you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Nah I'm totally anti-imperialist, imperialism is bas and leads to America and niggers everywhere. Let the blacks rule the the blacks and so on. Otherwise, be prepared to a black grandson.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

imperialism is based

FTFY.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Imperialism definetly isn't based, however I'm going to support Columbus Day reguardless for the very simple fact I'm extremely nationalistic and I'm not going to allow anyone to criticize Columbus.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Imperialism itself wasn't what introduced blacks into America, they were introduced by Jewish slave traders who bought them from African tribe leaders. Canada and Australia are unquestionably a product of imperialism, yet they have basically no blacks as slavery was already banned when their colonization really kicked off, and Canada and Australia used to be almost 100% white until the recent non-white mass-immigration.

Imperialism doesn't have to lead to large-scale miscegenation either. The former Spanish and Portuguese colonies mostly consist of mestizos today, because the Spanish and Portuguese sent mostly single men to their colonies and let them fuck anything that moved. The Anglo colonies, on the other hand, prove that it's perfectly possible to maintain racial purity under imperialism, by sending both men and women from the UK to the colonies, and by having a "racist" value system that condemns whites who miscegenate as race traitors and punishes non-whites who try to miscegenate with whites. Hence why even the US, despite its large slave-descended black population, used to be over 85% white until the 1965 Hart-Celler immigration act (read: white genocide act).

The idea that non-white mass-immigration into white countries is just a natural consequence of white/European imperialism, rather than something deliberately facilitated by subversive, malicious Jewish elites in order for them to gain more control over the whealthy white countries, is basically just woke anti-white nonsense. Don't let anti-whites guilt you into blaming our people for all our current problems and defacing our own history. I still appreciate it that you still support Columbus Day even though you morally disagree with him though, that's the unapologetic nationalist spirit I want to see more in our circles. For the same reason, I'm against slavery but at the same time I'm strongly against tearing down statues and monuments of Confederates.

Regarding imperialism itself: Even if you morally disagree with imperialism in principle, it's basically a tragedy of the commons. If we as whites are unwilling to reclaim our dominant position on the global stage, which would also mean either directly or indirectly taking back control over most non-white countries we used to occupy, some other race or civilization (such as the Jews or the Chinese) is going to take our place and do it anyways. So if you're opposed to white imperialism/colonialism, what you're essentially implying is "I want whites to be powerless and get dominated by the rest of the world, and I want more power to the Jews and the Chinese!", which is inherently contradictory to being pro-white. I'm not saying you think like this or that you aren't pro-white, I'm just taking the idea of being white and being against white imperialism to its logical conclusion.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's literally a pile of bullshit. Imperialism wasn't what introduced blacks in America, it was slavery (I don't think the the few Jews involved single handedly manage to relocat millions of people by themselves). But you know what will bring for sure blacks in your country? Conquering them. Then you are literally asking to be in the same state as the blacks. Imperialism and ethnonationalism are totally opposite. You may be pro white, but on a broader scope, you are going in a route totally opposed to mine.

[–]NolobenGlory to Great Russian Empire! Today Ukraine, tomorrow Canada![S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Regarding imperialism itself: Even if you morally disagree with imperialism in principle, it's basically a tragedy of the commons. If we as whites are unwilling to reclaim our dominant position on the global stage, which would also mean either directly or indirectly taking back control over most non-white countries we used to occupy, some other race or civilization (such as the Jews or the Chinese) is going to take our place and do it anyways. So if you're opposed to white imperialism/colonialism, what you're essentially implying is "I want whites to be powerless and get dominated by the rest of the world, and I want more power to the Jews and the Chinese!", which is inherently contradictory to being pro-white. I'm not saying you think like this or that you aren't pro-white, I'm just taking the idea of being white and being against white imperialism to its logical conclusion.

You can believe that defensive wars are justified, without justifying imperialism. Anti-imperialist, "primitive" peoples have BTFO'd powerful empires on numerous occasions, such as in Vietnam and recently Afghanistan. There is no reason Europeans could not protect ourselves from imperialists yet reject doing imperialism ourselves.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Vietnam and Afghanistan are completely powerless in any meaningful sense (just like most other third world backwaters that managed to fight off invaders), and it took them devastating wars on their own soil to not get conquered, so if anything you're actually further strengthening my argument in favor of being imperialistic rather than just defensive. The truth of the matter is that in geopolitics you're either on the long end of the stick or the short end of the stick, so in geopolitics there isn't really room for morality and moral consistency in the same way there should be on an interpersonal level.

That doesn't mean, however, that we should just oppress and exploit non-whites living in countries to be colonized or indirectly controlled, which I strongly oppose. Under the type of imperialism I advocate for, we would build infrastructure, farms, schools and hospitals for them, help them improve through eugenics, and give them access to the same social safety net and public facilities as people in white countries in general. In exchange, they aren't allowed to leave for white countries anymore, can't have too many children, and have to give us whites unlimited acccess to the valuable resources located in their lands. This would be a win-win scenario: They won't have to live in poverty anymore and get to enjoy a Western standard of living, while we get to curb non-white overpopulation and gain access to the resources needed for our advanced technology.

[–]outrageousboote 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Afghanistan and Vietnam did not BTFO anyone.

They took massive, much higher than the opposing force casualties and only won when the US or Soviets decided it was not worth it anymore and left, not a victory by a military rout but more a political defeat for the other side. The Vietcong for example could not win a single major engagement with US forces and Saigon only fell two years after US withdrawal.

These are the same misconceptions that make neocons think Cletus with his Glock can take an army.

Being a powerless backwater is not good for whites.