I am someone who would probably be considered a progressive SJW on Sup Forums. Mainly...

I am someone who would probably be considered a progressive SJW on Sup Forums. Mainly, I'm a supporter of a post-racial one world government. I used to have beliefs aligned more with this board, but experience has changed my mind on most things. I now believe that the elimination of race through mixing (even including the "genocide" of white identity) is going to be a net positive for mankind.

AMA, if you'd like. I'd like to have a civil discussion, learn some new things, and maybe even change some minds.

And no, I am not a Hillary supporter/shill. I don't personally like her very much, but I do see her as a necessary step in the transition between where we are now and the kind of world I want to see.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=bOOhfS1hZVo
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why do you need to ask for questions you already know the answer too

this thread has been made a million times by a million people

you know how this whole thread will go

you know what the results will be


sadly most of Sup Forums likes the fucking echo chamber that this place is. sage

Because I'm not going to sling insults and I'm not going to take insults personally. There will be discussion on this thread.

>one world government
it takes a special kind of retard to think that would ever be a good idea.

no, there won't be

you know damn well that its just gonna turn into shit flinging because this board is populated by edgy ironic teenage memers

Also, Sup Forums is not an "echo chamber." There is a very, very wide range of ideology that can be found here and I think you're refusing to acknowledge that.

I believe an ideal system would be primarily at the level of individual states, national cooperation on defense and only a few other essential issues and a global NATO type force to enforce nuclear non-proliferation.

That being said, that will never happen and a global uniracial world is inevitable.

>I used to have beliefs aligned more with this board
such as?
How do you deny the fact that race doesn't exist? How do you purposefully ignore the death of all culture and races. Why do you think this is a good thing?
Why are you obsessed with space travel? What is the point of life if there is no culture or fun?

Why's that? It's eventually where the world is going to need to go in order to prevent the damage caused by large tribes, who are in a constant state of conflict.

Things about human cultures are going to need to fundamentally change, the population will have to change, and many other things will need to change. Sacrifices will need to be made. But in the end, it's definitely possible and I believe it's humanity's only chance at a long future.

how new are you. serious

and no, this entire website is inherently contrarian and at the moment the entire board is very right leaning, as its mainstream to be leftist currently.

Sup Forums is an echo-chamber aside from obvious shills chief. It has been for the past 1 and a half years or so.

>I'd like to have a civil discussion

I'd like to see you hanging from a tree.

>(even including the "genocide" of white identity) is going to be a net positive for mankind.

>I'd like to have a civil discussion

pro genocide of an entire race of humans. wants a civil discussion...
top fucking kek.

I used to believe that, but as states grow, internal politics become corrupt as the distance between representatives and individuals grows. In addition, the complacency that results from too much prosperity creates voter apathy. Therefore, states which become issues for the peace of the world, at large, will begin to form, die, and reform cyclically.

>I now believe that the elimination of race through mixing (even including the "genocide" of white identity) is going to be a net positive for mankind.
pls explain. the way i see it, some cultures are just too far behind others and while they should always have their right to live, mixing with them seems like a bad idea.

If you don't think a global government is more ripe for corruption than any other system you are naive as fuck or dishonest. The more you concentrate power, the more you attract corruption. People are not meant to work as one group of 7 billion.

I believe race exists, but racial classifications and definitions have changed over the 200,000+ years we've walked the Earth. Overall, I actually believe in racial differences and conflicts between those racial groups. But if everyone is one uniform race, then those conflicts will no longer exist.

How would a centralized global government be able to address the intimate details each region and cultures face?

>t's eventually where the world is going to need to go in order to prevent the damage caused by large tribes
How do you figure?
People in the U.S. get into fights about which city is better how in the fuck are you supposed to stop human nature from occurring? We are tribal animals no matter what you do. What happens when there is a disagreement between two cultures?

>it's definitely possible and I believe it's humanity's only chance at a long future
Whats the point of a long future if the future will all be shit.
You are basically saying humans should lock themselves inside their houses so that they are safer and will live longer. Whats the point of life?

What has happened in your life, that has you thinking that a government that makes all of your choices for you, is the best decision for you?

also, those inferior cultures that I can think of have billions of people more than the more productive/efficient/healthy cultures, so the mixing will bring the whole world further down than even the middle between the two.

Looking at projected population statistics, don't you think that the average IQ of this one-world-race would be around 90?

Wouldn't this stifle progress?

/thread. All communists and Globalist must hang or firing squad.

I've browsed Sup Forums since 2012. No shit. I was a Ron Paul supporter and I dabbled in some further right ideologies until I realized they were no longer feasible. I also don't align with other "leftists." I believe most of them are incapable of understanding the incredible amount of complication that exists in world affairs, and that's why they're force fed a light, almost religion-like version of it, so they can be useful and support the cause. They feel good about themselves, I/we get what I/we want, and everyone is happy except for those who cling to the ways of the past.

so obviously the solution, err final solution, is to kill the entire population of white people. perhaps even using their corpses as fuel to heat the homes of minorities?

its not though. When shills aren't around we are very diverse. We have nat soc. libertarians fascists, monarchs, ect ect

Why do you think you have the right to use the violence of the state to impose your vision of the world on those of us who wish to be free?

This board is 70-30 National Socialist to libertarian, I'd guess. National Socialists also exist in different intensity, and you'll see refreshing ideas from them that you won't see on other political discussion sites, such as sympathy towards certain brands of socialism/social democracy. There are also straight social democrats. This is all excluding shills, from what I've seen, as well.

Will ask again because I know unilateral answers to separate problems only cause issues

How would a centralized global government be able to address the intimate details each region and cultures face?

None of you are acknowledging that this board has been an alt-right Hitler and then Trump circlejerk for 18 months straight. The libertarians got meme'd on until they left and so did every other group.

I'm a leftist on Sup Forums and I am outnumbered probably 100 to one aside from obvious shills of course.

Thats why I put it in quotes. It's not genocide if white people voluntarily breed themselves out. I don't support killing anyone.

>I want total racial homogeneity

So do we! Now explain why your way - forcing white women to be broodmares for blacks - is better than our way, sterilizing the blacks out of existence.

A lot of people in cultures like that are going to die. I accept that. I believe it's actually for the best. Intense social changes are going to come due to the conflicts that exist in the world today. Just like new cultures have formed from the ashes of all other fallen civilizations, a new culture can form out of the ashes of this current one. And with a uniform racial identity, then it can be free of interracial conflict.

Why do you want to make humanity less attractive and less intelligent?

So then how do you explain away all the wars that have been fought between people of the same race. People form small groups together. Its what they do. From being proud of being in the yacht club to being proud of your country and family.
Even if race didn't exist people would still be bashing each others heads in.

That's why it must be done in steps, and eventually, the population must be reduced. One day, regardless of what happens, reproduction is going to be guided mostly centrally.

I like the Georgia Guidestones model. Definitely under one billion, for sure. Most of those billions exist in backwards shitholes, anyway, and they're on the brink of imploding. It won't be 7 billion forever and it definitely won't keep increasing forever. All species reach carrying capacity, and we're no exception.

>Thats why I put it in quotes. It's not genocide if white people voluntarily breed themselves out. I don't support killing anyone.

so those that are convinced to kill themselves are not murdered? and what of those whites that happen to enjoy their identity and the role their race has played in history? what becomes of them as you approach your non white utopia? they will obviously need to be "handled" so they dont interrupt your grand design.

>Echo Chamber

Why do people think this board is an echo chamber. Very few permanent posters on this board dislike Trump yet they get all the attention, albeit negative attention

I'm libertarian and i'm voting Trump.
The only libertarians that got memed off were those faggots who believed in open borders and and other retarded ideas. really only anarchists were kicked off.

Move them together and encourage them to mix until the original cultural/racial differences disappear. Then, centrally guide them into a new cultural order under one homogeneous identity.

Like National Socialism, if you think about it.

Youre probably not white and therefore have your own personal agenda when it comes to race.

Opinion discarded.

Libertarians wouldn't vote Trump, he has blatant authoritarian tendencies.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=bOOhfS1hZVo
Still waiting...

>I'd like to have a civil discussion
No. Fuck off you traitorous piece of shit.

You're responding to the wrong dude.

>People in the U.S. get into fights about which city is better how in the fuck are you supposed to stop human nature from occurring? We are tribal animals no matter what you do. What happens when there is a disagreement between two cultures?
Reduce the amount of different cities. Reduce the amount of different tribes. Mix all the tribes together so they're the same. Punish those who don't get with the program.

Regardless of where the world goes, those who start violent conflict over tribal identity should be punished, regardless.

>Whats the point of a long future if the future will all be shit.
It doesn't have to be. A cohesive, cooperative society with a single identity can do wonderful things. We have the technology to enhance communication and lengthen lives. The future can be bright as long as we eliminate identarian conflict, which continues to slow everyone down and keep everyone living in fear of nuclear annihilation.

You know, people got interests and if you will blend in everybody elses interests you will get eaten up.
But as you said the genocide isn't a problem for you and for that you seem to get fine with the idea being dictated on what you think and how to act.
Your whole statement screams "I will be happy sitting in leatherchains on the chair watching you fucking my wife".
That's a bit drastic now but that's what you believe in. Give up, don't believe in anything the government didn't dictate you and be friends with everybody.
As I said before, you will be eaten up and spit out by people who are willing to fight for their very own beliefs.
"You can lose if you fight, but you lost if you don't fight".
And this fight is all about you and your family. Not about any other.
For me you just try to fit in everything and go along without any edges and for that I despite you.

Not even close...

How would you put an end to those with imperialistic instincts? Let say for example the radical Muslims?

We have actively tries over and over to assimilate and accept them, look at how that has worked out

Not even close...

How would you put an end to those with imperialistic instincts? Let say for example the radical Muslims?

We have actively tried over and over to assimilate and accept them, look at how that has worked out

A government is always going to be in charge. A government is always going to be a reflection of the people who elect it. It's an inevitability of life, as libertarians are such a tiny minority on the national/global scale, that different cultures who directly oppose their ideals are going to outnumber them.

It would probably be, but

A. There would still always be exceptional people to lead. Not everyone is fit to lead.

B. A cohesive society with average intelligence will be able to go further than a disjointed society with high intelligence

You do understand that the government systems of the world can work together despite national boundaries right?

This particular delusion that there will be no aggression, wars, or other violence under a "one world government" system is absolutely the worst ideology you can find yourself in.
You put genocide in quotes, so its obvious that you believe that the culling of an entire race and culture is completely acceptable in reaching this so called age of peace and tolerance (I'd put love there, but you people don't remotely even understand the concept of it).
Regardless of that, classes will always exist - there will always be someone louder and stronger than the common man, and this will force more conflict than culture ever could remotely dream of.

I believe humanity will reach the stars for the purpose of colonization and industrialization, but it sure as hell won't be like star trek - and it sure as hell doesn't require a one world government system.

Sacrifice to the tune of billions of undesirables - then you get to be the happy slave you truly want to be; and there will be no space travel - you won't be included in the elite groups that will live off world after their wars destroy it.

Funny I used to be like you!

Don't kill the whites. Just encourage the modern people to mix their race out of existence. It would be all voluntary. There could even still be white people, but they're going to be outnumbered and social pressure is going to push most people into having multiracial children so their children aren't ostracized.

>I'm a progressive SJW
So is everyone else on here atm

.A one race world is impossible. Western countries are the only non-xenophobic countries. Once they're destroyed, shitskins will go back to their original anti-miscegenation sentiment. Also, the only races that have enough intelligence to form are whites, jews, and chinks. Whites are going to be extinct in 100 years, so are jews. Chinks are xenophobic as fuck, and hate niggers, so would never mix with non-chinks. therefore, this one world government thing is impossible.

The world is many different violent institutions (governments) competing for supremacy. Way I see it, we can watch the Plato-esque cycle continue forever as people needlessly die, or we can make a sacrifice right now and end the cycle.

Obligatory mention:

Every single time I've delta with a government agency, it's been overwhelmingly efficient. Only waited 50 minutes last week at the dmv. Let's expand this optimal power!!

>Punish those who don't get with the program.

so you would advocate the murder of those that beleive differently than you? who decides who gets to live and die and why do you beleive you would be on that team?

I'm sorry, I'm going down each post one by one.

Those cultures will be gone. They'll mix together to create a new one. It has actually happened before, and resulted in whatever race you are. It can happen again. There will be less people and less different regions, so these issues can be handled as a group instead of a confederation of different independent nations, with some having the potential to threaten peace.

White women always choose who they want to reproduce with.

What's attractive will obviously change as humans change, which will happen regardless of my ideology. As I've said above, a cohesive society of average intelligence will go further than a disjointed society of high intelligence.

So we can deal with those issues easier once everyone is under the same jurisdiction. The real problem area is when the others are in a different group with its own court system.

Has never happened, ever in the history of humanity.

Where are you basing any of your ideas?

>so those that are convinced to kill themselves are not murdered?
Do you believe in free will or not?

>and what of those whites that happen to enjoy their identity and the role their race has played in history?
Whatever you are now, your ancient ancestors were something else, and your distant descendents will also be something else.

>what becomes of them as you approach your non white utopia?
They've mixed in with the rest of the others. It's not "non-white" as much as it is homogeneous.

>they will obviously need to be "handled" so they dont interrupt your grand design.
White nationalism as an ideology just isn't going to be able to stand up to the coming demographic shifts.

I actually am white.

As a result of the atrocities that Muslims are going to commit (because they're fucking Muslims, I'm not a fan, either), religion as a concept is most likely going to go the way of the dinosaur, or be replaced with something else. There's no way Islam will, or will be allowed to, last forever.

Still doesn't answer the fact the individual regions face so many conflicting issues. How could one centralized policy ben suitable for all?

>You do understand that the government systems of the world can work together despite national boundaries right?
They CAN, but you live in constant fear of the bad apples. It's easier to deal with conflicts if everyone is under the same flag, using the same court system.

I put genocide in quotes because "white genocide" as said by white nationalists, is not genocide. If white women choose to have non-white babies, it's their choice.

>Sacrifice to the tune of billions of undesirables - then you get to be the happy slave you truly want to be; and there will be no space travel - you won't be included in the elite groups that will live off world after their wars destroy it.
Those shithole countries are going to destroy themselves. What I'm saying is that the current high population isn't necessarily a reality that we have to accept as permanent.

Do you honestly believe the elimination of race is an achievable goal? Even if possible in a some lunatic theories, actually you're not going to get the whole world to sign up to that - only mainly Western countries are having transformative mass immigration, and there is less mixing going on that some might hope for, more is just replacement because of the large numbers of immigrants involved. How do you expect to get all the peoples of Asia, Africa, etc and even isolated groups in rural Siberia, small islands etc all to sign up to your great plan? How would you achieve it without absolute totalitarian coercian and control of peoples choices of reproductive mates, and forced mass movement of people across the entire globe changing every country in the world?

Secondly, and more importantly, do you actually believe that even if your "eliminatinon of race through mixing" plan was successful, (pro tip; it's not), do you really think you're idea will lead to a peaceful world? Are you that lacking in knowledge of history, biology, behaviour etc that you think there will be peace just because humans are all some mixed race? Are you that fucking clueless? Open your fucking eyes, take a look at the world and the creatures in it clearly, and all of this worlds long history - conflict and the struggle for dominance will not be ended by some simplistic utopian concept of one mixed humanity. It's an absurdity, believed by too many who should know better. The struggle for survival at the heart of life will not be overcome so easily.

>experience has changed my mind

i don't believe you, irl people laugh at blue pilled ideas

(they also laugh at red pilled ideas)

Can you say any of this for sure? I think that as technology advances, people will be living closer and closer together and will be more dependent on centralized services/technology to live their lives, so nobody will be able to afford to leave the settlements unless they want to live like mountain men.

I don't mean it in a scary dictator way. I mean it in a "if some drunk dickhead punches some guy for wearing the wrong football jersey, he should go to jail" way. Which currently exists now.

wait now. You just said there should be a happy ringlerosie around the world. So if the majority is muslim you have to fi in there somehow.

Oh fuck, you only believe in a happy worldstate in the frames of your believe what a happy world is about?
Now you got no respect after all. You are a hypocrite, not even a leftist or some hippie just some redpill in denial.
Come out of the closet my friend.

For the first time in history, we have the communication technology required to push race mixing on a population and use the current western cultural vacuum as a vehicle to advance this agenda. We're living in a time of firsts, but regardless of whether or not it goes exactly as planned, minorities and mixed race people are outnumbering the natives of their respective countries.

1. Through evolutionary psychology and centuries of national ethno-linguistic development, ethnic homogeneity creates more stable societies (Salter, 2003)

2. A multiple-state government is important to maintain a balance of power and key to actual peace in which actions by any authority can be scrutinized (i.e by other nations).

3. There are significant biological differences between racial clusters. Because of the Gaussian distribution of intelligence, a decline of presently "high-IQ" nations to the global mean would result in significantly lower amounts of people with genius level IQs, curbing scientific and socio-cultural development.

4. You are a faggot

They could be solved if most everybody lived closer together and shared these conflicting issues. The need to live spread across the planet is a relic from the old world.

After that, we handle disputes the same way any nation that currently exists solves disputes; using the judicial system.

I never said that there would be a happy ringlerosie around the world. The world is leading towards violence and these changes are going to be violent. If religion (primarily Islam) is destructive to the stability of the nation, then it will be banned or eliminated through social pressure. Fortunately for both of us, the entire planet is waking up to the realities of Islam now, thanks to recent events.

What you are asking for will ultimately lead to this:

1. One global elite ruling class group isolated from societies ills and laws.
2. The rest of the population subjugated under control of said people
3. Where conflicts between different groups of nations/people has been replaced with crime, only to achieve worse results for a stable society
4. Where the gains of successful civilizations have been destroyed and you live in a world where you have only enough necessities to keep you docile.

Sorry, I'd rather not live in that world.

>Do you believe in free will or not?
yes, but coercion and force also exist. free will is not the only factor. did the jews walk into a gas chamber knowing they were going to die of their own free will for the good of humanity?

>Whatever you are now, your ancient ancestors were something else, and your distant descendents will also be something else.
perhaps, but were those multi millennial transitions natural or guided by political elites and force as you suggest?

>They've mixed in with the rest of the others. It's not "non-white" as much as it is homogeneous.
not clear on why you seek universal homogeneity or think that is a positive.

>White nationalism as an ideology just isn't going to be able to stand up to the coming demographic shifts.
not all whites are white nationalists. your discourse here suggests the politically guided destruction of an entire race of humans.

>Through evolutionary psychology and centuries of national ethno-linguistic development, ethnic homogeneity creates more stable societies (Salter, 2003)
Then we're in agreement. Brown, post-racial is homogeneous. It will become more and more homogeneous as these homogeneous people have homogeneous babies with other homogeneous people.

>2. A multiple-state government is important to maintain a balance of power and key to actual peace in which actions by any authority can be scrutinized (i.e by other nations).
I actually agree that the one world government should have a municipality system, and I think that it will if it wants to ensure its survival.

>There are significant biological differences between racial clusters. Because of the Gaussian distribution of intelligence, a decline of presently "high-IQ" nations to the global mean would result in significantly lower amounts of people with genius level IQs, curbing scientific and socio-cultural development.
I acknowledge those differences. Don't assume that I don't. However, multiracial people already exist and more are being born every year.

In a one world government, why would elections be necessary? That is a big problem with the concept of a one world government is that the way of life is set in place there are no checks and balances on any abuses of power, why would they bother with elections with opposition to a OWG?

I never said it wouldn't be democratic. What's inherently undemocratic about a culturally homogeneous, post-racial, post-calamity world government?

Why would they be unnecessary? Elections make for a better life. Granted, if would definitely be more social democratic with less emphasis on individualism, but humans are natural collectivists.

so if you're not advocating force or punishment to reach your utopian vision, what reason would dissenters have to get with the program?

will you simply ask white people nicely to breed themselves out of existence? perhaps you might offer incentives for white suicides? what are the mechanics of acheiving this totally homogeneous society youre jerking yourself off to?

"one government, racemixing, people believe in the same things (otherwise there wouldn't be any unity)"
No ringlerosie? Yes it is. And the holy government will fuck up the whole shit, if it doesn't get controlled by other governments. This world works only because there are people who look out for the other people not doing some fucked up shit.
You believe everyone is a good humptydumpty and will sit on the wall just happy sitting there....
Either you are more bluepilled than everyone else or just trolling.

For me it's /thread here. Got to go to work now and being a good goyim.

Just leaving this here.
Wake up and don't pretend the west is the good guy.

I whole hearted believe the more choices one has in life, the better their quality of life, which I would think, defies your OWG vision, as I just stated...a one world government makes your choices for you. If you have OWG leaders already on place, what is the purpose of them having opposition?

>yes, but coercion and force also exist. free will is not the only factor. did the jews walk into a gas chamber knowing they were going to die of their own free will for the good of humanity?
Nobody is forcing white women to have non-white babies.

>perhaps, but were those multi millennial transitions natural or guided by political elites and force as you suggest?
Yes. Political elites are the ones who form and maintain nations, and people only stayed together and formed those nations/cultures with that guidance.

>not clear on why you seek universal homogeneity or think that is a positive.
Because what interracial conflict can happen in a post-racial society?

>not all whites are white nationalists. your discourse here suggests the politically guided destruction of an entire race of humans.
You will be able to have white babies. You won't have the intrinsic human right to be free from social pressure not to. White people will look different from most and will be a minority, so they'll get the minority treatment.

How did you come to the conclusion that race mixing was a net positive?

Why - if we're going for a "one race world", are you not advocating for a world of all whites or all yellows?

A brown world would resemble modern Africa. No one can deny that blacks and other browns are genetically dumber and more violent. It would take hundreds if not thousands of years to breed out (read EVOLVE) these terrible anti-civilizational genetics. At which point you've reestablished different races.

You're certainly willing to use propoganda to promote race mixing. So you'd be better served to cut out the social collapse and painful climb back up that would result from a brown world and just make it a white one.

It makes many choices for you, but the idea is that those choices are chosen by a democratic body. Technology already allows for direct democracy.

Because all intercultural conflict stems from cultural difference.

Because genocide is violent and I'm opposed to the use of violence for this. I want the move to be voluntary.

Freedom and capitalism will make America great again.

>1.Then we're in agreement. Brown, post-racial is homogeneous. It will become more and more homogeneous as these homogeneous people have homogeneous babies with other homogeneous people.

I knew you would say this - this just shows that you not thinking pragmatically. Before that state can be achieved, you must have multiethnic states for a long period during which the conflicts caused by it WILL arise (as they already are in much of the Western World). If you believe that that is worth it in order to reach the payoffs of a multi-ethnic global government, you'd be wrong, because:

2. A centralized government that is extremely powerful and attracts little outside scrutiny is not easy to keep in check, even through popular movements. Consider the example of China: despite wide human rights abuses (continuing into the modern day) the CPC maintains absolute dominance over the Chinese nation despite such a large population. It is a corrupt party where executive members live lavish lives at the expense of Chinese workers. And that system continues to exist despite international scrutiny of their practices. In a world with even more powerful governments, even more homogenous societies (than China today) and even less outside opposition, the results have the potential to be extremely destructive.

(1/2)

So it's a cultural problem, not a racial problem? Are you implying race is inseparable of culture?

Did I say you needed to use violence? No. Simply use the enormous propaganda apparatus necessary to coerce people to fuck brown people to instead all crave to be white.

Whites will breed with their own, while minorities all want to have children with whites and not with their own people.

Because of sexual dynamics, promoting race mixing is essentially about convincing women of a race that another race's men are better than their's. It doesn't matter if you want to convince white women to fuck black men or black women to fuck white men - either way you're going to have to leave the male gender of a race frozen out of the reproductive game.

Of course, this is assuming that you don't convince everyone to just have white designer babies when the technology becomes available.

(2/2)

3. Let's do some math if you acknowledge those differences. I assume that you're either retarded or 15 based on the way you write, so I'm going to simplify it for you.

If were are to assume a SD of 15 for all IQ deviations (which is the norm), then let's take the global mean of 90 and play around with it: An IQ of over 140 is classified as very superior, and most notable scientists (and many artists and musicians) fall above it. Let's take a look at where this takes us: 3003422 individuals (based on 7 billion population) have this IQ.

Now, let's take a look at the populations of The United Kingdom, The United States, France, Italy, Russia, Poland, Spain and Germany. Assuming an average IQ of ~100 (Lynn, 2002), in these countries reside 3102608 people with >140IQs, more than an entire single-racial world. This doesn't include hundreds of millions of Europeans, all of Asia, etc.

>Multiracial people already exist

So what? I don't care if they exist. But if your entire goal is to create a more successful planet AND you believe in empirical evidence then your entire argument is a failure

You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. You don't advocate for any actual approach to this (as say a Marxist would), apart from a belief that you believe you are special for holding.

well said!

.

your thoughts here are stunningly naive and can only lead to violence. while there may be some in the world that agree with your idea, you will have masses who will dissent, violently.

you claim that government is the source of culture.
>Political elites are the ones who form and maintain nations, and people only stayed together and formed those nations/cultures with that guidance.

culture (created by government) will be used to pressure women to racemix by being denied the "intrinsic human right" to choose to breed within their same race.
>You will be able to have white babies. You won't have the intrinsic human right to be free from social pressure not to.

and then make the claim that force isnt necessary
>Nobody is forcing white women to have non-white babies

>I'm a supporter of a post-racial one world government.

How is a global government even on the agenda for social justice?