Genuine question that I sincerely wish to discuss - please no ban...

We don't deny anyone the right to exist, why would we?

Depends on the situation, if the group is being ethnically cleansed(like the arabs in palestine for example) then we must attack the people doing the ethnic cleansing and support that group by every means possible.

No, i don't see how deliberately killing masses of people is not morally wrong.

In the case of Palestine we should support them against zionist by every means possible, if i had the power i would give every palestinian an AK-47 to fight off the zionists.

I don't get this question could you rephrase it?

Also just ignore the memers they're just retards

you know what, I'll bite. I believe cultural/architectural heritage should in some way be protected. It should also be obvious that we don't want genocide of any kind, and if a genocide would be imminent in a socialist country the government should do whatever it can to prevent it from happening. Other than that I don't know what kind of thing you have in mind as a way of "ensuring their existence". Moreover, what constitutes an ethnic group? If you are implying an ethnic group are people of one specific haplotype and as soon as "race mixing" happens it ceases to be the same ethnic group, please kill yourself.
Also basically this; Individuals have a right to live their lives. In stating this right there's no need to group them together following arbitrary ethnic lines.

Ethnic groups ,i suppose yes …but not by force if someone wants to fuck ebony girls ..why stop him? Culture on the other hand are cute (and i believe they should be protected) but most leftist dont give a shit if you want to dress up and dance.

I see. So, in the example of the Selk'nam people, there is nothing wrong with the group becoming extinct per se, rather the issue is that the individuals that made up the group were murdered? The act of genocide is wrong, but the results of genocide aren't?

Let's say that they weren't hunted down and murdered, but were instead outbred by European colonists. Would that have been wrong? Should it have been prevented?

I believe that the alienation caused by modern Capitalism makes "keeping in touch with ethnic roots" next to impossible. And in the west, for example, birth rates for native Europeans are often below replacement levels. This wouldn't be a problem, except for the fact that non-indigenous ethnic groups have much higher birth rates. Do you think this justifies their eventual extinction?

People have a right to continue existing, abstractions do not have rights.

What's funny is that /pol talks shit about survival of the fittest but we have to protect the hwite race because we're special snowflakes or something. It's even more hilarious because whitey is nowhere near going extinct. Then again a lot of libshits uncritically accept eugenics arguments and really believe that retards are a dire threat to their existence because retards smell or something.

It depends on the situation. There's a huge difference between actual genocide (systematically killing people of a certain population) and stormweenies' ridiculous "anuddah shoah" (autists can't get laid). Everyone has the right to reproduce with who they want, but no one was a right to force reproduction on someone else. If remote people like the Inuit die a slow death because their children move away and reproduce with non-Inuits then too bad for them, you can't force people to live in the middle of nowhere and marry their cousins for the sake of muh genetics.

Attached: rabbit types.jpg (750x553, 59.83K)

What's with all the virgin-shaming lately? Are people supposed to derive their self-worth from their ability to extract sex from people? Please, keep your neoreactionary garbage contained to reddit memes.

Yes, thats basically right.
Genocide is not more immoral than completely random murder of an equal number of people unmotivated by ethnicity.

Given the above, no and no. It doesn't matter.

I'm sure that there are plenty of people with similar opinions to , e.g. that "groups" don't have rights, only individuals do. It's a valid position, just one that I disagree with.

That's a good example. What in particular is Israel doing that you would classify as ethnic cleansing? Is it the settlements? If so, would you say that China attempted to ethnically cleanse Tibet? If so, would you not agree that the mass migration into European countries is also ethnic cleansing, except one being perpetrated in the interested of global capital rather than a competing ethnic group? If not, what are the differences?

Let's use Wales as an example. If the Welsh people made up 90% of the population of Wales, would they be justified in enacting necessarily discriminatory policies in order to maintain or increase that percentage? What about if they were only 10% of the population? At what percentage does it become justified, if ever?

I wasn't virgin shaming, it's the stormfags that put such a huge emphasis on reproduction and self worth while complaining about white women not wanting to fuck them. Zig Forums is filled with threads about trying to boost testosterone and bitching about black dudes stealing "their" women. If they don't want to be made fun of for being sexual failures then maybe they shouldn't advertise it as their main goal in life.

Provided this so-called outbreeding doesn't mean the colonizers are literally raping the local wives, I don't see why it should be prevented.
I think this is a ridiculous way of thinking about people. When people of different ethnicities mix with eachother, mixed people are born. There's no "extinction" or "genocide" here. I couldn't care less about the preservation of one specific genetic type, it is basically meaningless.
As for the culture of the "extinct" group, on one hand it doesn't just disappear because that exact genetic combination disappeared. But on the other hand desperately wanting to preserve cultures in the exact same unmodified form is just impossible. Cultural change has always occurred, all existing peoples in world history have evolved culturally, even without necessarily being influenced by other peoples or by a large stream of foreign immigrants. And there's no reason why it would need to be otherwise.

gotta love these wordfilters

It's the other way around - what right does a "group" have to existence? Especially one that is not intentional, willed by its members. Individuals have rights. If nothing else, if individuals want to keep a group alive they are free to do so. But why should I care about what you and someone else have agreed on?

...

This is a common position, but I don't quite understand it myself. Let me give an example. Iceland has a very unique culture and heritage spanning over a thousand years. Suppose that they adopted an open border policy, but with strict rules on integration. Suppose that, over a long period of time, they were replaced entirely by people of Arabian descent (for example), but who had adopted Icelandic culture in a real and meaningful way, to the extent that no trace of Arabian culture remained. Icelanders as an ethnic group became extinct, but their culture lived on, perpetuated by Arabians.

Does the thought of that honestly not make you uncomfortable?

Can you expand on that?Not disagreeing with you just yet.

Is it inevitable at the current state?I believe you're referring mostly to the west importation of immigrants and if so can you show me some proof that they will will eventually replace the indigenous ethnic population and make them extinct?What can we even do about it if such is the case?People will mate with whoever they please and I don't support policing such things. The least we can do is do away with open borders and the best thing we can do is do away with capitalism which causes mass migration and benefits off it.

Ethnic groups don't exist in the first place. They're made up ad-hoc by people trying to define an ingroup and outgroup. "Scientific" "research" on the subject almost always starts from the assumption that non-scientific categories are legitimate and thus amount to post-hoc ergo propter-hoc rationalization.

Do you believe that culture and ethnicity are/can be completely separate? See

If you can't even argue your way out of ancap logic, your philosophy might be shit you know.

No.

Out breeding does not lead to extinction dude .Even in the nazi musterbation fantasy you live the other nationality will still exist as a minority. But in real life people have ,do and will fuck each other no matter there nationality
You have the free time to ask questions on chans so……….
No not really
But even migrant birth rates are lowered by generations

Wrong. Everyone has the right to reproduce with those who want to reproduce with them and are deemed to be of sound judgement.

I don't agree, but I'm certainly open to being convinced on this. It seems to me that a mass emigration of Iniuts would only happen, if at all, for economic reasons. Under global communism, this would never happen. It's a shame that an entire culture and ethnicity would be allowed to be destroyed by Capitalism. I'm not sure you could call that a "natural" or "nonviolent" extinction.

Yes look native american tribal celebrations(i am not an american btw)
Most of them are white but they seem so happy doing there cute dances
Also people have historicaly adopted other cultures no matter there race
(See hellenistic kindoms or latin america now)

I'd say so. It seems like a baseless idea to me that the culture is in some way "inscribed" inside the DNA of a specific ethnicity. Your Iceland example is just silly though, not because only Icelandic genes are capable of carrying Icelandic cultural conventions, but because nothing like what you describe has ever happened in reality. Cultures mix, evolve, influence each other. The Arabs who would come there obviously already have a culture of their own, which will not suddenly disappear and be replaced for 100% with Icelandic culture. This does not somehow indicate that specific culture is in their genes though.

Also people dont disapear
What will happen to the last norse iclanders?
Stay forever virgin?
No they will fuck arab cuties
Also most arabs will become iclanders after generations of public school propaganda

Some native American tribes would allow people to join their tribe if they liked them personally regardless of ethnicity.

Also like says the Hellenistic period is a perfect example to illustrate this. The most diverse components of Greek culture were adapted by people of entirely different ethnicities.

No because they were invited in, and they are fleeing conditions that were caused by europeans (and americans) to begin with.

Read the next sentence of my post faggot.

It would still happen, part of the reason the Inuits stay where they are is because they are fucking poor. The children who move away are the lucky ones who won't have to spend most of their lives in a frozen desert. A lot of people really don't care about culture and tradition if it means living a short life in harsh conditions, if money wasn't an object I'm sure most would head somewhere else.

Ya know this is where I find it hard to empathize with people. I don't give a shit about "culture" or "heritage". If I like a custom I'll take it for myself, and if I don't like something about the culture I grew up in I'll abandon it. The idea of sticking with a fixed set of traditions just because a bunch of dead people loosely related to you did them doesn't make any sense to me and I don't understand the kind of people who will defend it so ravenously. Like, the only roots I have are those I make, I don't give a shit about what language my great-great-grandfather spoke or what clothes he wore, and I can't understand why other people do.

Attached: seath the scaleless.png (1229x1031, 269.75K)

yes and no

yes in the fact that genocide of a particular race/ethnicity is in fact wrong, you have a fundamental right to be part of that race and still practice a fairly normal existence at least compared to other people of your nation (if the """Blacks""" rose up tomorrow and organized a genocide of whitey, then this would be breaking that right to exist as a member of your ethnic group.) But on the flip side, this can not mean that the same actions of genocide are used in order to prevent death of an ethnicity, for example if whites were for whatever reason truly on the breaking point of going near extinct as Zig Forums suggests, and they decided to finally pull of the white nationalist wet dream and form a state of their own for whites, executing/deporting anyone who isn't so that they may protect the white race.

I think the key problem that white nationalists have with viewing a topic like ethnic extinction is that they are fixated on this idea that no race would willingly wipe itself out, so the fact that whites as a percentage of total population is going down is in fact due to some wicked and malevolent policy of globalism. You have to remember that by protecting a race you aren't protecting some sacred whale in an environmental sense, the """death""" of the white race, if it is in fact happening, is more so happening because of couples of different races falling in love and reproducing non-white babies, which would make this death of a race almost a consensual act rather then an outright genocide

derp

I have my doubts about the claim you're making here. You're right that mass migration probably would be less common under communism, however I think there will still be Inuits who are curious to experience a different, maybe less primitive lifestyle (and in a less hostile natural environment) than living in an igloo and surviving off fish.
While I'm the first to admit capitalism can be blamed for a LOT of phenomena, I don't think this is necessarily one of them.

Thanks for replying. I appreciate it.

Do you not think it's a shame that certain groups have died out entirely from this earth? It's heartbreaking to me, but perhaps I'm just a sentimentalist.

Sorry, I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of your post. I just fundamentally disagree (ie, that miscegenation wouldn't/doesn't eventually result in extinction of an ethnic group).

I do agree regarding the impossibility of preserving culture in it's historical form(s). It can't be done, and attempts to do so prevent the changes required to bring about the demise of Capitalism. However, it very much is possible to preserve an ethnic group, and I would go as far as to say that to not do so is morally wrong.

By an unelected EU bureaucracy. The continual rise of anti-immigration parties in the EU demonstrates this "invitation" was not mutually offered by the public at large.
See, here you are treating immigration like retribution for an imagined crime. This is implicitly suggesting mass immigration is some sort of punishment for the sins of their EU bureaucrats. Of course, the people who "invited" these arabs in the EU are not the ones who have to live with/nearby theses immigrants. Of course it's about demographic replacement.

This

What about when the group is intentional and willed by it's members, but outside forces seek to eradicate it, eg. Tibet and Palestine?

Now that's dicey. Everyone has the right to self-defense, alone or collectively. But then again, it's one thing for Tibetans to want to keep on speaking Tibetan to one another and keep having Tibetan babies, and defending that. But what if they want to keep on keeping Tibetan slaves, and send out bandits against surrounding peoples? We can't have that of course. Long as you don't undermine socialism, fearing eradication should not be an issue.

Hypothetical white nationalist can perfectly set up their little Amish-like village out in the woods, if it does not involve ethnically cleansing the area. It just seems like they are not content to do just that.

Palestinians were either forced out of their homes and lands or were killed, the settlements came afterward.

China is oppressing Tibet but i don't think that they're ethnically cleansing them, Tibetan people are not forced out of their homes or land and they're not killed, it's just that Hans tend to fuck like rabbits so they have an insane fertility compared to Tibetans but i wouldn't consider that to be ethnic cleansing.

This is stupid, when people immigrate from the middle east to europe they don't force europeans out of their land nor do they kill them, this is different from palestine where people get forced out of their land or get killed. Infact if anything it's Western Imperialism's fault for destroying the countries of these people that cause the to immigrate to the west in the first place

If welsh people made up 10% then the effect of these policies could be disastrous(depending on how brutal they are), it could end in a civil war or a humanitarian or another holocaust… well maybe i'm exaggerating but getting rid of 90% of your population will not be a peaceful process and it's definitely bad. on the other hand if welsh people made up 90% then these policies just seem unnecessary because they have already a high percentage. so in conclusion i don't think such policies are good no matter what, if wales really want to increase their welsh population then they should do it through peaceful means for example: they could encourage women to have more children or thing like that.

I think genocide and preventable deaths are heartbreaking. I don't think race mixing is though, seeing as it has always happened and always will. You're putting up an idealized image of "ethnicity" that in reality often has been much muddier. I also agree more or less with that as an individual you don't necessarily want to "belong" to the ethnic group you can be classified in. Now I can also sympathize to some extent with things you say. For me personally I've always found the diversity of languages beautiful and a particularly valuable aspect of cultures to be kept alive. However I simply don't think it's realistic to think at least some homogenization is preventable in a highly industrialized society.
It's weird to me that you agree that culture can't be preserved in its historical forms, but you still think the ethnicity in itself can and should be preserved. What exactly is it you want to preserve? Their physical features?

I'm not sure that I can - I'm not smart enough, to be honest. It just seems to me that it is in the interests of capital to undermine ethnic identity. There is more profit to be made off the back of mindless consumers who lack strong convictions. People without an identity (ethnic or otherwise) are less likely to resist. Do you not agree? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you feel the opposite way.

I'd rather keep this hypothetical - I find it more interesting. However, if you're genuinely curious, look at the demographic trend in England since the late 90s, for example. It's certainly a possibility, though I don't believe it is a foregone conclusion just yet.

I totally agree with this.

...

Ofcourse its a same
Not really about the shitty genotypes but more about the lost cultures
But why you think that minorities will be destroyed
This is a poltard thing not a conservative to communist thing.

Not really unelected.
They are elections about mps
The real problem is corporete influence
Also, you idiot , imigration is not organized and only exist do to imperialist making the global south shit
We dont see it as a punisment
I live at a europian getto and the new arab migrants are harmless they dont seem to care about the locals

Omg my phone is killing my english

Do you believe that an ethnic group has an inherent right to continued existence?
Depends on what you mean by "the right for an ethnic group to exist"
If you mean for its members to reproduce and live a happy life like any human should, yes.
If you mean for the group as a metaphysical ideal embodied by some people to exist unchanged, to forbid ethnic mixing by some sort of force, then no.

The group dissolving or merging into other groups is not genocide, it is not morally wrong, it is not bad. Cultures do not have rights, humans do.

I agree, and that's not what I meant to imply. Sorry for not being clearer.

Yes, of course. I've intentional presented an extreme (impossible) example because it makes it easier to understand your position. There's less nuance at the extremes.

Of course, just like we allow people to immigrate to our countries. We refer to them with our own demonyms. But it seems obvious to me that we don't then start seeing them as the same as us. I don't imagine for a second that those tribes would say that "Now you have been inducted into our tribe, you are no longer a White man, you are a Native American".

It is a good example. Do you not think it's unfortunate that the ancient Greek ethnic group no longer exists today? That the people who literally invented western civilisation were mixed into oblivion?

Globalization as it happens nowadays and the disappearing of family structures are results of capitalism. Not really because capitalists "want" to undermine ethnicity, but because of the creation of a global market.
Ethnic identity = strong convictions?
It's funny you say this because the widespread belief on Zig Forums (and honestly the main reason people here hate "reddit socialism") is the exact opposite: that capitalists push for identity politics to divert the attention from class issues. By making people believe they should organize based on identity instead of shared class interests, the working class is internally divided and unable to unite against the real enemy.
The "great replacement" is really not as dramatic as the right likes to portray it. You might be interested in this video on the subject (he cites several demographic sources in the description): youtube.com/watch?v=VUbxVfSqtt8

Attached: sectarianism makes porky happy.png (1067x1200 192.55 KB, 128.48K)

...

big thonk

meant to post another pic (that i can't find) of black and white working class people working together, not commies and anarchists, but you get the point

Honestly even if there ran a straight line, without any ethnic mixing ever having occurred, from ancient Greeks to modern-day Greeks, I wouldn't regard them in another light. They are not the people who "invented western civilization" - some of their forefathers were. This is something i always found incomprehensible about nationalists: that they feel personally proud of something a person they never knew accomplished ages ago, just because of some supposed ethnic link.

Read Stalin my man. Nations are unlikely to disappear until the highest stage of communism. And it should be said that I think people will give up nationalism and ethnic identification voluntarily but it must be something that is done with respect and not force. The Soviet Union had dozens of republics and sought to maintain hundreds of vibrant ethnic groups for a reason; they did suppress their autonomy when aspects of their culture/religion was too reactionary but they always maintained that people should have national self-determination. I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

I would reply to this, but I think you got a good response already.

Presumably under communism, the conditions wouldn't be nearly as harsh thanks to investment and technological interventions. I believe that people inherently want to stay where they were born, amongst the people they grew up with (excluding holidays and backpacking, obviously). If they weren't poor, they would stay.

Are you an American?

Nations are not ethnicities.
Nations are stupid concepts and the soviet union ought to have abolished them and merge them into one big whole.

I think this post is a good response to your general point.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the relevant part of my post here ?

You keep coming back to this sentiment. When has ethnicity had any impact on your interaction with others and day to day living. Tell us why is it meaningful. I, and most others here, find it meaningless.

Yeah on second thought I actually start thinking I was wrong about this. You may be right that migration would be dramatically reduced under communism, especially if all parts of the world are more or less at the same level of technological development.

because you're privileged

anti racism is the most privileged bourgeois shit imaginable

So the question is, what would you classify as a justifiable defence ("how do you propose that a group ensures it's existence")?

I'm guessing that you're American? If so, I can see why you'd reach a conclusion like that, but I don't believe it applies in Europe, for example. It's just not realistic to say that the English "can perfectly set up their [ethnostate], if it does not involve ethnic cleansing". In what sense can they make their homeland an ethnostate without ethnic cleansing? It's a prerequisite.

Attached: AMLOII.jpg (360x352, 36K)

Okay, so you wouldn't have the same problem with Israel if they were only outbreeding the Palestinians, and not oppressing them?

That makes sense. Thanks for replying.

he's belgian :^)

But Israel is, for all intents and purposes, "outbreeding" Palestine and that's part of why Palestinian leaders are so adamant about the right-to-return.

you have a right not to be purged from existence as a group by the use of violence, you however do not have a right to prevent race mixing in the cases where the "pure blooded" are going away either by breeding with other people or whatever Zig Forums thinks it's killing the white race this month

Also, the people who want an "ethnostate" are usually just a tiny group, not all members of the nation. A village in the woods is a perfectly realistic way to let these people have their ethnic community.

Why do you SJWs always cry privilege whenever you can't muster an intelligent response?

Which is not what a nation fucking is, nor has it ever been that.
Many nations have multiple ethnicities, were formed recently and artificially, did not and do not have a common language and do not have a common "phychological makeup".
They are artificial administrative terrotories build on political control. Russia would be the finest example. Russia is not the area where the Rus live or lived, it was the entirety of the conquered lands under control by the tzarist house, which did include a part of the Rus, did not include another part, and included many other ethnic groups with a different language and culture.
To say that nations are as Stalin said, and Stalin was wrong, is to purposefully ignore the fact that Stalin did not reformulate the "nations" according to ethnicity to fit the definition that he gave for a nation.

Get a grip and find some actual arguments

because it's true

this board is the left of center mirror image of Ben Shapiro or Paul Joseph Watson

idpol is bad mmmkayyy (bad for who? privileged white people who don't have to deal with PoC animals but want to signal about how great they are)

take a hike, kike

...

Yes, but genetic groups =/= ethnic groups

Attached: 'racisten zijn racistisch uit ervaring'.jpg (620x387, 60.2K)

ALL NAZIS LIVE in BLACK GETTOS
ALL COMMIES ARE RICH
Reeeee

London is 70% non white and recent white shitlib transplants living in self segregated neighborhoods

Of course a 70% non-white city will oppose ukip

take a hike, kike

States and nations are not the same thing. I feel like no one here has taken high school civics, mixing up terms like this.

WNs are actually preparing to live like Jews or Boers, ironically, a nation within a state to survive globalism and the loss of their homelands.
It's really fucked up that the real world Left promotes this annexation because of some blood debt they must pay for something they never did.

You could say the same thing to a guy who argues that you shouldn't steal or shit in the streets. Not saying these are the same things, but you'd have to clarify how you could have a society at all if you didn't accept at least some intersubjective encroachment onto your autonomy. And if you do accept the encroachment, where do you draw the line?

Attached: mulletman.jpg (600x462, 51.41K)

Ethnic identity is in the set of strong convictions, amongst other things.

It's funny how often far-right and far-left ideologies intersect in this way. Personally I consider myself a mixture of the two. I sincerely believe that some sort of turd positionist ideology is the future. Anarcho-Fascist anti-state when?

Thanks for the video.

See the fucking thread when we say are jobs most people here are proles and you just proced you dont live in a getto so kys

this board is white suburbanites fighting against idpol because they don't want to be on a receiving end of the ire of PoC animals while being too dumb or cowardly to become nazis

Ok then medium back to getto for you
>>>Zig Forums

Some of the posters here genuinely believe that "PoC animals", as you call them, only act like animals because of the economic condition they're in. So, most aren't afraid of these "animals", so long as they integrate and end up at the same, sheltered economic status they enjoy. Like a policy of defanging the animals via communism.

engage in white idpol in self defense or your poc pets will eat you alive in your sleep

I never understood this line of thought. I can see why someone might disagree with "ethnic solidarity" (for want of a better term), but I honestly can't see how someone can't understand it. It's obvious. It's not "personal pride" as such. Don't you feel a pride for the accomplishments of your immediate family? I'd be proud if my brother was an astronaut, for example. I wouldn't call it "personal pride", but it's certainly pride. To a nationalist, ethnicity is an extended family.

Are you an American? I find that it's much harder to explain to Americans.

Whiter than you, yeah.
Oh, boy

I bet you mix up country and state too.

Attached: 1364517012644.jpg (456x337, 35.81K)

Attached: clap.gif (482x800, 29.07K)

i like how you're pretending to be racist but can't muster up the courage to drop "pock" for two minutes
you're not selling me on the bit

The thing is strong convictions in themselves don't do anything against capitalism, if those convictions in themselves aren't anti-capitalist. And even more: if the capitalist class promises it will put effort into the protecting of your convictions, that's a reason more not to revolt against them.
HORSESHOE THEORY CONFIRMED
I don't think fascism can be effectively anticapitalist. Actually just two days ago I made a post about this while debating another Zig Forumsack, so i'll shamelessly link my own post:

Well as a greek
I dont give a fuck about most greeks but most nationalists are lumpen that try to find hope at things others did

This is true but would like to point out that ethnicities couldn't have evolved differentlty qua group characteristics if these groups hadn't been somewhat isolated.

I mean yes ethnicity is always at least 'somewhat' muddy but it makes no sense to go full deconstructionist.

Meh, I guess maybe I can have some kind of national pride when a visitor says he loves my country or some shit, but I don't feel any connection to "national heroes" of centuries ago. I don't agree with the extended family thing either. I know my family members personally, I don't know most of the people in my so-called national "community" though and can sometimes feel a stronger connection to people from elsewhere - for example chances are I'll befriend a leftist from another country more quickly than a liberal/fascist from my own.

OP here, these are my posts:

If a mod happens to see this: please consider enabling IDs. I know they aren't traditionally part of imageboard culture but I find it hard to follow conversations without them now. That's my two cents.

Thanks for the thread, I really enjoyed it. I'm going to go take a long walk off a short pier. Ciao.