I'm going to DESTORY Sup Forums

I know that Sup Forums isn't one person, but overall, and all rolled up into one, you seem to be on the conservative/traditionalist, and nationalist side, so I feel like triggering you right wing SJW's

Let's start with

>muh nationalism

My agreement with this is not quite as straightforward as my disagreement. “My country, right or wrong” but still strong enough to warrant a Strongly Agree. However, I appreciate that there is far more scope for a difference of opinion between non-radical, “moderate” people here than the IMO highly authoritarian bias. I also feel that this proposition is worded with a little clever conservative bias since Agreement requires one to describe people as “foolish”, a rather harsh adjective, when “puzzling” or “myopic” might have been easier to Agree to. Nevertheless, I stick with my tick.

Pride is an ugly sentiment, unbecoming of one who seeks to understand the world. There is, of course, nothing wrong with appreciating, liking or even loving a given country (whether or not it is where you were born); its culture, its rich history, the characteristics of its people you find endearing etc. And one can certainly enjoy singing a “national” song or cheering a sports team wearing “national” colours along with people you consider to share a bond with. One might even be proud to represent one’s country in some way, since it demonstrates some level of excellence or ability which one has personally attained.

But being proud of one’s country? This entails an unhealthy “them and us” mentality, perhaps even a feeling of superiority which is, I believe, outright dangerous. And everyone has to be born somewhere - what word describes somebody who is proud of the geographical location of their birth?

“Fool”, I say. Authoritarianism thrives on nationalism, which a clever man once described as “an infantile disease; the measles of the world”.

Other urls found in this thread:

soc.iastate.edu/staff/delisi/MAOA 2013.pdf
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>muh race, heil hitler|!!!!!

Easy one, this. “Race”, “black”, “white”: these are merely slang words with no biological or anthropological substance. “White” is an utterly arbitrary taxon with which to classify humans, apparently based solely on epidermal melanin (I would like “racism” to be renamed “melaninism”) - one might as well label blondes a different “race” to brunettes. There are no traits, physical or not, which are universal to “whites” but absent from “non-whites”, thus proving its taxonomic uselessness. One might allow “race” to mean ethnicity, which obviously is scientifically useful, but it should be borne in mind that there would then be literally thousands of different “races”, if not as many different “races” as there are people!

Unfortunately, there are people who think that elevated levels of epidermal melanin somehow affects intelligence or predisposition to criminality. These people have existed since the dawn of civilisation, and have shaped the world so that melanin-rich people still overwhelmingly reside at the bottom of the financial ladder, where poor education and criminal behaviour is rife. Things have improved greatly over the last decades but, like a glass of Alka-Seltzer, it takes a heck of a lot of mixing to get what was originally at the bottom to redistribute itself properly, especially when there’s so little social mobility as today, when the rich tend to stay rich and the poor stay poor.

Anything other than a Strongly Disagree is a step towards authoritarianism. I would even guess that mere Disagree gives a slight positive reading in terms of the Social final score.

Hi Jahans, hoe are things these days?

Oh, and more importantly, people are divided more by class gap than by nationality and race.

You can't deny this.

Sage

Low quality bait.. too much effort .. didn't read 0/10

Nice blog faggot.

I've noticed that you also seem to be against ''weaker'', or ''disabled people reproducing.

Anyone can have a baby with a serious disability. This proposition would appear to arbitrarily target those who already have such a condition, even though it is entirely possible that their baby will be born healthy while a healthy couple’s baby is born with their condition. There is a word for such double jeopardy, ie. punishment of one born with some affliction by denying them the joy of parenthood: eugenics.

It might be that such a policy could reduce the frequency of that condition in future generations, thus reducing suffering in the long run. However, I would counter that the suffering which such a policy would immediately cause to those denied the choice of parenthood would take a heck of a long time to redress, and perhaps would never be compensated for since the genes are still carried by those without such disabilities and thus the condition’s incidence may not actually become that much less frequent.

Far better, say I, to seek to cure that condition, or to select from a reproductory sample of the afflicted person a zygote which tests negative (a mere refinement of what occurs naturally in many cases anyway - the failure of a blastocyst to implant in the womb.) I feel that the suffering in this scenario effectively falls to zero (unless one contends that single celled organisms can 'suffer', in which case one should really be lobbying for a ban on antiseptic.)

2/2
Civilisation has long since reached a point where people with tragic conditions can enjoy fulfilling lives and contribute to society - we can rejoice that Stephen Hawking’s parents were not barred from reproduction, for example. We might argue about precisely what constitutes a “serious disability” and whether embryo screening is therefore appropriate, but I would suggest that this is peripheral to debating proposition #31. On its face, it is a vastly authoritarian contention which I would think few to none of us here would ascribe to without some pretty strained interpretation.

eat shit commie

...

Here's another thing. This is for you CIVIC-nationalist on here. You tend to say that people from other cultures can't engage in society that easily?

What do you mean to be “fully integrated within a country”? I would suggest a useful measure of “integration” is the ease with which one can go about everyday life according to that country’s laws. Clearly, language is key to facilitating many aspects of everyday life. When I am in a country where neither English, French nor German is common, I struggle with all but the most basic social interactions, and were I to avoid everyday interactions requiring anything more than sign language, I could not very well say that I had “integrated” particularly fully.

So, after a certain level of fluency in a country’s primary language is attained, what else might hinder “everyday life”?

Discounting outright prejudice and discrimination, I would suggest very little. Any criterion whereby one might be judged to be “not fully integrated” would surely apply to a whole load of that country’s natives? For any custom, pastime, attitude or manifestation of ‘culture’, the first generation immigrant’s distaste or indifference towards it would likely be matched by a whole host of his new compatriots, some of whom may have traced their native ancestry back through the centuries. Yes, feelings of pride or loyalty towards their new country might be rather scarce, but many natives might well think that patriotism is for morons, too. There might be some aspects of their new life of which they disapprove and prefer to eschew, but is there anything so universally participated in or advocated? Not much, say I.

1/2

2/2
(Of course, all this assumes that the immigrant does not break the law of the new country, a condition which I suggest that one effectively agrees to by the simple act of entering it voluntarily. I believe that lawbreaking would indeed reasonably constitute not being “fully integrated”, but it would be absurd to claim that first generation immigrants can never obey the law.)

So, as long as one learns enough language to get by and leaves the house once in a while, I fail to see how one might be considered not as “fully integrated” into a country as some of its residents who live and die near their great-grandfather’s birthplace. Am I “not fully integrated” to my country of birth, or something?

>HUURR DUUR WOMEN NEED TO GET BACK IN DA KITCHEN!!!!!!!
>FUCK FEMINIZIMMZZ

Oh, please. I might have had some appreciation of the sentiment that parents should balance career and home life, regardless of their sex, but this absurd identification of mothers in this proposition is simple, outright discrimination solely on the basis of gender.

For the first few months after birth, the mother clearly does have a biologically important role, which is why most companies and institutions enact a maternity period (with any paternity leave tending to be much shorter). But thereafter, either parent can forego their career in the interests of their child: that the male must be the default breadwinner is old-fashioned dogma harking back to our prehistoric past (when, incidentally, children would be left with trusted strangers in the tribe just as often as parents pay trusted strangers these days).

It might perhaps be in the interests of the child that a parent assumes the role of homemaker instead of a trusted, paid stranger or other family member (although there would also be abuse-related cases in which the child was better off with these people - I guess we’re discussing “all other things being equal” here and so this is rather a diversion). But people say that it is in the interests of the child that the female parent assumes that role, not the male parent. I cannot but disagree with this proposition, and strongly, for it forms perhaps the last bastion of male chauvinist philosophy in Western society.

lel commie prepares tldr bullshit in advance and it takes him whole minute to solve captcha

sage

And to traditionalists on here. Why do you think that we need marirage before sex? Get over it. People enjoy sex, and we have the medicines to have sex without pregnancy

I’m afraid I can only laugh at the absurdity inherent in the proposition that human beings should, having spent millions of years evolving to the point where they were amongst the only animals with the ability to enjoy sex, suddenly forego doing so because it is a “sin”. I imagine our ancestors, scraping to meet the high energy requirements of their complex brains, taking one look at what some of their progeny do with their wondrous legacy and sloping off muttering about what a bunch of hairless little ingrates we are.

And “usually immoral” - what a phrase that is! It’s not immoral for me, oh no. I’m a responsible adult who knows what I’m doing: it’s those other people who are sinning so badly.

Where did this Luddite and intellectually immature position come from? Throughout history, it seems that the release of serotonin in one’s neurotransmitters upon orgasm was considered too powerful and pleasant for common people to be allowed to experience: the extant power structures had to control that pleasure by associating guilt with it, which could only be lifted from the act by their explicit say so, just as a gullible peasant might ask a witch to remove the imaginary curse which he blames for his joyless and luckless year. State-sanctioned sex, with horrific retribution for violation thereof, was how those power structures kept us in our place.

1/2

1/2

“But the children!” comes the plea. “Sex causes children. Sex outside marriage causes unwanted children. Therefore sex outside marriage should be minimised.” Thankfully, progress has bestowed upon us the gift of contraception, and abstinence is thus no more necessary than castration. Even when that contraception is imperfect, there are contraceptive measures available after that utterly arbitrary point of initiation of cellular meiosis and mitosis. The removal of a blastocyst, embryo or early foetus is “contraception” in terms of functional equivalence if not in name.

The status of consensual sex outside of explicit state/church sanction is one of the clearest indicators of whether a state is authoritarian or socially liberal, and speaks volumes about who has the power. If the people are to have power, then having sex without explicit state or church sanction is no more immoral than democracy itself.

You should be disqualified from discussing politics and philosopy if you can't engage in debate.

You Sup Forums people are just like SJW's.

bitch, Sup Forums cant even agree on a single ethnictity that is white despite talking all day every day about it. we are in unification about anything other than that fucking kikes have to be stopped at kiking around.

sage

wall of text

fail

/thread closed

eat shit commie

>you Sup Forums people
If you're posting here, you're Sup Forums

You're just the stupid faggot version who thinks this is his blog

white isn't a race anyway

tl;dr

white is a status a ethnicity can have. you wouldnt understand that achmed

Fuck off nigger, i don't need your marxism

nigger

You are complaining about authoritarianism but you also say mandate that nobody should be proud of their culture or their nation.

It is natural to be proud of the achievements of the community in which one belongs to, be it by birthright or by assimilation.The fact is that this new wave of nationalism is a purely reactionary movement to a large influx of foreign people that largely displace not only the local people, but the local culture.

There are no nations as tolerant as Western societies. This mentality of "us and them" is plainly mirroring the sentiment shown by the millions of immigrants. How should a local feel when a sizeable number people you've allowed in disregard the manners, disrespect the religion and impose their own religious dogma, and bring with them a myriad of problems into a peaceful and civil society?

How should the Frenchman feel when the very refugees he is sheltering (I use the term "refugee" loosely here) decide to burn down the accommodations and demand more? How should the German feel when immigrants complain about their living conditions when they are provided free and paid for by the hard work of the taxpaying native?

How should we feel in the West when the people that we lend a hand to, the cultures that we accept are the ones that are mowing down our children in the name of some foreign ideology?

Nationalism had almost disappeared from Europe when the Union was established, people traveled freely and felt safe in the environment that their fathers, their predecessors, their ancestors died and worked for.

A nation should only exist to serve and protect the best interests of the individuals that compromise it, not the economic ventures of a select few. The immigration crisis is a product of greed on a multinational level.

who is the verbose faggot?

Destruction level: none

Try harder, OP.

Apparently this one's ancestors never mated with other hominids like Neanderthals or Denisovians, so he/she's been left with only the original set of instructions. Entirely deracinated.

Or maybe it's just ignorance.

Also, making 10 post walls of text are no means to have a good discussion, do one issue at a time and then we can debate. No one is going to take you seriously because you aren't following the format.

This is not your personal blog, faggot

ew, I bet you're one of those scabs voting labour

Faggot. Being a nationalist is perfectly fine if you don't take it to the extremes.
It's just like being a father. First you must protect your own children before you can help others. And there is nothing wrong with being proud of your country, it helps in building a bond with your countrymen and being better to eachother.

Not even gonna touch the 2n point, if you think that niggers are same as white people you have alot of lurking to do.

Who are you?

Why should we care about what you have to say about anything?

Thinking we will read your long ass blog post nigga hahahahahah go home bong your drunk

>I'm going to set up a big fat strawman and knock it down with college freshman argumentation

Cool. You know the major philosophers in the Traditionalist school were not nationalists, right? Evola, Guenon, Coomaraswamy, Burkhardt, and Schuon were either explicitly anti-nationalism or didn't even write about the subject. You're arguing against modern "conservatism," not Traditionalism, so be more precise in your terminology. In fact, I'm quite confident that you're not qualified to argue against Traditionalism, because you evidently don't even understand that system of thought.

P.S. Blow me, faggot

Here's the thing - demographics are destiny for a nation. You replace the native population with foreigners whose alliegances are towards their home country, and you will face a collapse of the nation from within thanks to fifth column elements.

For instance, massive amounts of Chinese are emigrating/investing in the West, buying businesses and land. In essence they are laying the groundwork for their neo-colonialist efforts. They fund anti-racism campaigns and Chinese focused action groups to support this process. Just look toward most SEA nations - they have an ethnic Chinese upper class beholden to China itself. And you can see this process happening in places like Canada, with Vancouver nicknamed "Hongcouver" as Chinese move in record numbers and price the natives out of the housing market.

There is also of course the refugee crisis which according to security experts is being used as cover to ship in "Islamic radicals" en masse into Europe, as well as radicalize existing populations through select mosques.

Post-modernism has destroyed any sense of true Western cultural identity as people are ever more focused on their fleeting selfish desires or fake cultural guilt. We are committing national suicide as those foreign groups who are more committed to their people and beliefs simply replace us and our values. Which wouldnt be *so* bad if the west wasnt the home of actual liberalism

Did not read
Shill is Shilling for Better Grades
Shill needs to suck some cock for sweet sweet Shill juice to continue shilling at this level.

You will never be Jewish , just stop trying to appease your masters

//thread

Jesus was born in Jerusalem and was Jewish, therefor he would be an Israeli, and thus would not be banned from entering the United States.

Answer me
Is living in Europe for the common native-born citizen better today than it was before mass immigration? Instead of replacing human beings like obsolete machines due to low birth rates should we have not made it easier for them to breed and thrive?

Dumb and on purpose.

Didn't Jesus live in what is now Israel though?

Nice blog faggot.

sage

Your points are overly verbose and full of fallacies. Concentrate on making concise; clear statements instead of cramming as many unnecessary words into a sentence as you can in order to make yourself seem more intelligent than you are.

Oh and just as a side note
>Melanin content has nothing to do with criminality; but niggers overwhelmingly commit crime

Muh cognitive dissonance

Sup Forums isn't your blog m8 lol

Yes, he would technically count as a Jew. Therefore he would be exempt, and O'Brien is simply showing that he has no idea what he is talking about.

underated esoteric comment.

Jesus was a Jew, and wouldn't have any problem gaining entry into the US.
I wonder if Conan has ever made a joke about Palestinians in Israel.

Too long; didn't read
>BrittBong flag
Shoulda known to have ignored in first place
>Pray extra hard to Allah this afternoon, Bong.

Christians being murdered by Muslims throughout the middle east, cares about a travel ban targeting muzzies

Sage faggot

TL;DR

Haha, I caught this faggot in a different thread the other day.

Go away Jahans, you're not fooling anybody.

>unhealthy “them and us”
So why are jews allowed to live by this principles and put interests of their own blood above anything else, but goyim are not?

didn't read

sage

>“My country, right or wrong” but still strong enough to warrant a Strongly Agree.

Is English your first language?!
Your sentence structure fucking sucks.

>But being proud of one’s country? This entails an unhealthy “them and us” mentality, perhaps even a feeling of superiority which is, I believe, outright dangerous. And everyone has to be born somewhere - what word describes somebody who is proud of the geographical location of their birth?

Sup Forums BTFO... I guess?! That sure told us. I mean you showed an opinion and no argument. Just an opinion, on its own.

This isn't debate, retard. Noone is going to go point by point down a wall of text and try to argue all of your views at once.
Learn how forums work you cumbersome turbofaggot.

>destory
sage

>tl;dr

who's triggered now, faggot?

>Jesus was born in Jerusalem and was Jewish, therefor he would be an Israeli, and thus would not be banned from entering the United States.

more like Jesus would be a Palestinian, since the so-called Jews wanted him killed.

> your stupid pic

Jordan and Israel weren't on the suspension list. Not reading your long pile of garbage after your intro.

Pretty sure israelis aren't getting detained at airports

I agree, the feeling that encompass yoour arguments, it's not being proud of your country, but "I hate the different".

There's not much in your countries to be proud of, but it seems to be a lot in other people to hate.

tl:dr?

>Can't explain his points succinctly.
>Expects people to take him seriously.
Found the academic fag

>I'm going to destroy Sup Forums
Son, you're pissing in an ocean of piss. Nothing you do here will make difference.

>But being proud of one’s country? This entails an unhealthy “them and us” mentality, perhaps even a feeling of superiority which is, I believe, outright dangerous. And everyone has to be born somewhere - what word describes somebody who is proud of the geographical location of their birth?
You seem to be under the delusion that we are randomly assigned to a body and thus a geographical location when we are born. But this is not the case. Who you are is determined by your nature and nurture, i.e. who are your parents and where did you grow up. These two things are linked to your ethnical identity - and thus there is nothing strange about having an "Us and them" mentality. You have more in common with your ethnical peers, both in terms of nature and nurture.

...

He wants so badly for this to be his own "Mein Kampf"

Many things work here like a charm, apparently you are one of the clueless idiots that can't notice it.

Kill yourself you fucking kike
SAGE
A
G
E

>Many things work here like a charm
Name one of those things then

BBC

>But being proud of one’s country? This entails an unhealthy “them and us” mentality, perhaps even a feeling of superiority which is, I believe, outright dangerous.

So much of word salad for saying almost nothing.
That whole sentence is just your opinion based on your feeling and nothing else.
And 'them and us' mentality is literally the way the whole world works. Only ones who can disregard this sentiment are those who are protected and pampered by everyone else.

>with no biological or anthropological substance

>epidermal melanin somehow affects intelligence or predisposition to criminality

Having the 2 and 3 repeat alleles of the MAOA gene gives you a predisposition to criminality and it just so happens to be correlated with being of a particular race:

soc.iastate.edu/staff/delisi/MAOA 2013.pdf

>an unhealthy “them and us” mentality

jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Adaptive behaviours are the exact opposite of unhealthy. The reason there are races in the world today is because ethnocentrism outcompetes all other strategies.

I guess someone should send memo to CSI forensics teams all over the world to pack their shit, a liberal arts student blown them the fuck out.
Also call the surgeons to just ram niggers bone marrow into a caucasian, proud citizen of the world knows better than them.

"right wing" sjw

lol

fuck off cuck faggot

No Tldr
Fuck off EUteeth

'Eat shit, commie' is time proven argument when debating a communist. I have noticed that you haven't debunked it.

>Why do you think that we need marirage before sex? Get over it. People enjoy sex

People enjoy slaughtering the weak and weeding them out of existence for ever. Get over it.

"every post I disagree with is bait" ft. Sup Forums

What an absolute shit argument
Just because you can compare two things doesn't mean your argument is good or that the comparison is fair, faggot

People enjoy raping children. Get over it.

>killing harms people
>raping harms people
>two consenting adults fucking harms no one

Are you braindead

PLEASE DON'T TAKE OUR STORY!

It harms society and lowers collective standards. From your shitty and retarded liberal world view the only negative that can ever exist is inflicting physical pain and all else is permitted. This is insane dangerous and evil and asking us to tolerate evil makes about as much sense as me asking you to tolerate child rape and genocide.

Not a single fact or statement in this entire post.

>it's the "the post is so boring my eyes blur while reading it" episode
christ

>having sex with consenting children harms them
Its societies fault for having such a negative opinion on it shitlord.
>people want to do hard drugs get over it
>People want to throw toxic waste into lakes get over it
its not like throwing toxic waste really directly harms any one is it?

I don't agree with you but good thread.

**yamn**

Use liberal ideologies so that he will understand. Its like asking him to tolerate pollution or energy waste or for him to tolerate people who are racist and homophobic because they don't hurt anyone.

>implying my entire worldview can be summed up from a 3 line post on Sup Forums
Okay

Get out of Britain and never return.

...

If you even knew what your worldview was, you'd articulate it. It currently appears to be second hand J.S. Mill style "harm principle" liberalism.

mirror neurons?