â„–3723260[Quote]
To all ethnonationalists/WNs on this board: why do you think strict White nationalism is preferable to good-faith civic nationalism?
I am a race realist, so I acknowledge the genetic origin of mental differences between the races (not just in IQ but in temperament, artistic taste, etc). However, in my mind, the fact that the average nonwhite is incompatible with Western Civilization does not preclude compatible exceptions from existing.
Some common complaints I anticipate:
>Replacement migration demographically replaces Whites regardless of the quality of immigrants.
I agree, which is why I think even this civnat immigration should be limited and only done if the host population wants it. However, I don't see any logical reason the host population would not want it, other than aesthetic preferences.
>Civic nationalism got us into the mess we are in now.
I don't think the last century of immigration is a good faith attempt at civic nationalism. There has been no serious attempt to screen immigrants for skill or cultural similarity, and in fact the most different and incompatible peoples are encouraged to come here for the sake of "diversity." Even worse, there is no mechanism to remove people already here (e.g. many blacks) that have failed to integrate. The average Somali is totally incompatible with America and does not belong here, but there are probably a handful of Somalis with 110 IQ+ that could be integrated if we wanted to.
>You are a nigger/kike/faggot/jeet/etc
I am White American, so I am "fine" either way regardless of whether we end up with an ethnostate or something like my 90% White civnat proposal.
>Why do you care so much if you are White?
I have met several non-Whites that I consider genuinely assimilated and good people, and do not want them to be deported under a strict WN regime. They are definitely the minority from their respective ethnicities, but such people do exist. I don't think they should outnumber us or even come close to disrupting the demographic dominance of the natives, but there is nothing individually wrong with them.
>Society should be structured around the rule, not the exception.
I also agree here, but I think rules should be flexible enough to allow for exceptions as they arise. For example, I think it was a good thing that Marie Curie was allowed to be a scientist instead of a housewife, even though most women are not well-suited to serious chemistry research.
â„–3723268[Quote]
trve white nationalists racemix with asian women
â„–3723272[Quote]
"civic nationalism" is an oxymoron, nationalism refers to a nation meaning ethnic group. "Civic nationalism" is patriotism (belonging inside some borders and agreeing with some foudational document of said area)
â„–3723273[Quote]
>>3723268bvmp if you agree
â„–3723275[Quote]
I'm just going to answer the first question because you wrote a lot.
<refdt
Good faith civic nationalism is just empire. And empire just like communism always gets infiltrated by psychopaths.
â„–3723277[Quote]
>>3723260 (OP)>race is real and explains why there are differences in IQ and behavior between racial groups>the only argument against mass migration from the third world is aesthetic preferencesreally nigga
â„–3723280[Quote]
>>3723268nvlcear senegal pill
>>3723272I guess then another way to ask my question: why is the ethnostate (i.e. strictly one nation in one polity) better than my proposal of a polity with one clearly dominant nation and some politically unimportant minorities?
â„–3723285[Quote]
>>3723280racemixing with japanese women is saving the white race disagree if you are a joo
â„–3723286[Quote]
>>3723285Omg you are literally her
â„–3723287[Quote]
>>3723277MASS migration (emphasis on mass) is retarded, because most people from these other groups cannot measure up to our standards. But even some total niggerhell like Somalia probably has a few smart pipo that could be functional members of western society
â„–3723289[Quote]
>>3723285I am Armenian so I am already jooish
â„–3723290[Quote]
i disagree btw
â„–3723295[Quote]
>>3723290fuck you race traitor
â„–3723298[Quote]
>>3723275Why do you think an ethnostate would be any different? I'm sure a powerful ethnostate like China is probably full of psychos at the top.
â„–3723307[Quote]
>>3723298Allegiance. There is a physical and ancestral/spiritually ancestral tie, civic nationalism does not have this. Population replacement easily happens
â„–3723312[Quote]
>>3723309japanese women are aryan and better than white crakkkas foids
â„–3723332[Quote]
Well?
â„–3723351[Quote]
>>3723332>>3723307I agree that common blood provides a powerful built in allegiance to the people being ruled, but I feel like religion or patriotism could provide a similar bond. Even if we decide this is not enough, why not just bar foreigners from leadership positions? Pretty sure this is what China (basically the only IRL ethnostate) does
â„–3723358[Quote]
>>3723351Religion does, but religion also divides the ethnicities. Civilly, just like every single empire, eventually fails. But there are ethnic groups that have clear know and written down history for over 2000 years
â„–3723359[Quote]
I'm addicted to latina porn
â„–3723368[Quote]
>>3723358Joos, Slavs, celts, anglos, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, the list goes on and on and on
â„–3723374[Quote]
>>3723260 (OP)And how exactly would that look? Would you let them marry into the population? No you can't have your cake and eat it too anymore. There will either be mass immigration or none at all. That's how the public would understand it. There isn't really any room for a compromise
â„–3723376[Quote]
>>3723280>why is the ethnostate (i.e. strictly one nation in one polity) better than my proposal of a polity with one clearly dominant nation and some politically unimportant minorities?Because it removes all the problems of otherness. There is no issues with race relations when there is only one race. Finland was a monoculture not long ago, we had no issue with integrating migrants because there were no migrants. We had no issues between religions either because there was one religion.
â„–3723378[Quote]
The thing about your proposed immigration is that if there was so mass immigration then this could maybe be pheasable. But once immigration stops this country is slowly going to become extremely hostile to the groups that remain. Just like how no one hates the Nazis more than the boomers it will be the children that live in the shadow of the end of immigration that will hate immigrants the most. You could expect regular house burnings and beatings and little public sympathy. The country would simply not be a good place for them to live anymore
â„–3723393[Quote]
>>3723368But these ethnic groups are not really 2000 years old. I am Slavic, so I can speak to them the best, but modern Slavic ethnicities do not exist since the Slavic migration out into Europe in the 8th century. Modern "slavic" peoples are also no longer one nation, since they mixed with local populations (e.g. Illyrians in the Balkans) and no longer mix regularly with each other. So why should we preserve the current national boundaries until the end of time?
â„–3723400[Quote]
New
(((VPN)))>>3723378I guess, but imo the past 80 years have shown the public can be pretty much infinitely propagandized in whatever direction the elites want. So if we have elites committed to the kind of plan I am proposing, I don't think this sort of violence is a given. You can also see this now because White people are much more hostile towards Blacks and Hispanics vs. Asians, the difference being that Asians tend to assimilate better than the others
â„–3723402[Quote]
>>3723400You're half right about propaganda. You can sell narratives to the public. But you can't have the narrative of fighting against ethnic replacement and then leave the people doing it in the country and not expect extreme hatred. You can't sell a complicated message to the public. It has to be night and day
â„–3723403[Quote]
>>3723393So ethnic cleansing and genocide = good.
>So why should we preserve the current national boundaries until the end of time?Peace le good?
â„–3723407[Quote]
If what you propose happens the only thing that would occur is over time the younger generations get more and more radical and restrict immigration and the immigrants don't see much to gain here anymore
â„–3723424[Quote]
>>3723407I guess you are right about this. As I mentioned earlier, the root of my apprehension is personal and small scale. I have several genuine, patriotic, assimilated non-White friends here in Muttmerica, and I would have a hard time looking them in the eye and kicking them out for something that they did not personally do and actually oppose on a personal level. You can say that makes me a faggot or lolbert or whatever, but I think this is a somewhat common situation for people to be in.
â„–3723426[Quote]
>>3723424No I think it's totally normal to think that way. Friends are friends and I don't think too many people would expect you to do that. I get why you have your personal reservations but you'll see that history is full of people that are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are many people who grew up with one group their whole lives and a conflict drives those groups apart and they are just gone. Doesn't mean the people you know aren't good people but that's part of history