| Some credit for what? Your total ignorance and conspiratorial zeal? |
I invite everyone to look this stuff up. Yuri Bezmenov even talks about it to his classes. People fight wars, people have agendas. Guess what? Some people act
on those agendas. If you believe in "white privilege", you believe in conspiracies, if you believe in "the patriarchy", you believe in conspiracies. They happen. Deal with it.
| Okay, then, well done. You've successfully ignored the last 20 years of political history as Europe has- until very recently- gradually drifted right- as you lost yourself in some absurd conspiracy theory. As Melchoir said, give it a rest and accept people with your mentality are in a societal minority. Thank god. |
How many decades are you ignoring? How has the world changed in the past 50, 60, 100 years? The idea of equality as a moral absolute is today enforced by law. The left have won. Your 20 years mean nothing in the larger context.
| Because that all a state is is a macro-scale societal grouping in a defined geographical region. Involving society and involving a state are, in technical terns, effectively one and the same. |
Nope. That's not how it actually works. I've told you before the will of the people do not translate into the actions of government.
| Society largely disagrees with your opinion. |
Well, whether or not that's actually true is questionable. Even if it were, I'm working to change minds.
| I do love how the default response amongst far-right sympathisers is to blame the media for the fact very few other people are as extremist as themselves. |
The media IS both biased AND influential AND universal; that's just how it is. People got a bitter taste of that during it's covering of Tray-Tray's death. That was just the tip of the iceberg.
| In order for the market to play a role in deciding, you must have reasonable business transparency. The US actively punishes business transparency, especially in sectors where human health is at theoretical risk. Particularly, to my knowledge, pharma and food production, which have specific laws against whistleblowing and protections from reasonable disclosure. The US doesn't even require companies limited by share capital to publicly disclose their financial status. Hence why Europe- particularly Northern Europe- frequently ranks significantly higher in business freedoms despite having more regulation- they also have more market interaction. |
If laws enforcing anti-white preferences were abolished, there would be no need to hide pro-white recruitment policies from the outside world.
| What ideology? I don't have a defined political ideology that can be pigeon-holed, especially by someone as clearly political ignorant as yourself. Economically I'm an Ordoliberal, in terms of social policy I straddle the middle ground, in foreign and defence policy I'm firmly centre-right. I can't really be held responsible for the fact that you think the political centrism likes somewhere between McCarthyism and Mussolini. |
Well, you are promoting discrimination and its enforcement by the state against the founding stock in light of leftist ideology. You are also stepping on personal liberties for the sake of some larger, artificial collective. I should also point out that the political spectrum has been continually been redefined thanks to decades of leftist cultural hegemony. I take your claim of neutrality with a pinch of salt.
| For someone who seems to portray themself as a bastion of freedom, defending the rights of all, you sure do have a great deal of prejudice when it comes to the political views of anyone who isn't a right wing extremist. |
I don't prejudge, I deduce and compare against the bigger picture. I don't want to see my race discriminated against and reduced to a minority it its own countries and I certainly don't want it to go extinct. I believe it has the right to self-determination as with all other races. If that makes me a right-wing extremist in your book then so be it.
| Nothing to do with stepping on toes. Everything to do with merit. If you aren't knowledgeable or reasonably experienced in a subject, and can't rationalise your views, then speaking them publicly serves no societal purpose. If doing so serves no societal purpose, why should it be encouraged? The very principles of meritocracy dictate a direct correlation between the knowledge of the state apparatus and the power to legislate on issues. What are you so afraid of in meritocracy, other than the fact that bigoted views like your own will be open to even further ridicule? |
Well, for one thing, the violation of personal rights especially for heresy by an ideologically corrupt power. Hey, that's just me. Your meritocracy by force of violence, I find, is laughable. The whole idea that you can be penalised for speech or attempting debate on subjects the public happens to find touchy, to me, flies in the face of the free market of ideas. If someone espouses views you don't like, too bad. You can choose to disassociate but that's not good enough, is it? You want more because you are petty and small minded.
| Because, in that case, the "pro side" is the rational side supported with empirical evidence. |
I suppose to you that includes sound bites like "rape culture" and "slut shaming" or the idea that "gender [I think he means "sex"] is antiquated"? Yep, a very small pinch of salt.
| A minority of people whose idea has a clear positive cost-benefit and don't impede the rights of others. The caveats for wide-ranging societal change prevent it being a completely free choice regardless of the society. |
LMAO!!! As if people are actually that rational. They'll follow what their friends believe or what TV says or whatever celebrity endorses; and that's if they ever break out of what they've grown up with. It has to appeal to them (you know, actual human beings) emotionally; it's only rationalised afterwards. That's how it works in the real
world. You really couldn't have sounded more laughably out of touch with reality there.
| I'm defending monopolies of violence because I believe in the principles of statehood. As for the principle of "mob rule", hardly. The fact I champion negative preference utilitarianism means that the actions of a major societal grouping holding political power cannot be fundamentally harmful for society. I also don't really engage in demagoguery, unlike yourself. |
You don't hide your leftist zealotry very well. The way you would put it into practice would be based largely on leftist dogma with ideas of "fighting white privilege" and "equality of outcome". Your view of the human species for one comes across as very simplistic and ignores a great deal of the actual biology. You also seem to think that state micromanagement and loss of personal sovereignty is key to minimal suffering. Anyone who has their eyes open can see that all you're doing is using utilitarianism to sweeten the poison you're making us drink.
| Frankly, I don't care given that your bigoted diatribe has done little other than demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge. If you can substantiate your views with something vaguely passing for empiricism, then go ahead, but I sincerely doubt that you can empirically justify your chauvinism. |
That sounds very funny coming from an ideological supremacist who wants to use the state to shove his "progressive" politics down people's throats and punish them when they try to resist. Throw around "bigot" all you want if it makes you feel better about yourself. You're really nothing more to me than a troglodyte priest pushing some asinine theocracy, heretics be damned.
| Wow, this could have come straight from The Turner Diaries. |
Be that as it may. I'm giving whites the moral stance to stand up for themselves. You would see them scapegoated for the failings of others. I offer them pride and a moral backbone where you push guilt and discrimination. I offer a realistic future away from your stale mediocrity.