How do you draw a moral equivalence between
>spreading propaganda to get white people to have sex with non-white races
and
>taking the lives of millions of Jews
Even if the standard "white genocide" narrative were true, spreading propaganda isn't violent coercion. So it's not as evil as a real genocide, which involves violent extermination.
HAHA HH AHAHAHA HE HAS AN EGGHEAD
Because they both meet the UN working definition of genocide. The goal is to remove people and divest them of their land and countries, to be replaced by brown consumers.
Are we actually at the stage where we pretend Richard Spencer personally had a hand in the holocaust and final solution?
>t. brainlet
White people are simply trying to play the victim and blame da joos for their own mistakes that has led to the browning of their country. Just admit it you folks and your shrimp dicks are just not fertile enough
Also this is now a rare spencer thread
Definitely a Little-Ender.
This time the ovens will be bigger and worldwide.
A moral equivalence is not needed. Only the desire not to be replaced. It's survival instinct. Moral frameworks are snake oil.
Has nothing to do with fertility. White women are easily manipulated idiots and are rejecting traditional roles. As always, women ruin societies that give them rights.
this is the rarest spencer on the internet. DO NOT STEAL
I asked how they are both morally equivalent, though.
The "victims" of the first group would survive, though. Their genes would be passed on.
Missed this. No, and I never said that. I just posted a funny picture of the man.
>I asked how they are both morally equivalent, though.
Well, one would be state sanctioned violence through socialist utopian ideals and wealth redistribution.
The other is a Jewish fairytale that some dumbfucks actually bought and started teaching in schools.
>taxation not violent coercion
>affirmative action and anti-discrmination laws not violent coercion
>section 8 housing laws not violent coercion
The government steals from whites and forces whites to allow nonwhites into their property.
"BY MY SUBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARDS ONE THING IS SLIGHTLY LESS EVIL THAN ANOTHER, MAKING IT OK"
youre a fucking idiot
i cant believe that this is ricahrd spencer, i keep hearing about this guy and how good he is, but there is something wrong here, seriously
why is it that shape? his head is like a weird shape, like football or an egg shape, is it just because of the fashy haircut or is it some kind of genetic disorder
Why do they need to be morally equivalent? They can both be evil without being morally equivalent.
I've asked the question, since the asking of questions holds value itself, what the problem would be with becoming a white minority in a country. I have a large copy pasta, but I'm too lazy to find it right now.
Low IQ brown hordes would want more state money. They would vote socialists in, and once your country is a socialism with an enslaved and hated under class, there is only one eventuality.
I never said either of them are okay.
I'm not saying they need to be, I'm asking someone to make a case since a lot of Sup Forumsacks think that violent anti-semitism is an appropriate retaliation for Jewish propaganda, when propaganda.
lurk more newfags
...
XDDd
>implying we like Nazi larpers
And I explained it as both attempts at erasing peoples.
But I don't know what them being moral equivalent is important.