Maybe so, but then again back in time they weren’t facing total extinction or eradication along with persecution like today’s white Europeans of all kinds. It’s amazing facing things like persecution or extinction that will unite people.
Catastrophe and crisis are the primary unifiers of human beings.
They would have considered, each from their tribes and groups, you as a part of their extinction. Back then they were persecuted by Rome and nation states and kings and so on.
And here you are a product of their extinction.
Trivial cultural differences thousands of years later. 
They weren’t trivial to them. And yours may not be later. None of this means you’re wrong, but I think the issue needs to be dealt with. Those groups did not think they were trivial. They would see you has a weird and problematic hybrid of cultures. The concept of white would be very odd to them and they certainly would think they had little in common with Greeks and Italians, nor even each with the other side of your family. They would think you were post-enthnic and post cultural, not that they would use those terms. And, of course, not just cultural differences, ethnic ones. And you share very little in common with those cultures. They lived in much more pantheistic and deity filled worlds. Your mind’s been taken over by the modern Rome. (and certainly the EU thinks that national and cultural differences in Europe are meaningless) The various people’s of Europe at that time had a few things in common and you share few of these. And those of your general, mixed ethnic background generally do not share your culture and values. You have much more in common with a small minority amongst many different ethnic groups, if we look at you culturally. If we look at you as a French German, you’ve only got a tiny minority who share your culture and view of, for example, altruism, or politics. And a very small percentage of these is looking forward to the economic collapse of society.
Yet your idea is that your group is white european,b ut they do nto share your culture in the main. Most probably don’t share your ontology even, let alone your values.
But portions of most nations, races and cultural groups by birth but not by practice there are people who share your values, sense of human nature. Of course that’s a multiculutural group.
You can identify with your supposed race, but they don’t share your cultural values. Or you can identify with your cultural values, but then that group is not bound by race.
*Above you say that crisis unites people, but it seems like you are saying it will split them. Of course it can do both, but I think it is much more likely to come down on class lines and not racial lines. Military, poor, rich.
Economic class with mean nothing when the money becomes worthless and the economy collapses where the national bankruptcy of the nation will no longer be hidden from the public. Much as you would find in any modern prison system people will become very tribal on racial or ethnic grounds, more so than they already are now. Sure, some people will still think on the lines of class but all of that really will be quite useless in an internally collapsed society facing seventy five percent plus unemployment where the currency is essentially worthless and where white people will not forget the political persecution they faced before right up until the collapse. All of that will only bring white people closer together as I’ll reiterate once again, in a grand unifying time of catastrophe or crisis. 
As for your elaborate revaluating or mental exercise of past history, what can I say, that was then where this is now. We live in a much different time period compared to the military provinces of ancient Rome and where white people are forced to contend with endless millions of nonwhites who despise us all.
For me your skepticism is unwarranted, you’re over thinking things.
I’m Italian on my father’s side and British (English and Scottish) on my mother’s.
I consider all European countries to be white countries, from the UK to Greece, from Portugal to Finland.
The French, Italians and Greeks weren’t considered to be black by German anthropologists in the 19th and the 20th century.
The French were considered to be white and the Italians and Greeks Mediterranean, a category that’s no longer very useful, since geneticists such as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza have told us Italians and Greeks have more in common with French and Germans than they do with North Africans and West Asians genetically (which should come as no surprise, since they occupy the same subcontinent of Eurasia, whereas West Asians occupy a different subcontinent of Eurasia and North Africans a different continent altogether, but most importantly, it’s harder to tell an Italian and German apart than it is an Italian and a North African or west Asian apart).
Italians and Greeks have little Arabic and virtually no Negroid blood.
I know who’s white by how people look, think and behave, and what they tell me about their ancestry, and we can usually tell when someone is confused or being deceitful.
It matters less what X anthropologist thought in the 19th century, or what Y geneticist thinks than what the people, as individuals and a collective think today.
We all have an innate racial sense, including liberals, and our racial sense affects how we feel about people, whether we’re conscious of it or not, whether we like it or not.
This sense may be a distinct sense, and/or it may be combination of senses working in tandem.
When our senses are telling us different things, I’m just going to have to go with mine, and you go with yours, but generally our senses our pretty consistent.
What he said. ^^^
It’s going to get much worse because the white fertility or reproductive rate is only slightly above zero where it is basically toppling over a cliff as white European women have been brainwashed that only money, careerism, and professionalism is all that matters. We can thank coordinated and organized Jewish inspired radical feminism for all of that. Meanwhile in a declining economy on the verge of collapse white men are discriminated everywhere as the last publicly acceptable group of people to openly discriminate against. The foreigners added with other races breed like rabbits which only ensures a death cross against declining white European populations.
The good news is western civilization is going to collapse where white women are going to have to learn to suck a mean white cock if they don’t want to starve to death or not survive. They’re going to learn very quickly that amongst hordes of men that want to kill, hurt, or rape them there is a steep price in exchange for protection on their part, that will help in the initial stages of societal collapse bringing that white fertility back up.
More effective measures of course under a fascist political system would have to take place in order to ensure a white racial population revival, resurrection, or boost.
What’s stopping them? An ongoing socio-economic economic propaganda campaign against women, men, and families.
Europeans never thought of inter-marriage “Racism” between countries. Marriage between a Serbian and a Scot, is not “racially distinct”. Instead, in Europe, it’s all about social and cultural distinction. If you marry outside your tribe/country. If a French marries a Russian, or vice-versa, then it is generally frowned-upon and will lower your social standing. Out-marriage of your group, is like a small betrayal, a disloyalty. So this generally pushed individuals and families down the social-caste ladder.
This has not been true in US history, where coexisting among Native Indians (Mongolians), Black Slaves (Africans), European Colonialists (Whites), the racial distinction was clear, and there was no longer social or cultural penalty for a French to marry Russian or reverse, to white Settlers. However, the British Anglo-Aristocrats did keep to their own kind, and still do this day. Think of the Pilgrims, Quakers, Puritans, and Mennonites. British Settlers and Colonialists brought their Elitist attitudes with them, which they preserve to this day on the East Coast USA.
Cosmopolitan civic nationalism is globalism it’s just compared to open borders globalism it is much slower in accomplishing the same goals where the later is very quick, accelerating, and incendiary.
Cosmopolitan civic nationalism is basically cultural and racial absorption by that of death by a thousand cuts.
Racial and ethnic nationalism is the only way to go.
There is minor physical differences in features between a Scot and Russian. Moreover, their children whichever culture they align with overall are easily assimilated. That’s because all Europeans stem from a common genetic root or origin.
Expecting millions of Africans to move to Germany and then become Germans over the next five decades will never work. Why? Because they’re from completely different genetic dispositions unlike a white European cross cultural exchange.
It doesn’t matter if the numbers are reducing now, the damage on western civilization with foreign immigration since the 1960s has been done significantly. The only way to fix this is secession and separatism, forcibly imposed multiracial or multiethnic integration is not going to solve anything. It will only create more tensions and conflict of interests overtime until it basically spills out in the streets.
And you guys are on an island much like Ireland for fucks sake! I don’t envy the problems native Brits,Welsh, Scots, and Irish face at all. They’re literally stuck on islands with millions of foreigners invading their nations year in and year out.
Oh, but remember now, it’s not white European genocide! 
If Christopher Columbus did that to an island of native inhabitants people would be screaming genocide all over the place. For some reason white Brits, Welsh, Scots, and Irish don’t count, right?
I don’t just hate Jews, no I’ve studied their religion, culture, and beliefs quite extensively. If you’re going to have a formidable enemy or adversary to contend with it takes a bit of reconnaissance in studying absolutely everything about them including their weaknesses to exploit.
At any rate, if you study the Talmud or rabbinical writings they truly believe that as God’s chosen people it is their divine right to inherit the entire earth to rule from Jerusalem with the coming of the mashiach.
So really it is no surprise why they favor open borders, globalism, and the breaking down of nationalism everywhere because they literally believe God is going to give them the entire world on a silver platter which will become theirs to do whatever they see fit. Yet discussing the Jewish religion none of this ever comes into the public spotlight.
…and the movies portray Corporate careers as glamorous and exciting… which they can be, but those careers shouldn’t stop those women having children, but I guess the fear of losing their jobs would.
Well that’s one way to get them procreating… oh the lure of big-city life… perhaps incentives to assure jobs are kept open and the availability of company creches, might be needed.
Surely not all the women in European countries are in corporate careers, so wouldn’t the wider demographic still be raising families?
For millennia, the Jews didn’t have land.
They couldn’t plough a field, or wield a sword very well…but they wrote the bible.
They can count shekels and tell stories, and that’s precisely what they did.
They swindled the nations of the earth out of their gold, betrayed Germany during WW1, and when the Germans called them out on it during WW2, they spun a sob story called the holohoax, and unfortunately the nations of the world bought it wholesale.
Remember they’re descended from Jacob, not Esau.
Of course it’s a fictional tale, but even fiction contains a germ of truth.
By and large, this was never a tribe of hunters and farmers, of artists, artisans and tradesmen, of warriors.
It’s a tribe of money changers, story tellers and entertainers.
They can make you laugh, cry or enraged at the stroke of a pen.
They’re also moralizers, but their morality is usually self-serving tripe.
They’re not above having one standard for Israel, and another for everyone else.
On the surface they’re cosmopolitan, but just beneath the veneer they’re obsessed with ethnic, racial and religious purity.
The bible is full of genealogy, littered with it.
They point to a poor, black, mentally ill transwoman and say, you must not only tolerate and accept, but you must embrace this person as if they were your own child, in fact they’re better than your own child, for some of your wicked ancestors…or the ancestors of a few people who look like you (because race exists, but only when they want it to) rejected these people, and you unwittingly benefitted from that…somehow, somewhere down the line I’m sure.
You must because the Jew, the eternal stranger in a strange land, above all else fears rejection, and if you’ll accept and worship the poor, black, mentally ill tranny, then surely you’ll accept and worship the Jew, yet they are not above trampling over the corpses of dead Palestinian women and children on their way to completing their Project for the New American Century i.e. greater Israel.
This is their armor, sword and shield.
They whimper, even as they strike you.
Elitism is a universal idea, populism, the idea the people should rule themselves as individuals, communities and a collective, is a white idea, but pluralism, the idea the majority should not only tolerate, accept but worship minorities and foreigners, is a Jewish idea.
The idea that we must be globalist, liberal and progressive while they’re permitted, even encouraged to be nationalistic, within our own borders?
It’s an absolute affront to, infiltration and subversion of our democracy.
They keep the middle and working classes fighting over taxes and wages when all that shit can be bypassed by directly going after the elite’s money.
They wage war against the 3rd world, then import the 3rd world for cheap labor, then say you owe these people a living for warring with them when polls show time and time again we never wanted to war with them in the first place, then extend more rights to them than us, and that’s what passes for socialism these days, keeping the majority fighting with minorities over scraps from the master’s table.
They keep us dumbed down and sickly with every kind of pollution, but just competent and healthy enough for enough of us to run the machines.
I don’t think they want civil war.
I just think the republicans had to wear different makeup, because whites were getting sick and tired of cronyism, the influx of cheap labor, offshoring, BLM, radical Islam, feminism and so on.
They had to amp up the empty rhetoric about opposing these policies (and in response the controlled opposition, the dems had to amp up their empty rhetoric) to make whites feel like something was being done so they wouldn’t vote 3rd party, independent or revolt, but the establishment doesn’t really want to rock the boat or dramatically change course, it rarely does, especially since they’re winning, consolidating wealth and power, it only feigns to, until it can purge social media of the alt and far right movements and find more, better ways to placate and stupefy the masses.
But if they do want civil war, which I doubt, of course it’s only because they think they can somehow blame the patriots for it and ultimately hasten their UN takeover.
Bring back the guillotine.
Christianity is in decline in the west, its relative absence may make it easier for whites to accept secular or pagan white nationalism someday.
Same tricks, new styles.
As it’s gone so far, Post-Colonial WASPs (East coast Liberals) and New York Jews have formed a very powerful coalition in world history. Just as Jews worked with, and against Rome, so too do today’s worldwide Jews (Zionists) work toward their eternal goal of retaking and keeping Israel and Jerusalem. It’s kind of a one-trick pony, once you understand the premise. But people forget the Jewish-Christian intermarriage. Jews and Christians are essentially teammates. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” Both sides are captives to Messianic Ideology, Prophecy (Magic), and Theocracy. Although Jews have tenuous alliances with (North) European pagans, this backfired when German/Saxons tried to seize control of Central European banks, resulting in World War II. If a country cannot control its own bank and currency, then war is absolutely necessary and inevitable. World War One occurred because of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Aristocracy, which was overdue historically. Germany was in position to capitalize, leading to World War II.
English-Anglos are the “New World Aristocracy”. They think of themselves this way. Have you ever interacted with East Coast Liberals? They think they know more than everybody else, that they are righteous, can do no wrong, etc. The political battle is occurring between Left and Right, as it’s called. But the Zionist agenda is pretty secure. Jews and Zionists can, will, and have pulled-back from extremity, if it threatens their status-quo, which is Washington DC–Israel alignment. So the banks aren’t in trouble of collapse, just the opposite.
Unfortunately for you Zero, I don’t see any “collapse” coming, just the opposite, boredom and tedium for decades and decades. Any fragmentation and revolution in the US will come from secularist ideologues.
But nobody really fights tooth and nail on full stomaches. Real war happens when everybody’s stomachs are empty. The bottom-line, the status-quo, is not in danger.
Right, we’re ruled by rich Jews 1stly, 2ndly by rich WASPS, and other northwestern Europeans who sold us out.
This’s at least part of the reason why our society favors both the wealthy on the one hand, and at the same time, minorities on the other.
If we weren’t chiefly ruled by a rich minority, we’d probably be conservative on identity politics, or at least not as liberal and progressive as we are now.
However, I guess it’s possible for an elite to totally turn on its own people voluntarily, like if they figure their own people are too smart, strong and unruly, they might wish to water their blood down with the blood of foreigners, and/or that might be the first step in a plan to rule the whole globe by globalist consent rather than nationalist conquest.
But Israel remains an ethno-state, like almost all non-white states, so either globalism is for Europeans only, or the objective is to someday make it for everyone except Jews.
Imagine the world divided into two states, one a smaller, but ultra-powerful and exclusively Jewish state ruling over a powerless state encompasses the rest of the world and populated by miscegenous or interracial goy.
What a nightmare.
Will the Chinese and Japanese let the Jews in?
Will the Indians and Pakistanis?
I wonder how much of their banking and press is controlled by the tribe?
The elite shape the character of the society they rule.
The Jew seized power through banking, the media and entertainment industry, which’s why these entities are held in such high regard today.
If it was a warrior elite or whatever, it’d be different.
It’s a scientific elite rather than a theocratic, at least on the surface, but we know all manner of sordid, occult practices like child sacrifice to their Canaanite deities go on behind closed doors.
Yes, and just as the Romans collapsed, we probably will too at some point, the question is, when?
We can only speculate.
Right, again it’s that double standard, the Jews practice an eye for an eye (Judaism) while they try to get the rest of the world to turn a blind eye and the other cheek (Christianity).
It’s nationalism for Israel, and globalism, liberalism and progressivism for the goy.
It looks like the wrong people won the war, sad.
As far as my knowledge goes, China hasn’t let Jews in, and certainly not in any position of their national banks. China is not like any other civilization; their citizens have no real Rights and can be surveyed at all times. China is also aware of Jews and Judaism, historically, and as pointed-out, have no reservations toward “Racism” or any political-taboo of the West. This makes China a potential threat, which the Anglo-Jewish alliance cannot penetrate (without going through the Russians).
Japan is emasculated by America, and there is slippage there. Japanese don’t really know how to integrate Jews and Anglicans (“Weebs”) who increasingly visit and take residence there. South Korea has the same problem. They’ve already been infiltrated by racial (non-Asian) outsiders. When the door’s open, it’s pretty much open for good. There’re not many final barriers to ‘Globalists’ and Globalism.
Anglos (English Aristocrats) and East Coast Liberals pride themselves on conquering the world. The way that England did it, and does it, is by segregation and ghettos. They fence-themselves off and let the conquered nations and tribes infiltrate the low or middle-class communities. It’s “their” problem. US is an exception because the country is so large geographically and there is cultural isolation.
The Deep South in the US, for example, is still a ‘Saxon’-Germanic stronghold. Liberals cannot penetrate there, even if they wanted to. So that is another form of repulsion. Jews and Anglos are intimidated by Saxons/Germans anyway; they’re antithetical ethnic peoples and cultures. Scots and Irish attest to this, and their historical rebellions against England. The “Brexit” topic applies to this.
Almost all historical ‘problems’, between European peoples, or Jews/Christians, apply today. I think people are largely blind or forgetful to this fact. The “Old Problems” are still “New Problems”. Modernity has not “solved” many, or any, of the old antagonisms.
The fact that Europeans intermarried (Scot+Russian, French+Norwegian, Irish+Pole, etc) in America, hasn’t really helped anything, except solidify the “white” racial category. When Europeans are abstracted, they cling to the ‘white’ racial identity, society, class, and culture, which Post-Colonial WASPs (East Coast Liberals) want to maintain their authority and control over. Europeans in Europe, are still Socialistic and Aristocratic. You go up or down by your ethnic group, based on marrying your own kind (German with German, English with English, Italian with Italian) and gaining wealth through Inheritance. America and Post-Colonial societies are Meritocratic. People gain wealth in the Western Hemisphere through Capitalism. But this era is quickly coming to an end.
USA is about 500 years into existence; that is a substantial amount of time from Republic to Empire. I don’t know how much time remains, but a lot of fracturing will occur before the end. The racial/ethnic identification and sub-cultures are going to explode. They already are broken, which is why the Liberal-Left are becoming radicalized to protect ‘racial’ victimization.
As for Western Civilization and banks as a whole, mostly controlled by Anglos and Jews, so the wealth factor will become stagnant within a century.
What’s happening now, is a direct attack onto Speech. Because the First Amendment of the US Constitution is under heavy assault, I probably will take a stand. If anything in USA is worth fighting for, it’s the First Amendment.
Yup, Trump is controlled opposition.
The war between the dems and Trump is more over empty rhetoric, style and who gets to be the reigning deep state puppets than it is over substance.
This Tulsi Gabbard is probably mostly or wholly controlled opposition too.
But I’m not as sure as you are that all the 3rd parties and independents are completely controlled.
At any rate, as far as I know, there is no Nazi party of the US, so in light of that, I would support the most nationalist party or independent available until something better shows up.
In Canada, that means Maxime Bernier and the People’s Party.
Even if it’s not enough, it’s a step in the right direction.
If we can get people to take that step, the subsequent one might be white nationalism.
Unlikely, especially in Canada, but still, that’s the best chance we got right now, I’m not so sure collapse is right around the corner.
It will happen sooner or later, because everything breaks down in nature, at least part way, it’s the one thing you can count on, but it could take decades.
But I’ll take a look at the graphs in that thread of yours anyway.
Same here.
Yup, I know you that way.
Briefly you were a communist, then an anarchist, and now you’re a national socialist.
If there’s anything that’s been consistent about your politics, it’s that you’re a radical.
You have no hope or faith in democracy, in reforming the system, instead you’re awaiting its demise, and hoping some dictator you may try to join will build something better in its ashes, but if that doesn’t happen, you’re content to live among its ruins.
If there’s anything consistent about mine, it’s that I’ve never been an elitist, nor a pluralist.
Putting the interests of another demographic, another class, religion, race or sex ahead of my own, is most reprehensible to me.
I’m either in favor of having a libertarian or communitarian balance of power between demographics, or my demographic first, I’d never put others ahead of me and my own.
I don’t hate other groups or regard them as very inferior, but I prefer mine, I look out for me and my own first.
The thing is, dictatorships aren’t that much, if any less likely to become multiracial and multicultural than democracies, or purge themselves of other races and cultures.
I’ll give you some examples off the top of my head.
In the early Roman republic, only Romans, that is, people descended from Rome’s earliest inhabitants, could become citizens.
In the late republic, only Italians could become citizens.
About 2 centuries after the republic fell and Rome became a dictatorship, the first non-Italian emperor Septimius Severus of North African descent became emperor, and shortly after he made it so all peoples of the Roman empire could become full citizens.
Other examples, the soviet union was and Putin’s Russia is officially multiracial and multicultural.
Many Latin American countries are officially multiracial and multicultural and have imported many non-whites from Africa and Asia, altho not as many as we have, but only because Latin American countries are poorer, not as many want to come, and they can’t economically accommodate as many.
I still have a little hope we can turn our democracies around as things continue to worsen. I’m hoping people will turn to 3rd parties and independents, but even still if collapse and balkanization are inevitable, I’d rather see national social democracies arise than dictatorships.
That being said, if dictatorship ends up being the only way we can preserve and protect our race, and the working class, then I’ll support it.
That being said, synthesis is something that interests me.
An interesting form of government would be one where the executive branch rules for life, or until they voluntarily leave office after appointing a successor of their choosing, but the legislative branch remains democratic, elected by the people.
The head of state still wouldn’t be above the law, if they commit a crime, they could be impeached, removed from office and thrown in prison, just as now.
They wouldn’t have absolute power, they’d have to share it with the legislative branch.
In case of death, the autocrat would have to write a will just before they enter office with the names of their successors (in case one or more of them die) enclosed in it.
This of government could be called constitutional or democratic autocracy.
Autocracy with the right checks and balances is preferable to compulsory nepotism (monarchy) because it averts infighting and is more meritorious.
There’s an economic model called social corporatism you should look into.
It’s the Nordic or Scandinavian and Finnish model.
It’s basically a synthesis of capital, labor unions and consumer representation, where all three are given an equal say in things.
I’m sure in practice it doesn’t always work out that way, but in theory it sounds like a fair and balanced system, especially for larger corporations, big business.
I would not be entirely opposed to such a system, it’s just that the working and middle classes have been looted for so long, I can’t even begin to think about supporting corporatism.
After the working class is several times richer than today, perhaps we can begin to talk about moderation, but right now we need major downward redistribution.
At least get our standard of living back to where it was when boomers were growing up.
Economically the Nordic model isn’t unlike the fascist and national socialist model.
It’s an alternative model, both to the Anglo-American, (crony) capitalist model on the one hand, and proper social democracy, democratic socialism and communism on the other.
Mussolini talked extensively about class collaboration, as opposed to the individualistic competition of capitalism on the one hand, and the class competition of corporatism or socialism on the other.
Of course culturally and socially, Scandinavia and Finland are fucking retarded, they need to radically shift towards conservatism and libertarianism, but economically, they may have one of, if not the best system in the world, altho I have not lived there or studied it extensively, so I can’t say for sure, I’m sure they have their problems.
I don’t like or dislike gays.
They can have their lifestyle and culture, but it should be R or X rated, keep it out of public view away from children.
I don’t see homosexuality as immoral the way Abrahamists do, so much as I see it as inferior to heterosexuality, sort of like the way junk food, alcohol and recreational drugs are inferior to whole foods, but not immoral.
Also, I don’t fully buy the whole born-this-way narrative.
Not much shocks or horrifies me. 
For me it comes down to this: I’m in favor of equal rights for men and women.
However, I’m not necessarily in favor of the same rights for men and women.
I think if women want more positive rights than men, that is if they want men and the state to be more financially and socially responsible for their health and wellbeing than they are for men and the state’s wellbeing, then they should have less negative rights, less socioeconomic opportunities and give men and the state more authority over women.
I’m all for men and women having a public dialogue about this issue, deciding it together as a society, but what I’m not in favor of is women having more positive, and more and negative rights than men, like they do today, that is misandry.
Some things have changed in modernity, like legalized abortion (which you may not be in favor of, for me I’m in favor of it), improved contraceptive methods and jobs becoming less physically demanding.
I think traditional roles for men and women are still valid, they’ll probably always have some validity as long as we remain essentially what we are, human, especially within the context of family, marriage and children, but perhaps they’re not quite as relevant as they were a century or two ago.
For me, Canada doesn’t have to be 100% white, just maintain our majority.
The only minorities I dislike are Jews and Muslims because of their historic hostility towards whites, and because their religions are inherently militaristically expansionist.
Preferably all full blooded and religious Jews should be deported to Israel.
Preferably all Muslims should be deported to wherever they came from.
All illegals and refugees should be deported.
All non-contributive, non-white immigrants should be deported, unless they’re being financially supported by their families.
However, contributive non-white immigrants, and non-white citizens can stay, but I’d ban further non-white immigration.
I don’t like Jews, and I hate Judaism and Islam, because they’re inherently hostile to, not only whites, but to all of mankind, but paganism, far eastern religions like Sikhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Buddhism and non-Zionist Christianity, I don’t have a problem with.
Right, I just think there needs to be a balance.
Besides democracy, this is another area where we disagree on.
I’m very much in favor of citizens having the right to possess fully automatic assault rifles, and licensing militias to possess military vehicles.
I find both the economic, and military disparity between us and the elite to be very alarming.
If we don’t stop, and reverse some of the disparity, it could lead to 99.9% of the population being reduced to the status of cattle in the coming future.
If Canada doesn’t balkanize, then I’m in favor of just keeping it majority white.
We don’t have to remove every last non-white.
I don’t hate minorities either.
While some races might be a little stronger than others overall, every race has its strengths, weaknesses and things that make it unique and interesting, which’s all the more reason to keep them distinct.
It’s much more of a birds of a feather thing, for me, than a hate or supremacy thing.
I definitely don’t want to oppress anyone on account of their race or religion (I don’t consider deportation to be a form of oppression, especially when they’re financially compensated. Ultimately our survival depends on the deportation of Jews and Muslims).
However, if Canada does balkanize, then I’m all in favor of majority white regions adopting a strict policy of 100% whiteness, but for Canada as a whole, I don’t think it’s fair, feasible or necessary.
Agreed.
I think it is the recent immigration influx of the last few decades that has created tensions and conflict of interests, and things did (literally) spill out in the streets, when people were getting run over and killed by men in vans.
Not any more… The UK, because of Colonialism, has been a diverse place for 100s of years, so I think we’ll all cope.
As I’ve said, the UK has been diverse for a long while now, so the problem is not the British-born multi-ethnic population, but the recent forced influx of numbers, and that was forced on many countries, so a problem not solely reserve for us here.