all 58 comments

[–]Horrux 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I would, and they'd be happy to have me, since I would happily adopt their ways in every aspect of life, in an attempt to become the model citizen of their new nation.

[–]Lugger 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

I'm not 'alt-right', but, if you're interested, I can give you a perspective of European ethnonationalists on the subject; I speak a couple of Euro languages apart from my own so I lurk at the other countries' EN circles as well.

And I assure you that no self-respecting ethnonationalist would abandon his homeland to ride on what other nations have built or achieved — and that's especially true of your question (I despise the Natzees though and don't consider them a good choice, but for the sake of the argument let's pretent they are).

To surrender the land your ancestors had faced great hardships on and prevailed? Only to flee like a pansy to a country of some other nation? What?!

Those ideas are unthinkable to genuine ethnonationalist folk.

Even if the situation in an EN' country looked completely hopeless as the foreigners had become a majority of the population, the globohomo government was unstoppable and the country itself had fully turned into a Third World-tier shithole, an EN would stay in it no matter the circumstances and rather die than flee to someone else's land.

And yeah, as you have noted, it would be extremely hypocritical to immigrate to other countries because they have what your own country doesn't, as it'd make ENs no different from Turd World orcs who move to the West because their people failed to create prosperous societies.


With all that said, I can, however, see pan-European cucks who believe (for instance) that Meds and Slavs have a right to live in Germanic countries follow through with your scenario.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

I definitely made this thread to explore the ethics of immigration.

In particular, we are living in unprecedented times that makes retaking certain White countries nigh impossible.

For example, South Africa is without a doubt a lost cause. The millions of Whites who still live there are never getting Apartheid back, so that just leaves them with gated communities until the economy totally collapses. In which case, the Blacks are going to eat them alive.

Or in Canada, every major political party supports White replacement. Even if you tried running for politics as a nationalist, like how Faith Goldy did, the media is allowed to censor your campaign and even SUE you for it too.

https://nationalpost.com/news/faith-goldy-ordered-to-pay-bell-media-more-than-43000-in-legal-fees

So that begs the question of what can really be done except, move somewhere else that is more friendly to nationalist ideas? Even though again, it does present a hypocritical scenario. If a bunch of Canadians and White South Africans move to Europe, what happens when the Native Europeans are now a minority? How do we settle these types of culture clashes?

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (27 children)

South Africa is without a doubt a lost cause

South Africa was never a 'white country' though.

I believe, at its peak, the SA's white population was only 20% or something?

Did they really think the society and order they'd created was sustainable when blax made up such a large share of the country's population throughout the entire history?

The way I see it, white SAs pay the price for being such complete & utter morons: imagine believing you get to keep your country when the foreign, hostile racial group outnumbers you four to one at best.

South Africa is a reminder of everything that went wrong with European colonialism put in a single country, and I have little sympathy for white SAs, especially considering the fact that, despite everything they experience(d), most of them are still anti-racist liberals (just like whites in any Western country).

So that begs the question of what can really be done except, move somewhere else that is more friendly to nationalist ideas? Even though again, it does present a hypocritical scenario. If a bunch of Canadians and White South Africans move to Europe, what happens when the Native Europeans are now a minority? How do we settle these types of culture clashes?

How? Don't let white people from America and Australia (EDIT: and South Africa as well of course, forgot to mention this one) migrate back to Europe.

I haven't really put much though into whether it's acceptable for whites from ex-colonies to move to other ex-colonies, but, since mass white immigration was always a part of their history, and white people currently inhabiting them are European mutts anyway, I don't see a massive problem with it as I do with them moving to Europe.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

South Africa is a really old country. The first Europeans arrived there in 1488 (ironic), and colonization efforts were pushed in 1652.

Basically, the same timeline as the Whites who arrived in America or Australia.

And most of the South African Blacks arrived later. Otherwise, the land itself was pretty empty.

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Correct. They didn't stroll into a black country and take over. It was desolate and wide open land.

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

As if it makes any difference.

They allowed themselves to be overrun by blacks and kept them as second class citizens for generations.

Pretty much the definition of retarted European colonialists if I've ever seen one.

Textbook example I'd say.

South Africans beat even Americans in the Moronic Colonialist Contest — as stupid as they were for importing black slaves and allowing the conquered Amerindians to live in their country, at least 'Mericans had the sense to keep other races' population relatively small (it's kinda amusing that black population in the U.S. peaked at 20% — just like whites' in the SA).

Now the SAs reap what they sowed.

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Letting the bantu flood in was a mistake. Handing their country over after failing to rout them was another mistake. Continuing to live in the now enemy country after surrendering is not looking like the smartest move either.

[–]Chipit 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The ruling class always wants cheap labor. Always. They're willing to ruin countries to get it.

And why not? They just move on afterwards. No biggie. They have no ties to the land, only to others of their kind.

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Rockefeller purchased the American education system and transformed it into a worker production facility. Fast forward to today, and what is our country about? Jobs and workers...

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Whoops, didn't realize I was talking to a work-at-home social media influencer. My mistake!

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Demographics have close to zero effect on the character of the state, this is something determined entirely by power. A brief look through world history will easily confirm that for you. Typically, a small minority rules over the vast majority. This minority can be as small as 1%-2% of the population and it is its style of government that imbues a given state with its character.

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Of course.

And yet, it's hard to call a country 'white' when white people were always such a small fragment of the population.

'White-controlled' or 'white-dominated' — sure, but not 'white'.

And white South Africans were unbelievably dumb for thinking they could keep it that way.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Why do you think so? Didn't they lose their grip on the country because of the coordinated and determined sabotage of the entire northern hemisphere rather than any domestic factors?

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Because sooner or later they'd have to deal with the black problem, either by ending discrimination like they did or by deporting them.

And the latter would be near impossible to achieve due to the vast majority of the country being black.

The South Africa was doomed from the start; how many more years do you think the old regime would have lasted without the pressure from Western Countries? 30, 40 years?

Yeah, a minority may rule over a majority if that group that wields vast power, but this scenario is impossible to sustain when the privileged minority belongs to a different racial group.

Remember Haiti? Black folk just risen up and massacred their white masters. This would have been the fate of South Africa had the Apartheid not ended; frankly, there's still a possibility of it happening today, but white SAs got only themselves to blame.

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I do not see how your claims can be reconciled with history. To give you just one example among many, the Islamic caliphates in Spain lasted centuries even though Muslims formed a small minority.

Haiti is an interesting example, but I don't think it is comparable. Firstly, if my memory serves me right, the Haitian slave revolt exploited a political crisis, more specifically the dissolution of central authority caused by the French Revolution. In fact, all successful anti-colonial movements of recent times seem to be heavily reliant on political crisis in the West in order to obtain victory. Secondly, the living conditions of Haitian slaves were, to my knowledge, utterly atrocious and entirely different from those of South Africa.

[–]Lugger 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I do not see how your claims can be reconciled with history. To give you just one example among many, the Islamic caliphates in Spain lasted centuries even though Muslims formed a small minority.

Sure thing man. History has a shitton of examples of a small ethnic/racial minority ruling over a massive number of foreign people.

What they all have in common is that eventually the people boot the foreign overlords out, either by military means, or by taking advantage of the political turmoil in the capital.

Secondly, the living conditions of Haitian slaves were, to my knowledge, utterly atrocious and entirely different from those of South Africa.

Yeah, and white SAs didn't face the same fate as white Haitians either.

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What they all have in common is that eventually the people boot the foreign overlords out, either by military means, or by taking advantage of the political turmoil in the capital.

That's not really true, in many cases what happens instead is an external force invades or destabilises the country, like what happened in India for example. However it's important to note that "eventually" is not a very useful category to work with. According to this same logic, all monoethnic societies "eventually" collapse. It's technically true, but it's not a very useful observation.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And white South Africans were unbelievably dumb for thinking they could keep it that way.

They only lost when they released Mandela from prison and held a nation wide election in 1994 that included Black voters.

Otherwise, they won every military engagement against the rebels, and built nuclear bombs to stop the U.S, China or USSR from directly invading them.

The only reason you don't hear about the bombs today, is because the Apartheid regime dismantled them before handing over power.

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, they could have still held out back in 1990s perhaps.

My point is, the regime itself was unsustainable and would have crumbled sooner or later just because it's very foundation was rotten and antithetical to what makes a successfull country.

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And that 1-2% are employees or associates of big oil, and its offshoots. They used the unprecedented mountains of cash to buy the foundations of society around the entire world. Generations of humans have been created with their programming.

IMO, only an outside force like a CME or comet strike has any hope for overturning their power.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My impression is that the dominant group of people in most of the world today is high finance and its plutocratic associates. To my knowledge, the great industrial mangates are pretty marginal figures now.

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What many do not realize, is that the oil order was never about oil. The oiligarchs did not care about oil but control. And, having long outgrown their financial dependence on the commodity that brought them their power and riches, they are at the forefront of this push for the post-carbon era.

Now, the oiligarchs are seeking to bring in a new international order. One in which their control is consolidated, their plan complete, their power unquestionable. One in which every aspect of human life, from energy to money to the very genome itself, is precisely ordered and technologically controlled.

https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/

Can't say this is the 'true story', but it's a pretty compelling case.

[–]negrogre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Isn't that contradictory, though? If a nation is nationalist in character, why would the people of that nation tolerate immigration? I'd expect it to upset the character of the nation.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Controlled immigration could still exist. The U.S was like this before the 1960s.

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

Those ideas are unthinkable to genuine ethnonationalist folk.

So you're not one, but you're going to lecture us on what you imagine they might think?

[–]TiwakingTranshumanist Eugenecist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I would move there! Who wouldnt want to be ruled by The King of Lunchball!

[–]IkeConn 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Hell no but I would try to sell them stuff.

[–]disidentHR 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, I would still try to fix shit in my own country.

[–]Popper 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd try to legally immigrate, if they don't want me I won't try to go there illegally.

[–]AmericanMuskratAlien Overlord Zerp 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Ah yes, get them all in one small place.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist Chucklehead 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Centralize all things!
Show them my papers!
Worship the demagogues!

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist Chucklehead 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Let's take over Switzerland and kick out all the Zionists!!!
Or maybe our new government could offer a bounty on their scalps?

[–]chadwickofwv 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

The premise of your question is bullshit. Hitler was a socialist, if not outright a communist.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Where did you learn history?

Hitler's biggest enemy was Stalin & the Soviets. He regarded them as being Jewish Bolsheviks threatening Europe.

Hitler was not Communist, he was Fascist.

[–]Popper 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

he was national socialist, just like stalin. But there was long history of warfare and antagonism between russia and germany, before either had revolutions, before WWI.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Socialism in Russia had nothing to do with what happened in Germany & Italy.

The systems diverged, and Italy & Germany where like Corporatism but with race involved. Stalin was full on Worker's Party and social equality, who wanted to control all means of production and private property.

[–]Popper 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

nazis did that too. Now wall st bankers funded and controlled both, that is true.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Do you have proof that the Nazi Party controlled all private industries?

Hitler wasn't responsible for making Fanta Soda. There was an existing Coca-Cola branch that was forced to come up with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanta

[–]Popper 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

stalin had private companies working in russia too, he had deals with henry ford for example. National socialism and socialism in one country were the same ideas. FDR's new deal was the same thing too.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So now you're calling FDR Communist?

Why not just say Capitalism doesn't exist? Everyone since the Ancient Egyptians were Communist according to you, even before Karl Marx was born?

[–]Popper 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

yeah pretty obvious

Did you think the ancient egyptians were capitalist?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No, but they weren't Communist either.

I'm saying you have your economic definitions wrong if you think the U.S was ever Communist.

[–]VraiBleulibro e moschetto – fascista perfetto 👌🏻 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In what did Wall Street control Germany? Even leftie historians don’t make claims that ridiculous.

I highly recommend you watch this Cultured Thug video on the NS economy that deals with many of the common myths.

https://odysee.com/@Cultured_Thug_Archive_01:5/THE-NAZI-ECONOMY:d

[–]Popper 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

wow you're pretty misinformed, that should be common knowledge by now.

[–]VraiBleulibro e moschetto – fascista perfetto 👌🏻 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t think I am misinformed, but if you have an argument I’d love to hear it.

You should read Wages of Destruction & Hitler’s revolution if this is a topic that interests you. The NSDAP got the vast majority of their funds from small donations from working & middle class people. They didn’t receive any large doners until 1932 when they were on the verge of winning power. Capitalists thought they could control Hitler this way but were wrong as it turned out the next year.

The amount of money that went to Berlin from New York was negligible, in fact the two countries all but halted trade with each other in the 30’s, it was a fraction of what it was in the Weimar era.

Even mainstream historians that despise Hitler all admit that these myths that the ‘Nazis were controlled by big business’ & ‘Fascism is capitalism in decay…’ couldn’t be further from the truth.