you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]WhiteZealotWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Why allow 1% foreigners? The only time a foreigner should be allowed into the country is if it's a high-ranking state official coming to have meetings with our high-ranking officials.

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

if it's a high-ranking state official coming to have meetings with our high-ranking officials.

That would be part of the 1%. There are lots of reasons to bring in foreigners. Study. Economic reasons. Foreign relation reasons. Sports. Cultural exchange. I think when you cut yourself off totally to cultural exchange you set up yourself for subversion. Have a 1% flexibility to bring in foreigners is like an insurance against your populace getting too cut off from the outside world.

[–]WhiteZealotWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Even if I were to agree with your reasoning, 1% is way too much. For every 99 of your fellow countrymen, there will be one foreigner? Not acceptable.

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

Remember that in this system these are friendly foreigners. They are people that have a different set of laws applied to them. They don't have full rights and privileges compared to the other two groups in society. Right now we have 30-40% foreigners in the country. Having less than 1% foreign population only encourages a purity spiral which can break down your ethnostate. Purity spirals are real.

[–]WhiteZealotWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

White nations had far less than 1% foreigners for centuries and millennia and we managed just fine with these supposedly horrible purity spirals. Racial purity spirals are healthy and eugenic. Usually, a tribe doesn't feel the need to correct or fight over small differences in genetics within the tribe, but on the odd occasion that it does happen, it's perfectly healthy.

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

1% is a cap. Obviously I'm fine with even lower numbers of foreigners.

White nations had far less than 1% foreigners for centuries and millennia and we managed just fine with these supposedly horrible purity spirals.

Sure. You're correct. Ancient societies had strong in group out group distinction. I want us to return to that but I'm more concerned with not getting subverted again. It seems like we got too comfy. Our people almost became spoiled on the benefits of a homogeneous society. How else do you explain this mind virus that is liberalism and the love of the outsider we are currently experiencing? Personally I think it's a result of white liberals not understanding outsiders enough. Many liberals only experience the talented 10% of foreigners and never really comprehend what the destructive nature of the hordes they are bringing in. We've allowed outsiders to penetrate our societies and our people are easily convinced that the outsider is a friend and source of financial growth. I'm just trying to figure out a way that our people can experience and interact with the outside word and still possess a strong desire to maintain a homogeneous ethnostate. That's the reasoning behind the 1% thing. It can also be used as a punishment for people that breed outside of their race. I.e. you can still live here but your kids won't have citizenship. That would be a real deterrent for mud sharks.