Why is it wrong to be a "White Nationalist"?

how about now???

I am 100% Jew.



love the ginger in my beard

 

Nazis clearly have a very biased/false view of what Ashkenazi Jews look like.

 

You look obviously Jewish in the first picture with your nose because its hooked. Your head seems round as it is in Slavic/central/Eastern European people. I would probably classify you as an armenoid alpine and possibly but lessor dinaric mix. You can read about that here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenoid_race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinaric_race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_race

That would explain why you have a ginger beard.

As for what i said about you as a baby, just ignore all that. Racial classifications change with age. I don't think you have mongoloid ancestors but i would need a photo like a drivers license to rule that out to be 100 percent sure on the safe side. in the second picture you can pass for white i guess.

 

Do you see a resemblance to the classifications i gave you? What do you think?

 

genome research tosses all of your so-called sub-races, into the trash.

 

Are you arguing that you don't have anthropological features in common with these subgroups? That is like you are saying you don't have blue eyes or a round head.

 

genome and phenotype are not synonymous

 

of course they are. Genes determine phenotype.

 

More accurately, I do not want people mutilating women's genitals in my country. It is an obnoxious practice and based on a depraved idea of women in particular and what it means to be human in general. Cultures, such as Islam, which could possibly condone such a practice ought to be quarantined.

But I am not interested in policing the cultures of other countries. Keeping Muslims and sub-Saharan Africans out serves my goal of preserving Western Civilization admirably.

 

oh so now it is out of concern for the women.. yet I take it you are still unconcerned with reducing FGM, you just don't want women with mutilated genitalia in your country, you think that these people should be blocked from the US, thus solving the issue of people with mutilated genitalia living in the US. FGM can exist, but allowing these women to live in the US is the real issue, right?

 

Please don't twist my words. If you disagree with me, at least disagree with what I say. It is a cheap victory to attack a strawman.

No, I don't want the persons who mutilate women living in my country. They are depraved and out not live in my civilized society.

Women living outside my culture are not my concern or interest. In that way I support multiculturalism. If you want to crusade against FGM in countries in which you have zero influence, knock yourself out.

I don't need the cheap ego gratification that is the primary reward for the idealist.

Now, to get back to my original point, why are you eager to import genital mutilators into our country?

 

Countries with higher immigration do not have a higher rate of FGM though, in effect you are not blocking FGM from entering the country, you would be blocking potential victims of FGM from entering the country. You can't call one response a strawman when your position is based on a hypothetical that does not exist in the real world

More importantly, you display a lack of concern for actually reducing FGM abroad, but are instead using FGM as more of an excuse to justify an ideology to establish the US as belonging exclusively to whites

 

In a few words tell us what is wrong with being white and supporting the Constitution.

 

Both the US and Britain have problems with FGM now that they have admitted Muslim immigrants. Others undoubtedly do too, but I have not read specifically about them.

http://www.newsweek.com/fgm-rates-have-doubled-us-2004-304773

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...eported-three-months-half-victims-London.html

It is not the US's business to modify other cultures. What do you want to do, invade them and set up a special police force?

We can control what happens in our borders, though.

 

All countries have some problems with FGM, however, nations with higher immigration levels do not have a higher rate of FGM occuring than countries that don't have a higher rate of immigration. Fun fact, the US and Canada have a lower rate of FGM than Mexico (note, the rate in which FGM occurs, NOT the rate in which citizens living in the country already have mutilated genitals)

Furthermore, individuals who move from central Africa to the US are less likely to practice FGM than if they remain in central Africa.. allowing women to move from central Africa to the US in itself reduces the chances of FGM from occurring

 

Just so I understand your position.

Let's say there is a small civilization living in the Amazon. These people look quite similar to one another, have specific susceptibilities to disease, similar cognitive profiles, and personality traits. These people have also developed a spoken language, a writing system, shared history, and their own religion/philosophy. They trade with others from time to time, but they typically don't like having outsiders come in to their civilization. Do you believe they should have the right to do this? As an outsider, let's assume that you have been granted the power to do anything you want to this civilization. Would you, in this situation, force them to accept outsiders into their civilization, assuming you could so without having to kill or harm anyone?

Secondly, do you acknowledge that, generally speaking, groups of individuals who have more in common, as opposed to less, tend to cooperate more easily? Do you acknowledge that the process by which dissenting groups eventually become one involves a certain amount of, at the very least, social instability and discomfort?

 

A good reason to restrict immigration from Mexico, then.

It is indisputable that increased Muslim immigration has brought the practice of FGM to nations which never had it before. Well, I am sure you will dispute it, but it is true, nonetheless.

 

I find it interesting that you would quote me from post #63 of this thread and ask that question, the remark I made in that post was this

"Thus the goal of ethnic nationalism is to keep people who are not of a specific ethnicity out of the country. I am against this kind of nationalism anywhere in the world, however I am an American citizen, my country is the US.. I get no say so over what people in other parts of the world do with their country. Again, a country belongs to the people who occupy it"

I thought this was rather self explanatory, I am ultimately against such kind of nationalism, but ultimately a country belongs to the people who occupy it.. I do not get any say so over what an Amazon nation does unless I am a member of said nation. My country is the US, hence the focus on American policies

I think you say that because you already know it is not a common practice in Islam. I also don't believe you are considered with reducing FGM because ultimately you are not concerned about FGM, you are concerned with justifying white nationalism

 

So you don't think it is legitimate for people to have those beliefs? I'm with you on the notion of white nationalism in America, but I don't understand your argument against it in other contexts.

Do you believe that groups anywhere, including America, have identities that should be preserved?

I'm trying to understand the internal logic of your resistance to nationalism, and that is why I'm asking you questions like this.

 

Even if not common, it is condoned and even encouraged in Islam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation#Overview

I don't want adherents of a culture that condones and encourages FGM to reside in my country. It is a barbaric and depraved practice and the condoners are not the sort of people I want for my neighbors. Do you?

And I think that argument is an excellent justification for White Nationalism.

What is wrong with this justification? It is sincere.

Why you want to welcome the adherents of such a practice?

 

We are not going to get these guys to admit that opposition to nationalism ultimately results in logical contradictions. If you believe that people have the right to identity, and that identity can exist at the national level, then you cannot oppose the legitimacy of nationalism, in principle.

The only logically defensible position they have, which is horrible, is that all cultures and ethnicities should be blended together to eliminate racism once and for all. Perhaps they only seek to eliminate the white race...

 

No it isn't sincere, if it was then you would actually be concerned with reducing the rate in which FGM is practiced, which you are not. Furthermore, if you wanted to protect women from FGM, you certainly wouldn't block them from entering areas that forbid it. It is not sincere, in that you are not actually looking to protect people from FGM, you are merely looking to justify white nationalism

It's not a contradiction, I am ideologically opposed to such nationalism. If people in other countries wish to establish such nationalism I am still ideologically opposed to it, however, their country is their country, and my country is my country. Again, a nation belongs to the people who occupy it

 

Because the jews. Goys so racist yet... remember the holocaust goys(Literally the reason why leaders do this, Angela Merkel said it was the reason to open borders.. )import dozens of muzzles to eat you in your sleep. Snakes are good pets. While the superior jewish race, the chosen one. You can be a proud jew. But those bad goys of goyim nation should be cucked.

Its a joke on the internet, but its more or less true. Western leaders mostly are cucked. Only Trump can save us from it, literally.

 

you should post in my earlier thread http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-nationalist-do-you-support-donald-trump.html

 

Done and done.