You can’t have it both ways, if you say whites are more malicious, cause our culture is bad, or our genes are bad, in all or some ways, if you criticize us for our culture, or our genes, than we should be able to criticize you for your culture, and your genes.
If whites having a monopoly on wealth/power/numbers is a bad thing in white countries, than Jews or Chinamen having monopolies in their respective countries is also bad.
You can not have it both ways.
I think it’s okay to criticize whites for some things, and have that debate, but it’s wrong to have that debate and only have that debate, and to never, ever have a debate over problems with other races and cultures, because it makes whites and their culture alone out to be some sort of great force for evil in the world.
It’s absolutist, simplistic, one sided and very, very SELF SERVING.
It’s SELF SERVING, and I won’t tolerate it.
It’s all too convenient for others races, cultures and their stooges, to say every perceived flaw whites have is their own fault racially or culturally, and every perceived flaw others have is also white peoples fault, and that to even suggest otherwise is tantamount to heresy, bigotry, racism, Nazism, and all the rest of it.
It’s wrong, a double standard and I won’t stand for it.
I can’t stand double standards and I won’t.
Individual = a set of natural inclinations to act in some manner, a pattern of behavior
Group = a collection of individuals
Homogeneous group = a collection of similar individuals
Heterogeneous group = a collection of individuals that have one or two things in common (e.g. need to survive) but that have nothing else in common which is why such groups tend to be hypocritical, everyone secretly hating on everyone else; also known as rabble
Group identity = shared pattern of behavior as evidenced by the history of the group
Heterogeneous groups have no identity, they just pretend they do. Think of Christians, modern nationalisms, liberalism, etc.
Why is violence necessary in order for a group to preserve itself? Well, in order to continue to live the way you want to live your life (as defined by your instincts, drives, habits, interests, passions, customs, tradition, etc) you have to eliminate every obstruction on your path. This requires some sort of violence. If you don’t do that, if you don’t defend yourself, you cease to be who you are and you eventually die.
Homogeneous groups degenerate into heterogeneous when their defenses become weakened. Basically, that’s how they die. Again, there are limits to everything, so groups too, like organisms, have a lifespan, going from birth and young age over maturity to old age and death. We’re sort of dying right now.
It’s interesting that heterogeneous groups preach homogeneity more than anyone else. And they do so on a universal level by coming up with some entirely artificial, made up, pattern of behavior that they then try to enforce onto everyone else. Whoever doesn’t comply is shamed.
Pacifism is one such entirely unnatural pattern of behavior.
Asceticism, i.e. expecting people to have fewer needs than they really do, is another.
Which history shows, can shift relatively quickly, even in generally homogenous group.
I agree with this, but this does not make an otherwise homogeneous group immune from splitting, only less likely so. This is why I said that ideology has been the main factor in disagreements (whether the group is homo or hetero). And to preserve group ideology (prevent it from splitting) you’d have to be pretty much watertight like North Korea. This is why there is so much emphasis on winning the hearts and minds of people - it’s primarily through ideology that you create a group identity. Even if you unite all the white people, based on race, you’re not going to be immune to divisive ideology, since it does not discriminate based on color.
I think what is needed is a historical awareness of political dynamics (causes-effects and factors involved), and on a larger scale. Group identities (on national levels) have made the common man into a tool or a pawn to be played in a larger global arena of power games. Of course, the common man stands invested into the society into which he was born because the national self-interest will also eventually trickle down to his own self-interest, so a common man is born to be dependent on the play of global politics by default, whether he likes it or not. And sometimes, the common man gets screwed, like a regular Syrian person, to take a recent example. So does global politics really care for the welfare of the common man? I think not. It’s primarily about ideology and power games, and the regular people are either just collateral damage or raw material to be used. And there are no innocents in this game, either. Are American people good people because their government tells them that their foreign policy is destroying nations for the good of other people (bringing democracy and freedom)? Everyone is complicit, and I think most people, at least instinctively, understand this. And of course, nobody wants to be the bad guy so we have to make up these fancy reasonings and justifications so we can lie, steal and kill, and still be the good guy in the end. This, of course, is nothing new, and has been happening since we first created a group identity.
Who determines exactly what one human being needs, at minimum? I think in most of the world now, you must have at minimum an e-mail address and a cell phone (even in shanty towns around the world). Most of the cities around the world must have at least one McDonald’s. Even Italy, which has always resisted Starbucks expansionism, is now buckling in and will open its first Starbucks next year. Will Italy be enriched by Starbucks coffee? Heck no, it’s like comparing Michelangelo to children’s doodles. But how can we not have a Starbucks in Italy?! At the very minimum, we should have one. Visit your local mall, it’s a practically a carbon copy of any other mall in the world. If you don’t have this standard set in your local town, you’re not having the minimum experience that a human being around the world should have access to. This is the world we live in now. But I digress.
Who or what determines when you’re going to be hungry?
Your body does, right?
The need to survive is too vague an example because it can apply to nearly everyone so a more specific one would be better in this particular case
Pick any other. How about the need to have sex? How about the need to forget your past (= your-self)? How about the need to defend yourself from some enemy? How about the need to get along with everyone so that we don’t have to be at war with each other?
I guess my point was that the idea of “basic human needs” can be redefined and also socially constructed. Our society accepts certain “basic” standards without which you can’t successfully function in society. Just try to enroll your kid into a school without having X number of vaccinations. You can’t. Our standard nutrition (and medicine) also has “basic” requirements that were set by science and professionals. Our water has to be fluoridated, our blood cholesterol/blood pressure has to be within such and such parameters, our foods have to be fortified with a-b-c vitamins/minerals, etc. The understanding of “basic human needs” is really varied across the globe. Is having a plumbing system or hot water a basic human need? Some will say it is.
Needs are biologically determined. Noone cares what others say what your needs should be. Salesmen come up with all sorts of arguments all the time to convince you that you need their product but we know how many times that’s true: basically zero times.
Sure, you can convince yourself you have certain needs that you don’t really have but this has consequences such as repression.
Needs aren’t fixed, I agree with that, they can and do change through time. No doubt they change in response to external pressure but that does not mean that every change in response to external pressure is good.
…and I reiterate… it is not the group but the message that is the problem.
Change the tone of the message and the view of the group will be seen in a different light… it happened here, but their intent remained the same.
So name one specifically pro-white group that is ok to you. It seems that you are ignoring the fact that by virtue of being “pro-white” is it unacceptable to you. How do you even know what the messages are? Sounds like you’re just another sheep.
The banking cartels. I’m cool with them being pro white.
Banking cartels are pro-white? Give me a break, you aren’t serious are you? You know come to think of it, I’ve never seen a single post from you that makes it seem like you are “reasonable” in any sense of the word.
The people who benefit from banks are more white than not.
Thank you for admitting you don’t know what you are talking about.
Could you learn to be a good person?
Can a honky learn to dance?
Your pathetic metaphors don’t fool anyone. Penis envy drives your culture.
How old are you? What is your level of education?
Britain First.
You seem to have entirely missed the point I am making.
No group is unacceptable to my sensibilities, but the tone of their messages are… regardless of which group it is.
The messages are out there to read for those that seek them.
Who am I following to be a sheep?
Not a pro-white group. Pro-loyalist. They still play the leftist word game with “racism”, as if a Britain First group that didn’t accept multiculturalism is racist. They are pro-christian. Their 'traditional British values" equates to “christianity” to them. Again, not pro-white.
I didn’t miss your point. My point that you missed, is that this thread was started with black pride, lgbt pride, latino pride but not white pride. Your response was immediately about the “message” meaning you are conflating “white pride” automatically with a “bad message”, you didn’t make any distinction. My sheep comment was about being a sheep to the establishment and their language manipulation and how they portray different groups. Secondly your example of an acceptable “pro-white” group lacks any hint of actually looking out for white interests. Only loyalist and christian ones, guised as “British values”. If we were to take another actual pro-X group and change it to pro-white, the very same “values”, demands, the very same rants would be considered racist, x, y, and z “'ist” etc. etc. and my assumption is that based on this you would automatically call it a " bad tone to the message".
Though, perhaps an inflammatory term like “sheep” was a little dramatic. Apologies MagsJ.
And your point is exactly what? That you got your feelings hurt?
Truth of the matter is that the white race died when it socially and collectively decided materialism, money, social status, and the lust for power was more important than group cohesion or even reproduction. Unfortunately the disease of short term scheming and insatiable greed has won out over any cohesive European collective identity. European identity was sacrificed at the alter of materialism and insatiable greed. Ethnic nationalists are correct that there is ongoing tragedy playing out in the west and ensuing double standards however concerning a solution or actual applicable remedy to those ailments ethnic nationalists fall short of presenting anything counter to any of this.
All that is left is a steady slow march into extinction and annihilation surrounded by a majority of self loathing. Eventually the third world and Asia will own the world where Europeans will become a distant historical afterthought in memory . That is unfortunately the future and I see nothing that is going to change that.
If I was to give a description of this disease killing off European identity I would describe it as short term myopic thinking guided by avarice.