you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Parthings 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (32 children)

Idiocy. Even in an attempt to create an ethnistate you are trying to liberal.

Here is a simple question, what history are you going to teach the non original peoples? That discrimination that their parents faced was all legal, proper and moral. And that they should not feel bad for the discriminating others facing similarly things today? Ie new generation of immigrant partners?

Here is the basic problem with you white nationalists types. While You have an idea of who you are, you have no idea of who the “other” is. As long as you don’t define it clearly, mark strict boundaries, you will let emotions and your favorite logic of the day create a crisis of identity that will continue to backfire.

I’m brown and Indian. And maybe the biggest shame on my country is that ancestors of wimps with the ideology of a pacifist crucified Jew were able to rule it for as long as they did.

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

That discrimination that their parents faced was all legal, proper and moral. And that they should not feel bad for the discriminating others facing similarly things today? Ie new generation of immigrant partners?

I should have been more clear when I wrote my post. When I say ethnostate I'm going under the assumption I've already kicked out most non white people. I'm not talking about starting an ethnostate with the current demographics in the united states. I'm talking about a fictional ethnostate established sometime in the future after most non whites have left voluntarily or been persuaded to leave.

Side note: My ethnostate would have very very few Jews so the non whites that do remain would not have news, movies, and corrupted officials that propagandize them into thinking white people are terrible oppressors.

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

No matter where you start from, what you incentivize through the state will lead to a future of more people linking the incentive.

Let’s say your state is 100% “your perfect category” of people. You decide to allow 1% of an “other”. How well “other” intergrates into “your perfect category” is key.

Europe decided that language was the way to define “other”. Has messed it up. America had an racial identity but like your post it failed to identify an “other”.

Think of this in another way. If a black nationalist movement starts today, they too have problems defining the category “black”. But they have no issues defining the “other” category.

If an Islamic state exists, they have 0 trouble defining the “other”

Ideological clarity of defining who is not in either. The basis can be by action, belief or birth. All this so that is “your perfect category” has an identity it is willing to be proud of and maintain in dignity

[–][deleted]  (5 children)


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

    That is for political reasons but it’s Not reality. To see how a people behave, they must be in confident power.

    The reality is that in America they are a 10% minority with an 70%ish antagonist majority. So the smaller 1-4% groups are strategic “Allies” in antagonism to the large majority. Communists know the politics of majority and minority.

    Let’s see nations which had a majority black population with tiny pockets of brown population. Caribbean ones like Trinidad Tobago, Guyana all places the brown folk were/are severely persecuted. Is there any brown affirmative action there for minorities ?

    In Africa, Uganda saw a exodus en masse, South Africa has been anti white but if history is any regard, it will be anti brown soon as well.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


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

      If history is a reference, then majority African countries are antagonistic to brown and yellow people after the white leave.

      Will the same play out in America ? Not sure. African Americans have a differnt history from most other Africans

      [–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      That isn't surprising. If the one drop rule dictates that a person is black, they're black. Black nationalism was born in the West and those who designed it knew that blacks are the floor.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I agree with your point here. Very clear in group out group definitions are key.

      In my mind in group is Europeans outgroup in non europeans. The 9% people's community isn't going to be a group of people we import every year. It's a way to start the ethnostate without 100% white people in the territory. Which would be really difficult with today's demographics. After the state was established the only people my ethnostate would really 'import' would be people that are ex pats seeking right of return. Otherwise it's a closed system. People that are non white that want to come to work, study, and do cultural/religious exchange can never be more than 1% of the population and can't legally marry anyone in the core 90% population. I think that's a pretty good recipe for keeping a core ethnic/racial family intact and healthy yet not too cut off from the outside world.

      All three groups would also have different rules and laws that govern them. Foreign nationals would have the least rights and citizens the most right. People's community somewhere in the middle.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

      On a side note, why are the Indian nationalists making such a fuss about the Aryan invasion?

      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

      I see it as a perversion of history. It all starts when a new category of scientists, ie linguists realize that Latin and Sanskrit are connected in the hip. The contemporary reality of their times makes them pre supposed erstwhile Europeans came to India. This also helps them develop the savior complex and absolve any guilt of colonizing.

      There is more linguistic and genetic evidence of people moving out of India than into India. So Europeans are native to India and all humans before that are native to Africa.

      The big reason why people take issue with it now is not the perversion of history though. It is the politics that this perversion has enabled.

      There is a state (Tamil Nadu) that resists Indians from other parts to maintain a proud “Dravidian” heritage. These idiots did not see Britishers as any more foreign ruler than rather their cultural elite “Brahmins” (who were elite only because of the acceptable coolie status British rule gave them) as the aryans who came to destroy their culture. They so called Dravidians have a toxic narrative that relies heavily of the dim-lit theory that has gained traction in other parts of India where they are asking for identifying indigenous status of most castes and the exclusion of certain upper castes as invaders. They also extend strange theories of a connection with Africans through a lost continent of lemuria.

      [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      bro rlly drank the rss kool aid entrely

      their cultural elite “Brahmins” (who were elite only because of the acceptable coolie status British rule gave them)

      this is retardation and im saying that as a tamil

      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      Maybe look up what British said about Brahmins in south India (madras province) and the Socio economic status in early censuses they conducted

      [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Alright sure ignore scripture, genetics, iq tests, millennia of social custom. Brahmins only came up because muh britbong collaborators.

      That's fucking retarded man. Having an anti Brahmin stance basically robs you of 80% of the productive human capital of all Indian descent peoples. Suicidal to push them out. I'm not Brahmin either just looking at it objectively and without ego.

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

      I’m not ignoring all that. The British selected Brahmins from 2 areas, Tamils and Bengal. Not from Maharashtra, not from Kashmir, not from Uttar Pradesh and related areas? Why? Because of scripture IQ and other reasons? No because these 2 areas had least resistance and even less by Brahmins in 1857. So after 1857, thr were carefully cultivated. The same time period Maharashtra Brahmins were not cultivated to be serve British and most early independence leaders were from there

      So yes they were a deserving elite in the pre colonial times, but in colonial times, they were not elite, they became coolies, and most of them continue to be.

      [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Okay but who tf cares what happened in the british era? The fact is that these people on average are higher iq and higher in conscientiousness. The highest average iq race in the world arguably and we squander that human capital for woke bullshit.

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

      Precisely why I call prefer calling them coolie than elite. I have respect for Tamil/Bengal Brahmins who have excelled in many fields but they are also the most woke bunch one comes across

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      Ah yeah, good old lemuria. There's always a mythical phase in the racist narrative, and it seems to stick to Conan's lore.

      I get the need to crack upon the separatists. In my country we have to deal with German-speakers and they are extremely annoying. You should definitely take decisive actions against them.

      But. My point was that the yamnaya heritage is something pretty much proved, both culturally and genetically, and it's not something particularly European by itself. Europeans are the result of intermixing between locals and yamnaya as much as Iranian and Indians. So you are basically trying to claim that in fact the yamnaya were from India or that India wasn't indeed touched by the yamnaya? What's the point? It's called Indo-European civilization for a reason.

      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      The point is human beings, defined by genes are super interealted to each other. The African genetic makeup is significantly different from all other humans.

      Now is the non African male, Indian first or European first. The evidence seems to indicate all genetic haplogroups are Indian first and then European later. Hence if there is an Aryan invasion, it is the invasion of European lands, not India.

      Now we can engage further about what the reality is based on differnt levels of linguistic (most familiar with this) or genetic, archaeological evidence. But that’s not the point. The point is politics of identity that is now playing out on a misrepresented version of history.

      I’ll also add that if you look at mythology, before Europe adopted the fatherless Jewish god, there is a lot of similar threads of stories which I feel is a strong possible connection between Indian and European peoples.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      The evidence seems to indicate all genetic haplogroups are Indian first and then European later.

      I'm a little confused. Are you trying to say that all Caucasoids are descended from Indian?

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Yes, he is.

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

      Yeah, all humans are first African, then north Indian , then other parts of the world

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

      Implying that any portion of the Indian population originates from foreign incursion is offensive in the religious sense, because foreign origin is inherently considered impure and polluting. To many who follow Hinduism to the letter, implying a central Asian origin is akin to calling them impure foreigners.

      Ah yeah, good old lemuria.

      eh it's about as real as atlantis or hyperborea, fun bit of lore before retards start kanging over it

      [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

      And maybe the biggest shame on my country is that ancestors of wimps with the ideology of a pacifist crucified Jew were able to rule it for as long as they did.

      Absolutely based.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      It's not based, he is just spitting on Europeans, whose identity is based upon Christianity. It's understandable because the Britons colonized India, and nationalism promotes hatred toward the enemies of the nation.

      [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      European identity is not based on Christianity. With that said, I also do not see anything "based" about the quoted statement.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      There wasn't any common European Identity before Christianity. The white identity is very late, and nor the Greeks nor the Romans used to see themselves as particularly related to Germans. The first kind of explicit racism in Europa was the Spanish idea of limpieza de sangre, purity of blood, which was directly connected to the idea of Christianity (those who were not pure in fact were the moriscos, half blacks, because they was regarded as secret Muslims, and the marranos, half Jews, who were regarded as secret Jews). ~1400.

      [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      There wasn't any common European Identity before Christianity.

      This is correct, but it is a different claim from saying that European identity is based on Christianity. For many centuries in many different areas of Europe, Christianity set Europeans against other Europeans. The fact that eventually a fairly short lived, united Christendom existed which only coincidentally covered the region of Europe should not be mistaken as the source of a genuine, intrinsically European unity.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      source of a genuine, intrinsically European unity.

      Yeah but that's a different topic, I was speaking about the identiy.

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

      I could have been clearer. I think my statement applies to identity, too. There is nothing intrinsically European about the identity of Christendom - not during the Christian-pagan conflicts, the Catholic-Protestant ones, or today when Christianity has become a chiefly non-European phenomenon.

      [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      There is the historical fact that the European Identity was built upon the premises of the Christianity.

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

      I can agree with that, that is an acceptable statement.