A Question to Wignats -

[Lemmingwise]

Your assumption that adopting racially discriminatory tax/welfare policies wouldn't lead to violent conflict is utterly fanciful.

How violent were dhimmi's in islamic territory?

How violent are uyghurs in China?

Seems like the US is already experiencing higher level of violence.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

Your assumption that adopting racially discriminatory tax/welfare policies wouldn't lead to violent conflict is utterly fanciful.

Who would get violent, blacks?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

How violent were dhimmi's in islamic territory?

How violent are uyghurs in China?

Seems like the US is already experiencing higher level of violence.

The Uyghurs make up less than 1% of a population living under an authoritarian state and a heavily conformist culture which supports it. To pretend that the political and ethnic situation in China is in any way comparable to Western countries is delusional.

The Dhimmi system was created in medieval times to allow different religious groups to live side-by-side in an otherwise Islamic state, and was mostly supported by said religious groups as an alternative to forced conversion. To pretend that this is in any way comparable to what white nationalists are proposing (much less applicable to the modern world) is similarly delusional.

Who would get violent, blacks?

Anybody who is either effected by, or opposes, unfair treatment based upon race, which in contemporary society, means just about everyone. This is, of course, assuming that you could win over the majority necessary to implement these discriminatory laws in the first place, which any sensible person can see is never going to happen.

In short, white nationalism is stupid, and to answer OP's original question: it could never be implemented successfully in a civilized democracy.

 

[Freebirth Toad]

The Dhimmi system was created in medieval times to allow different religious groups to live side-by-side in an otherwise Islamic state, and was mostly supported by said religious groups as an alternative to forced conversion. To pretend that this is in any way comparable to what white nationalists are proposing (much less applicable to the modern world) is similarly delusional.

If you're seriously arguing that someone coming into your home, putting a knife to your throat and saying "your money, your allegiance or your life" is some kind of consensual agreement between two parties I have some really bad news for you

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

If you're seriously arguing that someone coming into your home, putting a knife to your throat and saying "your money, your allegiance or your life" is some kind of consensual agreement between two parties I have some really bad news for you

I never argued it was consensual, but to pretend that it was especially oppressive by the standards of the time is ahistorical, because in medieval times, the norm following religious conquest was forced conversion.

The Dhimmi system was essentially a trade off which allowed religious minorities in medieval Islamic societies to keep their distinct religious identities, thus making the peaceful administration of those societies easier. I bring this up not to defend it, but to put it in context, and explain why it isn't in any way comparable to what white nationalists are proposing.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

Anybody who is either effected by, or opposes, unfair treatment based upon race,

Is there violence over affirmative action?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Is there violence over affirmative action?

No, because the purpose of affirmative action is to provide people with opportunities, not systemically take them away.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

No, because the purpose of affirmative action is to provide people with opportunities, not systemically take them away.

So the whites who have their opportunities taken away?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

So the whites who have their opportunities taken away?

Are so small as to be statistically insignificant. Look up any statistics related to employment, income, or education, and you'll find out why your argument here is a non-starter.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

Are so small as to be statistically insignificant. Look up any statistics related to employment, income, or education, and you'll find out why your argument here is a non-starter.

So you concede that affirmative action is about taking opportunities away from whites

 

[The Reaper]

two kids is not enough to increase the white population.

2 whites have 2 kids. Those kids have two kids each with others. You now have eight whites not including the two whites who are introduced to make the second set of kids.

What I'm learning about white decline is that whites forgot how to do math.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

So you concede that affirmative action is about taking opportunities away from whites

No, because that's clearly not it's purpose, nor it's general outcome. On aggregate, white people haven't lost out due to affirmative action; in fact, white women have been it's primary beneficiaries.

 

[Fek]

If you'll humor me:

Anybody who is either effected by, or opposes, unfair treatment based upon race, which in contemporary society, means just about everyone.

Off the top of your head: Who would you leave off that list, if anyone?

In short, white nationalism is stupid

I'm curious if you have similar takes regarding other sorts of racial (possibly ethnic) nationalism, too? Like is it specifically white nationalism that is uniquely stupid, to you? Or would you say it's more race-based nationalism as a whole? Ethnic nationalism, maybe? Purely curious.

And to that end:

and to answer OP's original question: it could never be implemented successfully in a civilized democracy.

Is Japan a different scenario, would you say? I realize they're not white, but I'm seeking some sort of avenue in understanding how you see things (and hopefully some logical consistency). Help me out.

 

[Lemmingwise]

To pretend that this is in any way comparable to what white nationalists are proposing (much less applicable to the modern world) is similarly delusional.

That's not what you said though. You said that racially discriminatory policies would lead to violence, full stop.

Why didn't the discriminatory policies against dhimmies lead to similar violence? There are hundreds of other examples of discrimination in history without resulting violence. I can understand and respect a moral argument against each of these, but fear for violence seems the least sensible one.

Besides, why not apply the same standard to X nationalists? If fear of violence motivates you, then why not the fear of not giving each type of nationalist what they want, whether it's chaz, or spanish provinces, or segregationist or separist movements? The only way to stop these is violence.

The Dhimmi system was essentially a trade off which allowed religious minorities in medieval Islamic societies to keep their distinct religious identities,

Dumbest thing I read today. That's how it is being sanitized today, but you need only read acouple of historic passages from yemen to spain and know that it wasn't that noble and clean little tradeoff.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

I'm curious if you have similar takes regarding other sorts of racial (possibly ethnic) nationalism, too? Like is it specifically white nationalism that is uniquely stupid, to you? Or would you say it's more race-based nationalism as a whole? Ethnic nationalism, maybe? Purely curious.

I think any form of racial nationalism is stupid. I think it's stupid to choose something as superficial as the colour of a person's skin or the texture of their hair as a decider of their worth as a citizen, and on a practical, ethical, and legal level, I find it to be wholly indefensible and unsustainable.

Is Japan a different scenario, would you say? I realize they're not white, but I'm seeking some sort of avenue in understanding how you see things (and hopefully some logical consistency). Help me out.

Japan is an ethnically homogeneous country that has chosen of it's own volition to adopt restrictive immigration policies. That's a world away from forcefully removing existing ethnic groups who have just as much of a legal and historical claim to reside in your country as you do.

That's not what you said though. You said that racially discriminatory policies would lead to violence, full stop.

Why didn't the discriminatory policies against dhimmies lead to similar violence?

Probably for the same reason that slavery largely didn't lead to violence. One group had all the power, and the other wasn't really in a position to do anything about it. That's hardly an endorsement of slavery.

I also think it's pretty clear that my original statement was concerned primarily with the contemporary United States, as the post I was responding to was speaking within a contemporary US context. To that end, my point still stands: you're not going to push for racial segregation in the US without a massive conflict.

There are hundreds of other examples of discrimination in history without resulting violence. I can understand and respect a moral argument against each of these, but fear for violence seems the least sensible one.

Insofar as the discriminated group is unable to resist their oppression, perhaps, but that's hardly applicable to a First World democracy. If you have to invoke medieval theocracies and totalitarian states as examples of where systemic discrimination can be met with minimal resistance from the people it victimizes, then you've already lost the argument in the eyes of civilized people.

Besides, why not apply the same standard to X nationalists? If fear of violence motivates you, then why not the fear of not giving each type of nationalist what they want, whether it's chaz, or spanish provinces, or segregationist or separist movements? The only way to stop these is violence.

Giving violent groups exactly what they want isn't an antidote to violence, but an endorsement of it. The opposite of violence is peaceful coexistence, and peaceful coexistence is something racial separatism is completely at odds with, whether it's supporters are honest about it or not. I reject the equivocation you're making here.

Dumbest thing I read today. That's how it is being sanitized today, but you need only read acouple of historic passages from yemen to spain and know that it wasn't that noble and clean little tradeoff.

So you're admitting that your original mention of Dhimmi was completely disingenuous, and in fact not an example of peaceful discrimination against a minority group? Good. I agree.

 

[Stilgar of Troon]

white statism is a more practical goal for now. all my fellow white racist Americans should move to one state, maybe Alaska or Montana, and remove all the niggers and beaners from that state. then we need to take women's rights away (including the right to leave the state) because that's the only way to raise the birth rate significantly. women were made to be cum toilets/baby factories and nothing more. if you care about women's rights, you are part of the white genocide problem. then after our numbers are high enough we can start taking over more states and eventually the whole nation, and then the world.

A near-perfect @BoxerShorts47 improv piece. Bravo! Do you take constructive criticism? Good, Needs more paedophilia disguised as concern for marriage rates and for me, there wasn't nearly enough reeeing about "STRAWMAN". Otherwise, a very solid job.

 

[Lemmingwise]

No, because that's clearly not it's purpose, nor it's general outcome. On aggregate, white people haven't lost out due to affirmative action; in fact, white women have been it's primary beneficiaries.

If white women have been the primary beneficiaries, who have been the primary victims of affirmative action? Who's oppertunities were taken and given to white women?

Probably for the same reason that slavery largely didn't lead to violence. One group had all the power, and the other wasn't really in a position to do anything about it. That's hardly an endorsement of slavery.

I'm glad you're taking my invitation to make the moral argument rather than the inevitability of violence.

So you're admitting that your original mention of Dhimmi was completely disingenuous, and in fact not an example of peaceful discrimination against a minority group? Good. I agree.

My question was "how violent were dhimmies?"

I don't think you think I was suggesting that the Chinese are going very easy on the uyghurs either. Your comment that it's possible that it doesn't necessarily lead to violence (but results instead in a situation where one group dominates another completely with all of the moral problems that creates), is what I wanted to highlight. I'm glad you've given that ground.

Two questions remain that I'd like to ask you. First why do you consider seperatist movements inherently violent? If people wish to govern themselves, isn't it inherently violent to prevent that rather than allow them? And if that isn't violence isn't, then how is that different from either dhimmies or uyghurs or chaz or slavery, where a group is completely dominated as to not be given that level of self-determination?

If minimization of violence is a goal, have you taken into account the larger number of violence that happens in multicultural societies compared to monocultural ones? Can we weigh that off against the violence produced by the segregating act?

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

also think it's pretty clear that my original statement was concerned primarily with the contemporary United States, as the post I was responding to was speaking within a contemporary US context. To that end, my point still stands: you're not going to push for racial segregation in the US without a massive conflict.

Why would people who moved to the US for economic reasons get violent when alternatively they could be financially incentivised to just move again?

They’re not fighting for a homeland, why would they risk bloodshed. I don’t think your hypothesis stands up to the smell test.

 

[NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE]

A near-perfect @BoxerShorts47 improv piece. Bravo! Do you take constructive criticism? Good, Needs more paedophilia disguised as concern for marriage rates and for me, there wasn't nearly enough reeeing about "STRAWMAN". Otherwise, a very solid job.

13 year olds have pubic hair so by definition it's not pedophilia. if by "constructive" "criticism" you mean constructing a strawman out of all the pubic hair you've shaved off of thousands of 13 year old girls to make them look like children then no I don't want it

 

[Johan Schmidt]

I don't think the intent is a globalist superstate at all. I just don't want foreigners in my fucking country; and I don't want my society enslaved to a debt based economic system, or my industries dictated by rootles billionaires that demand an influx of constant cheap labour to feed the furnace of low value consoomerist industry.

I don't want a white superstate, I just want my country to be a country again, composed of people; not a soulless spreadsheet that exists solely to alter the numbers of non real currency and reduce every human down to a throwaway biological machine.