have for their god-awful governments ie. they're not rioting outside their legislatures or forming new and separate governments and so are therefore tolerant of it. Unless you're in opposition to something (and despite disliking it), you are tolerant of it.

I should also point out that your entire post can be paraphrased as, 'That's stupid and not true' which, viewed this way suggests that of the two of us, I'm not the one who needs to reconsider posting here.


Same goes for you, faggot. Check the IDs.

Attached: more_substance_needed.jpg (750x500, 267.41K)

I did, faggot. And you're a lousy shill.

Attached: cry_harder.jpg (900x900, 529.13K)

What happens is that they are dumb and cannot, or choose not to, connect the dots with their actions and the changes that result, so they move. They move to where you are and they bring their dumb ideas and, once there are enough of them, they destroy the place.

No place is safe. Whites could go down to making up only 1% of the total world population, but non-whites will follow them to the ends of the earth seeking out gibs. Even if it were a post-apocalyptic wasteland and some white ingenuity got some basic sediment and irrigation running for a stable agrarian food supply as opposed to scavenging, the niggers and spics would be their demanding some because obviously the whites stole that grain from them, because they cannot fathom the process it takes to grow it.

Attached: 1468851130712.jpg (383x480, 26.01K)

THis, it happened to Iceland. They got a rabbi and a feminist president to promote nigger immigration.

Attached: __nyotengu_dead_or_alive_xtreme_and_etc_drawn_by_nikita_varb__26785f56a2682e43c8d3447d43d7b0ed.jpg (3898x3000, 1.64M)

They were the richest country in Europe until they were tricked into buying (((collateralized debt obligations.)))

Now they are forced to accept globalism.

That's what I and others have been trying to do. It's working too.

delet

Maybe you meant multiracialism.