How to expose the ethno nationalists in the as hypocrites or morally inconsistent with 2 questions

>1. "Do you agree that violence or the supression of rights are ultimately required for you to achieve your desired result for society?"

>2. "Are you okay with people hitting you with bike locks?"

I know these questions may seem like "gotchas" but I've concluded that this is really the only way to combat the entho nationalist side of any group really. Because I've actually conceded on about 90% of their talking points. But the only thing their undeniably inconsistent in is in principle.

And for the brainlets. If one answers "yes" to the first question their ironically justifying Nazi punching.

Define rights and people.

So, Op agrees with violence and suppression, and thinks he's so smart to challenge others who are against violence.
These commies are such sad little losers.

>he doesn't the greater good

>Yes
>depends the reason

No and no from a White nationalist . So now what faggot ?

>yes
>no

Soon

Than how do you plan on obtaining a white ethno state? Unless you go to a 100% white nation or state your desired result will require violence anywhere else, whether you like it or not.

>depends the reason
Because of the ideas they hold.

>Commie
Nah my friend.

You are conflating violence by the state and violence by individuals.
There exists a concept of the "monopoly of violence" the state has, which states that the state is the only actor that can legitimately apply physical force.
An antifa faggot bashing someone's head in with a bike lock is illegal force prohibited by law, deportation is violence that is legal by law and performed by the state.
These two questions are a non-sequitur.
Please try again.

lmao the absolute state of (you)

Well instead of rights, I'll say freedom. Because it more accurately describes what I mean.

But as far as that goes, things like freedom of expression, speech, association, etc.

And by people, I mean more in a US context. Natural born citizens.

What's with these faggots who think peace is the greatest thing ever?

this
the state already uses "violence" to enforce law. you can debate which laws are just, but without the threat of coercion the law cannot exist

>You are conflating violence by the state and violence by individuals.
Well that's my mistake. But if we're going off that than, are you okay with state violence that suppresses freedoms?

No and no.
So I guess you have nothing?

No said anything about peace. I'm talking about consistency.

>How to expose the ethno nationalists in the as hypocrites or morally inconsistent
>But the only thing their undeniably inconsistent in is in principle.
>And for the brainlets. If one answers "yes" to the first question their ironically

Well sheeeit. If so said is in their comminent state of deflection said so sey they is in their pronounce, nigguh.

Is rest my case yo honoh.

The answer is to deny 1. The U.S. is already effectively segregated by race. All you have to do is split it up into several new countries along racial lines and pay those living among a different race to move out. Raising the money for those payments will require taxes. But if taxes count as violence or suppression of rights, then we have to choice but to go full ancap.

>Than how do you plan on obtaining a white ethno state? Unless you go to a 100% white nation or state
Sounds like a plan.

>your desired result will require violence anywhere else, whether you like it or not.
The only violence required will be to protect our state from outside hostile action.

1. Yes
2. No

Why do you have to want to be attacked to attack someone? Are you into BDSM or some shit OP? Wtf?

I blame the gay

yes
no
where exactly is the inconsistency? I hope you don't actually think the "gotcha" is in the supposed universality of morality towards all human beings because I don't believe in that shit, hitting traitors and/or hanging them from choppers is not wrong

>Than how do you plan on obtaining a white ethno state?

Well sheeeit. Soona ratha then lata muh brutha. The real pridiclament thou, is "than how do you subjumugate their inferrance?".

Gotchu nigguh.

There already is state violence that suppresses freedom.
You can't possess weed, you can't manufacture NFA items, you can't murder, rape, etc.
The law is defined by the state and can be changed by the states, which are the reps we vote for.

>Well that's my mistake. But if we're going off that than,

Well sheeeit. If we is going that than, their intrumaze is in their own court. Aint no black crows flying in the black crow night, you now what I'm seyin?

The answer to both is yes. If someone hits me with a bike lock, I am perfectly justified in pulling out my Glock and putting one right between his eyes.

Yes and im fine with violence as a means to an end thats why i laughed my ass off when the Dodge Chadllenger killed that fat whore, but by the same token you cant cry when we dox and send that retard to jail

I think of it as an ideal to shoot for more than a practical goal we could reasonably obtain within our lifetimes. You need to aim high because in reality you’re probably not going to hit that mark, like in a negotiation

1. Ok I guess.. if we can’t peacefully separate I guess there will be violence

2. Well obviously I am not ok with someone hitting me with a bike lock but if that is the state of things I am ok with killing those people in return.

If violence is how his ends then it ends in violence.

Multiculturalism and forced diversity is violence against my people. They are putting my people in a position that ends in their ethnic destruction.


So violence it is then.

I am ok with people triying to bike lock me.

So what did giving some obese piece of shit a heart attack achieve? To what end is that means to?

You sound like a retard

The left and current system is violence against whites.. they are literally dumping third world peoples into spaces given to us by our ancestors and they commit violence against us.. their children commit violence against our children in schools. They destroy our spaces.

The violence is already being committed against us and you are saying we can’t push back.

>2. "Are you okay with people hitting you with bike locks?"

lol. you think etho nationalists are against the 2nd amendment or what?

Bicycle lock? Give me a fucking flail, and someone worth killing. DEUS VULT

>revoke nonwhite peoples citizenship
>they are now illegal in your country
>either move away or let the police handle it
how to you justify police violence to support the law
easy, law has to be above everything for a normal country to function

>Multiculturalism and forced diversity is violence against my people. They are putting my people in a position that ends in their ethnic destruction.

Well sheeeit. So what you is sayin is theys genocide aint technimally a state of non violent actionals? Well sheeeit, kys brainlet. Is is whyte too my fellow whyte man and is thinks gettin rid of they're whyte peoples aint so much bad, you know whattamsayin? Theys wuz kangz and sheeeit.

>the
Or give every citizen the right to take care of the issue.

Is English your fist language?

>rights
>freedom
both very vague and subjective terms, op

English pls.

Again, English please.

Okay. Good luck with that.

No and no.
I find it perfectly reasonable to think that my desired society could be achieved with simple policy that does not violate individual rights and, just as importantly, time. No for #2 is obvious.

1.)yes
2.)no
the problem dipshit is that blacks are engaged in 2 leaving us no choice but 1.
not to mention 3,4, and 5.

3.) like having your belongings?
4.) enjoy your women non-raped?
5.) does the fact that your enemy is engaged in genocide of you disturb you?

>suppression of rights = violence

Why is not committing violence the ultimate good for these people?


>Atleast i didn’t commit violence

So Germany suppressing Nazi or white nationalist ideas is okay in your book?

No, no. nice try.

>English pls.

Well sheeeit. Than how is you gunna tell me how to talk an sheeit, muh nigguh? Dats what their doing to us my brutha, you know whattamsayin? Don't intermalanize they're oppression.

Sheeeit.

It made us be seen as a legitimate threat to the left and showed them we arnt going to back down from their intimidation you dumb faggot

KEK

This. Its all about shifting the overton window to the right.
You can only shift that window if you start out with extreme then settle later on for a slightly less radical outcome.

Well it’s not ok cause that’s what Germans need to save themselves.. however I would understand why the state wants to suppress those ideas.

Our state should suppress communism and Jewish subversion.

You don't need violence to achieve an ethnostate
Simply sound immigration policy

This
don't forget to sage this shill thread

>are you okay with state violence that suppresses freedoms?
Yes. Child-fuckers should be killed. Adulterers should be jailed. Homos should be subjected to severe doses of anti-biotics and electroshock therapy. There are millions of other examples of really good state restrictions of freedom.

They are committing violence against us and you are denying our right to use violence to protect our people and give them a space to flourish.

>liberalists

. "Do you agree that violence or the supression of rights are ultimately required for you to achieve your desired result for society?"
There is no such thing as rights without a society to grant them. There is no such thing as an inherent right.
Therefore, I can do whatever I want to people in my aim to establish a society that fits with my ideals, because until a society is established, there's no such thing as rights.

. "Are you okay with people hitting you with bike locks?"
They can try. Because my nigger, that also means I have the right to hit them with whatever I want.

>they can try
Yes you see we are ready for an open state of war. Because they have been waring against us for decades and we have not been fighting back

I don't agree with it, but that does not mean I can just go outside and kill leftists like your OP post implies.
I do what I can as a citizen of this state and participate as a voter, protest and raise awareness.
Violence will happen when the state loses it's legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

1. Many people are deeply indoctrinated and will have to be supressed to keep thing civil.

2. Someone hitting me with a bikelock, because I want my country to stay homogeneous and free from Islam and other suberversive ideologies, are not only my enemy, but also the enemy of my country.

Are you okay with the state suppressing the freedom of natural born racial minorities out of the country?

. "Are you okay with people hitting you with bike locks?"
"muh feelings"
try it so I can shoot you and solve all my problems.

For those of us actually interested in making our country better instead of just fucking memeing on the internet, what do you think about this:

1) Immediately cease all non-white immigration/refugee taking/admittance of non-citizens. I'm sure I could even be talked into all immigration for this first step.
2) Get a true handle on how many illegal citizens currently reside in our country. Before this number is known, nobody should be making future immigration policy.
3) Deport any and all illegal aliens who have already been convicted of a second crime other than their illegal presence here.
4) After #2 is known, formulate a sensible 80%+ white immigration policy. ALL potential immigrants will be vetted extremely for fit into our national beliefs, just like is done in many other sane western countries.
5) Create new policy formed at fostering families. Real, American families, with Fathers and Mothers. Of all races.
6) Drastically cut down on the dollars going into the welfare state. Cut it by half to start with. Sink or swim will force families and close-knit groups of people to support each other, instead of Big Auntie Government. That reality will maybe, just maybe, cause LeQuisha and Lupe, Daiquan and Jose to keep their pants on.
7) This is the toughest step, because it is time. How much I can't say; demographic trends CAN be reversed or accelerated relatively overnight, look no further than our own country. The demographic trends would need to be monitored, and then policy adjusted either more stringently or softened, as necessary.
8) Profit.

If some disgusting beaner sneaks into your barn and gives birth to a baby does that kid suddenly have a right to live in your barn?

Morality for me is discovered by asking "How can I best serve the genes that have created me, and that have tasked me with their multiplication?". Whether a particular action is moral is "Does this action serve the genes that I must multiply?".

So, do I think that restiricting my own actions and the actions of others might best serve my genes? Yes, that is self evident, as different actions have different outcomes, and one outcome will be preferable genetically.

Am I okay with people hitting me with a bike lock? No, not at all, because that is harmful to the genes that I seek to preserve.

Morality is relative to the person asking these questions, as each person has different genetic code. A nigger would have the same answers if they understood Darwin and Dawkins.

People of whiteness have a right to exist, if they must commit violence to continue that existence they have a right to do it.

Someone hits me with a bike lock and I hit them with a bullet, and I would be well within my rights to do so. As far as state violence, the state already uses violence against whites. So if we take over the state and use its violence against minorities to remove them, it's okay with me.

>Are you okay with people hitting you with bike locks

>If one answers "yes" to the first question their ironically justifying Nazi punching.

Kek, I guess you are the brainlet here. One does not justify the other at all for reasons that should be obvious to people with 3 digit IQ

u r stupid

only an anarchist could disagree with 1. you fucking retard

what a uncreative and naive mind you have. violence is impossible to escape from and you know it. somehow you believe that by posing these questions you will make people abandon their desired methods of achieving their goals because you lack the capacity to debate efficiently. stop pretending that civilization is the natural state of things because it is not. war is natural and there is nothing inconsistent with wanting to physically impose my morals upon others but not wanting others to physically impose their morals onto me.

1. Yes, kill all of our enemies if necessary.
2. You can try, I will shoot you in the neck.

Stop pretending you're some warrior lemming, you passively take it in the ass from the cia, nsa, BIS, US govt etc. without a peep. Without a hint of revolution. But dem ebull natzis amirite? dey da reeeeeel badguys.

One child policy for non whites and sterilization for gibs

This is interesting to me because it is so unamerican.
We believe that rights exist independent of a society, and not given to us by a government--they are given to us by god.

Would you agree at that point that child is an American citizen?

no.
neither did our founders.

it's not morally inconstant if the violence is directed towards defined outgroups

morals are for ingroups. we used to have outlawry for a reason, and frankly it should be brought back.

>political and legislative deincentivation doesn't exist.

Violence and suppression of rights are two massively different things, your attempt to conflate the two is pants of head retarded.

People will come to the conclusion that multiculturalism doesn't work.
After whites are no longer the majority shit will go down either way.
Your kind will probably push the 'white people are to blame for everything that is wrong with the world' until all white people are gone until you move on to the next boogeyman but even the leftiest of leftwing lunatics eventually end up with a good job and send their kids to white private schools.

Thomas Jefferson proposed to divide the US into different states for different Ethnicities. That would be one possible solution everyone could agree on. Just let the black community care for themselves fully and see how that works out.

>1. "Do you agree that violence or the supression of rights are ultimately required for you to achieve your desired result for society?"
no, free market without government interference will solve the problem

There is nothing immoral in hitting a Nazi, just like there is nothing immoral in executing Communists

>then they are unironically justifying punching nazis.
So motive does not matter at all? Okey OP, I will remember that if I kill you when trying to rob you, it is the same as killing you in self defense, faggot.

. "Do you agree that violence or the supression of rights are ultimately required for you to achieve your desired result for society?"

We already live under systems that use violence and suppression of rights to achieve its aims.

Furthermore the result of forced integration results in obscene levels of violence, rape, and murder due to black-on-white crime. While it may have seemed morally good to end segregation at the time, the result has been disastrous for white people and white communities. It is getting to the point where the moral superiority of integration is no longer tenable.

>2. "Are you okay with people hitting you with bike locks?"
Saying, "you have to be replaced by mass immigration of non-whites or else!" is hardly a moral stance, nor is morally consistent. For once you replace whites with non-whites, racism is not going to magically go away.

In fact, there is reason to believe that racism will get much worse between non-whites, as there is little to no guilt between say, Mexicans and blacks as there is with "white guilt". Latinos will have no moral compunctions about removing blacks from America, as they had no role in the slave trade and will see blacks as remnants of their white dispossession.

Expect major bloodshed in a society that is no longer restrained by white western moral codes. (pic related)

If violence can be employed to suppress the native population, then violence can be employed to liberate it. And no, Indians aren't native to America.

No. Magic Soil does not exist.

No. Why should I?

Yes, no. Hypocrisy means nothing to me. It's my side against yours, and I'll use any tactics necessary to secure victory.

The ends justify the means.

Violence is inevitable user. It's nice to think about doing this peacefully but I just don't think it's possible anymore. The only question is how violent do things get.

Why do you assume we're egalitarians? Different rights for different people.

>freedom
THIS IS MY JEWISH BUZZWORD. THERE ARE MANY LIKE IT BUT THIS ONE IS MINE.

Hell no.

We don't disagree with violence on the principle of violence being bad, we disagree with what it's used for. If someone killed your grandma to take her stuff, you would be mad. If a person killed a tyrant oppressing you, you would not be mad.

. "Do you agree that violence or the supression of rights are ultimately required for you to achieve your desired result for society?"

no, just repealing the fair housing act first, then the rest of the civil rights act

. "Are you okay with people hitting you with bike locks?"

clingers have no choice but to resort to violence. don't blame them, they know they'll starve if people are allowed to exclude them under any circumstances.

>I know these questions may seem like "gotchas" but I've concluded that this is really the only way to combat the entho nationalist side of any group really. Because I've actually conceded on about 90% of their talking points. But the only thing their undeniably inconsistent in is in principle.

you're like 2 months behind at least. there's been 5 or 6 pol threads and a couple of podcasts mentioning this line of reasoning since the styx/sargon/spencer thing where styx brought up muh NAP and muh countries would never accept it

we're now aiming for formally legalizing all of the already existing ethnic enclaves in the immediate and aiming in the long game for a balkanization to a swiss-style canton system. altright 2.0, bitches.

i imagine its hard to keep up and virtue signal to tyrone at the same time. stay tuned to pol and stay apprised.

your argument completely ignores rule of rule.
you need to go back to preschool and review the rules on hitting people. Don't do it. no matter how much you really really don't like the other person you are not allowed to hit them. obviously the answer to #1 is yes, but thats what cops are for. you are not cops, you do not have right to decide when it is acceptable to use violence to impose your political will. the only time an individual can use violence is against a specific individual who is an immediate physical threat to you (so your shitty "nazis want to kill us so it's self defense when we burn down buildings" argument doesnt apply)

>
>Well instead of rights, I'll say freedom. Because it more accurately describes what I mean.
>But as far as that goes, things like freedom of expression, speech, association, etc.
>And by people, I mean more in a US context. Natural born citizens.

so there's already two different sets of rights, that's like dave rubin, larry elder-tier
above mentioned freedoms are also specifically denied to whites

as far as i'm concerned the constitution is already dead, at this point its just a ball and chain made up of a hundred and some odd million clingers that whites don't need. that's not an immediate concern tho.

amending, or striking down the civil rights act can largely eliminate their special clinger rights. then no rights are being violated by excluding them.