Do you guys see any opportunity for the right to win?

In all honesty I'm getting a bit worried about the numbers white nationalists are gathering. It's only a matter of time before this movement is more than fringe. So do you guys see them as a threat? Or are they merely the last stage of a decaying civilization?

Attached: whitenationalism.jpg (1920x1281, 374.32K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Nationalism is bound to win in some form or another. If you suppress white nationalists hard enough, then beaner/Arab nationalists will just take-over. That's why I consider you white anarkiddies to be extremely retarded, or just sheltered idiots.

So what is their victory contingent on in their eyes. By specifically targetting white nationalism, are we unbalancing the scales so much that the power that will take it's place will be so monstrous there will be no stopping it? Whether that be Muslim nationalism, Chinese nationalism, or you know, Jewish nationalism?

And if we don't kill white nationalism before this shift happens, couldn't there be a countershift back to white nationalism to face this upcoming force? Because that sounds kind of what is happening now. What exactly are we fighting for again? Keeping white nationalism down is not enough to create a communism state there will need to be forward movement. And unfortunately most mainstream "communists" don't realize they are only serving those in power who want anti- and pro- fascists to fight.

Look at Zimbabwe.

Then look at global birth rates by race; and specifically in white nations.

Yes, you retards are essentially filling-up government positions with ethnocentric shitskins because they are part of a red flag party.

Attached: global race population levels white people versus nonwhite.png (3866x2930 167.18 KB, 2.52M)

So what can we do to change this? I mean this is not even close to success this is just trading one empire for another. Honestly, why is like 95% of any support you hear for communism just manstream bullshit taken on by purple haired freaks? Is white genocide even worth reversing though anyways?

IDK, are you white?

Ironically if you don't care about your own race dying-off or becoming enslaved, then you're likely more affected by liberal individualist ideology. Most white proles I know are ethnocentric and clannish and have actually bred with white females.

Big cities produce degenerate individualists because you're flooded with liberal ideology; and since porky and libshit servants of porky import so many foreign laborers, you all end-up forming different little communities that are separated from each-other. The kicker though is that whites forming ethnocentric communities is openly opposed by Jews/Porky, while the niggers get away with it. This is creating an exponential anti-white momentum.

I am indeed white but all I've ever known is that white nationalism is the most evil thing ever. But when you get down to the facts, whites are weaker now than ever and things are worse than they ever were for a true communist movement.

Attached: modsarefags.png (1276x714, 422.88K)

Which white workers? Honestly, most young whites who aren't rich pretty much are familyless. All the working class whites I know are still single, while the multicultural elites/chads get GFs left and right. Whites also aren't really that ethnocentric. Most white workers tend to be boomer-tier civic nationalists and not hardcore white nationalists.

And, this is why. White nationalism basically is linked with le nutsism, despite the latter not actually being white nationalism. I'm pretty sure that the white nationalist position would not to exterminate entire swaths of the white race to allow a certain subrace of it, the 'Germanic' people, to colonize the devastated land. Hell, the South consistently supported war against Germany more than anywhere else in the Union, despite their racism.

White nationalism is also linked to dictatorship and 'fascism' falsely as well. This is despite white supremacy and the idea of America as a white nation ironically being the result of the democratization of America with universal suffrage and the naturalization of immigrants. It was the white immigrants who voted with the South to promote a pan-white American identity as opposed to an Anglo-Saxon Protestant American identity.

The same confusion leads people to mischaracterize the KKK, since they assume that First Era Klansmen were like 2nd Era. The reality was that the 1st Era Klan didn't even wear the distinctive hoods or burned crosses, and the guy who wrote the book that inspired the Birth of a Nation hated the 2nd Era Klan for being anticatholic. The 2nd Era Klan wasn't even Southern or pro-Confederate either, which makes sense when you realize that the party of the South was the party of white immigrants as well.

Being a Lysenkoist that denies genetics is not an argument.

Guess who writes textbooks and makes TV/movies.

IDK where you live, but in northern TX all the welders and tradesmen in their 20s have a wife & kids, whereas faggot urbanites who work office jobs in Dallas, etc., tend to be single bugmen.

The KKK were Anglo-supremacists in a way, and felt it was safe to oppose Germany and other European nations because America wasn't nearly as pozzed then. Also the KKK were ironically pro-worker who opposed imperialism from Northern carpetbaggers trying to install capitalism/consumerism everywhere as part of Reconstruction.

Eric Striker made some comments on them in one of his live streams lately, where he says they were ultimately dumb for not seeing the global picture.

Dude, you missed my whole point. The KKK is NOT one organization. It's really 2 radically different organizations with the same name. It'd be like saying that the original Massachusetts Minutemen suck because the Minutemen in Fallout 4 constantly asked you to help their settlements. The 2nd Era KKK wasn't even Southern. They had more Northerners in their ranks.

For where I live, I live in a suburb in Metro-Detroit. Most of the guys I know had to work at service jobs at retail stores. The biggest recluse/4chan fag ironically was the only one who went for an actual manual labor field. The manufacturing jobs simply aren't there unless you're going for the trades. Those people are pretty much working class too. They're all single.

I also think Eric Striker is getting more retarded lately. He's trying to create a 'right-wing intersectionality' to get everyone on board. And, it's dumb. Imperial Japan attacked us, they were dipshits, and they got what they deserve. Plain and simple. Nazi Germany was the same to Slavic whites and even declared war on us for declaring war at Japan. This doesn't change that FDR did lean towards war and took an aggressive policy, but that doesn't justifying bombing one of our own damn ports. Muh embargoes is a flimsy excuse. A nation has the right to close its borders to any other country. That's what we're fighting for pete's sake.

Also, South =/= KKK. As I repeated before, the early 20th century/2nd Era Klan was primarily a Midwestern phenomena. It wasn't even anti-immigration. Protestant Swedish immigrants were supposed by the Klan, while Irish Catholics who lived in the town for a century were attacked.

The 2nd Era Klan actually has a very mixed record when it comes to labor. Some grassroots Klansmen supported unions and other working-class causes, but the leadership pushed an anti-labor agenda and the KKK attacked unions. By the time the 2nd era Klan was a thing, most Catholic 'immigrants'/ethnic whites had been around for around a hundred years. They're natives by this point.

They have none, since they'll just change the definition of "white" again.

Don't be, they're a tiny collection of irrelevant LARPing faggots upheld as a paper tiger for libs to justify the surrender of greater and greater powers for the security state and their burgeoning corporate equivalent:

Attached: chicken-little-sky-is-falling-1a.jpg (1500x1125, 675.48K)

This, based on what I've seen, statistically I should worry more about saturated fat or something.

Play identity games, win identity prizes

Define right.
Capitalism and fascism have won for the longest time. They're already in full control. They have been for generations before your grandpapi was born.
Cancervatives already won by electing Israel Man.
The alt right might "win" if they elect enough politicians to remove all illegal/refugee migrants.
But what is "the right" and what is "winning?"
A lot of socially conservative traits are also fully alright and exist in many leftist systems. Do we count these people as right or left?
Can anyone honestly win in the modern era? Most extremists since WW2 and probably before have been used as tools of war and conflict, then disposed of, that's why ISIS is US funded, that's why communists were used to fight Nazi's then killed by liberals, that's why Cointelpro exists, and why right wing and left wing false flags were done before.
Can anyone win these days without taking down the powers that be fully and the entire system first?
To answer your question no I don't see them by definition winning I can see them getting what they want but what is a bone to a dog that can have freedom instead?

We need a white left but you niggas playing games

Don't worry too much, your dear porky will suppress them easily enough. And every other form of nationalism too (reply to the retards in this thread). Managing and catering to different groups is too much work, even if their infighting is useful before the full implementation of oligarchic world order.

Fascism isn't capitalist, it's third way. Was Tito a fascist because of market socialism? The Fuck out of here…


nationalism, as with all regressive ideology, can only ever be an anti-emancipatory force which shackles people to abstraction over their own interest. the continued progress and survival of the human species is predicated on a rejection of the archaic tribalism inherent in the notion of national identity and interest.


Inshallah brother

Attached: 1558684350424.png (2100x1599, 2.88M)

o-Begorrah the g-go.yim are waking up

don't you have summer reading?

Nu-nazis are a politically marginal force that have been shrieking without results since 1945, and liberals never tire of pretending they're an existential threat. (Keep us in power, look at the scary guys out of power! You need us to protect you from them!)

The right's already won and we're living in the ashes, but their victory looks like the Forbes billionaires list and the commodification of the internet, not like a bunch of morons on Zig Forums screeching into the void.

There is a leftwing solution that's nationalistic you know. Social nationalism.

The rising Nationalism is caused by failures of capitalism starting to seep through.

With the rise in Nationalism, maybe then there will be another world war and we can let the right wingers murder each other. Then we can commence 1917, hopefully in some place like the US or Europe.

no disagreements here
Everything nationalists say about war and trade is isolationist, it's the neoliberals who are trying to pull the world into war

Relevant take by Angela Nagle.

Attached: angela nagle on nationalists.PNG (1101x585, 560.46K)

Is this person retarded or just illiterate? The left has been fighting against the authoritarianism of "big business" since the industrial revolution.

I think he means the liberal left

I think this is the same person who interviewed Zoe Quinn for some book or something, so probably retarded and also a liberal.

The retards with tiki torches themselves aren't a significant threat. There's going to be losers who latch on to identity politics and the faggotry of things like Hitlerism in any era. What function they have is largely in shaping the view normal people have of the world - they see the retards with tiki torches, the Molyneux diatribes, the whole milieu of the alt-right propped up by mass media, given echo chambers, and normies believe that the fascists are more numerous than they actually are. Yes, there are quite a few fascists in America, but fascists would want you to believe the vast majority of white people are secretly with them, which isn't the case. Even a good part of Trump country thinks the alt-right, white identitarians on the internet are faggots.

I'm more worried about the clever fascists that have wormed their way into the US Government, considering Reagan-era war criminals are literally in key positions of Trump's government right now and are surely running the same grift. We have a Congress in Washington that is utterly batshit insane and thinks they're going to win WW3, and has given every indication that they're going for it. They probably see WW3 as the only way to secure power once the bottom falls out of the American economy. But the new brand of fascism doesn't need white identitarianism; what it needs is eugenics and the race-science that has been steadily making a comeback since the 1990s in popular consciousness, to the point now where it is the unquestioned ascendant ideology of the ruling class and the middle (educated) class. The "center" in America and the right are damn close to the same thing, the far right ghouls and NutSacs are just a face of the beast.

liberals, SJW's are empowering corporate authority because some troll called them a nigger

The right already won.
What we have now is a battle of the cliques.
Once capitalism runs out of prey, they start preying on each other.
This is the age of monsters.

Yeah which one? The German nationalism, the French nationalism, the Anglo nationalism?
That's how you lost power in the first place. What you are doing now, connecting internationally, runs against your own believes and once you are in charge all you care is about your nation and the maximum extent of your borders at the cost of your fellow nationalists from outside your borders who in turn want a piece of your land.
And lets not start with the nationalists within your borders who think their people are better fit to run your place under a different name and under different drinking and eating habits you mistake for culture.

Attached: Balkan Clusterfuck.png (500x349 382.63 KB, 38.18K)

No, she didn't.
She wrote pic related

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (409x630, 178.05K)

People voted nationalists in because of the immigration crisis, holy shit what retarded takes you all have. It's actually that simple.

Yeah, and it had something from Zoe Quinn or some other retarded SJW.

Name literally any functional country that isn't crypto-nationalist.
Chimpanzee tribes enforce borders with patrols, and we're their closest relative.
Not even a jingoist, people organize themselves into countries.

Bonobos fuck whenever a problem arises and those are our second closest relatives.
And we idiots pay money or exploit ourself for shit we could have for free.


hmm I wonder which societal model humans are closer to

Attached: constantinople falls.jpg (1854x846 123.48 KB, 3.06M)
just to name a few

Bonobos are proof that women should run are society.

wtf I love hillary now

Attached: anita.png (1280x886, 628.96K)

Agreed with the rest of your post, but
They aren't fascists, just psychopathic neocons.
Wut. There are certainly a handful of racists among them, especially retarded boomers, but genetic anything is largely vanishing from porky's arsenal of market branding schemes for consumers.

This. The problem with nationalism is its urging toward ceaseless, petty war. Further, that embracing nationalism hearkens back to prenationalist retardation like city states, clan warfare, theocracy, and occultism, that would tear civilization down to its smallest atomic unit through squabbling warlords.

Protectionism is not nationalism:
Halt the depredations of transnational business, and the aut-right would pop like a soap bubble. Any semblance of popular support they have comes from the fact they are the closest thing to an organized political faction that is willing to openly voice opposition to an open borders race to the bottom.

Yes, she interviewed a lot of people, including nazis, drawing parallels between SJWs and the aut-right in terms of their behavior and origins, as well as interviewing genuine socialists, who allowed her to buttress an explicit argument that might as well have been direct from Zig Forums that both groups concentrate on divisive idpol and authoritarian anti-enlightenment thinking that meshes with capitalism, but does not challenge the class contradiction the traditional left emphasized. I'll admit the GG section of her book (and its companion film) was strangely and embarrassingly pathetic, but the entire rest of it was excellent, Nagle is absolutely /ourgal/.

Attached: another world.jpg (1280x720, 91.41K)

Capitalism in the best interest of the workers is still capitalism. Calling it turd position won't change that.

No, the alt-right has solid core now that won't go away. It can be marginalized, but it won't disappear.

There is no basis for that claim, every time this claim is made is backed by lazy reasoning with no evidence. At no point is the finger pointed to the ideology of the ruling class. Ethnonationalist states have history of being peaceful, it is when egalitarian and universalist
ideal become part of how the ruling class governs that they start to engage in imperialism. The British Empire didn't use economics as a justification for war, what motivated them was the "white mans burden". Otherwise the fact that they had a same GDP per capita as any random European country without colonies would give them pause for thought. They knew this, and it didn't change their ambition. From your perspective, why did England engage in a global war against pirates and slavers to end slavery in the British Empire?

Point one, verifiable stats for "rightwing nationalist" numbers relative to greater population? Else concern-trolling by unemployed "Correct The Record" troll.

Point two, nationalism has no win condition and so needs must fail. To win, it requires of necessity both an "other" to oppose and define itself and the utter and final defeat of all "others." This reveals the transitory nature of nationalism as a political theory with a built in expiration date at best, and an unresolvable contradiction at worst.

Nationalism without an "other" is not nationalism. Possession of a culture, art, history, stories, etc coveys no distinction without a basis for comparison/denigration. And no value without an enemy/obstacle to overcome. Even if that other is/are the past members of the same group, or the "weakness/degeneration" within the same group, that "otherness" must remain and cannot be exterminated. The 'victorious' nationalists of tomorrow will have no choice but to denigrate their past and ancestors for their failures or themselves for their weakness in order to prop up their own "utopian" present. This fucks with "the past is full of heroes" disease that perennially afflicts the right and will compel them to look towards the future improvement of mankind past the achieved 'utopian' state they inhabit, or deny their own utopia as unachievable. They thus become the left; failure to be innervated to action will be seen as laziness, even when there is no longer any "work" to do, i.e. fighting to unite the already united nation, defeat the already defeated others, demonstrate their superiority to nobody left in the field but themselves and their dissatisfactory past.

It is a nice fantasy, however all groups that do not realize universal human empowerment eventually and of necessity produce treachery as it did in the German experiment; it may be called struggle/kampf/establishing dominance or whatever prettied up name the culture of the time may call it. But when the other is gone, and all are not equally blessed/favoured by society, humans as individuals turn on themselves as a group, taken to the final step we are left with a single triumphant nationalist and a dead nation of slain inferiors. One lone human is not a nation or race, he/she/it is a tragedy. Any who fail to fight to the death to prove their dominance/purity are of necessity inferior 'others' of a separate class. As such we return to the loss condition until they too are exterminated/cast out. It is in short, the murderous embodiment of the "no-true-scotsman" fallacy played out ad absurdum.

Most of the old racists in the United States were Dixiecrats. Basically, you're more likely to find 'racist' (but not anti-immigrant) roots in someone like Joe Biden than someone like George Bush. America is unique in that the party of nativism was separate from the party of white supremacy. Most of the hardcore Neocons and evangelists are just as 'anti-racist' as their leftist counterparts.

And yet, the alt-right has protested and even denounced Trump over every single interventionist action he committed during his administration. Meanwhile, the 'anti-racist' left ended up taking the side of the capitalists in spreading war worldwide. Honestly, people like you probably never actually watched or read the alt-right and even bothered to hear what they have to say.

Nationalism honestly varies wildly. The nationalism of the first world is more akin to the civic conceptions of the city-state, which by the way led to a far more free and democratic society than the more 'cosmopolitan' alternative of monarchy and despotism. Theocracies weren't even a thing in the West until the Middle Ages, and Christian theocracy ironically is actually the closest thing to what you're advocating for in preindustrial history. Hell, you can say that radical Protestantism pretty much wanted a global revolution to make all men equal under god. Occultism isn't even an organized governing principle, and clan warfare ironically was completely destroyed by nationalism. Hell, the original purpose of nationalism in Europe was to unite nations against petty feudal lords. Of course, I think that regions and localities should be represented, and it's clear that pure civic nationalism as well as mindless patriotism leads to war (Often times low intensity.) when you have a centralized capitalist state.

Ironically, white nationalism is the opposite of divisive. In fact, it unites every white person under one banner. You can have a white nationalism that creates a pan-white state which ironically would be an 'evolution' of that principle of centralization you love so much. Tensions between white nations are at an all time low, with a lot of actual current tensions being due to centrist and leftist nationalist movements like the SNP, Basque nationalists, and IRA as well as the non-racist right-wing loyalist movements like British civic nationalists, Spanish nationalists, and Ulster loyalists. In America, white nationalism/white supremacy promoted the immigrant white to be an equal of the Anglo-Saxon protestant and actually prevented the usual problems of immigrants sabotaging labor movements from happening during that initial migratory wave.

Basically, white nationalism ironically is closer to Marx's world socialist revolution than anything. Also, WW1 was actually caused partially by dynastic autism getting in the way of nationalism actually drawing sane European boundaries. France's autism in not allowing Germany to get their ethnic lands afterwards caused WW2, though I'd also put the creation of fanatical ideological machines in the 20s in the form of Marxist-Leninist Communism and Fascism/Nazism as a cause as well. The reduction of all politics into 'left-team' vs 'right-team' ironically is closer to clan-warfare than actually uniting a nation under nationalism.

You do realize that capitalism IS the ownership of the means of production by the capitalist class. Any system that serves the best interest of workers inherently is anti-capitalist as it promotes the interests of the working-class over the capitalist class.
The reduction of all economic debates to between markets and a lack of markets is a fabrication of capitalism itself, a part of the ideological apparatus created to support it.
This is exactly the problem. Capitalism and socialism aren't systems to the average person anymore. Class struggle isn't even discussed. Now, capitalism and socialism are just vague ideological terms. Capitalist used to mean someone of the capitalist class, but now it just means any partisan of 'capitalism'. 'Socialism' now is associated with social issues that your average boomer conservative dislikes. People only look at words and symbols nowadays and not material conditions.

No one ever refutes you, watch you’ll just get some brainlet wojacks in response. I’ve seen you on /fascist/, you’re based

Yes, but one far too small to be of any consequence by itself. What makes the far right influential and potentially dangerous now is its substantially valid claim as the exclusive conduit of opposition against the neolib/neocon PC pseudoconsensus that has held sway over every other political tendency since the 1970s. If that one appealing quality were no longer monopolized by the far right, nearly all of the aut-right's broader "base" would happily flee to the left due to the numerous repulsive characteristics.
As if. Every ethnonationalist movement in history has immediately descended into external conquest and internal hairsplitting genocidal autism. Arabs, Persians, Japanese (both before and after Perry), Chinese (both before and after Mao), India, Russians (both before and after Lenin), Germany (both before and after Hitler), French, and of course
Really, where to start? The autism between the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, and Celts? The constant slapfights with continentals, like squabbling over Britanny with the French? Genocidal autism with the Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and Cornish? Intermittent religious feuds between the Anglicans and Catholics? Deporting their own "inferior classes" as slaves worked to death before their "temporary" contracts ran up from The Americas and East Indies to Australia? All but exterminating the native population of North America, unlike any other colonial power? Organizing an international sacking of China to punish them for the outrageous crime of insisting tea be purchased with silver instead of smuggled opium, plunging Chinese into stateless warlordism for the next hundred years?
: An English kang randomly decided one day to ban chattel slavery but not serfdom or numerous other forms of unfree labor in England for reasons that remain unknown to historians, one of the first ever slavery prohibitions in Europe. Centuries later, following humanitarian activism in Britain, this ban would form the basis for the first broad antislavery campaign in the holdings of a colonial empire, and eventually the international trade routes in which that empire held military dominance. tl;dr it were a coinqidink

Carl of Swindon actually did a really good video on it back before he became a totally unprincipled panderer for adbux:

This. The decline of essentialism has been accompanied by the steady amnesia of petty animosities between groups that once fought to the death, and now imagine themselves as eternal and perfectly unified.

Attached: Birth of fascism.webm (320x240, 3.14M)


How many times do I have to tell you niggers that 90% of the Injun population died from smallpox? And, that smallpox blankets are a retarded meme based on a letter. There is no evidence that blankets were actually distributed. Basically, Amerindians were land-hoarders who were forced off their land to live in reservations to make way for the common man to own land. In fact, the biggest opponents of Western expansion were often the bigwig Anglo types who didn't want their indentured servants and laborers to flee westwards.

Dixiecrats were a part of the New Deal coalition. You can even say that they were one of the founders along with the labor unions. Actually lot of the most racist Southern politicians like Vardaman and Tillman were populists. Tillman even got corporate contributions banned through the Tillman act.

More Republicans actually voted for the Civil Rights Act proportionally than the Democrats, and most of the GOP opposition was based on lolbert autism. Goldwater literally supported every other civil rights initiative, and only balked at the Civil Rights Act due to muh private business. Dixiecrats were perfectly fine with government intervention in the economy against capitalists, they just hated niggers.

This coalition goes way before the New Deal by the way. The industrial working class and Southerners actually consistently for the same party since the dawn of the Democratic Party. Even the most conservative, Goldbug Democrats like Cleveland actually were pretty friendly to labor, with Cleveland even accepting a wage raise for federal workers and negotiations with unions. And, this is the guy who got rejected by his party during the nomination process.

Some of the most violent attacks against nonwhites were actually committed by white, often immigrant workers outside the South. Rock Springs comes to mind, and the Democrats even ran under the same campaign promises as the Workingman's Party of Denis Kearney. (I included the 1880 Democrat Platform for Winfried Hancock's campaign.) A lot of the Red Summer riots towards the end of WW1 was a reaction of unionized, striking workers to black strikebreakers. Meanwhile, blacks consistently supported the party of big business and their employers against unions until the New Deal came into being. And, that was mostly for the gibsmedats.

There were populist Republicans, but they often relied on middle-class or agrarian electoral bases, not the proletariat. Weaver, the Greenback candidiate, was one of those. His refusal to run fusion tickets with the Democrats, which was actually demanded by his supporters, was the reason Hancock lost the election.

For Bush, Prescott Bush was not a Nazi. In fact, he actually was firmly within the Rockefeller faction of the GOP. He just did business with Nazi Germany. Ironically, the South was actually very anti-Nazi. To the point that they pushed for WW2 more than any other region in the country. Being racist pretty much had little bearing over which side of WW2 you fought for, in the USA at least.

Except most of the actual alt-right types are against lolbertarianism specifically due to it being pro free-markets. The anti-Israel and America-First angle is effectively 'mainstream' in the alt-right at this point. The only major Youtuber who actually stuck to the noninterventionist lolbert rhetoric is Styxenhammer, and he's an autist who'd rather call himself an enlightened centrist than an alt-righter. Again, you clearly show that you don't even know who the alt-right are.

This isn't to say that people like Allsup and TRS are perfect or even great. Allsup relies too much on traditional American conservatism, ironically even delving into Hamiltonian-tier rhetoric which I despise. TRS is too obsessed with creating a right-wing form of 'intersectionality' which subverts the entire unifying point of white nationalism.

(To be Continued)

Attached: 592px-1880DemocraticCampaignPoster.png (592x480, 471.13K)

Even the most anti-idpol leftists think the police are racist, Israel is an apartheid state and whites are collectively colonizing nonwhites.

Actually no, the power of the nobility and the power of the king was actually a center of conflict in the Early Modern period. There is also the difference that the geographic boundaries are more possessions of individuals than collective entities. City-states are ironically closer to nationstates in the sense that both are based on the sovereignty of the citizenry as a whole, instead of dynastic sovereignty of individuals. This is why ironically America had the opposite. Due to the lack of a feudal class, America's local regions became the defenders of republicanism against the liberal-capitalist promoters of centralization. America's 'left' in the 1790s was against centralization due to the decentralized units of the American state being smaller and thus more democratic republics.

Germanic tribes actually elected their kangs. Elections were actually the norm for positions of leadership, and Germanic tribes also had things. Also, having a priest class =/= theocracy. Theocracy means all power lies with the priestly class or the state is based on religious sovereignty. Basically, state and religious power are one and the same completely.

In a way, I am actually mixed about civic nationalism. I do approve of the democratic/republican spirit and the sense of unifying and mobilizing a people. However, I disapprove of the destruction of local cultures and the rise of centralized capitalism. This is most apparent, as I said before, in countries that already had democratic/republican traditions like Switzerland and America. I think the best approach is actually of confederation of both traditional direct democracies and syndicalist unions.

Now, I don't think we should have a pan-white state, even one that is a confederation. But, I do think a loose alliance of nation-confederations in all of the Western/White world would be for the best, especially to defend against globalist capitalism and the third world hordes.

I don't really think so, especially if we change Europe's borders a little to give independence to the smaller 'lost nations'. Despite my criticisms, I actually do approve of Basque independence as well as that of Scotland, Wales, and Catalonia. Northern Ireland can be resolved through Eira Nua or an independent Ulster, though I'm leaning towards the former solution. Besides that, the total prosperity would be to the point where conflict would be completely unnecessary. A bottom-up confederal system of government will allow for political disagreements between regions to be solved peacefully and fairly. Essentially, when the period of radical revolution is over, society will default to a moderate nationalism/regionalism/localism focused more maintaining the new traditional institutions of the ultranationalist democratic-syndicalist order.

Basically, I think a synthesis of nationalism and localism is long overdue.

Is it? I actually agree that whites, Asians, Middle-Easterners, Indians, Hispanics, and even indigenous Americans are equal fundamentally. But, I think sub-saharan Africans and Abbos are actually much lower when it comes to intellectual capability.

My opposition to any other groups are entirely due to opposing immigration for both labor-related and non-racial nationalist reasons. (A problem which didn't exist in the early 19th century by the way due to most of the 'native' Americans leaving the cities for the frontier.)

Hell, I care little for essentialism even among blacks. The negro simply always was a capitalist puppet, and I oppose him for that reason primarily. You see this when niggers even try to destroy symbols of the American Revolution. They hate the concept of liberty and democracy fully and ironically are some of the biggest drooling consumers of capitalism, subsidized by the government on the backs of the working class while the capitalist elites weasel their way out through tax loopholes. And, the upper-middle class liberals and even Christfag Fundies who like them are even worse.

Glad we agree on the rest.


Just like every other colony across the New World, and yet the USA is the only such colony that exterminated the remaining 10% the old-fashioned way, a feat unmatched by pretty much any other group of land thieves in the Age of Colonialism, lending injuns essentially zero genetic or cultural representation in the modern country.
>There is no evidence that blankets were actuallyintentionally? distributed.
Sort of, along with blacks, who overwhelmingly defected from the Republican Party for FDR.
No shit, that being before they were soon joined by all the Democrats that voted against it, greatly changing both parties.
A few years after attempting a fascist putsch against the elected government, yes.
TBF, that was somewhat true of Europe as well, with racism less focus on race in Italian and Spanish fascism compared to German, and even that drawn along lines quite different from those of race in the US.
I said tendency, more in the sense of influence than something intact. The lolbert and fashie tendencies in the aut-right and its modern offshoots are syncretic, merging together the coonsensus of Zig Forumsyp thought.

First, while such practices were widespread, they were not predominant. Second, I wasn't speaking of any one people such as Goths, but of all the "barbaric" peoples of Europe.
I think I would emphasize my preferred brand of syndicalism not as local in nature, but as diffuse. Simultaneously globalist and flexible. Local diversity would thrive under it not because of regional self-determination, but because of an ability to eliminate matters irrelevant to government from public discourse.

The key point for that to work is a weakening of national sovereignty, thus a disconnect between the (supernational) government and any nationalist/ethnic/cultural essentialism. This would both render such autism into harmless flavor without any potential teeth, and remove the powerful business of government from any entanglement in such socially constructed affairs.

>Northern Ireland can be resolved through Eira Nua or an independent Ulster, though I'm leaning towards the former solution.
As one of Irish extraction, IMHO nothing will ever fix that short of watering down religion, eliminating any desire to murder your neighbors over inconsequential spoops. Short of that, nothing can or ever could have averted it, except if the Irish Civil War following the War of Independence hadn't happened, allowing the republicans to rapidly suppress any dissent.
IMHO, a large part of the credit for that can be placed on decreased ethnonationalism allowing sufficient peacetime for economic development to occur. Before the 1900s, Europe burned itself to the ground every 50 years.
That's not quite what I meant. Rather, race itself, as some kind of absolute, eternally fixed definition is a lie. Y'know, the old analogy to attempting to define where the boundaries of your arm, wrist, and hand are. Particularly for something like "white" that is both very recent and very fragile.
I would be perfectly fine with migration in an economically and legally harmonized world, though I doubt anything resembling mass migration between populated regions would ever happen.
Actually, I think the more important factor is that for the "99%" of the day in both the USA & Europe before labor/socialist agitation, quality of life was little different from that of anywhere else. The entire world was one big "shithole country" until socdem reformism made itself felt.
I've read pretty extensively on this, and after correcting for non-genetic confounders, differences across entire populations are in rounding error territory, even those confounders are vanishing with the Flynn Effect.

Really, something that infuriates me the most about Zig Forums's autism is their inability to feel any wonder at the astounding fact that homo sapiens sapiens is the sole surviving representative of hominids on this planet, having exploded across the planet from the Cape of Good Hope to Cape Horn in one great leap after achieving behavioral modernity.

Imagine being this retarded. North America had way less people than the Andes and Mexico. The only areas of North America with large native populations was the South. For example, whites outnumbered Indians in the matter of a couple decades in New England. Considering the vast amount of migration afterwards, Native Americans basically are a tiny minority due to the sheer expansion of the white and black populations. Also, consider the amount of muh 1/32th Cherokee claimants out there, Native Americans and settlers did actually mix. And, the native population today is actually larger than that when the settlers first arrived in North America. It's just that there's WAY more white people. And that's the thing, natives simply were sent to reservations. There were individual cases of English settlers sacking natives like the Pequot, just as there's cases of natives burning entire white settlements. And, certain areas like California, ironically, were far more brutal for the natives.

Britain also incidentally became pro-native against the Americans during the Revolutionary War, using Native Americans against the Americans.

(Ironically, you probably have more of an argument for genocide happening in another English colony: Australia. Where Tasmania doesn't even have Abbos anymore.)

Come on. Honestly, I wished the Native Americans were actually genocided, so that their descendants wouldn't emerge from the reservations to defame the greatest experiment in liberty in history. Andrew Jackson did only one thing wrong, and that is not actually killing the Injuns.

Seriously, the elites of the Indian reservations basically use 'white man bad' and 'muh reparations' to get free gibsmes from the government while they ironically turn their reservations in shitholes where people disappear regularly due to shit law enforcement.

So, the Business Plot is racist? Seriously, even if there was a Business Plot, I doubt blocking the civil rights of blacks was a priority. Hell, blacks probably would have fared better under a Business Plot America simply due to businesses seeing blacks as good strikebreakers against white-dominated unions.

Also, Hitler didn't even rise to power through a putsch, and Mussolini's March to Rome was done by a paramilitary of militants. The Business Plot, even if it happened, would be more of a hardcore conservative coup than a 'fascist putsch'.

Hell, being pro-business and elitist is perfectly consistent with being a GOPnik to be honest. (Modern Democrats basically are progressive Republicans. Prove me wrong, niggers.)

Because, Italian Fascism is different from Nazism. Fascism was a national-syndicalist movement that got subsumed by the corporatist-nationalism of the ANI due to the middle-class Blackshirts taking over. Nazism is a weird voodoo occult movement of right-wingers who somehow managed to get a working-class base in the form of the SA and some succdems like Strasser. They're actually inverses now that I think about it. Spain wasn't fascist. Franco basically used fascists/falangists as well as Carlists as useful idiots to take power. The actual fascist leadership was dead or in exile by the time the Nationalists won the Spanish Civil War and the Falange was never a huge organization before Franco took over.

There's a long history of white nationalists going anti-imperialist mode. Tom Metzger was doing the same thing when Rothbard was still alive. Anti-interventionism always had both old-fashioned lolbert-constitutionalists and far-right imitators support.

Attached: trailoftears.jpg (296x285, 14.53K)

Well, it's still widespread enough to be noted by Tacitus. It's clear that your characterization was oversimplifying primitive Germanic societies. Also, Germanic is pretty damn broad, considering that it stretches from modern Netherlands all the way to Eastern Europe and up to Scandinavia.

Celtic societies ironically were a bit more closer to 'theocracy' with druids, and probably resemble the parochialism you despise. (Still, the Gaels had tanistry.)

Hell, elective monarchs were still a common phenonema in even early feudalism. Really, it was a gradual absorption of more and more power into the hands of first a nobility than in the hands of a king.

No. It was often due to religion or rival feudal claims. Hell, the closest thing to a large-scale nationalist war, the French Revolutionary Wars, was more due to an ideology and the reaction against said ideology than nationalism in itself.

The 19th century was a shockingly peaceful period after the Napoleonic Wars, with most of the warfare happening off-Europe or being really quick. The nationalist unification wars, for example, of Italy and Germany were often short enough to not cause any lasting damage. Europe also was booming economically during the 19th century.

Meanwhile, the 20th century had the most brutal warfare in history. You can blame ethnonationalism partially, especially for the brutality. But, it ultimately came down to the failures of capitalism and the old dynastic empires of Europe as well as ideological apparatuses developing form the professional-managerial class.

The real reason for the lack of warfare was due to there being no two major European powers pitted against each other. They all wore each other down.

Again, this is an issue that could be resolved with peaceful border renegotiation, decentralization, and a pan-white alliance of nations.

That is objectively false. The average Swiss farmer was actually a lot better off than the average French peasant. Same is true with the average white American compared to Europeans. America had some of the highest quality of life standards in the world during the pre-industrial era for whites. Also, some of the lowest income inequality. Democracy and republicanism actually does reap a lot of benefits in that department.

nah most white nationalists are edgy teens that are probably bullied they arent a threat

All of that growth happened in the 1900s. Clear through the 1800s, natives were being killed too fast to renew their numbers in the USA.
Yeah, picking the losing side in imperial wars started the downward spiral that could have been averted by something like the Iroquois League persisting, but a fresh wave of expansionist migration in the wake of betrayal against post-revolution treaties with the natives by your picrel ignited what had been slow embers into a raging inferno.
A rather odd coincidence, since nearby New Zealand was probably among the least destructive British colonies.
Never said it was, necessarily.
Not for lack of trying
The parallels to MLs never cease to amuse me
The continent was always a raging dumpsterfire until WWII or WWI if the 2nd Internationale hadn't broken solidarity for the temptations of petty nationalism
There were differences, but the typical quality of life was uniformly abysmal. Europe remained wracked by famines, serfdom or slavery even in the US was replaced with similarly odious arrangements such as indenture, sharecropping, and the truck/chit system, such misery spurring regular paroxysms of failed and incredibly violent revolution from the 1700s straight through the 1900s slowly crawling out from under the oppression that caused it. IMHO, the foundational reforms creating the 1st-world were the rights to bankruptcy and minimum wage.

It was stagnation, not a die off. Basically, they stagnated or declined slightly population wise. Doesn't disprove my point that you can fit the entire population of non-Mesoamerica NA into reservations if said natives weren't autistic with their hunter-gatherer ways. The only exception are the civilized tribes. (Andrew Jackson did right with them anyways.)

I love how you're pretty much ignoring all the brutal exterminations the Iroquois did to other natives. Also, fuck the treaties. The expulsion of Native Americans was a good thing.

As for the Business Plot, then it has nothing to do with accusations of racism. Face it, SJWs and the neoliberal/neocon establishment could care less about fascism. 'Fascism' and 'Nazism' are demonized entirely due to the legacy of WW2 propaganda and the capitalist elites wanting to associate whiteness and advocating for white interests with Nazism. Doesn't help that the white nationalist movement has taken this effort to heart.
Basically, we're talking about white nationalism and not Nazism here.

That's my point earlier. As I have made my catchphrase, material conditions and interest group politics trumps ideology.

Again, far from Europe 'burning itself down to the ground'. The Napoleonic Wars and Thirty Years War was far more damaging. Oddly enough, the 18th century up to the French Revolution was also known for having 'Cabinet Wars' that were fought mostly by professional armies on the field, with very little involvement of civilians. (Of course, one of the wars being too expensive did lead to the American and French Revolutions.)

That is actually the measure I'm using. The AVERAGE American is better off than the AVERAGE European due to the income equality of early America. This was in spite of indentured servitude, which actually was practically dead as an institution by 1800 when the Jeffersonians took power. (You can even argue this is why racism/a sense of pan-white identity even ended up appearing in the US if you want to go with your original point.)

Sharecropping came after the Civil War from the gap left by slavery. Really, the Civil War and the fall of the Planter class created a vacuum that allowed for the capitalist class to take control and dominate the nation. From the early 1800s through the Civil War, America was shockingly egalitarian among whites. Even Tocqueville notes this. Even the Planter class essentially were just farmers who had an excess of farming equipment.

Unions created the First World, not minimum wage. Consider that Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage. Honestly, you aren't even a syndicalist at this point. Syndicalists railed exactly against the notion of centralized government being the force that drives societal improvement, instead looking to improving the working class's economic clout through unions.

Neither extreme left or right is likely to win in most countries. People tend towards the middle ground in most things.

Over the 1800s, native population was cut by 2/3rds, and during the 1900s remained stagnant until the 1930s. I can't find non-paywalled numbers for the 1700s. Neither Canada, Mexico, nor Central/South America have anything close to such numbers in those periods.
Because it was irrelevant to my point, and that sort of thing had been happening for millennia.
And the fact that they destroyed Europe over their Ponzi scheme war economy
Advocating for any ethnic interests has a direct history as a favored means of disrupting class consciousness
Fake statistics, median & deciles FTW.
What do you imagine white trash were? Tenant farmers.
This is just pathetic. I'm pretty sure I remember one of your own posts in which you described in detail how southern aristos seized all of the best land, squeezing the overwhelming majority of whites into marginal territory, which required the deployment of racist bullshitting in order for them to prevent a hillbilly/slave alliance. Also, I'm going to have to preemptively attack any notion of frontier pursuits such as ranching, prospecting, trapping, etc., being any better, since all of those were done to enormous benefit of range barons via monopolizing point of sale, or even straight up obtaining "rights" over enough land to turn settlers into wage labor.
Never said otherwise, my point was that act of creation only really happened when material changes to quality of life were put in practice. Of all such changes, those two were the most crucial in turning slaves into free men.
Don't be pedantic. Sure, the state doesn't legally enforce a minimum wage, but the unions effectively substitute for that. Just like universal healthcare varies from state to unions to networks of businesses in various countries outside burgerstan, but the result and the union agitation needed to bring about those systems is identical.
Just because I recognize that the state is most often how the causes of labor are actually put into practice, doesn't discount my emphasis on labor activism as the catalyst of those reforms, nor does it diminish my desire to do away with the state.

Well, I stand corrected. Though, completely justified. Also, they still were dying mostly of disease anyways. And, smallpox blankets only were recorded at Fort Pitt. STFU about those myths before I curbstomp and every damn Indian. There is no discussion to be had with the redskin. Fuck them all to be honest.

Nazism yes. But, Italian Fascism was a lot more than that. Mussolini actually tried various attempts to reform the Italian economy, from Rossini's fascist syndicates providing worker's control to outright nationalizing a huge portion of the economy. And, his aggressive expansion contributed little to WW2, being mostly colonial.

Pretty sure I didn't mean statistical averages. I literally meant the average person. Median works too. Also find it funny that you don't scrutinize the relative equality of the 'Golden Age of Capitalism' but yet scrutinize Early America for even the slightest signs of inequality. Even the 'Golden Age of Capitalism' was a society where everyone was a wage worker who labored under capitalists. It just was relatively better.

Yes…AFTER the Civil War when blacks were emancipated. Before the Civil War, 'white trash' pretty much were fringe subsistence farmers who farmed on the shittier areas of the South. The closest thing to whites working for other whites in the Antebellum South were slave drivers.

As for the Planter class, I still think they ultimately squeezed whites out of good land. I don't think they're good for the nation, but fundamentally they are less damaging than capitalists purely due to not relying on white labor. I can understand why the GOP won though. Basically, the capitalist class, like in Switzerland, pitted the yeoman farmer class against their direct opponents, which were both the Planters and the proletariat in America. (Incidentally, the reverse happened during the 1890s with Free Silver. With capitalists getting workers to drop out of the Populist movement.)

And, what you said about the frontier is objectively incorrect for the most part. In fact, your entire schtick is to take a problem affecting one part of America and apply to the entire nation uniformly. And, it's a part of that damn universalizing mentality you have. You're unable to think in local terms, and anything that doesn't fit it pretty much is lumped in.

And, you're ignoring my point in return. You keep on pointing to changes in the laws of the state, and not to the class forces in themselves. Unions and, in the United States, agricultural populists created the bedrock of our first world living standards. Not laws.

I brought up Sweden because it proves my point. My argument is that this is a lot older than the 19th century. Europe had guilds which tried to promote the interests of artisans. Countries like Switzerland and Friesland had republics ruled by free yeoman farmers. America always had a strong yeoman farmer class, who revolted specifically because they had MORE economic and military clout than their European counterparts and thus took less shit. Unions are just another part of what is frankly a long Western tradition.

And, your dismissal of this tradition in favor of a universalist, detached view of both democracy and liberty makes you practically unnegotiable. There is no point in debating further if we disagree so fundamentally. That and I honestly want to do something besides debate on Zig Forums all day. I really wasn't expecting it to be this long-winded.

By outbreeding the Left. Religious fundamentalists are breeding the fastest, and will likely eventually become the majority.

Attached: map-usa-population-mormon-amish.gif (1000x800 474.78 KB, 44.6K)

I'm sure such people would be happy to take a relaxing Venusian vacation if the opportunity were offered them.

Attached: Best-Kornbluth.jpg (400x668, 71.38K)

Which fascist Italy had.
Correct but that's not what fascism does, not what it is if we looks back beyond what Mussolini claimed.
Correct. But I didn't say it was the problem of free markets it's the fact that the capitalist class still owned production in Italy.
Okay, I agree, but my points are:
-Socialism is worker ownership of their results of production not stolen by capitalists.
-Free markets are possible in socialism.
-But third position and fascism especially that of Mussolini and neo-fascism excluding that of Hitler and a few others is not socialism in action or theory.

Lmao and people will still tell me anti natalism isn't what the elites want.
If you don't have kids and teach them to be revolutionaries, socialism dies with you.

I never said that Fascist Italy was socialist. I agree with you there. Though, there was actually a huge Fascist Syndicalist movement that had up to 3 million members which had a gradualist approach to establishing socialism in Italy. The conservative elements of 'Fascism' ended up shutting the movement down.

Really, 'Fascism' is way too heterogenous to analyzed as one thing, even in Italy. Italian Fascism has shifted from revolutionary syndicalism to reformism and a platform resembling social democracy to outright reactionary conservatism and etc. Fascism also was around before Mussolini during the early 1910s and he didn't have control over the movement until 1919. Fascism's demographics also sharply changed from the 1914-1919 era to the 1919-1921 era, with a sharp influx of middle-class right-wingers into the movement. But, I have posted enough about that, even sharing my source.

Third Position is even more 'broad' and nebulous than 'fascism'. Really it's all semantics at this point. You can go from reformist Asserism which gives a 50/50 arrangement between workers and capitalists to outright syndicalism in the case of Rossini. Then, there are the people who use third position to include 'traditional fascist' ideologies.

Basically, we agree and its just a semantics game at this point. Also, I honestly think that every movement is bound to have its 'moderates' and that this is actually good since it pushes the overton window. For example, prop up Tucker Carlson so that the overton window shifts and my position becomes more acceptable.

Fundies aren't white nationalists for the most part. These are the very people who get boatloads of money from Israel and shill for neocon positions.

Ted Kaczynski's Industrial society and its future explains this. The most radical action someone can take is having kids. Outnumbering the system is the best way to overthrow it.


take your meds

The survival of your subspecies is far more important than anything else. There's a reason the black community shunned the multi racial communist black panthers for the anti miscegenation nation of islam.

Socialism is founded on the observation of inequality between group members; the Right creates and exaggerates this inequality with every stroke of it's blade.

No group from the Right can escape this inequality without dissolution, or abandoning the belief in their own superiority over others.

The Right generates and amplifies the Left as it approaches both victory and defeat. Even more so in some hypothetical "final victory" as the Right is defined by distinction of group to other, not by the equality of the system to itself as socialism and the Left does.

The Left has no use for the Right in the conditions of 'victory' as the Right is antithetical and demonstrably untrue. X is = to X, where X is 'all things' QED. Class, race, nation, these are excuses not reasons for prejudicing parts of X against its inescapable self, not a proof that X is not = to X.

One day, there will be a nature reserve (a planet, a VR simulation, or the like) where we will keep the Right in it's own idealized world without others. We will let them out when they ask to be free from the boredom of less than a universe full of experience, perspective, and novelty.

Attached: 9mpj272mh0.jpg (715x402, 25.49K)

Best go.y

Given what will happen in the future with all environmental catastrophe, porkies eliminating jobs and everything else bad that will happen I would say that having kids now is really bad.


Lol, such a brave guy, killing kids on summer camp. No wonder he's a
Zig Forumscuck hero.

Attached: Population_of_pol.jpg (960x652, 205.3K)


National Soycialism = anti-whitey lmao

Off your self
The guy also supports Israel. So I guess the Jews are your guys now.

Jews are based but still need to die. They are supremacists for their race and religion against white people, hence they have to die. White people should become Jews to destroy them

bruh, quit posting cringe.


Didn't know Ted K was natalist. I like him more now. Problem is, feminism isn't helping and 3rd wave is basically lebensraum at this point. I'm Christian (Perennialist Mystic kind but still) I oppose eugenics so 3rd wave feminists and "sex workers" have to die, God willing

I mean it'd help fascist optics a lot if it wasn't for the fact that every single fascist movement always drops on its knees and starts sucking capitalist dick as soon as it gets into power

Attached: hitlerseconomicmiracle.png (1279x1615, 236.49K)

Attached: images (3).jpeg (225x225, 10.07K)


ok, mr. Butthurt

Attached: B80qcJIGjKk.jpg (200x200, 17.16K)

Attached: 461b1c2c8dfcf3927055f1f2b01877a5a6baac5ce5af7461da44455ae9b4ece4.jpg (1040x2640, 777.31K)

Didn't Stalin go after Jews?